Posted on 11/28/2020 9:02:47 AM PST by xomething
November 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Eight lesbian couples who used sperm donors to have children are fighting the state of Indiana to have both partners be recognized as “parents” on birth certificates. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court might be positioning itself to hear the Indiana concerning these couples.
According to SCOTUSblog, the pending petition Box v. Henderson asks, “Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, may adopt a biology-based birth-certificate system that includes a rebuttable presumption that a birth mother’s husband — but not wife — is the child’s biological parent.”
Typically, when heterosexual couples give birth, even by sperm donor, the husband is presumed to be the parent, together with the birth mother. However, the state of Indiana is reluctant to apply that reasoning lesbian couples who use sperm donors.
Slate magazine explains the homosexual lobby’s argument: “When a married same-sex couple does the same thing, however, the state refuses to list the birth mother’s wife as the child’s parent. In both instances, the second parent has no biological connection to the child; Indiana’s decision to extend parental rights to the nonbiological husbands of birth mothers, but not the wives of birth mothers, is sheer discrimination.”
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the eight lesbian couples, stating they must be given the same legal recognition as heterosexual couples based on a precedent set by a previous court case, Pavan v. Smith, which decided it was unconstitutional to not allow the name of both same-sex “parents” to be listed on a child’s birth certificate.
“Indiana lists a husband as a biological parent (when a child is born during marriage) even if he did not provide sperm, and must treat a wife as a parent even if she did not provide an egg.”
The state of Indiana is not ready to concede and the case may now be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regarding the question of whether a state should be able to presume the biological paternity of the husband of a birth mother without presuming the same of the “wife” of a birth mother, the Indiana Department of Health stated in a legal brief, “Common sense suggests the answer must be yes, for the husband of a birth mother is usually the biological father, but the wife of a birth mother is never the biological father. And neither the Constitution nor this Court’s holdings in Obergefell v. Hodges … and Pavan v. Smith commands States to act contrary to biological facts.”
Homosexual activists are wondering how a Supreme Court with a conservative-majority would decide the case. If it decides in favor of Indiana, it might start to limit the Obergfell v. Hodges decision, which imposed same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states.
A homosexual female partner may be a parent in a legal marriage, since we recognize homosexual marriage. But it is impossible for said female partner to be the biological parent of a child born to another woman.
But the legalities may well be decided differently than what the biological facts are.
I’m going to assume that Gorsuch will almost always side with the LGBTQ community.
I’m not sure this matters a damn bit. Who cares.
It should just be handled as a regular adoption on its merits. No need to start pretending up is down and down is up because somebody “feels” something.
We are finding that SCIENCE! is ok until it has an impact on Liberal orthodoxy.
We cannot endorse or celebrate Chromosome Deniers or Heterophobes!
Apparently, the HRC doesn’t understand what the word “biological” means.
Aren’t leftists supposed to be pro-science? Ha!
“I’m not sure this matters a damn bit. Who cares.”
Well I wasn’t gonna care...until I remember what the fags did on the bake my cake issue, destroying lives and businesses as long as their homo crap vendetta sees the light of day.
FUBAR folks just want to raise FUBAR kiddos.
Oh it matters.
This goes down a whole rabbit hole when it comes to probate court- especially if one dies without a will
When a man & woman are married, many states (mine included) consider the husband to be the legal father of the child, even if the husband isn’t the biological father.
Every time you year of a father being forced to pay child support even though he isn’t the biological father this is what’s happening.
So, we already have a legal standard that says the spouse of the person giving birth is legally a parent of the child—even if they aren’t a biological parent.
That is so wrong.
A form of slavery.
Wonderful.
Now do concealed carry licenses.
L
So imagine this scenario
Child is worth 10 million dollars. Parents dead. Dies with no will and no children
Who gets the money
Btw, in some states being an illegitimate child can make a difference
So, were we to establish a law that said a child could be recognized as the parent of one of their siblings, or a child could be the legal parent of their own parents, would you be ok with it? Could we establish anything, regardless of biology, just because it is a law?
Paternity is a sticky subject. Presumptions can be overcome.
My family members know to get a DNA test no matter how much in love you are at the time. Do it in secret if you have to but do it.
Now whether they are smart enough to follow through or just too dumbstruck in love will remain to be seen
It matters in that regard, of course, but it pales in importance to the saving of our nation from nationwide voter fraud.
The alternative lifestyle people freely choose an unnatural way of living that often has very convoluted relationships. Then they expect society to cater to their every whim and solve their problems for them.
Or the ability to marry a brother in order to circumvent immigration law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.