Posted on 06/20/2014 10:09:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No. Being gay does not provide a de-facto reason for the state to remove your parental rights. If you are the biological father or mother of a child, you should have your name on the birth certificate.
This is the most horrid part. Each man is refusing to put his name on his own child’s birth certificate, simply because it makes their case sound more sympathetic if they can say they are denied their “parental rights”.
So the child is being used as a pawn. If each parent put their name on their own child’s BC, then this would be about an unrelated guy trying to get his name on some kid’s BC, and most people would think it was stupid.
Stepping back from the problematic gay aspect with a political agenda of it’s own, this is a very difficult case and the decision will create unintended consequences. Refusing to recognize actual paternity while recognizing a birth mother who is not genetically related to the child is going to be a big problem down the road. Don’t think feminists won’t seize upon this to further disenfranchise fathers. Want to bet they’ll still go after them for child support, though? Paternity doesn’t matter there, either.
I agree.
How in heck are they both fathers? Did they implant fertilized eggs they fathered? How often does this happen? How often does it happen normally?
The article said they were both genetic fathers.
Obviously, they chose boys.
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.