Coming out: anti-gay harder than gay?

Again, government treats heterosexual couples differently.
One example is. Government presumes a man to be a father if his woman get pregnant but it does not force lesbian partner to take that responsibility.
There is nothing you can do about that.
That is a fact of life, sorry.

 

Sigh.

No- if a man and a woman are a 'couple' but not married- the government doesn't presume anything.

IF a man and a woman are married- then the law does presume that both partners in the marriage are the legal parents of the child(at least in some states- not all).

Now that marriage is gender neutral- the same laws of parentage regarding marriage are also now gender neutral.
There was an interesting case in I believe New York

Traditionally, state law defines parenthood one of three ways: through a biological connection between adult and child; a legal adoption; or what’s known as the “presumption of legitimacy,” meaning a couple who has a child during marriage are presumed to be the parents.

In a recent ruling, Debra H. v. Janice R., the New York Court of Appeals – the state's highest court – granted "legal parent" status to a woman whose same-sex partner gave birth to a child during their relationship. The child was conceived via artificial insemination, with sperm from an anonymous donor, and was born about a month after the two women entered into a "civil union" in Vermont. The court's ruling gives Debra H. standing to seek visitation and/or custody of the son whom she and her former partner had co-parented.

While this ruling is ultimately supportive of lesbian co-parenting rights, it is narrowly drawn to recognize such rights only when the couple involved is part of a formal, recognized relationship such as a civil union or same-sex marriage.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20100511.html

 

Yes they are.

No they are not, as has been established by numerous State and Federal courts and also SCOTUS. The "potential of procreation" argument (which was only ever forwarded as a secular argument because they knew "gay sex is icky" & "god doesn't like it" wouldn't fly) was thrown out because many heterosexual couples without a hope of ever procreating were already permitted to marry. In some states 1st cousins had to prove they couldn't procreate before they were permitted to obtain a license.

No because they are "similarly or identically situated with respect to the administration of the contract"

Which at this point I'm almost bored with saying as it obviously won't ever sink in.

There is absolutely no presumption of sexual activity. Paraplegics can marry as I've also pointed out before.

No, they're all "regulated by the government". If you don't believe me, try walking away Scot-free from a same sex marriage. Nope, you can be sued for divorce regardless of the sex of your marital partner; proof absolute that all marriages are: "regulated by the government".

Nope they receive the same benefits and are also subject to the same responsibilities because of their similar or identical situation as indicated above.

 

Are you intentionally posting as many false messages as possible on this thread?

No, the government does NOT assume man is the father. Its called a DNA test. Never heard of that?

As someone noted above, your fury at women over men being responsible for children they make has nothing to do with the topic of gay rights or SSM - and certainly not the topic of "coming out" as is the thread topic. Nothing whatsoever. Your messages now appear just for thread derailment as you rage that men should have no responsibility for children they make. Since this would apply to gay and bi-men as well, your messages have nothing to do with the topic either generally or specifically.

 

Just to clarify- there is marriage law in many states that legally presumes that the husband in the marriage is the father of any child born to the mother while they are married. If for example, the husband finds out that he was not the father- he is still legally responsible- while the actual sperm donor is not.

However, marriage laws are now gender neutral- and while no woman can be a 'father'- anyone can be a parent. When two lesbians are married and have a child- they are both legally the parents of the child. There is no legal 'father'.

I half expect Kreo to start a new thread about how women are discriminated against, because government health insurance will not pay for prostate exams for women......

 

That's only a presumption offered for the convenience of the couple. No one can force the man to prove he is the father of the child, and if the man accepts that presumption he becomes legally the father of that child even if someone later proves he's not the biological father.

But this isn't forced on the man. When the child is born the man may assert that he is not the father and dispose of that presumption. Who is the father then becomes a finding of fact. Simply being the married to the child's mother doesn't require him to accept that responsibility. Accepting that responsibility though is binding.

There is one case where a man accepted that he was the father of a child, acted in that role for many years, and it was later determined he was not the child's biological father. The court held that his acceptance of that role was binding and he was the child's father regardless of the biological findings. That man was never married to the child's mother.




​

 

I did not start the derailment. I just pointed out that since government is on the side of homosexual people, it provides them special benefits it is much easier to come out and declare homosexuality then to fight against injustice.

- - - Updated - - -

Did not you ever give some critical assessment of what you are saying?
You essentially saying, because some couples are capable to receive government benefits we (the judges) found them equal, and because WE decided that they are equal we will provide them benefits.
I.e. benefits are provided not because couples are equal (they are unequal) but because couple of judges decided that way.
Apparently all other possible living arrangement are not equal even though they can equally capable to acquiring benefits.

 

Lesbian partner has nothing to declare, so the couples are not equal.
If the same benefits are provided to unequal couple that means one type of couples get more benefits then the other.

 

Yes about 20 years worth and the last ten years and hundreds of posts were relayed on here. Seems like the vast majority of State and Federal courts up to and incling SCOTUS agreed with my assessment and not yours. Just saying..

I'm essentially saying exactly what I mean to say. I'm sorry if its simplicity eludes you.

 

LOL- 'special benefits' meaning the same benefits that every heterosexual couple has.

Your sense of 'injustice' is comical.

 

Now- unlike before- any couple can choose to marry- and be entitled to the exact same benefits as any other married couple.

Saying that a 'couple of judges' decided- just shows you are completely ignorant of the legal history of marriage equality.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe that even makes sense?

Every married couple gets the exact same 'government benefits'- regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

​

No it doesn't.



​

 

I'm not buying your biased foolishness.

Regards.

 

Exactly!!!

 

The fact that they receive the same benefits does not make them equal.

 

No- the fact that they receive the same benefits does not make them equal.

The fact that they are treated equally- indiscriminately- before the law makes them legally equal.

And that is of course what the 14th Amendment requires.

 

that is exactly what I am saying.
They are not equal because heterosexual couples are at disadvantage.
But government said that they are equal for sole purpose to award special benefit to strong political movement.
And the basis of this decision was that both couples are capable to receive government benefits.

 

Marriage laws aren't about benefits as much as protections. The laws in this country are written treating people as individuals, but we recognize many couples choose to live a shared life and would suffer an unfair burden if the law didn't recognize their union. Marriage laws are an incomplete but reasonable attempt to provide protections so the unfair penalties couples would face for that choice are minimized.

Those protections include the right to not pay inheritance tax on the home a couple built, when one half that couple dies. They include the right not to have the retirement income or health insurance a married couple worked a life to provide be removed, when the wrong half of the couple dies first.

They include the right not to have to keep secrets within a marriage, because the protection against self incrimination is extended to the whole couple. The right for one half of a couple to have a voice in health care decisions, when the other half becomes incapacitated.

It includes the right for a couple choosing to live one life, to file a single tax return (even though it means paying more taxes) rather than being forced to keep their finances and assets separate so they can file with the IRS as individuals.

... and the thousands of more protections we offer couples who have build a shared life, in a country where the law treating them as individuals would otherwise produce an unfair and unreasonable burden.



​

 

What disadvantage?

Remember- we are speaking about legal marriage.

Gay couples sued claiming that their 14th Amendment rights to equal treatment before the law were being violated- multiple courts agreed- and ultimately a majority of the Supreme Court agreed.

Now they are treated legally equally when it comes to marriage with my wife and I.

What disadvantage do you imagine that my wife and I have?

- - - Updated - - -

Well put.

I agree

 

were you able to type this with a straight face?

 

Is coming out as 'anti-gay' as hard as coming out as "anti-Jew"?

 

No. You're missing the point. There are many things that contribute to a person's identity. Race is one part. Ethnicity is another. And orientation yet another. All three can contribute to a single person's identity, along with many other things.

But I agree with SFJEFF - I don't feel any sympathy for people who oppose the freedom, equality, or very existence of whole 'other' groups of people, whether it's someone who espouses racist, anti-semitic, or anti-gay views.

Look how often the charge has been made here that gay people are anti-Christian. It's a lie, one which aims to drum up more hatred toward people of same-sex orientation.

 

Since it seems you are incapable of understanding anything beyond your own fallacious reasoning, I'll answer you just that way: my life has been affected the same way as the people who didn't get a cake at the place they wanted.

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm not buying yours.

 

So you have been denied service due to your orentation. Pray, do tell the story. I'm also sure the state where you reside will be quick to launch an investigation of a heterosexual being denied service.

You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth, you say you have been effected but refuse to post a single way that this has harmed you. Even if you were refused services due to your orentation (which you were not - another lie) I doubt it had anything to do with same sex marriage.

So another poster that is pro-discrimination has shown no justifiable cause for their beliefs besides hateful rhetoric and talking points derived from various "pro-family" orginizarions. The odds of a reversal are effectively 0%.

I'm still waiting on anyone here who was negatively affected by gays being allowed to marry without causing the issue themselves. Anyone?

 

I am curious too- what service could he possibly have been denied- as a result of Americans now being able to legally marry regardless of their gender.