Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Gladly

when a biological father has [a]surrendered his parental rights in a fertility clinic, and the lesbian couple has an invitro fertilization agreement between them, and the child is born and then [c] the lesbian who didn't give birth acknowledges parentage, THEN she is the legal parent

The court did not refer to a single one of those elements. We do not know if any of those elements were even present in this case

Note what the judge said:

She noted that children born to married couples are considered legally theirs and pointed to the Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize gay marriage.

Children born to married couples are assumed theirs regardless of anything having to do with invitro agreements, or acknowledgements.

And your post was a direct response to my posting the article about these lesbians- no confusion- you were responding to the situation with these lesbians.

And my post was in response to this claim of yours:

Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
Nope. It was the paternity agreement and acknowledgment of parentage on the birth certificate that obligated the lesbian spouse. Not the birth of the child. Without the agreement and acknowledgment, the lesbian spouse would of had no legal relation to the child.

Again- directly contradicted by the judges own words- and there is no evidence that they ever had any 'agreements'- you just made that up.

She noted that children born to married couples are considered legally theirs and pointed to the Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize gay marriage.

 

We're up to 6, since this statement is knowingly false. DOMA was a Federal act, passed by Congress, and found to be unconstitutional. You just told a porker. Consider yourself lucky that I didn't count this as two lies. Oh, and the DOMA decision was about a New York decision.

 

Since you didn't provide any links or citations, I went with the DOMA I knew.

Rather moot since Washington State voters approved same sex marriage.

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage passed the legislature and was signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on February 13, 2012, but opponents gathered enough signatures to force a voter referendum on the legislation. Voters approved the proposed legislation in November 2012, making same-sex marriage legal as of December 6.[5][6]

 

You quoted Rahl, you need to quote me to show my lies.

 

Pretty stupid.

They didn't find it to be unconstitutional. So its not moot to the topic of discussion.

 

Heterosexual people already have the ability to get married. So making it legal for homosexuals, makes everybody equal.

 

Well at least your quoting me instead of Rahl. DOMA refers to Washington State legislation that was upheld as constitutional by the Washington State Supreme Court. Like I said. Constitutional law.
So that's ONE quote of mine so far that you allege to be a lie, and we can see the so called lie is a fact. Your ignorance of the topic simply leads you to believe its a lie.

 

Oh but it is- if the voters had not made same gender marriage legal in Seattle(something you claim is unconstitutional), then a Federal Court would be in the process of overruling the Washington Supreme Court as happened in California.

 

Homosexuals have always been free to marry and the single mother and grandmother, excluded by law from marriage in all 50 states is among the "everybody" that is NOT treated equal. Marriage for any two consenting adults "makes everybody equal". "Gay marriage" is UNEQUAL by design.

 

Dixon is dodging this post

 

Then why isn't anyone suing the State of Washington on that basis? And any of the other states that have legalized same gender marriage? Frankly you are the only one making the very bizarre claim that less discrimination is more discrimination.

We know why because allowing two people of the same gender have the same ability to marry as my wife and I makes their marriage rights equal to mine.

 

But not one another. So this is a LIE.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion, so this is a LIE.

Which is flat false, so this is a third lie.

And he wonders where he has told a lie! How about every second sentence? I think I'm up to 10 documented LIES since he challenged me to find one.

 

Would of been interesting to see them try with this case as precedent. To see them argue that marriages limitation to men and women in Washington state is intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals with the State Supreme Court looking at those same marriage laws in 2006 and determining that clearly they are intended instead to include those with a potential of procreation.

 

I'm counting lies. Up to 10 now.

It is most commonly understood to refer to US Congress.

Constitution law is determined by SCOTUS, not by the state of Washington. That's lie number 11.

OK, let's agree there are multiple things we can call DOMA, and you get to cite Washington State, where everyone else cites Congress. And has been pointed out, the Washington State Supreme Court was overruled both by SCOTUS and by the people of Washington. So that's lie #12.

Come on, you're on a roll!

 

Not the same sex. But if you are saying they are equal if they can marry the opposite sex, that is an easy argument to debate. If people were allowed to marry the same sex they would still be equal for the same reason. See, heterosexuals could marry somebody of the same sex. if they wanted. The only difference being that you would have more choice.

to use your argument, nobody is forbidding them to marry. they could each marry an opposite sex partner and depending on geographical location a same sex partner.

It isn't.

Well there are only two sexes, either the same as you our the opposite of you. this really covers all contingencies

We have already been over this. "Gay marriage" is laymen's terms for two people of the same sex entering into a marriage contract. It wouldn't be for gay people only. That is a pathetically weak argument.

 

State court decisions are not precedents for the Federal Courts.

As the Penn and California cases shown- individuals have a right to marriage, and the State must provide a compelling reason to limit that right.

Limiting the rights of same gender couples does not promote marriage by 'those with the potential of creation'- it just limits their rights to marriage.

 

It's not a weak argument, it's a deliberate misrepresentation of the reality understood by everyone, for dishonest purposes.

 

As we see here again, your ignorance of the topic merely leads you to presume a lie. The child was born through invitro fertilization with semen from a sperm donor who surrendered all parental rights, conducted by a Dr in a clinic with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't ask you to count them, I asked you to quote them. The only one you did, was a fact you were ignorant of. Washington state also had a DOMA act.

Irrelevant as to what the supreme court was referring to.

Im not calling it anything. The Washington Supreme court is calling it DOMA. Where is the lie? You've only quoted one and we can see your accusations of lies were nothing but a product of your ignorance.

 

Well that really makes his argument weak.

 

Two things- first of all the Judge's order has nothing to do with any of those elements- as she clearly says:

Lopez Torres, a Brooklyn Surrogate Court judge, said that in the past, she would have rubber-stamped such a request. But now she feels that allowing an adoption between married partners would be redundant and imply that gay marriage was not as solid as traditional marriage.

“New York courts have long held that the presumption of legitimacy afforded children born of married parents is ‘one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law,’ ” the judge said.

Lopez Torres acknowledged the “tectonic shifts occurring in the geography of our culture’s definition of family,” and concluded that “the relief sought herein by the petitioner is neither necessary nor available.”

Now- lets go to the elements- again you are just making all of those up.
The child was born through invitro fertilization with semen from a sperm donor who surrendered all parental rights- you just made that up
conducted by a Dr in a clinic- you just made that up
with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born- you just made that up.

I can play the same game and make up exceptions to your fictional account-
"The child was born after a male friend impregnated the wife through straight sex in a kinky threeway"
"The fertilization was done with a turkey baster in the couples bedroom"
"The biological mother put both names down on the birth certificate, and her spouse never acknowledged parentage legally, and that was why she sought to adopt the child"

See- easy to make stuff up. I can lie about what might have happened too.

But it is no lie that the judge said that adoption is redundent, because under NY law- any child born in a marriage is presumed the child of both parents.

 

Oh yes they are. Especially when the Federal court is examining the state law.

 

which is false.

 

no, they really are not.