Scientists cannot prove the "born homosexual" theory

Is English your second language? If a man gets a woman pregnant, HE IS the father. If he adopts the child, HE IS the father. No need to presume. Not sure what your "Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" claim even refers to.

 

My brother is his father and his ex wife is the mother. Her lesbian lover has no legal relation to the child.
You people are just to dishonest to admit you cant provide an example because there are no examples.

 

I dont disagree with the first two quoted sentences from the court decision above. It was a case involving a husband and wife. The third sentence, SF made up and I dont agree with.

 

back peddle when you say something ridiculous than insult me because I pointed it out

You have had it dixon what a joke.

 

What happens when your ex-sister in law marries her girlfriend?

 

Apparently there is a lot of discussion on the issue of 'Marital Discussion'- I ended up on on an interesting blog

https://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/...s-this-time-with-the-marital-presumption-too/

There was an interesting discussion about a case of marital presumption in Utah

The same preference motivates the application of the marital presumption you see here and so it is not at all surprising that the genetically related man loses out to the husband.

The facts are a bit complicated. DRW and KSW were married. KSW had an affair with RP and became pregnant in 2010. KSW told RP and also told RP that she intended to remain married to DRW.

At least RP and KSW agreed that RP was the genetic father of the child. RP sued to establish paternity (which is to say, legal status as a parent). For reasons unclear, he sued only KSW (the wife) and not DRW (the husband.) This case settled in 2011.

When the child was 1 RP sought increased parenting time–which is what was in the agreement. (By this time it is clear that he had an actual social relationship with the child in addition to the genetic relationship.) In response KSW moved to set aside the agreement and dismiss RP’s original suit to establish paternity. She asserted both that he should have sued the husband and that the UT version of the marital presumption meant that he had no standing to bring the action anyway.

The court here (a mid-level appellate court) eventually agreed. After a review of the development of UT law it concludes that, as KSW contends, RP has no standing to challenge DRW’s legal status as a parent under UT law. DRW’s unassailable legal status as a parent arises from his marriage to KSW.

What is interesting about this case is that the genetic father- the man having the affair with the wife- sued to establish himself as the legal father.

But he lost- because of the 'Marital Presumption'.

Dixon keeps insisting that a child fathered during an affair would be a child 'born outside the marriage'- but as this case demonstrates- that is not the case. Any child born while the couple is married falls within the marital presumption.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily- if he is married to the woman yes. If he is not- no

The same preference motivates the application of the marital presumption you see here and so it is not at all surprising that the genetically related man loses out to the husband.

The facts are a bit complicated. DRW and KSW were married. KSW had an affair with RP and became pregnant in 2010. KSW told RP and also told RP that she intended to remain married to DRW.

At least RP and KSW agreed that RP was the genetic father of the child. RP sued to establish paternity (which is to say, legal status as a parent). For reasons unclear, he sued only KSW (the wife) and not DRW (the husband.) This case settled in 2011.

When the child was 1 RP sought increased parenting time–which is what was in the agreement. (By this time it is clear that he had an actual social relationship with the child in addition to the genetic relationship.) In response KSW moved to set aside the agreement and dismiss RP’s original suit to establish paternity. She asserted both that he should have sued the husband and that the UT version of the marital presumption meant that he had no standing to bring the action anyway.

The court here (a mid-level appellate court) eventually agreed. After a review of the development of UT law it concludes that, as KSW contends, RP has no standing to challenge DRW’s legal status as a parent under UT law. DRW’s unassailable legal status as a parent arises from his marriage to KSW.

https://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/more-on-ut-and-unmarried-fathers-this-time-with-the-marital-presumption-too/

 

Indeed, the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents " 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law' " (State of New York ex rel. H. v P., 90 AD2d 434, 437 [1982],

Hence, our analysis begins with the rebuttable presumption that the child, a child born to a married woman, is the legitimate child of both parties


If you don't disagree with the sentences of the court- then you should be agreeing that any child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of both parties- but you don't- so clearly you do not agree with the unambiguous language of the court. 0

And applied in a similar fashion the the other case I brought to your attention:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2014/2014-ny-slip-op-24122.html


The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

But, while the word "legitimate" may be somewhat archaic, the intent of these statutes, and the common law presumption, is unambiguous: a child born in a marriage is the child of the couple.

Prior to 2010, even if a party did not strictly comply with the requirements of DRL § 73, New York courts held that the non-biological spouse may still be declared a parent of the AID child under the common law marital presumption of legitimacy.

The presumption of parental status for children born into a marriage should not be so easily discarded because the married couple, who planned for the child and celebrated its arrival, then encounter marital troubles.

As in Laura WW. v. Peter WW., the marital presumption of legitimacy created a presumption of consent in the AID context for this couple.

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M.

 

Like I said, its a case involving a husband and wife AND a case of artificial insemination.
We presumes husbands are fathers because the understanding of heterosexual marriage is that the couple exclusively engage in sexual relations with each other. Because most frequently the husband IS the father, the biological parent. ON THE OTHER HAND, in the case of a lesbian spouse, we know for a fact that they ARE NOT the father or biological parent. Absurd to insist that if we presume husbands are fathers, we must presume a lesbian spouse is a parent. And that to not do so is discrimination against homosexuals as opposed to a recognition of the biology of procreation.

 

Why are you so worried about this?

If two people get married, heterosexual or homosexual, then laws will be made to cover who are the legal parents of children born, adopted, artificially inseminated etc. in all of these situations. Yet you just go on and on and on about this subject. Why are you so stressed about it?

 

Who is worried? Does one discuss only things they worry about?

 

You just seem very worried about it because you constantly discuss this day and night. It must be on your mind constantly.

 

My guess is that it's important for him to demonstrate that gay and lesbian couples are not equal to heterosexual couples. He's doing that with this bogus presumption of paternity hog wash. He will cling to his delusions until his dying day

 

It is absurd to ignore the clear language of the court- and the decisions of the court- just because you are unwilling to accept that homosexuals can legally marry- and have all the rights associated with that- including the presumption of parenthood.

Indeed, the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents " 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law' " (State of New York ex rel. H. v P., 90 AD2d 434, 437 [1982],

Hence, our analysis begins with the rebuttable presumption that the child, a child born to a married woman, is the legitimate child of both parties


If you don't disagree with the sentences of the court- then you should be agreeing that any child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of both parties- but you don't- so clearly you do not agree with the unambiguous language of the court. 0

And applied in a similar fashion the the other case I brought to your attention:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...-op-24122.html


The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

But, while the word "legitimate" may be somewhat archaic, the intent of these statutes, and the common law presumption, is unambiguous: a child born in a marriage is the child of the couple.

Prior to 2010, even if a party did not strictly comply with the requirements of DRL § 73, New York courts held that the non-biological spouse may still be declared a parent of the AID child under the common law marital presumption of legitimacy.

The presumption of parental status for children born into a marriage should not be so easily discarded because the married couple, who planned for the child and celebrated its arrival, then encounter marital troubles.

As in Laura WW. v. Peter WW., the marital presumption of legitimacy created a presumption of consent in the AID context for this couple.

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M.

 

The presumption that a HUSBAND is the father of any child his wife bears 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law'. That it apples to lesbians is a recent invention of courts in their dicta.

Dicta
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

 

Nope. And in case you haven't noticed, I am no alone in this discussion.

 

Where was the word 'husband' in any of the court decisions that I quoted? Seriously- why do you make this stuff up?>

Indeed, the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents " 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law' " (State of New York ex rel. H. v P., 90 AD2d 434, 437 [1982],

Hence, our analysis begins with the rebuttable presumption that the child, a child born to a married woman, is the legitimate child of both parties

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M.

Two cases- one regarding a married man and woman- one regarding two married women- both cases the court cited NY's common law marital presumption.

This is not Dicta

This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.[/I]

 

That is more formally known as 'grasping at straws'.

 

Fellers, you're just getting blood on your forehead beating it against a brick wall. Dixon would argue that orange is really blue if he thought it would score some points against same sex marriage, even after seeing pictures showing that orange and blue were, in fact, different.

 

It is a sick pleasure of mine.

 

LOL, it's your forehead.

 

http://www.nypti.org/?p=413587
35 references to "husband" in the case. First sentence of the case.

"At issue is the novel question of whether a husband can be deemed the legal parent of a child born to his wife, where the child was conceived as a result of artificial insemination by donor (hereinafter AID)[FN1] during the marriage, but where the husband’s consent to the AID was not obtained in writing."

"Consistent with our State’s strong presumption of legitimacy, as well as the compelling public policy of protecting children conceived via AID, we follow the lead of other jurisdictions that impose a rebuttable presumption of consent by the husband of a woman who conceives by AID, shifting the burden to the husband to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence"

 

As I said- in any of my qoutes

Indeed, the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents " 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law' " (State of New York ex rel. H. v P., 90 AD2d 434, 437 [1982],

Hence, our analysis begins with the rebuttable presumption that the child, a child born to a married woman, is the legitimate child of both parties


If you don't disagree with the sentences of the court- then you should be agreeing that any child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of both parties- but you don't- so clearly you do not agree with the unambiguous language of the court. 0

And applied in a similar fashion the the other case I brought to your attention:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...-op-24122.html


The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

But, while the word "legitimate" may be somewhat archaic, the intent of these statutes, and the common law presumption, is unambiguous: a child born in a marriage is the child of the couple.

Prior to 2010, even if a party did not strictly comply with the requirements of DRL § 73, New York courts held that the non-biological spouse may still be declared a parent of the AID child under the common law marital presumption of legitimacy.

The presumption of parental status for children born into a marriage should not be so easily discarded because the married couple, who planned for the child and celebrated its arrival, then encounter marital troubles.

As in Laura WW. v. Peter WW., the marital presumption of legitimacy created a presumption of consent in the AID context for this couple.

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M.

 

Texas sharp shooter fallacy on Dixon's part. Find things that support his claim and ignore things that don't

 

Actually, you asked-

And then accused me of making it up

And now that I point out the very case you were quoting has 35 references to husband, you simply dash off to your next stinky bucket of (*)(*)(*)(*) to throw up against the wall to see if any of it sticks, as your previous bucket of (*)(*)(*)(*) spills across the floor. GOD you are so full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You have that backwards. SF is ignoring the 35 references to husband in the case. I am highlighting them.