Genderless Marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 01:31 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:26 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 03:47 PM)nach_in Wrote:  You keep speaking of the law as if you understand any of it. Marriage is not an institution made for the children (it never was) you're talking about filiation, and that's a completely different thing, with relation to marriage yes, but hardly based on it.
Paternity presumptions are hardly used any more as DNA testing is a far more reliable method for determination of biological paternity, you're using centuries old ideas to bar people from enjoying rights on modern society.

You don't know or understand what you're talking about, you just made up definitions as if you were the first person to think these stuff.

Paternity presumption is still very much a part of law.

http://www.biojuris.com/natural/3-2-0.html

Point to where I said it isn't Facepalm

I said it's hardly used as there are far better methods to prove paternity now.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 01:37 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:31 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:26 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Paternity presumption is still very much a part of law.

http://www.biojuris.com/natural/3-2-0.html

Point to where I said it isn't Facepalm

I said it's hardly used as there are far better methods to prove paternity now.

Not so. Even paternity tests are frequently dissallowed when a man holds out the child to be his own for two years after birth, because his conduct carries over the presumption of paternity established by their marriage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 01:45 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:37 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:31 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Point to where I said it isn't Facepalm

I said it's hardly used as there are far better methods to prove paternity now.

Not so. Even paternity tests are frequently dissallowed when a man holds out the child to be his own for two years after birth, because his conduct carries over the presumption of paternity established by their marriage.

No, that's because he has factually acknowledged the paternity, and thus he's now responsible for the child. Think about it as a kind of adoption by law (not even close technically speaking but you wouldn't understand otherwise).
Later on, the kid will have the chance to enact the right to challenge that paternity and claim the biological one.

Family law is a complex, intricate and vast part of law. Don't try to understand it without actually studying it fully. I approved a final a couple of months ago and still don't get every detail right, so don't think for a moment that you'll know everything about it based on some assumptions and common sense

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:45 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:37 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  Not so. Even paternity tests are frequently dissallowed when a man holds out the child to be his own for two years after birth, because his conduct carries over the presumption of paternity established by their marriage.

No, that's because he has factually acknowledged the paternity, and thus he's now responsible for the child. Think about it as a kind of adoption by law (not even close technically speaking but you wouldn't understand otherwise).
Later on, the kid will have the chance to enact the right to challenge that paternity and claim the biological one.

Family law is a complex, intricate and vast part of law. Don't try to understand it without actually studying it fully. I approved a final a couple of months ago and still don't get every detail right, so don't think for a moment that you'll know everything about it based on some assumptions and common sense

I know it is complex and vast, but I am willing to learn. Please don't assume otherwise.

You "approved a final" what? I am interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 01:54 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:50 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:45 AM)nach_in Wrote:  No, that's because he has factually acknowledged the paternity, and thus he's now responsible for the child. Think about it as a kind of adoption by law (not even close technically speaking but you wouldn't understand otherwise).
Later on, the kid will have the chance to enact the right to challenge that paternity and claim the biological one.

Family law is a complex, intricate and vast part of law. Don't try to understand it without actually studying it fully. I approved a final a couple of months ago and still don't get every detail right, so don't think for a moment that you'll know everything about it based on some assumptions and common sense

I know it is complex and vast, but I am willing to learn. Please don't assume otherwise.

You "approved a final" what? I am interested.

I study law, I approved family law in december.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 02:06 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:50 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I know it is complex and vast, but I am willing to learn. Please don't assume otherwise.

You "approved a final" what? I am interested.

I study law, I approved family law in december.

That is cool. Congratulations!

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
06-03-2014, 02:08 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 02:06 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I study law, I approved family law in december.

That is cool. Congratulations!

thanks! Smartass
wish me luck, in three hours I have another and this is me -->Drinking Beverage

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
06-03-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 02:08 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 02:06 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  That is cool. Congratulations!

thanks! Smartass
wish me luck, in three hours I have another and this is me -->Drinking Beverage

Probably better stop talking to Becca for a while then. That can kill your brain cells. Lol.
Goodluck!

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
06-03-2014, 02:51 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 01:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:50 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I know it is complex and vast, but I am willing to learn. Please don't assume otherwise.

You "approved a final" what? I am interested.

I study law, I approved family law in december.

I am aware that family law is vast and complex, varying from state to state and still changing.

You are likely aware of Gartner V. Iowa Department of Public Health, or cases similar to it, where the court ruled in favor of presumption of paternity for lesbian couples.
http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/28/bir...ertificate
The conclusion of the linked article says,
"The Iowa court reached a sensible result in this case, joining the many other states that have extended presumptions of paternity to lesbian co-parents. It is not entirely clear, however, under this Iowa ruling or under rulings from other states, when and under what circumstances the presumption of parentage for a lesbian co-parent can be rebutted. For men, it can often be rebutted by scientific evidence showing the lack of a genetic connection to the child or the lack of consent to use of anonymous donor sperm. Given that the presumption of parentage for a female co-parent cannot be a proxy for a biological connection to the child—that’s the one thing we know she doesn’t have—legislatures should make clear the basis for the presumption and the circumstances, if any, under which it may not ultimately dictate parentage. This ruling also did not need to reach a question (which I have explored here, here, and here) that is, in some ways, more difficult: Should lesbian couples have to be married (or in a civil union) in order for the non-biological parent to be treated as a co-equal parent in the eyes of the law? Or should the members of the couple’s intent to co-parent be sufficient? "

The author here agrees that presumption of paternity for a lesbian couple cannot represent a biological connection to the child but she also implies that legislatures have not made clear the basis for the presumption.

The ruling relies on the equal protection clause in the state constitution. Thus Iowa granted presumption of paternity for all cases of same-sex couples, upon which a biological basis is always impossible, based on a small number of cases for heterosexual couples that were also biologically impossible. As a result, a spouse in a same-sex marriage who does not want or consent to be the parent will be presumed to be the parent, and must challenge the presumption.

Therefore, as a result of saying males and females are equal, in the absence of a direct basis for it, we basically have a law that even treats them biologically as the same. Because some heterosexual couples are infertile, we have laws that in effect treat homosexual couples as if they are fertile.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 03:01 AM
RE: Genderless Marriage
(06-03-2014 02:51 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 01:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I study law, I approved family law in december.

I am aware that family law is vast and complex, varying from state to state and still changing.

You are likely aware of Gartner V. Iowa Department of Public Health, or cases similar to it, where the court ruled in favor of presumption of paternity for lesbian couples.
http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/28/bir...ertificate
The conclusion of the linked article says,
"The Iowa court reached a sensible result in this case, joining the many other states that have extended presumptions of paternity to lesbian co-parents. It is not entirely clear, however, under this Iowa ruling or under rulings from other states, when and under what circumstances the presumption of parentage for a lesbian co-parent can be rebutted. For men, it can often be rebutted by scientific evidence showing the lack of a genetic connection to the child or the lack of consent to use of anonymous donor sperm. Given that the presumption of parentage for a female co-parent cannot be a proxy for a biological connection to the child—that’s the one thing we know she doesn’t have—legislatures should make clear the basis for the presumption and the circumstances, if any, under which it may not ultimately dictate parentage. This ruling also did not need to reach a question (which I have explored here, here, and here) that is, in some ways, more difficult: Should lesbian couples have to be married (or in a civil union) in order for the non-biological parent to be treated as a co-equal parent in the eyes of the law? Or should the members of the couple’s intent to co-parent be sufficient? "

The author here agrees that presumption of paternity for a lesbian couple cannot represent a biological connection to the child but she also implies that legislatures have not made clear the basis for the presumption.

The ruling relies on the equal protection clause in the state constitution. Thus Iowa granted presumption of paternity for all cases of same-sex couples, upon which a biological basis is always impossible, based on a small number of cases for heterosexual couples that were also biologically impossible. As a result, a spouse in a same-sex marriage who does not want or consent to be the parent will be presumed to be the parent, and must challenge the presumption.

Therefore, as a result of saying males and females are equal, in the absence of a direct basis for it, we basically have a law that even treats them biologically as the same. Because some heterosexual couples are infertile, we have laws that in effect treat homosexual couples as if they are fertile.

I live in Argentina so no, I'm not familiar to that ruling, but that only proves that the law should be adapted to current situations. The law is always one step behind society, so the only point you can make with that ruling is that the law is outdated or inapplicable.

I'm not sure how paternity presumptions are justified in the US, but I think is extremely weird that they say is not clear what are their basis, as pretty much everywhere the presumption is based on the length of a regular pregnancy confronted to the time the parents where married or absent.

But it's of no effect, the fact remains that law should be adapted to consider the differences, but keeping the law just for the sake of keeping it is absurd.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: