You can't overcome biology

[*bfine32*]

 ...was a Judge's words to Same Sex couples wanting both their names on the Birth Certificate:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/23/judge-indiana-same-sex-couples-you-cant-overcome-biology/338215001/

Quote:In oral arguments Monday, a panel of three judges for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether Indiana discriminates by not recognizing two married women both as parents on their children's birth certificates without having to adopt.

Judge Diane S. Sykes drew distinctions between biological parentage and parental rights, and which of the two should be represented on birth certificates.

"You can't overcome biology," Sykes said. "If the state defines parenthood by virtue of biology, no argument under the Equal Protection Clause or the substantive due process clause can overcome that."

Seems SSCs want both names on the Birth Certificate; although only one can biologically be the parent. In my reading it appears the Lawyers for the SSC are arguing that Males on the Birth Certificate do not have to prove that they are a biological parent. But the Judge is saying that is an assumption made that SSC have no basis to make.

[*Nately120*]

You can leave the "FATHER" line blank despite it being biologically impossible that sperm from a specific man didn't lead to the gestation of the baby.


EDIT: Left out that ever important DIDN'T. Whoops.

[Yojimbo]

Sounds like an outdated archaic form that needs to be updated for the 21st century. Should be pretty easy to have one line say Biological parent and another line that says Secondary parent or something like that.

[Benton]

So the idea is to recognize biological parents and exclude partnerships at birth, and exclude partnership due to biology?

[Vas Deferens]

What about evolution? Can you deny that as well? I mean biology would suggest no, but tornado benders might have a double standard.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

You can't over come biology unless your name is Jesus and you're your own dad born to a virgin. Allegedly.

[Vas Deferens]

RE: Zygote

[fredtoast]

This is much ado about nothing. If a child is born to married parents then they are his legal parents. That is what matters. For example, if a woman cheated on her husband and had a baby by another man then the husband is the father of that child under the law. The biological father has no parental rights if the mother is married to another man. does not matter who is named as the father on the birth certificate.

Just need to tweak the kanguage of the law to fix it.

[GMDino]

But GUUUYYYYSSSS...a JUDGE said it!

And gays and stuff!

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2017, 09:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is much ado about nothing.  If a child is born to married parents then they are his legal parents.  That is what matters.  For example, if a woman cheated on her husband and had a baby by another man then the husband is the father of that child under the law.  The biological father has no parental rights if the mother is married to another man.  does not matter who is named as the father on the birth certificate.

Just need to tweak the kanguage of the law to fix it.

Rep Fred; as you have addressed the issue instead of posting divisive one-liners. I think that is what the Judge is saying in this case; as I read it. She cannot change it as she can only interpret the law and the way the law is written she cannot interpret it no other way. She has placed the onus back on the legislative to rewrite the law. I wish more Judges would put the ball back in the Legislative's court instead of "changing" law.

WTS, it gets into a whole new can of worms. Who determines whom goes in the "other parent" (the one not actually giving birth) line. Is that something we leave entirely up to the birth mother?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2017, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Rep Fred; as you have addressed the issue instead of posting divisive one-liners.

(05-23-2017, 07:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That moment when you get satisfaction because you understand that you and the OP often see things differently.

You reap what you sow.

Rep to you for lighting another candle by posting a "divisive" one liner in xxlt's thread insinuating you're smarterer than the OP without actually saying those specific words IOT once again deny you said that instead of actually addressing the topic.

I'm actually writing this by the glow of the candle you lit. Thanks.

PS Judge sure is judgey.