The folly that is homosexual marriage highlighted

[tonymctones]

http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html

3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.

"The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other.

But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective."

so who is the mother?

[240 is Back]

my 2 moms

[Soul Crusher]

Im telling you, we can start a reality show and make millions onthis.

[tonymctones]

my 2 moms

whats your opinion 240 whos the mom?

the woman who donated the egg or the woman who carried the child?

[OzmO]

Has that ever happened with a married homosexual couple who couldnt have children on their own?

[Hugo Chavez]

uh... if this is a homosexual issue, why does this same thing happen with straight married couples? There's been cases where the egg donar changed their mind and wanted custody.  You could ask the same question, who's the mother.  So how's this a homosexual marriage issue?

And if you call this case folly, JUST LOOK AT THIS LOL...

In the most recent and extraordinary surrogacy case to date, a California Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of balancing the parental rights and interests of six different parties to a surrogacy contract. In Jaycee B. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996) ("Jaycee B."), a husband and wife (the "Intended Parents") executed a surrogacy contract in Orange County, California with a woman (the "gestational surrogate") and the Surrogate's husband involving the fertilization of an egg from an anonymous egg donor, with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.

One month before the expected birth of the child, the Intended Parents separated and petitioned for divorce. The child was born and the hospital released the child to the Intended Mother based upon the reproductive contract. The Intended Mother then sought child support payments from the Intended Father. The Intended Father convinced the trial court that support payments could not be ordered because the court had not established that the baby was the "child of the marriage" pursuant to California Family Code Section 2010. The Appellate Court disagreed and found that it was enough that the Intended Mother had made a sufficient showing that the Intended Father would be declared the child's legal father by a court at some future date and therefore ordered the family law court to determine an appropriate child support order (expected Spring, 1997).

The Appellate Court in Jaycee B. relied upon the reasoning of Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. App. 4th 84 (1993), the California Supreme Court case that was the first to uphold the legality of a gestational surrogacy contract. The Johnson court ruled that, under the California Uniform Parentage Act, both the intended mother and the birth (gestational) mother could establish parentage. The intended father was also rendered as a potential parent, simply by entering into the surrogacy agreement. The Court explained, "John admits he signed the surrogacy agreement, which for all practical purposes caused Jaycee's conception every bit as much as if he had caused her birth the old fashioned way." http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/liegg.html

[OzmO]

I wonder if someone like 3333 predicted this folly when heterosexual marriage was established.   

[Hugo Chavez]

I wonder if someone like 3333 predicted this folly when heterosexual marriage was established.   

as if crazy shit doesn't happen in regular marriages... LOL, this thread is funny.

[Soul Crusher]

as if crazy shit doesn't happen in regular marriages... LOL, this thread is funny.

why add more shit when we have enough already? 

[Hugo Chavez]

why add more shit when we have enough already? 

LOL, that's your reasoning?  That homosexual marriage comes with problems and there are already enough problems with hetrosexual marriages?  LOL, that's a priceless observation!!!!  You crack me up.

[tonymctones]

uh... if this is a homosexual issue, why does this same thing happen with straight married couples? There's been cases where the egg donar changed their mind and wanted custody.  You could ask the same question, who's the mother.  So how's this a homosexual marriage issue?

And if you call this case folly, JUST LOOK AT THIS LOL...

In the most recent and extraordinary surrogacy case to date, a California Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of balancing the parental rights and interests of six different parties to a surrogacy contract. In Jaycee B. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996) ("Jaycee B."), a husband and wife (the "Intended Parents") executed a surrogacy contract in Orange County, California with a woman (the "gestational surrogate") and the Surrogate's husband involving the fertilization of an egg from an anonymous egg donor, with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.

One month before the expected birth of the child, the Intended Parents separated and petitioned for divorce. The child was born and the hospital released the child to the Intended Mother based upon the reproductive contract. The Intended Mother then sought child support payments from the Intended Father. The Intended Father convinced the trial court that support payments could not be ordered because the court had not established that the baby was the "child of the marriage" pursuant to California Family Code Section 2010. The Appellate Court disagreed and found that it was enough that the Intended Mother had made a sufficient showing that the Intended Father would be declared the child's legal father by a court at some future date and therefore ordered the family law court to determine an appropriate child support order (expected Spring, 1997).

The Appellate Court in Jaycee B. relied upon the reasoning of Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. App. 4th 84 (1993), the California Supreme Court case that was the first to uphold the legality of a gestational surrogacy contract. The Johnson court ruled that, under the California Uniform Parentage Act, both the intended mother and the birth (gestational) mother could establish parentage. The intended father was also rendered as a potential parent, simply by entering into the surrogacy agreement. The Court explained, "John admits he signed the surrogacy agreement, which for all practical purposes caused Jaycee's conception every bit as much as if he had caused her birth the old fashioned way." http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/liegg.html

LOL you dont see the difference?

one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL, that's your reasoning?  That homosexual marriage comes with problems and there are already enough problems with hetrosexual marriages?  LOL, that's a priceless observation!!!!  You crack me up.

Exactly.  Especially when the problem is the EXACT same in each case.

[blacken700]

failed thread posted 

[Al Doggity]

http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html

3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.

Wow. Another poorly-reasoned gay thread started by tonymctones. What. a. shock.  

How does this article highlight "the folly of gay marriage" when most of the women in the article weren't married? In fact, the reason the childhood arrangements were so complicated was precisely because they weren't legally allowed to marry. The only couple that was married ran into problems because the mother fled to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage , and even then the judge sided with her ex. Then she simply decided to ignore the judge, apparently.

Surrogacy is a legally complicated issue, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html

3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.

"The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other.

But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective."

so who is the mother?

Simple...both of them.

[LurkerNoMore]

failed thread posted 

Hahahaa

Material is thin for them nowdays.

[blacken700]

right now their grasping at every stupid thing on the internet 

[LurkerNoMore]

And if they can't find it.... photoshop it.

LOL!!! 

[Butterbean]

imo (not taking into account whatever is in the CUPA) the egg donating lesbian would be the mother and the surrogate in either case would not be considered a parent.

[OzmO]

LOL you dont see the difference?

one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...

So without the court decision those two mothers would have never had a conflict?

[Hugo Chavez]

LOL you dont see the difference?

one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...

LOLOLOL....  panic response as silly as 3333's

The hetro couple went though a more complex senerio involving more people and they decided to seperate before the baby was born!!!  If the case you're pointing out is "folly" What the fuck do you call what this hetro couple did?  Simple point, it's silly to pull up this case you point out as a folly of homosexual marriage when the same happens in normal marriages.

[LurkerNoMore]

"Goodness gracious" someone is going to have to try again.

[240 is Back]

tony, i can tell youre not yet married.   cause you wouldn't have to ask my opinion, if you were married.

i think both women were wrong.  to get married.  i think all ppl who get married are damn fools lol.   

"you're willing to bet half your shit you'll never f**k anyone else again!"

so really, anyone with a ring is already a complete dumbass.  THis story is just redundant.  

[tonymctones]

Wow. Another poorly-reasoned gay thread started by tonymctones. What. a. shock. 

How does this article highlight "the folly of gay marriage" when most of the women in the article weren't married? In fact, the reason the childhood arrangements were so complicated was precisely because they weren't legally allowed to marry. The only couple that was married ran into problems because the mother fled to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage , and even then the judge sided with her ex. Then she simply decided to ignore the judge, apparently.

Surrogacy is a legally complicated issue, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

it makes it more complicated seeing as courts generally side with the MOTHER!!!

so which one is the mother?

[tonymctones]

LOLOLOL....  panic response as silly as 3333's

The hetro couple went though a more complex senerio involving more people and they decided to seperate before the baby was born!!!  If the case you're pointing out is "folly" What the fuck do you call what this hetro couple did?  Simple point, it's silly to pull up this case you point out as a folly of homosexual marriage when the same happens in normal marriages.

LOL that post was at about 5:30am while getting ready for work hoss...

again one is a situation made complicated by the court...the other is complicated by the situation...

I think we could all come to a general concensus on the mother of the hetero couples baby correct?

whos the mother in the homo couple?