Skip to main content

View Diary: Kansas seems intent on punishing LGBT couples and now their sperm donors. (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how them being gay (6+ / 0-)

    has anything to do with it under the law. She's just a woman who used a sperm donor. Unless they are willing to sue sperm donors for every other woman in this situation, gay or straight, where do they have a legal hair to stand on here?

    •  Sounds about right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kscatlvr2001, sfbob

      They might be able to get away with this legally if they pursued every one in this situation.

      I guess Kansas simply considers her the same as every other single mom.

      If they are being picky, there is probably a civil rights suit in there.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:23:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Legally, sperm donation is very specific. (4+ / 0-)

      There is no such thing as "informal donation", rather at that point it's just a unorthodox sex act. The state has the right to sue deadbeat fathers on behalf of the child in such cases, especially when the woman will be going on welfare to support the child.

      This is all very very standard, and something that feminists fully supported not even 20 years ago.

      •  The women signed a legal contract (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karl Rover, decembersue

        releasing the sperm donor from all responsibility. He is not a "deadbeat father", he's a sperm donor.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:41:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The woman can't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kscatlvr2001

          sign away a child's right to child support. This really matters when the mother seeks welfare benefits for the child.

          •  You are right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chipoliwog, pistolSO

            the interest in question (medicaid payments etc) belongs to the state, not the individual.

            While Kansas is being, well, pissy to say the least, it's not legally out-of-bounds.  However, if they have not done this with respect to anyone else the state is aware of who has used a donor there may be an equal protection issue.

            If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

            by marykk on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:21:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I see it, they had two opportunities. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kscatlvr2001, marykk

              They could have solicited the "donation" through an agency that does these. At which point it really would have been a donation, and he would have no status as a biological father.

              But I'm guessing they didn't want to pay fees. I'm not very sympathetic to people whose excuse is "it cost too much".

              Then, they could have started adoption proceedings by the second lesbian, which would have required the man to relinquish his parental rights. We can assume that he'd be willing, given the circumstances. This would have the added benefit of making the other woman the child's "second mother".

              They did not do this either. I suspect rather strongly that the excuse is again "it costs too much".

              This isn't a story of the big bad evil state of Kansas screwing with people for shits and giggles, this is the case of dumbass Craigslist turkey baster sperm donations and people who willfully and foolishly ignored well-established law.

          •  really? clinics do this all the time. (0+ / 0-)

            if a legal contract is signed, what is the difference if it's between individuals or a clinic?

            And have you read the contract?

    •  Well, that's what's so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      typically Republican about this whole situation.
      The women are no longer together, but because the state doesn't recognize the marriage/partnership, the one woman who is the natural mother of the child, can't sue her former partner for child support for this child.
      The mother has filed for Medicaid, so the state is suing the sperm donor for child support.
      So they're basically being hoist by their own petard. It would be delicious if it wasn't so stupid and borne from ignorance and bigotry.
       I don't know about legal standing though- I hope the court laughs in their face, but this is Kansas, after all.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:34:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site