And the state, like all good Americans, asked: “What about the father?”
Oh no; like all good Americans, the state wasn’t concerned with his rights, or the psychological benefit a man might have in his “daughter’s” life.
The state was about the money.
When anyone applies for welfare benefits, both parents are examined for financial support, as is right.
Marotta and Schreiner both produced copies of contracts – albeit different versions—that acknowledged that one William Marotta, was indeed nothing more than a sperm donor and a willing victim and father.
Not good enough says the state, which doesn’t want to pay out welfare benefits for just anyone.
It seems the state's position is that the sperm was not procured through a medical doctor as is required by law. In order to be transubstantiated from the outdated father-mother model to the new, improved mother-mother model, the sperm donation, according to humanists, has to be touched by a doctor.
Fish meet bicycle.
Apparently the humanists at the Kansas state legislature believe that sperm must first pass through their highest of high priest’s hands, the “medical doctor,” in order for fatherhood-- that is confirmed by sperm’s DNA-- to be stripped from a man and transferred to a women pretending to be a man, pretending to be a woman, who can then be the father in the only two senses that matters to the welfare state—legally and financially.
“We stand by that contract,” says one of Marotta’s attorneys, Benoit Swinnen. “The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.”
Too bad says the state, which wants Marotta to pay child support.
I’m relieved that there was “no personal relationship” with THAT women.
Oh wait, no I’m not.
Yes, I am. Oh, wait….
What a mess.
I don’t know anyone who might have any valid reasons to question the wisdom of homosexuality as a lifestyle, artificial insemination or gay marriage.
You know, besides overturning millennia of legal, ethical and moral thought on these subjects.
Only racists and homophobes would do that.
And those type of people are obviously the very people who are uncomfortable with Art imitating life.
Because it isn’t like Art has a daughter involved in this, right?
It's only a child, after all. And he was only the "donor".
Who now pays child support for a child he never wanted yet willingly fathered.
The liberal faith in the power of the legislature can't change the DNA evidence.
Good Job American Humanists!
Another grand creation.
Oh well. When you play God, as Mary Shelley taught us, you end up with a few Frankensteins. All you have to do now is kill the monster.
In Other News: Can We Ask Al Qaeda for a Refund on the Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap? | Michael Schaus