Breaking News Events

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

Kobi wrote:

"In referring to the donor, this is a little more complicated to explain. There was a legal method for him to protect himself. Ignorance of the law, attempting to circumvent the law, and failing to protect oneself does not and should not exempt one from the consequences of their actions. A private contract still needs to conform to and adhere to current and prevailing state law. Failing to do so, implies acceptance for the potential for unintended consequences. As such, to my way of thinking, the donor is not an "innocent victim" here."


Okay, well we see it really differently. But I'm listening to you.

LMAO. Someday we might see eye to eye on something.

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kobi

LMAO. Someday we might see eye to eye on something.

Actually, if I had to assign a percentage, I'd say we agree about 80% of the time.

That's pretty high, don't you think?

It's much more interesting when there's a little friction, a little spark, than constantly getting nods of approval, which never makes me articulate something and think deeper.

And I love responsible argument. Back in the day, I taught Logic & Rhetoric to college freshmen. I even tried to get work as a tutor to people trying to get their kids into tough schools and posted a flyer that said, "Your teenager knows how to argue. But can she write an argumentative essay?"

I thought I was really going to rake it in, charge those rich kids' parents through the nose for my services.

Didn't get a single call.

But I did love being in a classroom. I taught a semester at GWU, the semester of 9/11, and I have never seen more impassioned political writing than what those kids cranked out. I also found that the more I protected the conservative students who were getting bashed in class, the more liberal they became. I didn't intervene a lot except to keep it fair. As much as I could, and they started to sound like me, asking each other, What's your evidence? Then discussing if it's valid evidence.

I just had an awful fight with my sister today. A fight about something in the news. She adores a prison warden renown in his state for making the prisoners sleep in tents, not providing air conditioning in 128 degree heat, not allowing exercise, or GED classes. I was stunned that he was her "hero." It broke my heart.

I tried to write to her about it, and it enraged her. I kept looking at my tactics, thinking I had been even, I had been fair, but I just kept pissing her off more. I was stunned she wasn't more like the people on here. At least we try to be respectful in our disagreements and are careful to back up our claims. I was sad that I couldn't have with her, what I have on here. I'm still sad. I wish I hadn't challenged her.

Oh well. Back to breaking news.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Kobi

We also have no idea what the financial agreement or input is for the non-biological mother. The fact that the mother applied for state assistance implies neither mother had/has the financial resources to support a child at the time.

In referring to the donor, this is a little more complicated to explain. There was a legal method for him to protect himself. Ignorance of the law, attempting to circumvent the law, and failing to protect oneself does not and should not exempt one from the consequences of their actions. A private contract still needs to conform to and adhere to current and prevailing state law. Failing to do so, implies acceptance for the potential for unintended consequences. As such, to my way of thinking, the donor is not an "innocent victim" here.

The only "innocent victim" here is a 3 year old child in need of financial support.

Be interesting to see the results of this lawsuit.

I've read several articles so far, so I'm not perfectly sure where I read that the donor said he never even took the $50 offered for his services. He thought he was helping out a couple who wanted to have a baby. It's probably not relevant, but that article also said that he and his wife are childless, but have raised one foster child.

The child in this case is now three years old. The mothers most likely contacted the sperm donor at least four years ago. A lot has happened in that time that could have caused a family to seek public assistance, like a huge recession and the foreclosure crisis. It's really unfair to suspect that the mothers knew they couldn't support the child when they conceived. And, I'm sorry to say, jumping to that conclusion about a woman who has now become a welfare mother has an odour of misogyny to it. In my opinion, it's a little classist, too. Sometimes people fall on hard times and they need to go on welfare. It's not our place to judge.

It's unclear whether the biological mother sought public assistance before the couple split up. If, as one article inferred, the request for assistance came post split, there's no difference between her and any other woman left alone to take care of her child/ren after the husband/partner leaves. This is one of the biggest reasons why we have public assistance- So that children hopefully won't starve or freeze to death if their parents don't stay together.

Speaking of going on welfare, I don't know anything about how it works in Kansas, but if they're pursuing sperm donors to recover assistance grants to women with children, I'm going to feel safe assuming that Kansas requires welfare mothers to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to receive a grant. Breathless wants to know how the state of Kansas came to know the donor's identity. If a social worker questions a woman closely she could easily give up that information inadvertently. She might even have simply let it slip that the man was known to her, at which point the social worker might be required by state law to with hold the grant until she disclosed his name.

As for expecting the participants in this mess to know and abide by the law re:sperm banks and doctors, it's not something I would have known about. It's not strange to me that these people wouldn't have known, either. What's more, there have been cases in the past where single lesbians and lesbian couples have been denied access to private sperm banks. Those cases were in the midwest and bible belt, so it's possible that these women might have been turned away from legal avenues in Kansas even if they were wealthy enough to access them. Why is it OK for Melissa Etheredge to collect sperm from her buddy Steven Stills so her wife could make a baby, (or was it Graham Nash?), and not OK for two non-celebrity women to circumvent the sperm bank?

There are many potential victims if the sperm donor is tapped for child support. Every lesbian and gay family with children will be victimised and further marginalised if the court refuses to recognise the non-biological mother as the parent who they should be tapping for support. A decision recognising a sperm donor as the parent over the mother would further erode the status of all lgbt families in Kansas with one biological parent and one non-bio parent.

[Breathless]

You have made many good points Cheryl.

I am just a blunt type woman. I call it like I see it. We have kicked the state out of our bedrooms are so many other issues, as a parent myself, my first priority is to protect my child. If it came down to it, I would have claimed to have not known who the father was, to protect the gift I was given, by both the powers that be, and the gentleman who was willing to give of himself so that this family could have a child together.

It outrages me, that people wait for the courts to tell them to take care of the children they create. I understand that circumstances happen, that people lose their once secure jobs, and as a result their homes and livelyhood. But I tell you, I would rather starve myself, then allow my child to go without the necessities of life.

I am a strong believer, that if there is a will there is a way, and I too have had to live on nothing, and I made it work, because failure was not an option. I am no way trying to pass judgement on these women, as much as it might sound that.. that is what I am doing.. but I know my role in my childrens lives, and it is to protect them and love them no matter what, first and foremost, and that includes providing for them.

I have a hard time viewing this as anything other than a one irresponsible person not owning up to her responsibilities, the other with a big mouth kicking the gift horse in the teeth, all while calling themselves parents. Yes, he should have protected himself legally, he made a mistake there, and he is most likely going to have to pay for it.

This little girl is watching people fight about money, like she has a dollar value over her head, and who should have to pay for her, it breaks my heart.

[Ginger]

Yeah, it's sad, Breathless. However you look at it, it's a hard time for families.

[Okiebug61]

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/sworn-v...nia-slideshow/

[Sun]

So its ok for our people to serve in active duty and risk their lives, but its not ok to attend a support group with their spouse even when it is with others that they served with and would be to the benefit of their mental, emotional, and physical well being. Good to know.


Gay Military Spouses Face Fight for Acceptance

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Sun

So its ok for our people to serve in active duty and risk their lives, but its not ok to attend a support group with their spouse even when it is with others that they served with and would be to the benefit of their mental, emotional, and physical well being. Good to know.


Gay Military Spouses Face Fight for Acceptance

I understand your frustration. This is yet another example of the reality of queer phobia. You know as an activist this double speak has been going on for generations. This particular incident is the Army leadership showing their true colors. The Marines had a similar situation going on but the Marines chose to stop playing games and do the right thing.

[Toughy]

It's ironic to me that the Marine Corps......the last bastion of the manly man.....would insist that all married soldiers be treated the same and have all services sponsored by the Corp available to all Marine families.

The Corps was the one everybody thought would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this new (to the US) military world. Instead it's the Army that are assholes.

The Corp is providing the leadership needed to do this. The commanders got their orders and they are obeying them.....actually they are more than obeying orders...they are insisting that all soldiers and their families be treated equally.

Simper Fi to the Corps

[Okiebug61]

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-moves-e...125825051.html

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-moves-e...125825051.html

Levada polls conducted last year show that almost two thirds of Russians find homosexuality "morally unacceptable and worth condemning." About half are against gay rallies and same-sex marriage; almost a third think homosexuality is the result of "a sickness or a psychological trauma," the Levada surveys show.
Russia's widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by the political and religious elite.

Lawmakers have accused gays of decreasing Russia's already low birth rates and said they should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

[Sun]

Breaking: Rhode Island - Marriage Equality bill makes it out of committee and is on its way to the House floor. Historic day for RI. Congratulations. One more state on the way to marriage equality.

[Sun]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I understand your frustration. This is yet another example of the reality of queer phobia. You know as an activist this double speak has been going on for generations. This particular incident is the Army leadership showing their true colors. The Marines had a similar situation going on but the Marines chose to stop playing games and do the right thing.

The Army Chaplains told the couple that they could attend. This was about trauma and emotional scars. What the hell? How can we let our soldiers down like that. This woman had a chance at healing some of those wounds with her partner and with the people that she served with. It is disgraceful. Shame on the Army for letting one of their own suffer.

This is just just as bad as the Government deporting Vets that are not US Citizens but served with honor. Yep, Google Brothers Velenzuela. Crazy infuriating. I get my Veteran friends all fired up on this one.

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Sun

This is just just as bad as the Government deporting Vets that are not US Citizens but served with honor.

Don't even get me going on this one. Our military lets them serve, knowing they are undocumented or their temporary documentation will expire while they are enlisted. Then after they have served honorably, deport them? I am pretty sure many fellow Americans do not know of this and will not believe it really does happen. Most that have served and are being deported are Latino/a.

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Don't even get me going on this one. Our military lets them serve, knowing they are undocumented or their temporary documentation will expire while they are enlisted. Then after they have served honorably, deport them? I am pretty sure many fellow Americans do not know of this and will not believe it really does happen. Most that have served and are being deported are Latino/a.

So discouraging to hear. At one time, enlisting was a way of ensuring citizenship. At least I remember that to be true when they were trying to recruit people to invade Iraq. That was ten years ago, though.

[Toughy]

It's just they are brown. Canadians (and other Anglos) serve in our military and get citizenship (dual) with no problem.

[Kobi]

A sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support for the biological daughter he fathered to a lesbian couple who found him via Craigslist.

Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed an ad on the site three years ago for a donor which was answered by William Marotta.

Mr Marotta provided sperm which was used for artificial insemination by Ms Schreiner. In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.

The three signed a legal document which stated Mr Marotta, a married mechanic who fosters children with his wife, would have no rights to the child.

The arrangement changed earlier this year when Ms Schreiner, the only parent registered on her daughter's birth certificate, applied for social welfare.

Ms Bauer had been supporting the child but was left unable to work due to ill health.

On October 3, 2012, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her.

It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012, and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.

Schreiner had allegedly been put under pressure to reveal Mr Marotta's name so that her daughter could continue to have health care.

The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.

Hannah Schroller, Mr Marotta's attorney, argued that the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances.

A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.
Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he - like that man - should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.

She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.

Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, 'then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor.

'This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers'.

Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner had been together for eight years and adopted eight children. They ended their relationship in 2010 but continue to co-parent their sons and daughters who range from three months to 25 years old.

The state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex unions, so each of their children was registered for adoption by a single parent.

A motion to dismiss the state's case will be heard in Shawnee County District Court on January 8.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hts-child.html

---------------------------------------

The evidentiary hearing in the sperm donor case in Shawnee County District Court has been postponed from Tuesday to April. Oral arguments will be heard in June.

[Greyson]

Voice actor for Charlie Brown arrested in Calif.

The Associated Press
Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013 - 7:21 am

SAN DIEGO -- Authorities in California say the voice actor who portrayed Charlie Brown in many "Peanuts" shows was arrested on charges that include stalking.

Robbins was the voice of Charlie Brown for TV specials, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown."
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/23/513...k=omni_popular


Looks like it is time for Peppermint Patty to step in and top Charlie Brown, again.

[Allison W]

U.S. military opening combat positions to women. No shit.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...jobs-to-women/

I'm almost inclined to think this is a big enough deal to deserve its own thread, but I may just have strong feelings on the issue.

[Corkey]

Women have been in position for years on the front lines, now they will get paid for it.