Discussion
  • Read More
    John BoehnerTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 9:45am

    That's bullshit. Way to give the MRAs the tiniest bit of fodder.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JennifartJohn Boehner
      1/24/14 9:48am

      That's not even a little bit right. What the fuck, Kansas?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      goldenraeJohn Boehner
      1/24/14 9:50am

      My thoughts exactly. It's going to be cited almost as much as Duke Lacrosse. You know, single outliers that become MRA reality.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Exponential GrapeTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 10:01am

    Before the MRAs get their panties in a knot, read the last paragraph:

    Bauer and Schreiner also opposed the judge's decision.

    The lesbians did NOT sue for child support. KANSAS sued for child support. The judge ruled for the state, not the mother.

    No one was happy about this ruling, not the donor, nor the birth mother, nor the divorced mother, only Kansas.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      vaulyreaExponential Grape
      1/24/14 10:16am

      MRAs believe that the "State" is run by matriarchal feminazis, and no, I am NOT exaggerating. So they will still claim this case is "misandry," don't worry.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Exponential Grapevaulyrea
      1/24/14 10:24am

      This is true, however I've often heard this case being presented as "a couple of sinful lesbians sued for child support AFTER signing an agreement not to" which appears to be not even the slightest bit true. They held up their end of the bargain, the state disagreed with them.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    captnsugTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 9:48am

    I've never understood how child support is compatible with a society that allows abortions. Never made sense to me, and I'm staunchly pro choice.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      heartbraidercaptnsug
      1/24/14 9:52am

      because not everybody who has a kid together stays together.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      nopunin10didcaptnsug
      1/24/14 9:54am

      Child Support is a question of necessity. If a child is already born, saying "Well, you should have aborted," doesn't get anyone anywhere. The child already exists and needs to be cared for.

      The first stop for supporting that child should always be the child's parents. What this case exemplifies is that the definition of "parent" isn't universally agreed upon.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    stacyinbeanTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 10:29am

    Hold please. If this was done without doctors does that mean you can actually inseminate someone at home with a bowl of semen and a turkey baster?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Zelda Pinwheelstacyinbean
      1/24/14 10:36am

      Huh? I can't figure if you're being silly or not... The answer is yes, totally. A baby food jar and a large syringe is ideal.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PedalHeadstacyinbean
      1/24/14 10:37am

      That's what I was wondering.

      Or was it the old, "if it lasted less than a minute it didn't count" rule?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    homomanTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 10:36am

    That's some fucked up shit, a state invalidates a contract between consenting adults?

    Oh yeah that seems to be happening a lot in Red States, https://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/bre…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Lacaudhomoman
      1/24/14 10:46am

      Because Red.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ScottieBinyonshomoman
      1/24/14 11:10am

      So blue states allow people to enter into contracts that allow them to waive the rights of third parties? I did not know that. That is the issue here; this contract effectively waives the right of the state to collect child support with a waiver being the primary means of estopple. Your link to Utah is not even related to the issue at hand.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    poofypantaloonsTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 9:47am

    Painting located on the second floor of the presiding Kansas courthouse:

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      trudibell_poofypantaloons
      1/24/14 10:05am

      Is this for real or just the internet?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Jennifarttrudibell_
      1/24/14 10:09am

      No, that's just for the internet. The real picture has Jesus cradling Rick Perry.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    thingsandstuffTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 10:37am

    Yet another example of how conservative republicans get the government out of our family and medical lives.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BitchesLovePizzathingsandstuff
      1/24/14 10:50am

      On behalf of myself and the other democrats in Kansas, I'm really sorry. Hopefully all the crusty old republicans will die soon so we can come back into civil society.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Crushah!Taylor Berman
    1/24/14 9:55am

    Seeding is always a very important issue in Kansas this time of year, AMIRITE?!?

    [hears crickets, looks around]

    Wait...where am I? This is Deadspin, right?....Its's GAWKER?! Uh-oh...

    [reaches in pocket, throws magician's smoke bomb at own feet, disappears]

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ramen2The Crushah!
      1/24/14 10:44am

      Some of us Gawkerites are also sports fans. Therefore, I give your magic trick and joke a +1

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    iElvis is Putting in a Bid for Gawker.comTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 10:37am

    The solution to cases like this is not to tweak family law state by state. It's for the Supreme Court to hold once and for all that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize valid marriages performed in other states, even if the couple could not legally get married in that state.

    Here, the responsible parent for child support purposes is clearly the other mother, not the sperm donor. No brainer from where I'm sitting.

    Fortunately, the Court won't be able to keep dodging this issue, as there are several such cases in the pipeline.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      NickiElvis is Putting in a Bid for Gawker.com
      1/24/14 11:31am

      I think the question is if a person who intentionally brought a child into this world can give up the responsibility of supporting that child through a contract without going through the govt. If this child has a right for support from his or her biological parents, I don't see how we can take that right away simply by signing a bill of sale.

      I know of examples such as adoption but I can't exactly adopt a kid over craigslist for obvious reasons.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      iElvis is Putting in a Bid for Gawker.comNick
      1/24/14 12:26pm

      You're correct, in this specific case there were rules for sperm donation that were not followed. But had the two women been married, and Kansas were required to recognize that marriage, the donation would be irrelevant: The law usually presumes that any children born within a marriage are the children of the two spouses. In many states, even a DNA test won't change that if it comes too long after the fact.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    OrientalRugTaylor Berman
    1/24/14 12:49pm

    The crux of this is Kansas' refusal to see same-sex families as a cohesive unit. If they acknowledged the existence of both of the child's parents (Bauer and Schreiner) instead of insisting on the presence of a sperm donor in the child's life, this would not be an issue.

    That said, I would have refused/denied divulging the identity of the sperm donor.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RevCrowleyOrientalRug
      1/24/14 1:05pm

      Presumably you don't get benefits if you do that. Can a Kansas family expert chime in? What happens if you claim you were drinking a lot and sleeping around, and honestly don't know the names of all the men involved?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      OrientalRugRevCrowley
      1/24/14 1:37pm

      I don't think it would be possible to punish someone for that, would it? Many states ensure child support is being paid before calculating public assistance but I can think of many, many legal arguments that would preserve public assistance for a mother who was unsure of her child's parentage.

      Reply
      <