Current Events > Lesbian couple each gives birth. US Govt says only one of the kids is a citizen

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/associatesmind/status/955465258684026881

how do you figure that? :v
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

how do you figure that? :v

One of the moms is a US citizen one isnt. Birth was outside the us, and at the time, us fed govt didnt recognize their marriage as valid

Not sure how I feel about this.
---

holy shit
---

If the Italian wife didn't apply for US Citizenship, and the American wife didn't adopt the child, then I understand. I don't agree with the ruling, but I understand it.
---

It's these kind of cases that are a lawyers dream I expect.
---

Bandit_Keith posted...

If the Italian wife didn't apply for US Citizenship, and the American wife didn't adopt the child, then I understand. I don't agree with the ruling, but I understand it.

That's typically not necessary for (lesbian) homosexual couples with children in the U.S., though. I imagine it isn't in England, either.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

and at the time, us fed govt didnt recognize their marriage as valid

Oh then fuck em. I mean, I'm pro-gay marriage but this seems pretty obvious.
---

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

I don't see the misapplication of the law here.
---

The Admiral posted...

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

it doesn't matter, for legal purposes, who the biological father is
---

At this point it might be a good idea to just move to England tbqh
---

Balrog0 posted...

The Admiral posted...

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

it doesn't matter, for legal purposes, who the biological father is

It's the basis of this ruling, so it kind of does. Had that been the biological offspring of the US citizen, it would have granted citizenship.
---

The Admiral posted...

It's the basis of this ruling, so it kind of does.

I'm saying there is precedent which cuts against this legal argument.

The Admiral posted...

Had that been the biological offspring of the US citizen, it would have granted citizenship.

actually, what you mean is if it had been the child of a married straight couple. They wouldn't check the childs DNA to see if it was biologically his, which is why it doesn't matter at least according to US law (see the tweet about pre-Obergefell there)
---

see, e.g., http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/06/12/gay-couples-fight-to-be-included-on-birth-certificates

In other states, the law has been on the Singleys side. State presumption of parentage laws, which allow hospitals to list a womans husband as the father of her child on a birth certificate even if paternity hasnt been medically established have largely been extended to married lesbian couples after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. Many states did so voluntarily, while courts settled the issue in others, including Florida and South Carolina.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm saying there is precedent which cuts against this legal argument.

Yeah, sure if you went to California and they told you that. But California precedents are worth less than dog shit.
---

The Admiral posted...

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

I don't see the misapplication of the law here.

True.

Though fucked up nonetheless.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm saying there is precedent which cuts against this legal argument.

Yeah, sure if you went to California and they told you that. But California precedents are worth less than dog shit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-arkansas-must-list-same-sex-parents-names-birth-n776746

https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/12/08/governor-directs-health-department-to-resume-issuing-birth-certificates-under-revised-procedures
---

Balrog0 posted...

That's typically not necessary for (lesbian) homosexual couples with children in the U.S., though. I imagine it isn't in England, either.

But we are talking about something that occurred outside of the country. If you're born in the US, regardless of who your parents are, you can be considered an American. That's one of the complaints about "anchor babies". Before gay marriage was legal (which is when they had the kids) adoption of the others child (and sometimes even the other 'spouse' themselves) was quite common in the gay and lesbian community.
---

they need to find out the nationality of the baby dad. :v maybe he was American?
---

Balrog0 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm saying there is precedent which cuts against this legal argument.

Yeah, sure if you went to California and they told you that. But California precedents are worth less than dog shit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-arkansas-must-list-same-sex-parents-names-birth-n776746

https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/12/08/governor-directs-health-department-to-resume-issuing-birth-certificates-under-revised-procedures

Oh hey, another Democrat shithole that interprets the law with their so called "fairness" and not by the word of the law. Honestly, a farmer would be a better judge, because at least they'll read the law as it's written and not sneak things in there.
---

Bandit_Keith posted...

But we are talking about something that occurred outside of the country. If you're born in the US, regardless of who your parents are, you can be considered an American. That's one of the complaints about "anchor babies". Before gay marriage was legal (which is when they had the kids) adoption of the others child (and sometimes even the other 'spouse' themselves) was quite common in the gay and lesbian community.

I'm not talking about citizenship, I'm talking about parentage. Most places in the US have a presumed parentage for the spouse, it's not based on a medical, scientific, biological etc standard, jsut the legal document. Courts have ruled in the US that parentage is extended to both parents in the case of lesbian couples who give birth

I do not know if that is the case in England but we have a lot of similar civil laws like that so I assume it is. if it isnt then yeah this is less egregious maybe, idk the details of immigration law
---

Lmao

Tropicalwood posted...

Oh hey, another Democrat shithole that reads by their so called "fairness" and not by the word of the law

Arkansas?
---

Do they even live in the US?
---

Where is Squadder when we need law interpreted?
---

The Admiral posted...

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

I don't see the misapplication of the law here.

Laws are meant to be interpreted. We have a lesbian couple who want to have kids, else are their kids to be granted citizenship if only one of the married couple is a US citizen?
---

Sad_Face posted...

The Admiral posted...

The woman is not a citizen, and the child she's having was not fathered by her spouse and automatically granted citizenship by birth as happens with straight couples.

I don't see the misapplication of the law here.

Laws are meant to be interpreted. We have a lesbian couple who want to have kids, else are their kids to be granted citizenship if only one of the married couple is a US citizen?

why didn't they just have the baby in America? :v
---

Balrog0 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Oh hey, another Democrat shithole that reads by their so called "fairness" and not by the word of the law

Arkansas?

It's Bill's home state where he shoved his roots deep into the justice system.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm saying there is precedent which cuts against this legal argument.

Yeah, sure if you went to California and they told you that. But California precedents are worth less than dog shit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-arkansas-must-list-same-sex-parents-names-birth-n776746

https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/12/08/governor-directs-health-department-to-resume-issuing-birth-certificates-under-revised-procedures

Oh hey, another Democrat shithole that interprets the law with their so called "fairness" and not by the word of the law. Honestly, a farmer would be a better judge, because at least they'll read the law as it's written and not sneak things in there.

Oh hey, another person who wants to tear a family apart for because they are girls.
And oh hey, someone who somehow thinks that Arkansas is a "Democrat shithole".
Wow, it's like finding an ogre that's also a dragon.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

and at the time, us fed govt didnt recognize their marriage as valid

Oh then fuck em. I mean, I'm pro-gay marriage but this seems pretty obvious.

This.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not talking about citizenship, I'm talking about parentage.

But this is about Citizenship, is it not.

Even still, I mentioned that homosexual couples used to have to adopt each other's child here in the US, before the ruling.
---