patrick.net

More from the HAR! files.

An Arizona couple seeking a divorce hit an unusual snag that could prevent the marriage from legally being dissolved.

A judge is questioning whether a same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending the union — or even recognizing its validity — because the husband was born a woman and underwent a sex change but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.

Thomas and Nancy Beatie are eager to end their nine-year marriage. But their divorce plans stalled when Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach said in late June that he was unable to find any legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth. Gerlach has questioned whether the union was a same-sex marriage.

The judge is expected to issue a decision in early February.

CaptainShuddup says

Those Idiots you speak of, are the State of Kentucky. I know it's FOX and
all, but you should still read it.

Perhaps-but Kentucky is not a hotbed of liberalism and neither is Kansas. Here in Kansas, they were suing a 19 year army veteran for child support. The poor guy was married back in 1995 and wifeee cheated on him and had a baby with another man. He divorced, proved by DNA that child was not his and married again and had 3 kids. Never had a relationship with that kid. But the first wife went on welfare and kansas is suing him for child support -because of "presumed" fatherhood. That is the law and I believe it is the same in FL too?? They were reforming the law in kansas, and I think this sperm donor law needs to be reformed too.

Now in the liberal CA, it ain't so-if it ain't your baby and you prove it-you don't pay. While you might be happy about gay or staright or Obummer-it simply is not right.

http://cjonline.com/stories/012109/sta_379727641.shtml

If Social Security gets axed or privatized, it changes the whole equation about kids being an investment...

lostand confused says

Now in the liberal CA, it ain't so-if it ain't your baby and you prove it-you don't pay.

is Cali the only state where presumption of paternity is not law?

An article on Parenting and Happiness:
http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/

instead of "investing" $250K in a child, put that money in a mutual fund, and use the interest to pay someone to come to your house once/twice a week to talk to you when you are older. you would get more bang for your buck. he/she may even clean the house for you.

that and "investing" in a marriage is like buying a stock whose company has a 50% chance of going bankrupted.

My investment in my daughter has paid dividends.
Maybe you are investing your sperm/egg with the wrong investment vehicle.