Kansas Judge Demands Sperm Donor Pay Child Support Austin Petersen January 23, 2014 Political Opinion 5007 Share16K +162 Tweet234 Pin5 Share3 StumbleShares 17K Government Disrespects Same Sex Couples & Treats Men Like ATM’s TOPEKA, KS – In a blow to private contracts and to individual liberty, a judge in the state of Kansas has demanded that sperm donor William Marotta pay child support. Marotta donated sperm to a lesbian couple who determined after they had the baby that they could no longer support the child. The state of Kansas decided to make an example out of Marotta in a case that illustrates how the American judicial system treats men as if they are little more than cash machines. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi argued that Marotta cannot waive his parental rights because he did not use a licensed physician to perform the insemination. Follow TLR on Google+ “In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in order to hold him responsible for $6,000 in public assistance the state had already provided, as well as future child support. Marotta opposed the court, saying that he had contacted Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer in response to an ad they placed looking for a sperm donor. He then signed a contract with the two women to waive his parental rights and responsibilities. The Kansas DCF doesn’t care however. They argued that it is a “well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.” Because to the government, every man is little more than an ATM. Marotta’s attorney Benoit Swinnen argued that the statute Kansas cited does not specifically require the insemination to be carried out by a physician. “We stand by that contract,” Swinnen said. “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.” The Marotta case is an important one because of the disincentive it will create against men to provide sperm for couples who are in need. Social conservatives viewed the case as an important precedent to punish someone who performed a kind deed for a same sex couple, making an example of men like Marotta. And strangely, the LGBT community remained silent, never trying to argue that the same sex couple should be forced to live up to their contractual obligations as parents. Theoretically marriage equality advocates should have been supporting Marotta because it would strengthen the idea that same sex couples who adopt children should be treated the same as all parents. Sadly, that was never the case. Now we have a dangerous precedent which, despite being ultimately a negative outcome could have the positive affect of showing men in America just how much they are being screwed by the legal system. Marotta being forced to pay child support illustrates that it’s time for men to start fighting back against a corrupt government which disrespects same sex couples, and treats men like they’ve always been treated, little more than cash machines, even if the babies aren’t theirs. Share16K +162 Tweet234 Pin5 Share3 StumbleShares 17K Indiana Police Chief Shoots Himself. Again. (VIDEO)Army Sensor Blimps Preparing for Deployment Over Maryland (VIDEO)About The AuthorAustin PetersenFounder Austin Petersen is the founder of The Libertarian Republic, as well as the CEO of Stonegait LLC. Formerly an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano's show "Freedom Watch", on the Fox Business Network. Austin was referred to by the Judge as "The right side of my brain". He built Judge Napolitano's social networks with over 700,000 fans and millions of clicks a month. Austin graduated from Missouri State University. He has written and produced award winning plays and videos, and previously worked for the Libertarian National Committee and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. 396 Responses mike hunt January 23, 2014 Yay, how’s everyone loving the hope and change? elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 I have come to the conclusion that I have lost all hope and I haven’t got any freaking change. How about you???? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 That’s what happens when you live in a right-wing corporatist nation. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 The Left supports the exact same absolute responsibility for men, even in cases where the man is raped and his rapist conceives. There have been court cases on this. It’s not Right or Left, it’s the fact that men are percieved as wallets by the government. Terry G. Taylor January 23, 2014 If you didn’t have a corporate America there would be no jobs. Yes some do take advantage of those who work for them but not all of them do. It is called greed. Liberals are famous for wanting everyone else to pay as long as you don’t touch their stash. At least those liberals who do have money. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Terry, aside from your own prejudice, where are you getting that idea? the_bat January 23, 2014 The LGBT crowd doesn’t want to be just equal, they want to be equal-plus. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Put your dislike for gay people aside for a moment and ask if you would be reacting the same way if this was a hetero couple. Amaphi January 23, 2014 You’re trying to find hate that doesn’t exist. Though I have LGBT friends and I support LGBT causes, it is a known fact that when there is any moral quandary created by an LGBT issue, the community remains silent. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 hate that doesn’t exist? The_Bat posed something unfounded and mean about gay people. I’d say the hate shows through quite plainly. Vince January 23, 2014 The bat is simply answering WHY the LGBT community isn’t up in arms over this. They should be. This activist judge hurts the “homosexual community” much more than the “heterosexual community”. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Vince – why? Because all of them are somehow responsible for this situation? That’s as ridiculous as suggesting that all hetero people are responsible for the bad acts of one hetero couple. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 No, they should be up in arms about this because when one LGBT person is facing trouble they all are up in arms about it instantly. But when a straight person is facing unfair trouble at the hands of an LGBT community member the community has strangely little to say about it. If they truly wanted to be equal then this issue would be as offensive to them as any issue where an LGBT person is getting the short end of the stick. But they dont have anything to say about this because they dont truly want EQUALITY, they want special treatment. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 And i have NO problems with LGBT people or any other group just to be clear. But the fact remains that many groups that claim to want “equality” in this country actually want special treatment that no one else gets and they are just too unintelligent and self involved to realize it. This is true for some feminists as well as some african american rights supporters as well. What people call “equal” these days usually actually tends to be whatever situation puts the everyday average white male at a disadvantage. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 I think what Amaphi was saying is that the_bat just made a true statement. Therefor by the nature of it being a true statement it does not have to be a hateful one. If it was a completely false statement then it would be clearly motivated by hate. But by pointing out that they are typically silent when there is an issue they are winning he is essentially pointing out that the_bat is correct, they do want to be more than equal. Now whether or not the_bat hates LGBT i cant say, but i can say that his statement alone does not prove that. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Except that he did not make a “true statement”. There’s no evidence that some nebulous group “the LGBT community” is plotting in darkened rooms to get special privileges. That’s just anti-gay bigotry being spouted. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 And that is where you and the_bat disagree (and me, im with the_bat on this one) I would go one step farther and say that almost all of the time, almost every advocacy group or social group that claims to be treated unfairly will remain silent when a person is being treated unfairly at their hands. Not just LGBT community but feminists african american rights supporters pretty much every group that feels they are treated unfairly is extremely quiet when an issue comes out of someone from their group treating someone else unfairly. And yet no one can be heard making more noise then these same people when someone from their group is getting a raw deal. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 None of which bears on the fact that there is no secret LGBT conspiracy to get preferential treatment and stick it to the straight people of the nation. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 I agree it is not a conspiracy that causes this. This is just a general tendency of all advocacy groups. But i blame the leaders of the LGBT equality movement for not getting out there and attempting to counteract this tendency by voicing their disapproval of this specialized treatment. By silently letting these things happen without voicing their dismay the leaders of the LGBT are stamping their approval on them. There is no conspiracy or concerted effort to subvert straight people. But when straight people get the short end of the stick because of an LGBT person it is their job to stand up and say “hey thats not equality” just like they do when LGBT people are slighted by straight people. If they dont then equality is not actually what they are looking for. And the same goes for any LGBT community member that is not offended by this. If they think this is appropriate or they have nothing to say about this then they must want superior treatment because this sure as hell isnt equality. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 You dont have to conspire to behave wrong as a group. No one needs to discuss how to act wrong in order to do it. The natural human tendency is that when you have the advantage dont fight it. So naturally when a member of an advocacy group has the advantage the advocacy group is not going to fight that. But by the simple nature of being a member of a group that demands equality it becomes your JOB to fight those moments where inequality happened to your advantage otherwise you arent just asking for equality, you are asking for superiority. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 It doesnt have to be a conspiracy in order for a group of people to be acting differently then they morally should. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Its not anti-gay bigotry. It is true. Its just like calling a black person a nigger and all the black people get upset. But call a white person a wigger and those same black people that were so offended by the word nigger are laughing that a white person just got called a wigger. If the word nigger offends you then the word wigger should be equally offensive. If it isnt then you dont want equality, you want superiority. Same basic concept applies here. Because a straight person is getting screwed by these lesbians the LGBT community doesnt have anything to say. But if they TRULY wanted equal rights then they would be bitching that these lesbians are damaging their cause by not acting like everyone else and are demanding special treatment. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 If you truly want equal rights then you should share equally in the hardships of life as well, not just the benefits. kittyhawk03 January 23, 2014 Do you believe that a sperm donor for a male/female couple should pay child support for a baby that was conceived? derpleton January 23, 2014 Well he doesn’t have to pay because he donated sperm to lesbians, he has to pay because the insemination wasn’t completed by a licensed physician. Robert Ralph January 23, 2014 That’s completely stupid, are you really that stupid???? derpleton January 23, 2014 Did you read the article, where it says that the judge orderd he pay because he didnt use a licensed doctor? Can you even read? I see you can type and can even put multiple question marks to insinuate your incredulousness, but have alot of difficulty believing you have even a basic level of reading comprehension. Have you actually even gone so far as to do a simple web search on the issue and found that the Kansas Child Protective services demanded the name of the donor, and they went after him? Or that both members of the former couple believe he shouldnt have to pay? Its in the Topeka Capital journal, the article is dated December 29, 2012, and here is the url. http://cjonline.COM/news/2012-12-29/topeka-mothers-support-sperm-donor-child-support-battle-kansas-dcf I am not the stupid one, you are. Dumbass. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Derpleton – which, again, is focusing on the mechanics and ignoring the central issue. If we allow donation the mechanics should be irrelevant. derpleton January 23, 2014 Oh I agree completely, the idea that he is responsible because he didn’t do it the way the government says he has to is pretty ridiculous in this, or almost any other, context. I just meant to point out that it was not because the person was a lesbian as so many people wish to claim. Beth January 24, 2014 It was really because they were lesbians though, wasn’t it? If they were a heterosexual couple, the issue of artificial insemination would be very unlikely to have come up at all. Even if it had, I doubt that it would have been given a second thought by the CPS. derpleton January 24, 2014 Honestly I don’t know. Other news outlet, have much more information on this case and it seems like they may have gone after them to make a political point. I personally wouldn’t be surprised especially considering how flimsy of a rationale it takes for some people to go on anti-gay tirades, or advocate the government limit their rights. Vince January 23, 2014 Whew! That makes it SOOOOO MUCH BETTER!!! Thanks for clarifying that, Clarence. /s derpleton January 23, 2014 Way to put words in my mouth, it’s a cute straw man. I wasn’t saying that excused it. I was saying that their sexuality had nothing to do with it. Maybe next time you ought to use a little bit of critical thinking skills? Markrod420 January 23, 2014 True, but when was the last time you saw this issue come up with a straight couple? I would wager that this is only happening because the couple are lesbians. And i dont wager, ever. derpleton January 23, 2014 I would be inclined to agree but the state chose to go after him instead of the other spouse. If anything this is an example of them not being treated fairly, not an example of them trying to seek special treatment. And it certainly wasn’t their choice to bring this down so this is not some example of some kind of LGBT agenda as people seem to think. Taxilady88 January 23, 2014 I do not think ANY Sperm donor should have to pay Child Support for trying to help an infertile couple no matter if the couple is gay or Hetero. The contract between the two parties should be upheld. BUT…I also do not think that couples of either should have children they can not support! If the LGBT community wants fairness and wants their members to be married and adopt/inseminate to have a child, then they should also speak up on this matter….It makes them appear to be biased and it makes their cause weak! MAYBE if this man DID ask for custody of the child and he was awarded the child…then maybe the LGBT would stand up for the gay couple….Seems they pick and choose their fights instead of standing up for fairness in ALL matters! Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Who are you asking? If you meant me, then no, I don’t think a donor should ever be called upon to pony up cash. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 Drew so stupid derpleton January 23, 2014 You are the idiot. The couple didn’t request the money, the Kansas State CPS are the ones trying to force this man to pay child support, The couple doesn’t think he should have to. Furthermore this could have happened in a heterosexual relationship as well. Get over yourself, you stupid bigot. Sirier January 23, 2014 Do you even understand how the system works? The couple did request the money, just not from him. They took money from the state, thus the state wants the money from him. derpleton January 23, 2014 Yeah I do understand how the system works, do you even understand the point that I am trying to make? They didn’t want the money from him, and asking that they receive aid after getting a divorce is something straight couples do as well, in those situations the spouse pays child support. This would be no different if a straight couple that was infertile had this performed and gotten a divorce and needed the money. Their sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. They are not asking for special treatment. The state decided to go after the father completely on their own because neither spouse can support a child and the state felt that the sperm donor should be on the hook, not because that is how they do things but because this guy didn’t use a doctor for fertilization. You can criticize them for not being responsible, you can criticize them for asking for financial aid to take care of their kid. But you cant paint this as some kind of Lesbian conspiracy or that they are acting like they want special treatment because of their sexuality. That argument is complete crap. derpleton January 23, 2014 This really has nothing to do with the LGBT crowd or their personal crusades….. This is about a man who donated sperm to an infertile couple (they could have been hetero) and now has to pay for it. He doesnt have to pay because they are lesbians, he has to pay because some idiot judge is upset he didn’t follow the proper protocols. The fact that someone has to try and tie this to their personal resentment for the LGBT people is only telling of their own personal prejudices. The idea that an entire community has to condemn every wrong action an individual within that community does is really absurd. I really don’t understand why the author expects that of them, the author’s comment itself is a text book non sequitur… I mean, I think the whole PC “forced love” thing that the left seems to have trademarked is crap, (I think that you cant legislate away someone’s bigotry only protect individuals from the bigotry that would infringe upon their civil liberties) and I can understand that there are definitely some frustrating hyopcrisies there but I think adding the LGBT layer just serves to muddy the waters. derpleton January 24, 2014 The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor. “It certainly might have a negative effect on other men’s willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone,” Minter said. “I also think it undermines everyone’s respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily.” http://uk.reuters.COM/article/2013/01/03/oukoe-uk-usa-sperm-idUKBRE90201M20130103 History1979 January 23, 2014 They argued that it is a ”well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.” So by that statement you keep your parental rights and responsibilities even if you give your kid up for adoption; well you at least keep your responsibilities to pay for that child. Layla Godey January 23, 2014 It also makes me wonder how parental rights can be taken away by a court as long as the parent can prove s/he is indeed the biological parent. What a nightmare for the court system in abuse cases. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Yeah that ruling is sure to cause a heck of a lot of problems in the future. Bad call on the part of that judge. Charlie D Evans Jr. January 23, 2014 They make you support the child until it is adopted. Same if the mother is remarried. If the stepfather doesn’t adopt the child you keep paying support. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Charlie – I am unaware of any case in which, for example, a guy donates at a clinic and, after the sperm is inseminated, the donor is requires to pay support until the woman files paperwork to “adopt” the kid. This is not a case about adopting an already-born kid that the man gave to the couple in question. It’s a sperm donation. npnfeef February 3, 2014 Kansas law specifically provides for sperm donors WHO USE A LICENSED PHYSICIAN to not be legally viewed as the father. Craigslist and a turkey baster doesn’t count. Tony Gammalo January 23, 2014 I kinda side with conservatives on this one. I’m assuming he banged one of the lesbians to get her preggo. Sorry pal. Contract or not. You’re responsible. And now they can’t afford it ? You gotta be fuckin kidding me. The only one I feel bad for is the innocent child. It’s not going to know which way is up by the time it’s 10. Kim January 23, 2014 It is a little more gross than that I am afraid to report. He puts his “stuff” into this thing called a softcup and they insert it kinda like the turkey baster approach. I was a member of a ttc board and saw this all the time and partly the reason I left. The judge seems to be the only one out there looking out for the interest of the child. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Why should the METHOD matter? If a guy donates sperm, or a woman donates an egg the METHODS used are immaterial. Either we allow people who are fertile to assist others in becoming parents, or we don’t. The mechanics of how it is accomplished are irrelevant. Tony Gammalo February 13, 2014 How much disdain do you have to have for dick, to allow a freakin’ turkey baster in there ? Are men really “THAT” bad ? LMFAO Tony Gammalo February 13, 2014 How much disdain do you have to have for d*ck, to allow a freakin’ turkey baster in there ? Are men really “THAT” bad ? LMFAO farrightextreme January 23, 2014 You give your sperm to a lesbian, I’m glad you got smacked. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Why in the world would you suggest something like that? Shame on you. Larry Farlow January 23, 2014 “Theoretically marriage equality advocates should have been supporting Marotta because it would strengthen the idea that same sex couples who adopt children should be treated the same as all parents.” Theoretically, yes, but of course, in practice the homosexual activists are not about equality but special rights that no others in society have, such as the right to never be disagreed with publicly. npnfeef February 3, 2014 No, in practice the state of Kansas has thoroughly denied same-sex couples equal standing (in both marriage and parenting), so on what basis do you now beeyotch about the law being applied unequally to gays? Jeep Wrangler January 23, 2014 “And strangely, the LGBT community remained silent.” Well, no kidding. They are no different from any other liberal community… wealth redistribution is always the first priority. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 You are such an idiot. You don’t care about wealth redistribution or you would be complaining about the UPWARD redistribution that’s been going on for your whole life, eagerly supported by the right-wing. elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 Stuff it Drew! These women wanted a kid, they got it, they could not afford it so they fucked the guy who gave them the kid. Confused, yeah well so are they. This is not about money, it’s about two bitches, period Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Stuff it yourself. I am not giving the woman a pass for not being able to afford a kid they wanted. That doesn’t make them “bitches.” It means they are poor, which is not a crime. Your bigotry is showing through. And my post in reply to whoever that person is hiding behind a nickname for a car was about his ridiculous griping about wealth redistribution when he (or she, or whoever that is) is plainly a right winger and therefore a supporter of wealth redistribution – he just likes the UPWARD kind that makes everyone poor. elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 Stop it Drew your hurting me. Ouchie. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Get back to me when you have something useful to say, thanks, Elizabeth. Randy Sparks January 23, 2014 Being poor is not a crime, being an idiot is not a crime.Taking from someone who has, to make up for anothers stupidity or deficiency is a crime.It’s called theft! Randy Sparks January 23, 2014 Hiding behind a nickname?? Like using a picture of a dog on your profile isn’t hiding?? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 It’s a relative’s dog that I had the opportunity to take care of for about a week, a Labradoodle. I’m showing my appreciation for how awesome it was to have him over at my house. My regular photo will be back soon enough. Besides, anyone who wants to know more about me can find out easily. I’ll gladly direct someone to my blog if they want. I’m not actually hiding. On the other hand, calling yourself “Jeep Wrangler” plainly IS hiding. Also: it bears repeating that Labradoodles are amazing. Randy Sparks January 23, 2014 I had no doubt you would have a reason for not showing your own picture, just as “jeep wrangler ” has a reason for not using his name.Personally I could give a rats ass. Point being is, that was your chosen point to attack when other arguments might fail. Being a hypocrite is not an endearing quality. Your excuse is valid, yet you reserve the right to judge and disqualify others?? Spoken like a true liberal. I think I’ve already learned all I care to know about you. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Randy, I have a temporary picture and my real name is quite evident, meaning anyone can find me with 10 seconds and Google. I am not hiding. “Jeep Wrangler” is hiding. Big difference. And if you cannot tell the difference then apparently that says all one needs to know about you, sir. Jeep Wrangler January 23, 2014 I’m Jeff Jensen for crying out loud. Are you happy now? I just happen to like Jeep Wranglers and thought it was a good name to use. So now you know a little more about me than I know about you. Jeep Wrangler January 23, 2014 Look, I don’t have all day to hang out in comments. Some of us do have to work for a living. You should be thankful for that. Ray Chandler January 23, 2014 Yes, you idiot, wealth is being redistributed upward, by people earning it. You’re just bitching because the layabouts like yourself are getting left behind. Screw all parasites, you included. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Ray – exactly how are people manipulating the system “earning it?” Exactly how are people who inherit money “earning it?” You seem eager to race headlong into financial slavery instead of having a truly free and equitable marketplace. Ray Chandler January 23, 2014 No, because I’ve got my pile, so shove your sophist rhetoric up your ass. You see “manipulation” because I’d wager heavy money that you’re a general failure. Everything I see you’ve written points to that. You see others succeed and see yourself fail and you blame it all on manipulation. And, by the way, only a small fraction of wealthy people are that way by inheritance, and those who are often don’t acquire the skills to grow it or even hold onto it. In any case, I have no problems with it. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 You live in a fantasy world if you think wealth redistribution upwards happens “because rich people have earned it.” Ray Chandler January 24, 2014 You live in a fantasy world, period. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 but the bottom line is they did not do it on there own he wanted to be the big boy now he is no it,s time to show his man hood pay up good for ya Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 You really have a talent for expressing emotional reactions without providing any substantial explanation for your opinions. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 Drew Riggio your talent is trying to see how stupid you can be Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Sadly I cannot hope to overtake you in the race to stupidity, Patrick. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 no what i complain about are people like you getting free doctors free hospital free food free dental free fuel oil free housing free telephone your right i guess i am the idiot bu ti know for sure you are a lazy sucker Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Exactly when did you reach the (incorrect) conclusion that anyone in this discussion is getting everything in his or her life for free? AMACK January 23, 2014 It’s hard to feel sorry for a guy who answers a “sperm donor ad”. It seems pathetic to me-though I’m sure some may consider it a “kind deed.” BS. None-the-less child and family service departments are typically full of feminist trolls. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 AMACK, if you did a little research and got some idea what fertility clinics charge you might have a different outlook on that. People have the drive to become parents, but might be both infertile and unable to afford the cost of fertility clinic activity. People desperate to fulfill the goal of having kids may go to great lengths to make it happen. PARAX January 23, 2014 So….why doesn’t he sue for joint custody? Or full custody if they can’t financially support the child? Bet LGBT starts howling like mad then. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Because he didn’t want to be a parent in the first place – he was trying to help another couple become parents. I would think that would be very clear even to someone who seems to hate LGBT people. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 If he didn’t want to be a parent then he shouldn’t have helped to make the kid. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Why not? Because you think it is wrong to help infertile couples become parents? kanenas101 January 23, 2014 As I said above, I wouldn’t mainly because of legal consequences such as these. My reasons have nothing to do with any possible moral objections to the practice, as I have no such objections. I take no opinion on people wanting to become parents through various means, that is indeed a private matter between the people involved. I just don’t want to be tasked with paying more taxes to support children that I didn’t help to make. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Now that bit at the end i can agree with. But i dont think its fair to expect this guy to pay for a child that he was asked to help make for someone else. Its not like he was having sex without a condom and now this kid popped out and its his responsibility. He formed an agreement with these people that they are to greedy and selfish to honor. I hope both of those lesbians get hit by cars honestly. Pieces of shit like these shouldnt be raising a child anyway Levi Dietrich January 23, 2014 Get the eff out of here Drew its clear you are a troll with an inferiority complex. You also seem to be incapable of adding to an Intelligent conversation. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 I’d say the more you object to my questions the more it shows you have some problems you are fearful of having exposed to daylight, Levi. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 Drew Riggio you have to be a Lib Tard how can you do that with out becoming a father and then you should help pay for your child Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Patrick – so glad to see you projecting your own insecurities onto me. I’m speaking the libertarian view here, while you are speaking the bigoted, right wing one. So far nobody has been waxing liberal – and even if they did, it would be no more or less appropriate than any of the right-wingery you have posted. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Drew – you are advocating the position that the taxpayers be forced to pay for the support of yet another child that doesn’t belong to them. You are also advocating the position that someone who made a baby should be allowed to simply draw up a piece of paper, not go through the proper legal channels, and get out of the responsibility of paying child support. That is about as left-wing liberal as you can get. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Kanenas – it is unfortunate that the adults involved are unable to care for the kid, but are you really arguing that, rather than having some of your tax dollars go to help the kid, that…what? he or she should starve, be homeless, or euthanized? Since the adults cannot care for the kid, what’s YOUR solution to the kid’s predicament? kanenas101 January 23, 2014 I have no problem with the kid getting taxpayer assistance, and for the state to extract the costs of doing that from the parents if possible. But you cannot claim to be arguing a libertarian view while at the same time arguing for the taxpayer to be footing the bill. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Of course I can. I would not get into that situation. I would take care of my kid voluntarily. But there comes a point in which protecting the life of a child has to supersede my political views. THEY were not acting in Libertarian fashion and, truth be told, they are not obligated to. The kid in question, however, had no input into the situation and is a citizen. It is our duty as citizens to uphold the social contract. Remember, eventually that kid will work and pay taxes just like the rest of us and be beholden to the laws of the nation. He has a right to the same privileges of citizenship that anyone else gets, which at the moment includes access to social programs. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 Drew Riggio i told you you are only after the social programs gaytard January 24, 2014 I agree with some of your posts. Quiet rightly I believe the guy was trolling for young chicks on Craigslist in the personals and saw the $$$$$$$. The $3,000 offered wasn’t the going fee for a turkey baster. It was probably the lawyer’s fee for an ironclad contract that they couldn’t afford. I am very sure he regrets 3cups and 2girls. LMAO Look at him. In another story it says he actually posed for this pic. His lawyer told him to so he probably wouldn’t look so creepy. Too late….. Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 He drew up a legal contract with the couple. That was the proper legal channel wasn’t it? He didn’t have sex with one of the women and not call back the next day. What he did was donate sperm. The only contention was that a doctor wasn’t used to inseminate the sperm and that apparently wasn’t an issue, it still took. It is obviously a legal loophole being used by the state to try and say, “See here, that “T” isn’t crossed so now none of this counts.” The only way I can see that as being relevant is if the state is saying they want a doctor involved in the insemination process because that makes it more expensive (greatly so) and that would mean it is only available to wealthier individuals who are less likely to need child support. The state won’t and can’t admit that because that is an entirely different civil liberties issue. I think this guy is being royally screwed and I hope representatives from the LGBT community throw some legal power behind this, In states like this adoption is already hard enough for same sex couples and often finding a friend who is willing to help with insemination is the easiest route for a same sex couple. Putting a case like this into precedence would be disastrous not to mention an immoral bit of money grubbing on the part of the state. Honestly if 2.5 months into the pregnancy the couple had decided to abort could this man have run in and said, “No stop that’s my child!” No of course not. Yet the same state that would have said he had no parent rights there will happily tell him to open up his wallet for the next X years of the child’s life until the kid turns 18. In the case of divorce and custody our court systems are backwards and I feel for any man who has to walk into any court under those circumstance. We empowered women suddenly become poor 1950’s house wives in a divorce/custody case. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Not according to the State of Kansas it isn’t. Consider the following scenario. Person A draws up a contract with Person B that states that Person B will get $X for murdering Person C. Say Person B goes and murders Person C but Person A won’t pay up. If Person B goes to court to ask the state to enforce that contract, he’d be thrown in jail before his case was laughed out. Now I do agree with you that this man could be a victim… but had he exercised some discretion he could have avoided this mess entirely. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Honesty im advocating that the guy not be forced to pay for them, and the state also not pay for them. Thats right, im advocating no one pay for them and they either pay for themselves or they FAIL. Everyone in this country seems to think that every other person in the country needs to be kept afloat when they fail but they dont. It isnt my job to make sure every baby in the country is cared for and im really tired of them taking my money to do it. A little personal responsibility goes a long way. If people knew that when they fail the govt wont come and save their asses they might think a little harder before they make stupid and rushed decisions. And yeah, sometimes this attitude would result in someone who doesnt deserve it getting the short end of the stick. But it would also prevent all of us that dont deserve it from constantly having our sticks shortened. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 I am advocating that if the kid cannot be supported by the three adults here that something has to be done to provide for the kid. If that means some tax revenue is allocated to that, so be it. Better that than, say, spending billions on many projects like the F22 plane. Tax dollars are going to be spent somewhere. If they are collected at all it seems to me that they would be better spent on matters that improve the lives of the citizens, like food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, roads, and the like. Again, what is your solution? the kid is real, and needs care. Would you just turn the kid out on the street? Parsley January 23, 2014 Infertile? Doesn’t apply in this case. ArcanVmXII January 23, 2014 You don’t choose who your sperm goes to, nitwit. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Apparently this guy did. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 Drew i don,t understand why your so worked up over it you would not be able to donate ArcanVmXII January 25, 2014 Ah. My bad. I stil don’t think he should be expected to pay child support. POTUS_GTFO January 23, 2014 ^^ WOW! Arcan must only get raped by amazon women. This statement is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. SO many oxymorons. In and of itself, this statement is EPIC> LMAO Markrod420 January 23, 2014 He misunderstood and thought the guy was an anonymous donor in a sperm clinic. You probably already recognized that and decided to childishly make fun of him anyway. OR you werent smart enough to notice that very obvious fact, in which case he isnt the one we should be laughing at right now, you are. POTUS_GTFO January 24, 2014 Markrod, all I read was blah blah blah blah downer, buzz kill, stick up my butt blah blah blah. Sorry you missed the VERY funny joke. I’m not laughing AT a person, I’m laughing AT a statement. I don’t even know (or care) who “he” is!~ (does best Tonto impression pointing) Joke, funny. You laugh. ArcanVmXII January 26, 2014 Who ever is writing your material is NOT being paid handsomely enough. Do you have your own television show yet? ArcanVmXII January 25, 2014 Thanks, yeah I should have read more into this. Still he shouldn’t be held responsible for child care regardless. ArcanVmXII January 25, 2014 Yeah I jumped the gun with that comment. I still say he shouldn’t have to pay child support. And also, you can’t rape the willing. :p Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Ok, use the phrase “unable to conceive via the most common method” instead. The point still applies. Clarity-jane Seer January 23, 2014 Infirtile because they r homosexual! So wrong it is sickening! Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Clarity, how honest of you to let your bigotry show through so clearly. Patrick Fallon January 24, 2014 count me in on that all so gaytard January 24, 2014 Please calm down. You’ll live. Patrick Fallon February 1, 2014 Gay shit xmiro February 2, 2014 says the guy whose mother gave birth to a turd Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Thats retarded. he was attempting to do something good for other people. My guess is that this is your opinion because you do not approve of homosexuality. Or maybe you are even one step farther along the intolerant crazy path and you dont approve of adoption. Either way you are a closed minded and generally bad person that we all would be better off as a society without. Jill January 24, 2014 The individuals that contracted his services are the parents. He had no reasonable expectation of parental responsibility-emotionally or financially. Patrick Fallon January 23, 2014 you know what they say live and learn good for him hope he has to pay the rest of his life Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Why? Because you dislike gay people? Amaphi January 23, 2014 … how did you extract a homophobic message from THIS? tarrowood January 23, 2014 Ignore him, he’s just a troll. ArcanVmXII January 23, 2014 And Patrick Fallon isn’t? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Sorry to hear you are so frightened by my questions and comments, Tarrowood. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Because he is crashing down on a situation that has focused on the gay couple. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 He’s got no argument… that’s how. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 I would like to know why you have this insane opinion. Is it because you are a closed minded gay hating piece of filth that doesnt deserve to live in a society such as ours? or is it because you are a closed minded adoption hating piece of filth that doesnt deserve to live in a society such as ours? Either way, please just hurry up and die of old age already, we dont need people like you making life worse for everyone because they have decided they know the ONLY correct way that a life can be lived. You are a dying breed of closed minded old pieces of shit. Most of you have either died off or changed with the times. I hope the rest of you do the same soon. Patrick Fallon January 24, 2014 you see you low life it,s easy for you to shoot your mouth off about the photo but for some reason i don,t see yours you worthless piece of fag garbage gaytard January 24, 2014 f** is equivalent to n***** The only two words that will always be PC. Markrod420 January 24, 2014 Lol im not gay. Im just also not a piece of shit that hates people for things they do that are none of my fucking business. And I also dont think I have the right to inflict my personal morality on people about things that are again… none of YOUR fucking business. You are a piece of hateful trash making the world a worse place for everyone and it will be a better place when you are gone. Markrod420 January 25, 2014 No reply?… good. Hopefully you are dead lol. Patrick Fallon February 1, 2014 if i do die you will be following with your aids Markrod420 February 1, 2014 Again… not gay. Even if I was though that would not mean that I have aids. Just another foolish prejudice that you will look back on when you are on your deathbed and realize that you have wasted your life on hate. I feel sorry for you, but I feel more sorry for the rest of the world that you are darkening with your hate. PARAX January 23, 2014 Where did it say I hated the LGBT community? The point was, they are silent on the issue now even though it will enormously affect two women being able to become parents through this method in the future. If a male sperm donor was to try to assert his parental rights I’m sure they would be outraged, and suddenly I think that whatever agreement they all signed would hold solid in court and he would lose. As you said, he never wanted to be a parent in the first place, yet he’ll be paying the bills for ‘helping an infertile couple’. Amaphi January 23, 2014 So he should have all the responsibility for this child with none of the privilege? Patrick Fallon January 24, 2014 lol yes plus the fact he didn,t get any sex along with it Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Parax is right. If the guy tried to take the kid the LGBT community would freak out saying their parental rights are being violated. To point that out does not mean that he hates the LGBT community, it means he is capable of understanding and acknowledging the obvious outcome of that situation. Nicholas Sweeten January 23, 2014 The nice thing about this precedent though is that from here on out, all men who donate in this way can insist on paternal rights at any point. The precedent guarantees that men have rights as parents even when they are merely donors. Anyone can enter into a personal contract as a donor, let a gay couple raise a child through the roughest of years… then turn around and sue for partial custody as a father. All we need do is cite this court case as evidence of legal interpretation. The courts cannot rule in both ways depending on the case without proving their hypocrisy. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Well said. The LGBT community really should get upset about this, but they wont cuz their people are winning this battle… gaytard January 24, 2014 Never occurred to me. I agree. But alas that is a fairy tale. gaytard January 23, 2014 He only wanted the cash. Please…….. PARAX January 23, 2014 Where did it say I hated the LGBT community? The point was, they are silent on the issue now even though it will enormously affect two women being able to become parents through this method in the future. If a male sperm donor was to try to assert his parental rights I’m sure they would be outraged, and suddenly I think that whatever agreement they all signed would hold solid in court and he would lose. As you said, he never wanted to be a parent in the first place, yet he’ll be paying the bills for ‘helping an infertile couple’. derpleton January 23, 2014 The expectation that an entire community has to actively condemn every individual members actions is preposterous. There is a christian in Africa eating muslims, there are christians in africa beating gays…. This is not even close to an LGBT issue, its just a people issue and two of those people happen to be gay. PARAX January 23, 2014 I really don’t know what Christians in Africa eating Muslims has to do with this, but I’m sure somewhere out there Muslims are killing Christians too. derpleton January 23, 2014 They don’t have anything to do with this issue, I was pointing out that a group of people cant be held accountable for the actions of an individual, nor can someone expect a group of people to condemn every individuals terrible acts. Just because I am making a comparison in a specific context does not mean that they are comparable as a whole… How hard is this to understand? Furthermore it’s completely irrelevant because the former couple did not request the money, the state did. There is no reason for the LBGT crowd to involve themselves. Valerie Hawley January 23, 2014 the couple received welfare that’s why the state got involved. derpleton January 23, 2014 The couple got a divorce and one person became unable to work. If this was a straight couple the state would have given them the money without question. But instead, its a lesbian couple so the state decides to set a precedent that also affects heterosexual couples to make a point and they are doing so based on the flimsiest of rationales, that the man did not follow proper protocol. I looked at other articles on this in throughout the day to get a better idea. But the people here seem to think the lesbian couple got a divorce and then went to court and demanded the man pay child support which is what I am criticizing. When if anything this shows that the state still does not take the rights and will of gay people seriously Inquizative January 23, 2014 Why isn’t the lesbian that doesn’t have custody paying child support?? They got divorced, one party has to pay child support. Why isn’t the lesbian paying the child support for him. “When if anything this shows that the state still does not take the rights and will of gay people seriously” I think you lose some rights and you are subject to the state welfare laws when your begging them for food stamps and cash assistance. They have a choice, don’t ask for welfare. C’mon derpletion, hang it up, call it a night. derpleton January 24, 2014 And that argument justifies the state going after the man for child support because? You ask why doesn’t the other lesbian pay child support, gee I don’t know why don’t you ask the state? The State is the one that decided to go after the guy, not the lesbians. One of the Lesbians fell on hard times and asked for child support, whatever your feelings on welfare if this happened to a hetero couple that had in vitro fertilization would they go after the sperm donor? I dont know. Though now they have set a legal precedent and will be able to. But in this case the state chose to go after him not the couple. Also, http://uk.reuters.COM/article/2013/01/03/oukoe-uk-usa-sperm-idUKBRE90201M20130103 The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor. “It certainly might have a negative effect on other men’s willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone,” Minter said. “I also think it undermines everyone’s respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily.” So this whole stupid narrative that these people who are obviously Republicans and NOT Libertarians have is completely untrue. Jill January 24, 2014 Incorrect. The state will pursue every avenue it can to offset the costs of social welfare monies spent on the behalf of a dependent child. derpleton January 24, 2014 Ok, so that wasn’t really my point but okay. Though I would like to see an example of the state going after a sperm donor anywhere else. Provided that is true what does this have to do with the LGBT community demanding special privileges and expecting special treatment? mrfxx January 31, 2014 So – is the father (or are the fathers as the case may be) of Octomom’s 14 children expected to pay child support? If not, why not? Either ALL sperm donors should be facing the possibility of paying child support, regardless of the sexual orientation of the mother as well as her marital status, or NONE of them should be. Valerie Hawley January 31, 2014 octomom had her sperm implanted by Kaiser which is a place with permits and government oversight. these ladies put a ad on craigslist and made a contract themselves without government oversight so they are told the contract is null and void Frank Swart January 23, 2014 I think the point was made very we;; – LGBT speaks out on every issue that they perceive to be unfair or discriminatory to their persuasion, including boycotts of places like Chick Fil A or shows like Duck Dynasty. Why would they sell out a lesbian’s right to have custody of a child whose sperm donor has a legal claim to the child (if he chose to seek it). You can’t have it both ways to suit your beliefs. derpleton January 24, 2014 Hey moron, check out this article http://uk.reuters.COM/article/2013/01/03/oukoe-uk-usa-sperm-idUKBRE90201M20130103 The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor. “It certainly might have a negative effect on other men’s willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone,” Minter said. “I also think it undermines everyone’s respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily.” Frank Swart January 23, 2014 Nowhere that I’ve ever heard of, and that would be no excuse for Muslims to kill Christians. If a black murders a white person, woes that justify whites to retaliate? Start using true logic. Frank Swart January 23, 2014 You are very naïve, or very protective of LGBT. And where do you get your data about Christians eating Muslims? So we have Christian cannibals? derpleton January 23, 2014 Can you even use Google? Google Christian eating Muslims and you’ll see the guy who eats people mobs of angry Christians have lynched. But that’s irrelevant because the point i was making is that you naive and ignorant people are trying to act like every lesbian is trying to destroy America. Firstly I said christian not Christians, secondly Its always cute when simpletons accuse you of being an apologist when you point out how stupid they are for trying to pretend an entire community meets there idiotic stereotypes. Im not defensive of the LGBT community, I’m not gay, I dont have any gay friends really, I know some gay people but thats about it. What I do hate is idiots who rant about leftists and gays trying to take advantage of society as though there were any actual evidence of it. If Christians were judged on the flimsy stereotypes you people judge others with your religion would probably be illegal by now. Furthermore they, and any American, are allowed to boycott chick fil a if they want, for whatever reason they want. AE chose to remove Phil without the LGBT community throwing a fit, because he said that you have to find a young wife (16), said that blacks were happier under Jim Crowe, and that homosexuality was comparable to bestiality. Of course you people only want to focus on the anti gay statements because that fits into your stupid the world is out to destroy Christians narrative. Furthermore AE terminating their contract with him was also their right as a private company doing business with someone. And then the Christians boycotted AE and guess what, he’s back. You may think I am naive but at least I am not bordering on illiterate. The article itself states that the judge ruled he has to pay because he didn’t use a licensed physician not because they were lesbians. The Lesbians (if you google around) didn’t ask him for the money, they got a divorce and state asked him for the money. The guy isn’t trying to get custody, the couple isn’t trying to get money from him. Your argument about them selling out his rights makes no sense because the guy DOESN’T WANT custody. Where does it say that anywhere in the article? Where do you dumb ass people get these ideas from? How can you call me naive when you are literally just making things up? Nicholas Sweeten January 23, 2014 Dont be retarded. No one said that ALL of the community had to stand up and say something. But it would have been nice if the ORGANIZATION which self-purports to be about equality of LGBT came to the defense of the donor. derpleton January 23, 2014 Don’t be retarded, he doesn’t have to pay because they are gay. He has to pay because they got a divorce and couldn’t afford the kid and so the state went after him because he didn’t have a licensed physician perform the fertilization. This has nothing to do with the ORGANIZATION, this could happen if it were a straight couple that were infertile. Frank Swart January 23, 2014 You misstate the facts, again. He did not even know the woman. He donated sperm and signed a contract, after answering an ad. Why should he have to assume the role of father/ provider for this couple’s legal child? You are the one doing the mud-slinging. I will agree with you – you are so much smarter than the rest of us on this site. Maybe I’ll go back to school to learn how to Google search and find the one man who eats Muslims, that Christians lynch- the bigoted murderers. derpleton January 23, 2014 I have never misstated that fact, I never once said that he should be held responsible for anything. I never said that he knew the women, I never said he didnt sign a contract waiving his parental rights..Find me the place where I said ANY of that. It must be nice to be able to argue against statements I never made….. He should not be held responsible in any way. I have stated this in other comments. But, you again cant seem to not understand that disagreeing with the people on here who want to pretend that this is a radical leftist taking advantage of the system are wrong does not mean I think the man should pay. I hope you do go back to school if only to work on that reading comprehension of yours. But thanks for agreeing with the point that I never made, that I was the smartest person on the site. Also the irony that you can sit there and dismiss my statement about a single Christian eating Muslims because he is just one guy, when the reason I brought him up was that he was just one person and that judging Christians based on his actions is just as unfair as judging the entire gay community on the actions of a few is almost too much. Do you even see how dumb you are? Are you capable of making an argument that isnt a straw man? Do you do this intentionally or can you really not understand that this has nothing to do with gay people. I would also point out that the reason one of the lesbians asked for support after they divorced was that they got sick in some way and could no longer work. Which is when CPS demanded the identity of the donor, and then the court decided he was the one who had to pay. Though I’m sure to you people that means they must be some kind of welfare queen. Rather than an action of the STATE completely disrespecting every individual involved to save a few thousand dollars a year. Frank Swart January 23, 2014 Right here dipshit- “He has to pay because they got a divorce — Duh! Now read the heading of the article, bozo. I’m not answering you again, You don’t even know what you’re saying anymore. Calm down and get a life. derpleton January 24, 2014 God you are stupid, that — means something, it means you cut out part of my statement to take it out of context to twist my meaning. That’s called a straw man argument. He has to pay because they got a divorce and the state went after him. Nice selective quoting you moron. Let me go ahead and use the full quote in context just because I know you’ll read this even if you dont respond. “He has to pay because they got a divorce *and couldn’t afford the kid and so the state went after him because he didn’t have a licensed physician perform the fertilization” So no I didnt say he owed the money and the only reason you think that, and that you think I dont know what I am saying, is that you are a simple minded idiot who apparently doesnt even read at a high school level Inquizative January 23, 2014 NOPE, this is a LGBT issue and they should be addressing this. gaytard January 24, 2014 The issue the lawyers should be addressing is the validity of the contract. If I understand correctly, I think the judge is saying that the women cannot wish away someone’s parental rights without the consent of the state. I agree. The medical BS is absurd and lame. But not involving lawyers is asking for trouble as far as gays goes. A single man and a single woman (not married of course) cannot just self sign away their rights. Be smart or move to another state. mrfxx January 31, 2014 The JUDGE made it an LGBT issue – unless of course he goes after sperm donors (including the guys in short term relationships) in heterosexual cases as well. docbenton January 24, 2014 You failed to mention that the muslims killed his whole family including cutting his baby in half right in front of him. Why don’t you troll somewhere else? derpleton January 24, 2014 You fail to realize that doesn’t justify eating corpses or participating in lynch mobs right?? Do you also fail to realize that the mob that lynched those people was also Christian? Go be an idiot somewhere else. docbenton January 24, 2014 I only see one idiot here and that’s you dickhead. There’s a reason you have more downvotes than upvotes and that’s because everyone knows you’re a lying piece of shit! CMJO February 2, 2014 It happens all the time. What planet are you from? As for the Christians eating Muslims……what planet are you from? derpleton February 3, 2014 What happens all the time? It’s not really clear since I cant tell which post you are responding to. I assume you mean Lesbians and gay people expecting preferential treatment? Gee kind of like Christians who expect the federal government to ban forms of marriages they dont like? Or maybe the Christian’s who put up their displays on public property and get upset when someone else does or act like the world is against them when they are denied? Maybe the people that want special exemptions from the repercussions of expressing their archaic values because they can loosely tie them to their bible? The planet called Earth. Google it if you have that on whatever planet you are living in. Though you obviously have some kind of mental disability or reading problem as I said Christian eating people, that a mob of Christians killed. Josef Kony is a Christian, the guy leading an army of kidnapped children who brutalize villages. You people are stupid, you are just as ignorant as the worst left wing zealots and just as blind. Single and Over Taxed February 3, 2014 Just a small mention that the Fed Govt wasn’t asked to ban “forms” of marriage they didn’t like. The Govt created a type of marriage for homosexuals. derpleton January 24, 2014 OH hey check this out…. The LGBT community commented on this over a year ago expressing their dissapproval. http://uk.reuters.COM/article/2013/01/03/oukoe-uk-usa-sperm-idUKBRE90201M20130103 ArcanVmXII January 23, 2014 Probably because he doesn’t want a kid. Markrod420 January 23, 2014 Thats not a bad solution. Trouble is if he wins he is stuck with a kid he doesnt want. And that wont be good for anyone, especially the kid. Also you never know. These two lesbians could be terrible greedy people and might be willing to give him custody, then he is really screwed. Lansik Mata II January 23, 2014 At worst, the donor should only be responsible for a third (one man and a lesbian couple) of the child’s upkeep. AlexiaJones January 24, 2014 That would be the right thing to do, and then let the two of them pay child support to him. gaytard January 24, 2014 In a perfect world….. William Lund January 24, 2014 The first thing that should of crossed your mind was. Does he really want to be a father. He signed a contract. A contract use to be as good as gold. Now they aren’t worth signing anymore. That’s why I own everything I have and never owe anyone anything. If more Americans thought that way we might be a normal society again. Kim January 23, 2014 this is outragous. This man helped these ladies and now they go after him. It also perpetuates the idea that people can have children without any worries about how they can afford to raise them. Someone else will take over the finincial burden. I hope this man appeals and wins. WesleyJKeller January 23, 2014 Entitlement state at its best. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 What are you talking about? If anything this fiasco is the fault of a right-wing judge trying to impose right-wing ideas on others. It has nothing to do with what you prejudicially call “entitlement”. None of the parties in this case or claims in this case have anything to do with “entitlement.” ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 Left-wingers endorse the exact same absolute responsibility on men, even in cases where the man was raped and his rapist conceives. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 I am unaware of that being some kind of official policy of any group other than right wingers. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 The majority of both the Right and the Left support both the “strict liability of sperm” and oppose male reproductive rights, even in cases where the man is raped or has his sperm stolen from used condoms, etc. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 ManWithPlan – interesting to hear. If you have some sources on that I would like to read about it. I’m always looking for new information. 00gabooga January 23, 2014 So what the judge is saying is that parenting is all a matter of properly executed paperwork, rather than a matter of responsibility. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Pretty much, and also what the judge is doing is using that as a mask for homophobia and a ridiculous concern for the mechanics of how the insemination was carried out instead of the reality that the mechanics are irrelevant. Dawn Turner January 23, 2014 I see one obvious way to avoid this. Men should NOT donate sperm, even through “proper” channels. Then they won’t have to worry about this sort of about-face. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 And that is exactly the problem. This case, and others like it, are making a very effective barrier between any couple who wants kids but is infertile, and any hope they might ever be able to raise a family. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 I agree. Since women have agreed to be wards of the state in return for the government shaking down men for money, this is what has to happen. workforlivn January 23, 2014 Why would someone donate sperm in the first place. That’s a stupid move. All downside and no upside. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Probably for the same reasons any guy in history has done it: Because people pay for it, and because it may be the only way for couples otherwise unable to become parents to reach that fairly universal goal.. These are desperate financial times for a lot of people, and desperate times in general for people who want kids but cannot have them without assistance. Don’t be so quick to judge. workforlivn January 23, 2014 Not judging. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Also desperate people don’t need help having more kids; they need help having fewer kids. Like I said, there is no upside to being a donor and plenty of downside. As elizabeth says above, ‘there ya go’. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 It’s not a non sequitur. You asked why someone would donate and I told you. People donate sperm for the reasons I stated. Where’s the confusion there? And since when did being a libertarian equate to you deciding for others how they should or should not be allowed to build their families? Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 Not judging? You said, “That’s a stupid move.” You judged. That kind of comment would actually be a textbook definition of a judgment statement. People also donate blood, bone marrow and organs. Some people just try and do decent things to help out others in need. Given the other options of types of donations whacking off into a jar instead of a tissue or whatever doesn’t seem like that bad a deal to me. My opinion his orgasm was an upside. Statistically speaking 80% of women have reported they can’t say that about penetrative sex with men. Terry G. Taylor January 23, 2014 Case in point… it takes a Man and a Woman to make a kid … it’s not an Adam and Steve thing and was never meant to be. Just because a “couple” want kids doesn’t mean they should get to. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Well, I guess it was only a matter of time till one of the bigots in this discussion brought up religion as the basis of their bigotry. Good job of making your faith look like a faith of hate and intolerance. Well done. Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 Hey, Christian here and not sharing in the views of Terry G. Taylor nor can I shove my head so far up my arse that I can join the Chinese circus. I also don’t go around speaking for my God. That’s also actually against my religion. Wow, they really did cram an awful lot of bigots into this one discussion didn’t they? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Thanks for being a positive representative for your faith, Donna. elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 There ya go you fool. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Did you have some kind of point you were trying to make? kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Next time this guy should be a little more discreet with his seed. If the child was never formally adopted by the non-birth-mother, and if she was conceived in a manner that would not have allowed for normal sperm donor protection laws to apply, then guess what, he’s the legal daddy. Now pay for your kid. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 For a site supposedly dedicated to libertarian thinking you folks are sure quick to side with government control and away from people being free to create families on their own terms. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 So you’re arguing that the taxpayers should be burdened even more so that they can pay for something 2 parents should be paying for? That’s hardly libertarian. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility. If you willingly make a baby, and that baby is not adopted by someone else, guess what, it is still your baby. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 No, I am arguing that the women should not be allowed to arbitrarily throw their hands up in the air and give up on supporting their kid, and that if they genuinely are unable to do so that there are already mechanisms in place to handle that without resorting to setting a legal precedent that will discourage men from donating sperm EVER for fear that something like this will happen to them – and probably discourage women from donating eggs, too. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 But if the baby was never adopted by the other mother then that person has no legal responsibility to support someone else’s child. I can buy the argument that this guy is a victim in the sense that he was screwed over by these women. He helped make the baby but they never bothered going through the legal process to sever his responsibilities towards the child. Now look at it from the other way… how many deadbeat dads would *love* to be able to draw up a piece of paper, claim it is a binding contract, and get out of paying for their children? If this guy was let off the hook, you’d be seeing a lot more of that. I don’t really have an opinion on sperm/egg donation, but I do know that the only thing that shields donors from child support are laws that can be changed, reinterpreted, struck down, or be arbitrarily enforced in a manner that would result in a donor possibly being on the hook for support. Knowing this, I’d never donate any of my sperm, ever. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 It’s not about being a deadbeat dad. If a woman (or women, in this case, or a single woman, or the woman in a hetero couple, or whatever) wants a donor but wants him gone and out of the kid’s life why should that be anyone else’s business? To argue otherwise is to argue against termination of parental rights – something that happens routinely in cases of adoption or when social services removes a kid from a dangerous home. Either we permit parents to have their rights terminated or we don’t. If we do, voluntary consent should be on the table and should not be the government’s business. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 This didn’t become “government business” until one parent asked for the taxpayer to pay for her child. Had she not done that, I would agree with you that this is a private matter. Expect more states to do this because by and large, they are broke. They don’t want to pay more money for welfare when they don’t have to so if they can find a legal “out” in that regard, they will. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Kanenas – the women did not ask for it. The court system ordered it. elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 Yes, their “Mechanisms” that are in place is us the taxpayer. He will win this. We will lose it Amaphi January 23, 2014 The argument in favor of his paying support is akin stating “It’s cool to sell your car, but should the buyer ever require repairs to that car, it’s you who is on the hook for them, as your bill of sale might as well be Cottonelle, upon which the legal system may wipe our asses” Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Elizabeth, putting our bickering aside I will try to act with a bit more dignity toward you because there’s an important point to make. Government has a function and, in the broadest sense, it is to accomplish for the citizenry as a whole what the citizens cannot accomplish individually. You can read a lot about it in the classics like Locke’s Second Treatise on Government and other similar works. Briefly, though: An individual alone has total freedom and total responsibility for himself. When two individuals band together they do so for mutual gain – but give up some of the perfect freedom of utter individuality. For example, two cavemen band together so each can guard the other during sleep. They gain safety in exchange for giving up the freedom to wander off while the other is resting. The larger the group that bands together the more efficient it can become through things like division of labor. Once a society becomes large it becomes impractical for an individual’s contribution to be “bringing home a basket of berries” or something equivalent. In societies that use currency as a medium of exchange the natural consequence is taxation – a mechanism for participants to contribute to the whole, allowing pooled resources to be used for the common good. As a society we generally claim to place high importance on the well-being of children. If we have to prioritize how our tax dollars are spent, I can think of very few goals more important than that one. There are a lot of ways we can help kids, but being stingy about using tax money to feed them does not seem to me to helpful – particularly when we allocate tax reserves to so many less useful things. I urge you, and anyone who wants to have a deeper grasp of how government works, how it should work, and how it should not (factually, not just idelogical rhetoric from either end of the political spectrum) to read something like Locke to get a better grasp of the subject. It even addresses core principles about government responsibility toward freedom and property. cheeflo January 24, 2014 Government has specific functions, and they are limited. It isn’t there to meet everyone’s needs. It is there to protect our rights, defend the property, and mediate contracts. Our tax dollars, intended to pay for the appropriate function of government, instead are used to pay for any and all manner of “rights” and entitlements cooked up out of thin air, based on ever-expanding “needs” — whether it’s sex-change operations for convicts or cell phones for the “poor.” Where do you draw the line? The War on Poverty, which has cost trillions over fifty years, has done exactly nothing to reduce poverty. elizabeth cohen January 23, 2014 Libertarianism in its true sense is Liberalism. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Sadly you’re right… too many libertarians are high and mighty libertarian until they have to personally pay for costs of a situation into which they got themselves, at which point they demand at gunpoint that the taxpayer bail them out. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 So you’re not a libertarian, Elizabeth? What are you doing on a libertarian web site, then? Nothing better to do with your day than get in the way of people who actually appreciate freedom? cheeflo January 24, 2014 If you’re talking about classical liberalism, then I agree. However, the meaning of words is easily distorted. There is nothing liberal about modern, capital “L” Liberalism. elizabeth cohen January 26, 2014 I agree in part, however a lot of “Libertarian” beliefs are very much the same as “Liberalism” either way I am conservative, I am a traditional woman with many traditional beliefs. I am (don’t tell anybody) 60 years old and I have lived through some of the best times and worst times in America. Looking back, however these are the worst times I have ever seen America in. The lack of values, morals and ethics, is truly sad and maddening. I am not ashamed to say this, but it all started when mom left the house and went to work. I don’t mean ALL women, but many, many women went to work and left latch key kids, of which I am one, in their wake. It would be nice to see things become traditional again, I honestly believe That America is dying and it is such a slow death. Leonard Rusciani Jr January 23, 2014 This is his baby. This cries out about the failed ethics of sperm (or egg) donation. It is man’s conceit that we can separate procreation from a natural act between a loving/monogamous/lifelong committed man and woman. All other models are corrupt and prone to abuse, selfishness and the devaluation of children and humanity. Adoption is a totally selfless act for those men and women who can not concieve but wish to foster a child as a mother and father. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 So apparently you hate single mothers because they don’t have a loving, monogamous, lifelong committed relationship. Also, you hate gay people. Got it. You just forfeited your libertarian card for being a bigot and for wanting to take away other people’s right to live their lives as they choose. cheeflo January 24, 2014 That’s not what he said. Leonard Rusciani Jr January 27, 2014 Drew , where did I say that there should be any prohibitive law? I think you are mistaking libertine for Libertarian. I am just talking morally and ethically. It is morally and ethically wrong to intentionally concieve a child out of wedlock. Just because it mah be legal does not mean ot is moral or ethical. So are y I u saying that a Libertarian can not have a moral or ethical code? CplMajor January 23, 2014 “No need for ‘licensed’ physician”, they said. “It’s not that big of a deal”, they said. I get the feeling the reason this is happening and the guy’s attorney is saying there was no personal relationship (instead of ‘no intercourse’) is because the guy gave her a baby the old-fashioned way. Robert Wyatt Bogart January 23, 2014 Gays should not be allowed to have children Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Robert – “Libertarian” is not supposed to equal “bigot.” You’re making the community look bad when you hold attitudes like that. Amaphi January 23, 2014 Now with regard to this one, I can agree with you. Take the hate speech somewhere else. Robert Wyatt Bogart January 23, 2014 I care about the children, not about the mentally ill gays that want them. I will not accept the demented liberal agenda! Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Well, Robert, I guess you really want people to see libertarians as hateful, spiteful, prejudiced, bigoted people. You’re certainly displaying all those characteristics. People like you are why the Libertarian movement is held in such low esteem. Naes January 23, 2014 I guess now since they have proven they can’t collectively take care of a child, that they are unfit parents and file for custody. Then they would have to pay him child support. cheeflo January 24, 2014 There’s an idea. Jack Camp January 23, 2014 that’s what you get for helping those sicko’s Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Who is a sicko? Gay people? When did “libertarian” start meaning “bigot?” You’d think that a libertarian would be about freedom, not judgment. cheeflo January 24, 2014 It’s a lack of judgment that has led to these unhappy circumstances. Freedom is not license. There are responsibilities. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 Men need to stop helping women. It just gets us into trouble. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Wow I hope you said that in jest. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 I didn’t say hurt them, i said stop helping them. It’s no violation of anyone’s rights to not volunteer service. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Still sounds a bit selfish. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 I just think it’s time we treated women like they are strong and independent. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 What does treating women as strong and independent have to do with this case? Guest January 24, 2014 You can’t be that stupid…. The lesbos, as women, are takers. They want free money, so the man gets socked with it. There is no such thing as an independent woman… cheeflo January 24, 2014 Well, to begin with, it’s a contradiction to demand independence if one cannot live independently. Once he did his bit, these women wanted independence from him, but they are fine with dependence on the state as their breadwinner. There are consequences from every decision. Trying to insulate people from those consequences only leads to more and continued bad decision making. cheeflo January 24, 2014 A rational self-interest must govern personal decisions. There is no obligation to accommodate all claims. Bill Person January 23, 2014 Anyone interested in what is happening with the baby?? Anyone interested in the stability of the couple prior to asking for this?? Emotional impulsive behavior possibly??? Seeking to fulfill everyone’s wishes in an ideal world ,yet not realizing the world is not perfect. The reality is that the result, in this case a very small unprotected human being is left cold and dry!! LET’S HOPE HE/SHE IS ADOPTED BY A COUPLE THAT WILL LOVE HIM!! Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 You make a good point that we should also be asking how the kid is doing. As to the parenting thing, that is a sticky wicket. As a foster parent I had to jump through more hoops than folks realize to gain the privilege (not right) to take care of a child in need for even a day or two here and there. On the other hand, nobody regulates going out and procreating like mad regardless of whether such a thing is wise to do. I am glad to have barriers-to-entry in the foster parenting system as a safeguard for the kids (who are all, by definition, at-risk children or they would not be in the system). On the other hand, I am not sure it would be the right thing for me to do to advocate imposing my will about that on others who have the same instinct to create a family as anyone else. cheeflo January 24, 2014 Sounds like you had a plan. Sounds like they didn’t. Jeremy Meginn January 23, 2014 In a world where we are rapidly approaching the time when energy supplies will drastically impact our ability to live or die, we are still manufacturing people. In a world where, in this country alone, we need to reduce our population by 1/3rd, and the planet as a whole will need to reduce by 2/3rds….were still rutting. Let’s figure out this food and air deal. derpleton January 23, 2014 I dont think we have anything to worry about, once the Baby Boomers…errr… die off… for the lack of a better term that will eliminate a huge chunk of our population, and since less people are having kids and those who do tend to have fewer of them I think we will be okay. Now places like India and China, they need to chill out. WowJustWow January 23, 2014 The comments to this story are…well, insane. Contract between two private parties…END OF STORY! kanenas101 January 23, 2014 If this is a contract between 2 private parties then why is one party hitting up the taxpayer for support? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Kanenas – it is not the women “hitting up the taxpayer.” It is the court that ordered that outcome. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 The mother applied for welfare benefits for the child. Taxpayers pay for the cost of welfare. So yes, she is hitting up the taxpayer. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Let’s assume for the moment that you are right and that those women are somehow awful people. What’s YOUR solution? The adults in the situation cannot pay for the kid’s well-being. Are you advocating leaving the kid to die of starvation or some such? You already benefit from the tax dollars of your peers and yet you are someone who (supposedly) can pay his own way. So why are you so against that kid being kept fed and clothed – after all the kid is actually in need. You are not. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Who is suggesting these women are awful? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Most of the people in this thread, apparently. Haven’t you been reading it? kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Then go direct your claim at those people. Like most leftists you confuse disagreement with hate. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 I love how taking the sensible point of view is getting me branded as “a leftist” as if A> that were true and B> it would be a horrible thing in some way. cheeflo January 24, 2014 Well, their decisions and their actions have been pretty awful. I’m sure they aren’t particularly happy about any of this, and did not intend for it to play out this way, but they are the authors of this problem and it’s not only reasonable, but proper, to be critical of them. derpleton January 23, 2014 WHOA WHOA WHOA GUY, YOU TAKE YOUR PRAGMATIC APPROACH AND GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. YOU SOUND LIKE A LIBERTARIAN! nancy bell January 23, 2014 William Marotta should file for custody. Ron January 23, 2014 Couldn’t care less about same-sex “couples.” They never wanted anything other than special “rights”, made up out of thin air. And this is evidenced by their pursuit of this man for child support. Pathetic. They want all of their “fun” with no responsibility. Imagine that. If homosexual behavior were mature, it would produce benefits for society. Instead, this childish behavior produces nothing but confusion and instability. Where the problem lies with this ruling, is with legitimate, married couples who use donated sperm, or donated eggs, or donated embryos from IVF procedures. Another problem is with parents who adopt. If a person cannot “contract away” their parental rights and responsibilities, then all of these biological parents are on the hook. Plus, that pendulum swings both ways. Everyone who accepted sperm, egg or embryo donation, or adopted a child, now has to look over their shoulder until the child turns 18 years old, wondering if the birth mother or birth father is going to come around demanding a DNA test and/or visitation rights. Thanks, homosexual activists. You were confused to begin with. Now your confusion is spreading through our legal system. What a great legacy you’re leaving for our children. derpleton January 23, 2014 You are just a bigot to be quite honest, thanks for making it so obvious. You’re values are archaic and ignorant, people like you are going the way of the Dinosaur for a reason. The lesbians were not the ones that demanded the man pay the child support it was the STATE. The lesbian couple actually supported him in his case. http://cjonline.COM/news/2012-12-29/topeka-mothers-support-sperm-donor-child-support-battle-kansas-dcf cheeflo January 24, 2014 Their support for him apparently didn’t extend to leaving him out of it altogether, as was their intention if they were solvent. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the women or the state who are coming after this guy for support. If not for the failure of the women to follow through on their commitment, and their claim on the public coffers, the state wouldn’t be coming after him. It’s not unusual for the government to try to recoup welfare payments in this manner. He’s on the hook either way. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Wow. There is not enough time in the day to adequately dissect your post and address the many, many ways in which it is insulting, bigoted, and logically incorrect. Just wow, Ron. Ron January 23, 2014 Oh, come on. If you had a valid argument, wouldn’t you have already made it? Grow up, bro. Ad-hominem and name-calling doesn’t win you any credibility. cheeflo January 24, 2014 Calling attention to the contradictions and legal complications that result from accommodating identity group demands/expectations/desires is not bigotry. You can’t just discard that factor as meaningless in these circumstances. It is germane. derpleton January 23, 2014 So I just want to put this here, if you paste the url at the bottom of this comment into your web browser (I had to capitalize http and .com) you will find that it IS NOT the lesbian couple demanding he pay child support it is the state. They were forced to disclose his name under threat of the STATE withholding health benefits, then THE STATE went after this guy for child support. I just wanted to clarify that before some bigot posts another longwinded diatribe about LGBT people, that really is completely irrelevant. Topeka Capital Journal article on this. http://cjonline.COM/news/2012-12-29/topeka-mothers-support-sperm-donor-child-support-battle-kansas-dcf ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 I am supportive of LGBT rights, and I agree with you on the facts. But we can criticize them for bringing a child into the world that they can’t afford. We can also criticize the larger LGBT community for sitting on their hands and saying nothing. Why don’t they hold fundraisers for the custodial parents? derpleton January 23, 2014 I can agree you can criticize the couple, but then would all of these people here criticize a straight couple that got a divorce and couldn’t afford to take care of the kid? To think that the LGBT community, or any community, has to address every issue one of their individual members has is unrealistic. They have no responsibility for this situation, the state of Kansas and the two individuals who got a divorce do. ManWithPlan January 23, 2014 If a straight couple divorced, the non-custodial parent (usually the father) would be assigned child support payments by the court and thrown in jail if he couldn’t deliver. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 And if neither parent had the resources to support the child – what then? Leave the kid to die? cheeflo January 24, 2014 No, but they should have thought of that, or at least sought counsel, before they acted. This situation is the unintended and unanticipated consequence of a thoughtless and simplistic decision. These two women wanted a child and the sperm donor thought he was just doing someone a favor — none of the parties understood the legal entanglements or the reality of bringing a child into the world. Hope it works out for the child — don’t really care about the “adults.” derpleton January 23, 2014 What if that straight couple were infertile and had in vitro fertilization? There is no difference. cheeflo January 24, 2014 The state seems to think there’s a difference, since much of its decision rests on the judgment that their agreement was invalid because they didn’t go through the “proper” channels. derpleton January 25, 2014 I suppose I should not have added the In-Vitro fertilization aspect as that would imply medical professionals involvement. So, please allow me to reframe the question, What if it were a straight couple that had artificially been artificially inseminated in this manner? Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 Does the straight community hold a fundraiser for the child of every straight parent on child support. I’d bet there are a lot more of them (A LOT) then LGBT parents. Let’s be honest this is a crappy situation where parents can’t afford to take care of their kid so they turn to the state. This happens multiple times every day. Are the parents white? Why doesn’t the white community step in? Are they Irish? What about the Irish community? Are they hearing people? What about the hearing community? What do they do (did they do) for a living? Maybe people in those job fields should have a fundraiser. The biggest issue is that we are trying to make this an LGBT issue. What if the article was written without the word lesbians in it. How would people be reacting? Does the sexual orientation of the couple even matter? A couple couldn’t conceive so they got a donor and the state is now forcing the donor to pay child support. This guy is getting screwed by the state plain and simple. We shouldn’t let ourselves be polarized by sexual orientation. Instead we should deal with the real issue of how this guy, and men in general, are mistreated by all states when it comes to custody (and divorce). Frugalone January 23, 2014 This is so sad. Poor judgment shown on the part of all three involved. I have a theory that there is more to this story than the two women not being able to support the child. David Wilson January 23, 2014 Yes I know…since they aren’t married they saw that one of them could get welfare since they don’t take into consideration both incomes and they had no problem giving the guy up. That is what happened. They are trash. Guest January 24, 2014 The lesbos had a child just so they could use it as a social status prop. When they found out they had to change diapers, they didn’t want the child anymore….. email@example.com January 23, 2014 It’s bad and good in this decision. Of course men have been screwed for years by the leftist anti male family courts which is bad. This will now discourage men for providing sperm to any childless couples especially the lesbians which is good and what a confusing situation for a child. But with today’s selfish thinking it’s all about me and my desires not the child’s. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 I was kind of on board with you till you made the anti-gay comment “especially the lesbians.” Can you address the actual situation and leave the bigotry out? firstname.lastname@example.org January 23, 2014 NO. 1963 COMMUNIST GOALS FOR AMERICA Goal 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Please tell me you are not some rabid, tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nut-job quoting some ridiculous imaginary manifesto. email@example.com January 23, 2014 You’re proof liberalism is a mental disorder. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 So, I guess you ARE a tinfoil hat wacko. Thanks for clearing that up. firstname.lastname@example.org January 23, 2014 You’re welcomed obama-noid. Guest January 23, 2014 Simple solution. Take the child from them and give it to someone who will love it enough to support it. Lowlifes. Tachyon2 January 23, 2014 I agree! Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 As the only person I am aware of who has come forward in this discussion and mentioned he or she is a foster parent, I can tell you that there is a real chance that will be the result. If so I hope the kid is placed in a safe and decent home till the adults get their acts together. Charles Kafka January 23, 2014 that is an example the legal system going completely bat shit insane. not anti gay anything. Guest January 24, 2014 Not anti-gay, but certainly anti-male.. If two gay men needed an egg donor, I think there is zero chance in hell that the egg donor would have to pay anything… KellyCraig January 23, 2014 He should add to the litany of issues in the suit against the lesbians breech of contract and resulting ongoing injuries. Proud2bfromtheUSA January 23, 2014 I thought that they wanted to eliminate the need for a mother and a father. as long as they have two parents then he can not be the parent. Now they are saying that a father is important and a means to provide for the child then he needs to have joint custody. This is why I wont urinate on a lesbian even if she is on fire much less inseminate on her. Of course if you have seen most lesbians you will know why it would be hard to get to that point anyway. LOL Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 For the zillionth time the women did not chase the father down. The court did that. Your bigotry is showing pretty strongly there. David Wilson January 23, 2014 When the women gave out the man’s name they knew he would be ordered to pay….they gave him up to get their welfare. They have zero morals. Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 Dude just go home and whack off to some gay porn. It is so easy to pick out the boys in the closet. What we know about you so far is you are gay and you are into yellow stream games. Wow you are a sick piece of pig fat aren’t you. Can’t wait to hear you whine and squeal like a little piggy about how you aren’t gay. Yeah, that will be convincing. Proud2bfromtheUSA January 24, 2014 Thank you for rising to the challenge. I am in fact bisexual.I do not like golden showers I find them disgusting and I live life as a straight man. I choose to ignore my same sex desires. Something I am sure you have not the moral fortitude for or the desire for as you are more than likely been given over to a reprobate mind. I am not sure how you got the idea that I enjoy golden showers because as I said I would not urinate on one of your kind even if they are on fire. Since I enjoy pork in its many forms and I believe you are what you eat I am in fact part pig so very astute observation. I am also part broccoli but that is a tangent for another day. I do find it odd how people who are liberal or homosexual tend to automatically go for a gay accusation whenever they wish to insult someone, as though they think that being gay would be the most disgusting thing they could think of. As a bisexual I have to tell you I have been on the recieving end of your kind of intolerance all my life. For those who don’t know the B in LGBT is really only lip service as every one in the Gay world will tell you that bisexuals are really just closeted gays, never mind that Kinsey, whom you guys quote all the time as the GOD of the psycho-sexual set, basically hypothesized that sexuality exist on a continuum from straight to gay and people can fall anywhere along that continuum. It is rare to have a Kinsey 3 but guess what you are in the presence of one here in this very article. I can not begin to tell you how my being a Kinsey 3 has been belittled and downplayed and tutt tutted ever since I begin to realize my orientation. Now for the part that usually disgust most people gay and straight alike, I am married with three kids. I choose to live a straight life because whither I was born this way or my environment made me this way I can not help what my desires are but I can choose how I live my life. I admit I have more of a choice than others being a Kinsey 3 but had I been a Kinsey 6 I still would have found a way to live a straight or a celibate life as I can not participate in anal sex as the thought of playing in that kind of environment disgusts me. Oink Oink Hope that was enough squealing for you. derpleton January 23, 2014 Its always obvious when someone from Fox News, or a “Libertarian Repubican” links to an article on here, all the neocons come crawling out of the wood work to continue battling their culture wars… Greg Oltmanns January 23, 2014 I think the human race has kick the male population in the balls to many times. Its time to shut the faucet off. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 It’s kind of demeaning to refer to men as faucets even in a case like this, Greg. cheeflo January 24, 2014 But wasn’t that essentially his role in the contract? Yes, it is demeaning, but that’s all these two women wanted from him. Jeremiah Ellison January 23, 2014 Why would someone be required to enlist the services of a medical doctor, in order to perform a basic function of nature, in the course of executing such a contract? Why do we need a doctor’s approval or services to legally certify the arrangement? I don’t think it’s such a great idea treating doctor’s opinions as though they have some natural legal weight, as it seems to be growing so common. I really don’t want to be ruled by doctors. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 The reason is simple. Without a doctor’s supervision, any man can write up a piece of paper that claims he was just a sperm donor, get it signed and notarized, and just on the strength of that, be absolved of the responsibility of paying child support. For sires who enjoy “loving and leaving” women, this is a wet dream come true. And of course, the taxpayer is on the hook for the bill. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Not true. The contract has to have two parties to it. The woman in question would have to agree to the terms of the contract as well. A guy cannot just absolve himself of parental responsibility on his own. kanenas101 January 23, 2014 Clearly a judge disagrees with you, and cites well-established law in the process. Furthermore, no contract can override civil law. You can’t just make something legal that isn’t legal just by putting in a contract. No court would enforce that. You may not like the law, but if the law says that these people should have done this under the supervision of a physician and they didn’t, well, tough. Perhaps when it comes to creating a new human life, especially in a non-traditional manner such as the ones these people used, a little planning and forethought is in order, especially when it comes to who is expected to pay for what, and how the law applies to that situation. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Kanenas – I must have been unclear. I was saying that a guy cannot opt out of parental responsibility by writing a one-sided contract. I was not speaking to the contract in this case, just the hypothetical one shared by an earlier poster in that if such a contract were to have a chance to be viable it would have to be a two-party contract. I am not saying it would be valid even then – just that a document written and notarized just by the man would not even technically be a contract. Donna Griffin January 23, 2014 My thought is money. Getting a doctor involved makes the process quite expensive. That would make it much less likely that we’d be in the situation where we are now, with a mom who can’t afford to take care of her child and is looking for child support. Of course the state can’t admit that because you can’t make this only available to the wealthy…although that is how it is right now or couples who truly are infertile. Companies are getting around that with self-funding insurance and carving out infertility from the insurance. As expensive as insemination is infertility treatment is worse and the cost for delivering a multiple birth and the hospital stay, short term disability extended leave and such is obscenely expensive. This is a case about $$$$. Michael Lawrence January 23, 2014 He should file for full custody since the lesbos can not afford to take care of the child they wanted. Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Wow. I was moderately on board till you tossed a little hate speech into your comment. Michael Lawrence January 23, 2014 Oh darn PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 …and if he is a flaming gay guy and his husband does not approve! Michael Lawrence January 24, 2014 He’s paying for the kid whether he has custody or not. Since he was supposed to be only a sperm donor and had an agreement with the lesbian couple to this effect, he should not be paying child support. Since the lesbian couple reneged on their end of the bargain and have now sued him for child support because they can not afford a child, this man should take custody of the child. He’s paying for the child anyway. He should take custody and sue the lesbians for child support. They wanted the child and made a deal with this man, they should have stuck to their deal. Don January 23, 2014 Does Drew have a job or just has to respond to everyone’s post? Plus I don’t understand why someone who completely disagrees with the views of this site would bother commenting (or reading). S-disturber perhaps? Drew Riggio January 23, 2014 Don: actually, I do have a job. I am a professional writer and among my contracts I write political commentary. In a sense this IS my job. And I am very aligned with the ideals of Libertarian thinking – but I am wise enough to know that at some point political rhetoric has to end and that child’s needs must be addressed. Rosi January 23, 2014 I’m sorry, but this article is very inaccurate and demonizes a lesbian couple that fully intended to abide by their end of the contract. It wasn’t until the applied for financial assistance from the GOVERNMENT (here is where she made her mistake) that the problems for the couple and Mr. Marotta ensued. When she tried to apply for federal aid, the Kansas Department for Children and Families actually DEMANDED that she reveal the biological father before she could get receive any money. Since Kansas doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, the woman’s partner was not recognized as the child’s other, legal parent. It was then that the GOVERNMENT pursued Mr. Marotta for child support. All THREE of these poor people were harassed, humiliated, and bullied by the state. Shame on you, Austin Petersen for slanting the facts towards your own personal agenda and making two women look like money-grubbing monsters. Shame on anyone who commented without doing further research. Libertarian news should be accurate, factual (this means ALL the facts), and honest. Leave the spin for FOX and CNN. Jeep Wrangler January 23, 2014 Hi Rosie, I find your comment very interesting. If what you’re saying is true then I’m very disappointed with Libertarian News for doing this. Rosi January 24, 2014 All I did was google “William Marotta” and several other source articles came up. So many people buy into what just one person reports on and takes it as the entire truth. Now I certainly wouldn’t diss Libertarian news in its entirety. Most libertarian journalists that I’ve followed up on have reported the news accurately. ConnieJ January 23, 2014 The FACT is that three people conspired to make a child, then decided that they were no longer responsible, and that you and I should be responsible for the expenses. So when do I get my visitation privileges for this child I’m being forced to support? The same goes for EVERY child that we are forced to support. It’s time for ‘parents’ to grow up before having babies for the taxpayer to support. Rosi January 24, 2014 But they didn’t decide they weren’t responsible. The women broke up, Angela Bauer (nice of Mr. Pertersen to not even go though the trouble of researching the women’s own NAMES but I digress), who was keeping the child had to got too sick to work and applied for all those aid programs (I’m assuming including something like WIC since the child is involved) the KDCF basically coerced her into revealing the man (“if you don’t tell us you don’t get money for groceries”), and it was the JUDGE who threw out the parental-rights waiver. Not to mention Kansas wouldn’t even allow Jennifer Schreiner (the other mom) to legally adopt the child. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 So, you believe all donors should be responsible. No couple should ever be able to seek out a sperm donor so they can have a family unless they also want to give that donor full parental rights? ..and no Donor should ever donate without being willing to join some random family? David Wilson January 23, 2014 Then I would never have given out the man’s name an figured something else out….they knew they were setting him up. Are you telling me that 2 women can’t support 1 child? This shit is soo typical. David Wilson January 23, 2014 They KNEW he was going to be made to pay so they could get their welfare. Sickening to do this to someone who helped them. What do you have to say to that Rosi?! Hmmm? Rosi January 24, 2014 Um, no the women did not know the state was going after this guy’s wallet (if you want to argue that, I’d ask that you provide some reliable sources because I certainly can back up what I’m saying with facts). This is a power trip of a neoconservative state that is seeking revenge on three individuals that decided to come up with an agreement outside of its grasp. One CNN reporter even had the gall to say that he and Ms. Bauer were possibly secret lovers and that he should have to pay up. Kansas wont even let Ms. Schreiner adopt the child. What power can you possibly have when the state REFUSES to grant you let alone recognize your right to be a parent to a child?!? Frank Swart January 23, 2014 Where do these judges get their law training? The legal parents are responsible for this child’s support, adopted, natural, from gay parents or straight parents. They would not hold the doctor or clinic responsible, just as stated, so why hold a known donor responsible. This is a stretch to extract money from a sperm donor. Does the state try to get payment from parents that DCS removes from homes? Greg Oltmanns January 23, 2014 Drew are you kidding me or have you just been hiding your head in the sand? In the last 30 or more years the human race has injected the art of evolution with a major kick to the crotch. At the rate we’re going the practice of human conception will eliminate all human emotions and turn it into a Sears catalog of pick and choose your next kid that will come complete with a nanny to raise your kid for you. Personal responsibility has left the room ! Abinadi January 23, 2014 Wake up world, this is what can happen when the gay community has to use OTHER methods to accomplish what they can’t as married couples. Eric January 23, 2014 Has nothing to do with the gay couple. It has to do with femalecentric courts that have decided to use men as cash cows, and absolve women of any responsibility. Guest January 24, 2014 It is funny that we live in a time when female suffrage is considered normal. It was not considered normal in the past. It clearly will not be considered normal at some future point. But we live in a time when this absurdity is considered normal… A ‘female judge’ is almost a contradiction in terms… David Wilson January 23, 2014 Do you know how to read….you are ridiculous. Eric January 23, 2014 Absolutely ridiculous. When will the feminists realize that have created far more sexism and inequality than they have fixed. Your grandmothers and great grandmothers where the real feminists, they changed things. The millennial feminist is just a sexist man eater with entitlement. Guest January 24, 2014 ‘Feminism’ is a mental disorder and a hate-cult. Nothing more.. Eric January 24, 2014 I am finding that a lot of women are agreeing with that sentiment. Women are starting anti-feminist movements. Nicholas Sweeten January 23, 2014 When a man and a woman marry, and he or she inherets the others children as step children… does this marriage not constitute a contract between individuals which absolves one parent (not even on the contract) of financial obligations? It does in some states, at least. Eric January 23, 2014 No, I don’t think so. My steps sons’ father is still financially responsible. His name is on the birth certificate. He would have to give up his parental rights. Not that he has ever paid a penny, but that is besides the point. Don La Rue January 23, 2014 The US Constitution gives one the unlimited RIGHT to contract,…he needs to timely invoke that right…But, most likely doesn’t have the means to take it that far which amounts to waiver of said right….Too bad, great case. CDX January 23, 2014 So, what? The Lesbos don’t want the kid any more? Got tired of their toy and are going to move on to another hobby ? Makes me SICK! rainshadow January 23, 2014 My money is on they will still have the child and not want the donor to have any parental rights. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 They should not want the donor to have any rights, they also should not want anything else from the donor. The government is punishing the wrong person in this matter. The couple, be they strait, gay, or whatever….should be the ones the government seeks redress from. The donor, if we are going to have them, is just that. rainshadow January 24, 2014 Oh, I completely agree. I’m not saying what the right thing to happen should be, just what I think will be. Furbabys Tails January 23, 2014 and let the legal fun begin! With all new laws for lgbt will come new issues and this is just a example of what is to be expected! Men should be warned!! “DO NOT DONATE ANY SPERM” Ever~ No Matter what! It seems even if their was a law it could be broken to force the man to pay! Brett D. January 23, 2014 The couple who wanted the child and then cannot take care of it… something tells me the state wouldn’t have gone this far had the couple not brought suit and/or complained to the state. If this is the case, then this couple makes me sick. We get a few more of stories like this one, it wouldn’t shock me if men in mass don’t donate sperm. That, in the long run, will hurt couples (gay and straight) who want children. rainshadow January 23, 2014 I’m betting the state had no idea, let alone taking steps to force the man to pay child support. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 What does this have to do with a donor? If his responsible is that of a donor, the responsible or irresponsible acts of the recipients are not his responsibilities. If you give blood, are you morally responsible for the recipients behavior forever after? There are two different issues in this case. One, can the guy by a simple donor, Two, the behaviors and responsibilities of the ‘couple’. The two issues are totally separate….if answer to the first one is yes he is just a donor. RFalardeau January 24, 2014 “something tells me the state wouldn’t have gone this far had the couple not brought suit and/or complained to the state” You obviously don’t understand how the “state” works. I would bet you a hundred dollars that the welfare office has a standard procedure in place that goes after the father of a child (not immune through the state sponsored donor programs). I would imagine, actually, that the couple were horrified at the idea of the state going after this man, preferring that he always remain anonymous to the child. But now we’re both just guessing aren’t we. James W. Peterson January 23, 2014 Sam sex ‘marriages’ fail the test of marriage and therefore ought not be treated as being equal to heterosexual marriages. What is the ‘marriage’ test? Same sex persons cannot marry their life together and thereby produce another living person from their own bodies. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 I don’t have a dog in this fight, but from a logic stand point I have issues with that stance. Lets say you James W. Peterson suffered an injury and could not ‘father’ a child. Within the world view your argument, you would fail at marriage. You should not seek a donor or adopt. In fact, you should not marry. You should be hermit or a monk as that would be your best course of action as someone that can only fail at the marriage ‘Test’. disqus_MHw7a2dXsU January 24, 2014 Marriage has been traditionally about family for literally thousands of years. The idea of marriage as simply a partnership between two people is very new. Two people being together isn’t a marriage. Having the government simply change the fiat at the whim of a politician is as meaningful as changing the law so that the color now referred to as blue be referred to as red and vice versa. yura1968 January 23, 2014 Nobody never asked government to take care of other people’s children (except for a few suckers, like this lesbian couple). That is not government’s job by the Constitution of most States. This is what happens when government politicians want to get involved into every little thing people do in order to get elected and then, when things go south, they start looking for victims to pay government back what they were never supposed to spend on or collect any money for to begin with (which usually comes over-budget because politicians have no clue how to run anything). It is a government-created problem that should have never existed to begin with. Furthermore, government ALREADY stole the money from tax payers to pay for their “services”. Therefore, they have no reason to claim any loses since they took the money from their State’s citizens ahead of time and if they really knew how much it costs to run children’s services and how many children statistically will require their “services” every year, then it should all be already accounted for, right?. After all, that is what a greedy-evil business would have done with their profits in that case in order to stay financially solvent and functioning while politicians are supposed to be much better than that…right? but no, we have baboons running the circus so what else could we expect? Inquizative January 23, 2014 Maybe they are punishing this man for doing this. I personally do not believe that lesbian couples should be allowed legally to do this anyway. Maybe this is to discourage men in the future who try to be giving and politically correct in helping 2 lesbian women conceive a child. They should adopt. I think it’s immoral to intentionally deny a child a biological father and it should be illegal. So I don’t feel sorry for this “jerk off.” It’s selfish to deny a child a biological father just because they want a baby. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 So you be more ok with it if it had been say an war vet that had an injury and simply could not father a child and his wife seeking a donor? You cant separate your issues with the couple receiving the donation and issue of should someone be able to donate without the government sticking its nose in? It is intellectually lazy not being able to separate the two issues. bsum1 January 23, 2014 Liberate all turkey basters from the LGBT and case closed Double_Up January 24, 2014 I wonder why heterosexual couples never win when they do this against the sperm donor? I’m guessing the judge thinks women can’t raise a child. Why can’t the two women pay for the child? If they are broken up, then they are the ones to pay child support. Are they that stupid, incompetent, and lame? So what if one is injured, welfare and injury claims take care of that, the other can work and pay child support. Or in Kansas it it illegal for women to pay child support? Since Sebelius worked there, maybe. gaytard January 24, 2014 Heteros are smart enough to pay for lawyers. strawberry January 24, 2014 He SHOULD have to pay child support, he’s the father. You morally can’t just give your sperm like it’s nothing, it’s disrespectful to the father/son bond. Doesn’t the child have a right to it’s father? And yes, I agree with PARAX, he should get joint or full custody, (whether he likes it or not) don’t deprive children of their heritage for the selfishness of screwed up adults. Guest January 24, 2014 Then, he should get custody, and the lesbos should LOSE custody. You are a stupid, immoral retard… PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 …and parents that have fertility issues, can expect would be donors to hell no in your world where they cant be a simple donor. Your stance is 1, not thought out or 2, outrageousness. I guess the child of a family with fertility issues is better served never being born. cheeflo January 24, 2014 He’s the father even if the mother decides to have an abortion, but he’d have no say about that. Is his sperm worth something, or isn’t it? No child can be conceived without it. You can’t have it both ways. And if a child has a right to a father (or a mother, for that matter), then how is it legitimate for two women (men) to contract with a donor (surrogate) to give up parental rights, claim custody, and then raise the child in a household without a father (mother) by design? Doesn’t that essentially dismantle the gay adoption argument? In all of these circumstances, the welfare of the child is incidental when it should be primary. dinkster January 24, 2014 Wasn’t this covered in Legally Blonde? Get this judge a Netflix account! Jason Rideout January 24, 2014 Not that I am unsympathetic, but the bottom line is that this guy is a fool. He didn’t inform himself beforehand, and now he is experiencing the predictable result. The law holds to a doctrine of “strict liability” in matters of paternity. If the two lesbians had tied the man down and raped him, he would STILL be liable to pay child support if one of the perpetrators became pregnant. It’s sick and wrong, but that’s the law. PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 But it is the law…. So, in your scenario the guy would then be a victim of the government as well……much the guy real case. I am glad your unsympathetic to the guy, are you also unsympathetic to all atrocities that have been under the color of law? To follow your logic one would assume so. Matt Lobb January 24, 2014 Remember this is the same state that a few years ago tried to pass a law that said all children would be tested for paternity at birth even for the children of married children that didn’t want to pay for it. teapartydoc January 24, 2014 If you want to see stuff like this go away start thinking about a world without medical licensing. Eric January 24, 2014 I don’t follow you… RFalardeau January 24, 2014 Imagine you are building an addition onto your house, and you are not the greatest handyman. You talk to your buddy about your project, ask him to come over and look over the work you’ve done. On inspection, he finds that you have made some mistakes in the framing that would possibly cause a wall to collapse under a heavy snow. He also sees some wiring issues that are a fire hazard. You listen and fix all the problems he identifies. You continue on and later get a condemned property notice because you didn’t let the pinhead in your local building inspectors officer “look” at the work as it was happening. They might even come after your handyman legally for offering advise without a special certificate issued by the state. Once the “state/government” chooses to tell us who is and is not “qualified”, you have the legal foundation for picking and choosing which contracts to oblige. Imagine the same scenario where you get the inspector to come and inspect the work as it’s happening. The inspector give all the same problems a pass. Your house falls down or catches fire and who do you go after, the state? The inspector is just an employee “doing their job”. He is essentially immune from the same prosecution your buddy would be completely liable for. I know it’s a poor example, and doesn’t seem to have a clear connection to this case, but when the “state” blesses an organization with their approval, they will disregard such things as contracts that are entered into outside their “blessed” licensing process. RFalardeau January 24, 2014 In this particular case, the state didn’t get their “cut”, so they don’t recognize the contract that was entered into. Somehow, if the couple and donor had gone through the state sanctioned process, which I would imagine requires paying fees and filing paperwork, which have yet more fees, then the donor would have magically been immune from any obligations the state now says he is liable for. Eric January 24, 2014 Alright, I am picking up what you are putting down. Jo Beach January 24, 2014 In KY anyone who receives foods stamps and/or medical must take DNA testing, unless the father name is on birth cert. But if they or one becomes able to pay back the state they have too. not just the man. They wanted a back street deal without having a lawyer. they got it. Man & momma. she must b using benefits from the state and got caught. not an LGBT matter. If they couldn’t afford a child they should have wanted. The sperm man too PepperPatriot January 24, 2014 The status of the mom(s) behavior later, seeking hand outs or whatever, should not be the donors concerned. If he was indeed just a donor, then that is the start and the end of his involvement and responsibility….or at lest should be. I am for raining in the welfare state, but his is indeed a more complex story. All I see this doing in the future is 1, making people less willing to donate or 2, makes sure a lawyer and doctor get a cut. WoooHoo, we really need to make sure more lawyers get paid simply to protect us from the government! IBePOed January 24, 2014 Lesbians Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer are the wendie davis’s of Kansas. Deserttrek January 24, 2014 the “c” word fits all of the ladies involved Largebill January 24, 2014 This is a natural result of our collective demand for government benefits. Every government benefit eventually leads to an erosion of personal freedom. Worst thing is, as far as I can tell there is no reversing the path we are heading down. Government is incapable of sensing the danger it poses to society and only grows until it implodes and dissolves. And it is never pretty when the wheels come off. Diggsc January 24, 2014 Wow, talk about unfair. First he has to bone some dyke, then when said dyke and dyke partner decide that the kid is too much trouble to bother, he gets boned by the dykes. Hope and Change, baby! Hope. And. Change. RFalardeau January 24, 2014 Talk about legal magic. The man would be held responsible for what happens to his sperm up to the moment it fertilizes and egg, then, through a feat of sheer f-ing legal magic, he is absolved on any say as to what happens as a result of that sperm…. Nine months later, through yet a second act of legal magic, his responsibility is again bestowed on him… What a crock. And of course, that same legal system thinks that only a “state sponsored” contract relieving him of those responsibilities is valid. derpleton January 24, 2014 So I googled, Gay Rights and William marota found an article that linked me to a Reuters article in January of 2013 that stated this. The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor. “It certainly might have a negative effect on other men’s willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone,” Minter said. “I also think it undermines everyone’s respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily.” http://uk.reuters.COM/article/2013/01/03/oukoe-uk-usa-sperm-idUKBRE90201M20130103 Oh gee looks like the LGBT community has commented on this already, and they don’t approve. So to all the dumb bigots who want to use this as an excuse to get up on their soap boxes enjoy! Ron Wallenfang January 24, 2014 The baby was not a party to the contract and therefore isn’t bound by it. Absent some statutory provision to the contrary, which would create its own problems, why shouldn’t he have a claim for support against his biological father? uncle dip January 24, 2014 From the Dept of Slippery Slopes: “News flash Jan. 2016— Sperm Banks Suffer Second Straight Year of Decining Voluntary Donations. Fertility Docs concerned; Feminists outraged.” Dusty Thompson January 24, 2014 See what happens when you let a freaking WOMAN have control over all of our lives? The 2nd Civil war is coming soon indeed… Mark Power January 24, 2014 Burn this feminist welfare state to the ground. rascallyrabbit January 24, 2014 I would support a law that says any egg or sperm donor is financial liable, if it should become necessary for the well being of the child, until that child is 18. Elizabeth Ann Sweet January 24, 2014 There were mistakes made by both sides in the donor process, I’m sure. I do not know all the details. Did a lawyer help them draw up their contract? Did the donor relinquish his rights in court, or in a legal document witnessed by a court? Did the partner legally adopt the child after birth? (A necessary protection if anything should happen to the birth mother.) No matter how it went down, it is obvious this was not a sex act for pleasure, nor were they acquainted before the donation, and (How did the state get his name?) This is the states way of finding someone else to defray their (the states) costs and putting someone else on the hook for helping this child. Next, the state will threaten to take the child, to try to stop litigation. (If they haven’t already done that.) sweetbarefoot timmaguire January 24, 2014 I like the first part of your post. Isn’t it obvious that you can’t just contract away your parental responsibilities? They were nuts if they didn’t consult a lawyer and stupid if they cut corners. I doubt this sends quite the message the post claims. The real message is, next time do it right. teapartydoc January 25, 2014 If every baby daddy in America could get out of paying child support by getting his single women to sign a contract, they would. And the women would be OK with it, because they get bennies out the wazzoo with a kid. If this informal contract is allowed to stand, get ready for your taxes to go up. David Michael February 2, 2014 If he didn’t volunteer to give the lesbians a child, he wouldn’t be in this spot. If this happened to two “married” men and they decided they couldn’t support “their” child anymore, would the surrogate mother be held responsible? If you can answer yes, and be serious, you’re an idiot. jorskippy February 2, 2014 Why was the state out $6000….. could the lezzies not support their child??? xmiro February 2, 2014 Well I am gay, me and my partner were talking about this just now and both thought it’s pretty incredulous the court thinks it’s ok to stick the man paying for this, and I hope he fights it. I have to say I’m not surprised the usual gay organizations aren’t speaking out against the deadbeat moms Toni Holliday February 2, 2014 This is a huge can of worms that has just been opened up. If you go by the logic that no one can “contractually” sign away their parental obligations, there are going to be some serious future repercussions in all forms of adoption / artificial insemination. I for one, see this as a giant step back! If gays want to be treated the same in their “marriages” as hetero couples, then regardless if one cannot pay child support, there should be no alternate avenue to go after the donor simply because he can! Where will it stop? Rosi February 2, 2014 Thank you, Mr. Petersen for filling out the missing details and expressing that this case had THREE victims of state. Alec James February 2, 2014 I’ve seen ads for this kind of thing on craigslist before, and asked myself “Who the hell would fall for that?” So this guy is a dumb ass, however, I can almost guarantee that these women planned on pulling this little caper from the day they confirmed the pregnancy. They made a mockery of the court and made this judge look like a fool. Why he can’t see that is beyond me. npnfeef February 3, 2014 Here’s the problems, which have come together to make a perfect storm: 1) Kansas voters have amended the constitution to deny ANY legal recognition to same-sex relationships. No marriage, but also no civil unions or domestic partnerships. Under Kansas law, any children conceived or born during the course of a marriage are presumed to be those of the husband. Obviously when it comes to children of a gay partnership, one of the partners is not going to be the biological parent, but if same-sex relationships were given equal standing with heterosexual marriage, the same presumption could be applied. But under current Kansas law, this is not possible, in no small part because: 2) Kansas also does not allow same-sex second parent adoption. That means that the nonbiological-parent partner is not able to obtain legal rights…or responsibilities…to the child they have been raising as theirs. This also means that the state will not go after them for child support, even if they request for the state to do so. 3) Thirdly, it appears that neither of the parties (the sperm donor, nor the lesbian couple) did adequate due diligence regarding Kansas law on sperm donation and determining parentage. Or perhaps they were aware of the law but at the time of the donation believed that it would never be an issue, or that their contract would be enough to protect Mr. Marotta. So why isn’t the LGBT community making a bigger outcry about this apparent inequality? Well, let’s look at it. You’ve got a state that has gone out of its way to deny gay and lesbian relationships legal status…not just the word “marriage”, but ANY legal recognition at all. Gay or lesbian partners are not allowed to legally adopt the children they think of as “theirs” and are helping the biological or original adoptive parent to raise. The state of Kansas has roundly (with 70% of the vote, apparently) declared same-sex relationships to be “unequal” to heterosexual relationships. So on what basis does the LGBT community demand equality?