I think people may be assuming Annie X-Mas disapproves of gay people having children when she might’ve just been asking how people feel about the subject. She started a thread in Cafe Society about the news, too.
Whoa, people, I have made many, many references to my sister the lesbian, her partner and their family. I know that they are better parents than our parents ever were. I am in no way against gay parenting.
I was mostly upset at the shit being flung about Harris and Bertka on varous Internet sites, and wanted to get some feedback on the idea.
How many posters have you ever encountered here who supported a ban on gays reproducing? And I’m not talking about a few trolls who have showed up and been banned.
I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw. I have a sneaking suspicion that you tend to hide YOUR view on the Constitution with posts like yours above, and I want to have that suspicion alleviated.
I knew you were not likely to be upset at the idea, you being… well… you. 
But this is not to say that the process doesn’t have its difficulties, difficulties that also arise when an opposite-sex couple that is mutually infertile explores other options.
For example: what rights, if any, does the surrogate mother have to the child?
In the case of opposite sex couples, there is a possibility of the biological parents being the intended parents, with the surrogate mother serving only as a host. (As Phoebe Buffay’s character on Friends put it when she was a surrogate mother for her brother and brother’s wife: “No, no, no! It’s totally their bun. I’m just the oven.”) And of course, in that circumstance, we might say that the surrogate mother has very little right to change her mind and try to keep the baby.
But does she, even then, have no right at all?
And what of the more common situation for same-sex couples, and not unheard of for opposite sex couples: the surrogate mother is also a biological mother, but has agreed ahead of time to relinquish parental rights after birth? May she change her mind?
None of these are reasons to forbid the practice, but all suggest that the law is not yet quite caught up to the science and the society here.
So if I were a judge today, sitting in federal district court, what would I do?
I would strike down a law that purported to forbid homosexuals from reproducing as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, and cite Skinner as the precedent I was relying upon.
Wait…gay people SPAWN?? I thought they reproduced by parthenogenesis…
(for the humor impaired, as some posting to the thread seem to be, this is a ‘joke’)
-XT
Why do you always, always, always refer to you sister as your sisterthelesbian? Even in contexts where it is clear (such as when discussing her life with her partner) that she is a lesbian, so the addendum is not needed? You have done it twice already just in this thread.
It’s sort of makes you look like she’s just a token for you, just so you know. It’s a little gross.
No. As I already said: “I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw.” Ignore prior caselaw and tell me YOUR view.
I’m not sure that the fact that same sex couples are far less likely to accidentally have children qualifies as self selection bias; I’d consider it a genuine advantage.
Gay males can only spawn if they find a like-minded lesbian couple to procreate with. The gay males can then impregnate the females and the resulting two babies be divided equally amongst the couples (resulting in one each and not a double-Solomonic approach).
If a single baby were to be produced from the coupling, the males shall get the child on Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays while the females get the offspring on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Fertility tests shall be performed on the non-producing couple to determine if the fault lay with the male or female. Whomever is to blame, the other couple shall receive the child on Sundays.
In the event of fraternal twins, both twins shall remain with the females as it was the mother who produced two eggs. In the event of identical twins, both twins shall go to the male as it was his powerful sperm that ripped the egg in two.
In the rare case of triplets, one child shall go to each couple with the third to be determined by a best out of five coinflip.
In order to ensure accuracy from the start, both couples must register with and be licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services and each of their procreation sessions must be witnessed by an independent governmental official.
I believe these strict procedures will lead to appropriate spawning scenarios to be implemented in the fairest manner possible.
I believe that people who keep their stuffed animals inside the rear window of their cars should be discouraged from spawning.
My view of what the Constitution requires? A law that purported to forbid homosexuals from reproducing is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not only should they be allowed to spawn, but we should construct queer ladders to allow them to get past the dams on the route upstream.
And since there is no text to that effect, you see why textualist/originalist arguments may be pursuasive, but are not all encompassing with regards to Constitutional theory and interpretation.
Welcome to the dark side. I hear there are cookies somewhere.
Care to expound? Surely you don’t think the founders of the 14th Amendment intended it to cover homosexuals having the right to become parents. Is it procedural due process? If the law included a hearing, attorney, etc.? Fine then?
What about the will of the people? Isn’t procreative ability, morality, and tradition enough of a rational basis for the legislation to survive?
Apparently I’m not allowed to mention things like caselaw, so I’m not sure how I can expound.
My conclusion is required by case law. If this question were being presented tabula rasa, in 1869, let’s say, then my answer would potentially be different, and would turn on just how the law actually prevented the conception of babies by homosexuals.
These questions really aren’t that difficult, Bricker. Although I do understand why you want to fight the hypothetical, and why you seem to have so much trouble answering the questions.
And your answer would be?
I know you see where I’m going. You saw it with the first question I asked, and have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid actually admitting it.
There is a large gap, to my mind, between denying states the rights to involuntarily sterilize people and denying them the right to limit or ban procreation by gay people where sterilization, per se, is not involved.
Of course they should be allowed to spawn; otherwise they’ll replenish their ranks by recruiting small boys, like they always do. Lesser evil, y’know? 