Oklahoma judge revokes parental rights of woman because she's a lesbian

[Ferguson97]

https://19thnews.org/2023/02/oklahoma-judge-parental-rights-lgbtq-same-sex-marriage

It sounds like she was abusive to her ex-wife, so she probably shouldn't have custody of their child, but that's not the reasoning the judge used.

McGuire reinstated Williams on the birth certificate in June, and Williams’ name remains. But the issue of Williams’ parental rights was still undecided until February 13, when McGuire ruled that Oklahoma’s parentage act predated marriage equality and therefore didn’t apply to Williams and Wilson.

“[The act] does not take into account same-sex marriage, and there is no presumption that the wife of the mother is automatically presumed the parent of a child born during the marriage,” McGuire wrote.

The legal reasoning that the judge used is blatantly unconstitutional under Pavan v. Smith.

A state rule that requires a child’s birth certificate to list the non-biological father if he is married to the biological mother but that does not allow both same-sex spouses to be listed as parents is unconstitutional discrimination that violates Obergefell v. Hodges. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the rule functionally deprives married same-sex couples the same rights to be listed on their children’s birth certificates as married opposite-sex couples have. Not being listed on a child’s birth certificate can significantly affect a parent’s ability to participate in transactions that require showing proof of parentage. Therefore, this rule unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them access to the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits that married opposite-sex couples have.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

To rule otherwise, the judge would have had to declare the woman to be the "father" of the child due to having been married to the mother. In this case the biological father is known and is now in a relationship with the birth mother.

[Ferguson97]

To rule otherwise, the judge would have had to declare the woman to be the "father" of the child due to having been married to the mother. In this case the biological father is known and is now in a relationship with the birth mother.

The gender of Williams is irrelevant. If Williams were a man and the situation were otherwise identical, the judge would not have revoked his parenthood.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

To rule otherwise, the judge would have had to declare the woman to be the "father" of the child due to having been married to the mother. In this case the biological father is known and is now in a relationship with the birth mother.

The gender of Williams is irrelevant. If Williams were a man and the situation were otherwise identical, the judge would not have revoked his parenthood.

So your position is that, if a man is presumed to be the biological father of his wife's child, a woman must also be presumed to be the biological father of her wife's child?

[Ferguson97]

To rule otherwise, the judge would have had to declare the woman to be the "father" of the child due to having been married to the mother. In this case the biological father is known and is now in a relationship with the birth mother.

The gender of Williams is irrelevant. If Williams were a man and the situation were otherwise identical, the judge would not have revoked his parenthood.

So your position is that, if a man is presumed to be the biological father of his wife's child, a woman must also be presumed to be the biological father of her wife's child?

Yes. Birth certificates don't always use the biological parents - in the case of a sperm donor, the woman's husband is listed instead of the donor. There's no reason why this should not also be the case for same-sex couples.