Marriages where people don’t do things that can result in children (those which aren’t consumated) can be annuled.

Wait, you’re saying that if a couple uses birth control, the marriage should be annulled??

lol

should we make marriage of post menopausal women illegal too?

No, wait. Those are my thoughts. Never mind.

Unfortunately, I am unable to determine what exactly I am being persuaded of, and thus, I return to my original thoughts. Whatever those may have been.

There’s one every day.
They won’t read the comments.
They’re too far away.

They can’t tell sarcasm
From a punch in the face
But with their fine wisdom
They show us our place

M is for moron
A fine one indeed
Is this Ashley Bryan
Who seems not to read

It depends on your state. Some states do not allow a third party to raise a paternity claim to a married couple’s child. (that is, they don’t allow Alleged Boyfriend to claim that he is the actual father of Husband’s child with Wife.)

I think your mistaken about birth certificates. The idea is that the child’s biological father is named on them. Not that the mother gets a free pick of which man she wants to be the father - it’s a legal document - deliberately falsely naming someone is perjury.

If someone’s named on the birth certificate it’s presumed that he’s the father (because both him and the mother give testimony to that effect). But if this is shown to be false he no longer his parental responsibility ends.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/scotland/family_parent/family_family_scotland/birth_certificates_scotland.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1649600,00.html

This is the flip side of men being identified against their will as fathers for child support, that’s also an intrusion. Though not one you get people fuming about.

You hope. I think it could get spooky if a stalker realized that he could harass a woman with a child by this method, perfectly legally. Ugh.

but I have to say that I am shocked and appalled if the law permits a man with no legal relationship to a child to demand DNA tests.

Well, it’s been that way in many jurisdictions for quite a while. It’s how paternity is established. In my state, a biological father who is not acknowledged by the child’s mother as the biological father can open a case through the state AG’s office. To the best of my knowledge this is the most common legal situation. A very few states have an unrebuttable presumption of paternity on the husband, assuming the mother is married to someone other than the child’s biological father.

And, yes, this has nothing to do with SSM.

Well, plainly not. Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage (neither does nik’s feeling that children ought to be forced to stay in contact with abusive parents, of course), but I have to say that I am shocked and appalled if the law permits a man with no legal relationship to a child to demand DNA tests.

Good grief. So, basically, any man at all has a right to demand genetic tests of any child, against the will of the child’s parents, if he claims that he’s the child’s father? How… revolting, and how intrusive. No, I hadn’t realized that: I assumed that it would be necessary to get the consent of at least one of the child’s parents before it would be legal to take genetic samples from the child. I was aware that Kimberly Quinn had consented.

I think that’s the point of demanding genetic tests — establishing that he is, in fact, the child’s parent. Whether the appropriate legal safeguards can be established to prevent unrelated men from demanding blood tests of unrelated children is a different matter.

And no, names on birth certificates don’t create an unrebuttable presumption of paternity in all jurisdictions. Cites on request.

In law, the child’s parents are the parents named on the birth certificate.

But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.

Then you need to study the law a little more: the principle that a child’s legal parents need not be a child’s bioparents is quite clearly defended in law. I don’t have time or energy to re-educate you.

Re: Blunkett/Quinn.

In law the child’s parents are the bioparents (aside from adoption/donation). Sometimes the bioparents are falsely identified, so someone wrongly gets put down as the father. But the principle is quite clear.

If you want to spell out your problem with a strict biological approach to parenthood I love to here them. But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.

So do I. So basically, you’re completely retracting everything you said earlier? Okay.

As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that adoptive parents will only be able to love the children they take in if the childen are utterly cut off from their bioparents.

No, you’re making that up completely - presumably because your earlier opinion, which you say you have now abandoned, that money trumps love, embarrasses you. Good. You should be embarrassed.

How about a world in which people who are the child’s parents should have a legal relation to the child?

They do. A child’s parents have a legal relationship to the child. A child’s bioparents don’t, necessarily. That’s the world we both live in. Legal relationship trumps genetic relationship.

Q&A: Blunkett paternity battle

Good grief. So, basically, any man at all has a right to demand genetic tests of any child, against the will of the child’s parents, if he claims that he’s the child’s father? How… revolting, and how intrusive. No, I hadn’t realized that: I assumed that it would be necessary to get the consent of at least one of the child’s parents before it would be legal to take genetic samples from the child. I was aware that Kimberly Quinn had consented.