Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support, Court Says

In an insane example of government gone wrong, a court has ruled that a sperm donor must pay child support for the for the girl born out of his kindness.

CNN, along with numerous other sources, is reporting that William Marotta has been ordered by a Kansas judge to pay child support after supplying a sperm donation to a lesbian couple seeking to have a child.  Marotta signed away parental rights, and the women were happy to be able to have a child to call their own.

That is, until the couple split up.  Then all the loopholes start popping up.  You see, the couples did not use a physician to perform the insemination.   (How's that work?  Turkey baster?)  That step, which according to Kansas law is not only in place for the purposes of testing for STDs and genetic disorders, but also as evidence that the donor was, in fact, a donor, and not the mother's lover.

Apparently after they split, one of the women somehow became disabled or otherwise unable to work, and applied for aid from the state.  As part of the state's research, they learned that Marotta was the biological father of the child and in turn demand he cough up support money.

Despite the fact the Marotta had no idea that the women were not going to use the services of a physician for the insemination, all documents related to the insemination are considered null and void.  This includes, according to the court, the paper Marotta signed waiving any parental rights and stating he would assume no financial liability for the child.

Marotta told the media that all he did was donate genetic material, nothing more.  He has only met the child, now 4, once.  That meeting was merely in passing as they happened to be in the same place at the same time.

Letter vs. Intent of the Law

I'm pretty sure this judge got it wrong.  Admittedly, I don't know the Kansas laws being used.  But I do know that part of the job of a judge is to interpret the law, especially as to how it may apply to unprecedented cases.  There's no part of me that can believe the law regarding physician involvement in insemination was ever supposed to be interpreted like this.

I think the intent of the participants was clear...the lesbian couple wanted a sperm donor so that they could have a child all their own.  William Marotta only wanted to be a nice guy and help a couple have a baby because they were unable to do so on their own.

I also think the intent of the law, as I've heard it discussed in the media, was clear.  Physician involvement was required for the purposes of genetic testing, sexually transmitted disease testing, and to provide evidence that the donor was in fact a donor and not a lover.

Between the documentation signed by all parties and the testimony they provided, I'm more than positive that such evidence was provided.  So why were the courts so strict on their interpretation of the law?

Is This Whole Thing About Gay Rights?

That's right, boys and girls, boys and boys, girls and girls.  There's a lot of people saying that this whole thing is happening to prove a point

about gay rights in Kansas.  You see, Kansas doesn't allow gay marriage and also doesn't have many laws that are tolerant of homosexual rights.  Since this story involves a gay couple that went out on their own and decided to have a child in a way that circumvented standard protocol (read: being straight), then maybe the powers that be in Kansas want to make a point that such things will not be allowed.

Yep, this whole crazy insane ruling might boil down to the fact that this judge, and who knows who else in Kansas, wanted to be clear that anything beneficial to the gay community will not be allowed in their state.  To hell with personal privacy.  To hell with the validity of contracts signed by people of sound mind and body. If a gay person may benefit, throw it all in the trash.

I'm not as quick as many to write this off as some anti-gay statement.  I acknowledge it's a possibility, but it seems a stretch to make it as an absolute determination at this time.

I don't hesitate, though, to say that the courts got it wrong.  All this guy wanted to do was help.  All these women wanted was a child to say was their own.  To pervert their intentions into some financial liability for Mr. Marotta is sickening.  

Marotta is quoted as saying, "I'm not her parent."  No, you're not, sir.  And it's horrible of the court to suggest so.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.  Also, please check out my other recent posts:

An Open Letter to Brian Bosma, CC: The Indiana Republican Establishment

Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!

Get ready, gay Hoosiers! It's already illegal in Indiana for you to get married. But that's just not enough for the religious right. They want a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because it's so much harder to change. See, if they just run with the current law on the books, then gay marriage rights can be provided by any upcoming legislature. Amending the state constitution, though, means it would take years and years to ever allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in Indiana.

That's because changing the constitution in Indiana isn't easy (nor should it be.) To change the constitution in Indiana, the amendment must pass through two separately elected legislatures and then also pass a vote by the citizens. The amendment currently being discussed would have to be approved by the current legislature, then re-approved by the legislature in 2013 or 2014, then approved by voters in 2014.

So what happens if this amendment gets passed (you're kidding yourself if you don't think this is on the path to get passed.) Immediately, nothing will change for the gay community; they can't marry now and they won't be able to marry then. The change is in the number of hurdles they'll have to jump to finally get the same rights as everyone else. You see, today gay marriage could be allowed at any time. If this amendment gets through, though, gays wouldn't be able to gain marriage rights in Indiana until 2018...at the EARLIEST. And to get them by 2018, the legislative stars would have to align in a very specific way.

Why are they even trying to pass this amendment? To protect marriage, so they say. What supporters of the amendment fail to discuss, though, is that homosexual marriage is not the problem with marriage today. Divorce rates are through the roof, number of people married multiple times is through the roof, custody battles are increasing in both frequency and ferocity. The problem with marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or with gay marriage. Today's problems with marriage have only to do with marriage between one man and one woman. The fight to "save marriage" should be focused there.

(Because so little data is currently available it's not worth showing statistics, but early information from the states that allow gay marriage indicate incredibly low divorce rates among gays.)

The government should stay out of the business of who can or cannot get married. The government should view marriage the same as they do a contract; government should recognize the contract and help to settle disputes over it. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they should be allowed to marry.

Government should stay out of the religious side of marriage, too, though. When gay marriage is legalized (an inevitability, even if far off) then no requirement to conduct gay marriages should be made of churches. If a church does not wish to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, then there should be no legal requirement for them to do so.