"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> >> And don't confuse biology with law in this case. The
> >> egg donor or the woman who caried the baby to term? It's a really sticky
> >> point of law and when these cases land in court it is a nightmare to
> >> resolve. And usually the children are left severly damaged in the
> >> process.
> >
> > Surrogacy is reasonably well established in the legal system. The mother
> > is the source of the egg, the father the sperm (donor), the surrogate is
> > the one who carried the baby.
>
> In the case of a surrogacy contract only. Of which you would not have in
> the case of a marriage where one of the spouses is also the surrogate. So
> you have a real conflict between spousal rights and surrogacy claims in
> absence of a contract that would get really messy. Seems to be either
> individual would be in a bind. One one hand they would have all rights as a
> spouse regards the children and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy
> contract because the child they carried to term was not genetically their
> own as they doubled as a surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the ***
> factor here and imagine trying to apply the same laws equally here between a
> straight couple and a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection
> isues here.
>
> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>
> Paul

Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
of a marriage they don't approve of.