Q Toon: A-Gonna Trouble the Water

New Mormon Church (that of Latter Day Saints, if you prefer) policies denying the rite of baptism to the children of same-sex parents were leaked to Facebook last week by LDS ex-communicant blogger John Dehlin.

Under the new church policy, people in "same-gender" marriage have been added to the list of those acts that are considered apostasy and would be subject to disciplinary action. ...
As for children, a separate section of the handbook says that natural or adopted kids of same-sex parents, whether married or just living together, may not receive a naming blessing.
The policy also bars children from being baptized, confirmed, ordained to the church's all-male priesthood or recommended for missionary service without the permission of the faith's highest leaders — the governing First Presidency.

Baptism under the new policy is withheld until the child is an adult, "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage, ... and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

Way to support families, LDS hierarchy!

The LDS later clarified the policy, explaining that children of gay and lesbian parents can still receive "blessings." So there's no need for an awkward silence after the kid sneezes.
✒
In other Utahn news, their Governor, Gary Herbert, stands apart from his fellow Republican governors (plus Jeanne Shaheen D-NH) in his refusal to bar Syrian refugees from his state. I rarely have a chance to say nice things about any Republican any more; yet I don't think there is anything I could say or draw better than the Salt Lake Tribune's excellent cartoonist Pat Bagley has.

Do check out his cartoon; it's a refreshing change from the torrent of Mayflower and No-Room-At-The-Inn clichés so many cartoonists (and meme raths outgrabing the internet) have produced this week.

Q toon: Surrender, Dorothy

This week's cartoon concerns a case in Kansas involving a lesbian couple who advertised on Craigslist for a sperm donor so that they could conceive a child in 2009. William Marotta responded to the ad posted by Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer.

The [sperm] donation was given under a written agreement that Marotta would not have parental rights and so not be considered the father of the child or liable for child support. However, when Schreiner and Bauer ran into money difficulties in 2012 an application for child support was made to the Department of Children and Families (DFC)...
In the state of Kansas when a child support claim is filed, the DFC is legally bound to find the biological father and petition him to pay. Kansas state is therefore seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and made financially responsible for her welfare, irrespective of the previous contract made between Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer.

Part of the problem legally is that Schreiner and Bauer's daughter was conceived at their home, rather than with a medical doctor acting as middle man.

The Topeka couple initially tried to obtain a specimen from a cryobank in Chicago, Bauer said, but ran into trouble with their family practitioner. The doctor refused to sign a release stating the couple capable of raising a child, she said. ... 

The women decided to inseminate Schreiner at their home, Bauer said, partly because of their previous awkward encounter with the doctor, but primarily because they wanted the act to be more personal.

The couple had no idea home insemination would have any bearings on parenting rights of the child, Bauer said.

Apparently, there is legal precedent that had a medical practitioner inseminated Ms. Schreiner via artificial insemination methods, Mr. Marotta would not be financially responsible for the resulting child -- at least in the state of California (even if they had had sexual relations before!).

In Steven S. v. Deborah D. (2005), a California appellate court held that the sperm provider was a donor with no parental status because the child was conceived by artificial insemination performed by a physician.  The donor argued that he and the mother had attempted to conceive by sexual intercourse prior to this insemination and that the mother acknowledged him and the father and allowed him to celebrate the child’s birth.  Nonetheless, the court concluded that the statute was clear and provision of the semen to a physician extinguished his potential rights as a father.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to conceive!