Infertility coverage for lesbians and elderly

If several women in the same region receive sperm from an unnamed donor, it’s possible that in the future their offspring will meet and marry. Unwittingly, they may be marrying a half-brother or half-sister. Think of the possibilities of birth defects and genetically-passed diseases. Don’t mess with mother nature.

This is part of a Pogrom of MISANDRY – the Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality.

The attempt to create ‘Fatherless Chidren’ is not about absent or deadbeat dads – but the Lie that children have No Father at all, even boys who inherit the Y-Chromosome of their Fathers Male Line.
The ‘reasoning’ of the twysted systerhood is that as a baby step Men will be legally eliminated from existence (in the eyes of the law), and then the final solution to the ‘male problem’ won’t be such a big step to follow up with.

Discrimination against Children & Heterosexuality.
By attempting to create a suspect class with rights superior to all others, based solely on their choice to perceive themselves as oriented towards engaging in homosex behaviors, Prop. 8 opponents display animus to both the rights of Children and Heterosexual Males.
Phenomenon such as the ‘Donor – Sibling’ registry (www.donorsiblingregistry.com) show the problems (ranging from search for identity to potential incest…) resulting from ‘anonymous donors’ and the legal elimination of male parents from appearing as real persons on birth certificates.

Children deserve to know who their natural biological parents are, and the attack on Prop. 8 is a deliberate roadblock to thwart this normal and healthy aspiration.

This bias against equal protection for heterosexuality was demonstrated in the set of three cases foundational to the California Supreme Court’s marriage / procreation jurisprudence prior to Prop. 8, published together on August 22, 2005: (K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 / Elisa B. v. Superior Court; S125912 / Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945).

Because Prop. 8 can now be argued to have invalidated attempts to Disfavor Heterosexuality in the law, and reaffirmed the equal protection rights of heterosexual males as opposed to ‘donors’, the misandry lobby is targeting it.
Indeed, even California Justice Werdegar in her dissent touched on one aspect of such violations of equal protection when she said:
“Although the majority denies that its rule depends on sexual orientation the opinion speaks for itself; The majority has chosen to use the term lesbian no less than six times in articulating its holding. Moreover, the majority prevents future courts from applying its holding automatically to persons other than lesbians. I see no rational basis, and the majority articulates none for permitting the enforceability of an ovum donation agreement to depend on the sexual orientation of the parties. Indeed, lacking a rational basis, the rule may well violate equal protection.” K.M., v. E.G.; Werdegar Dissenting at 6.

Even more telling of the attempt to instill misandry in to the law is the bizarre ruling in favor of holding males who engage in heterosexual behaviors to a different standard than those who Intentionally ‘donate’ Sperm at what are commonly referred to as ‘sperm banks (Aka – ‘dead beat dad’ factories):
“Usually, whether there is evidence of a parent and child relationship under the UPA does not depend upon the intent of the parent. For example, a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who assures him, falsely, that she is incapable of conceiving children is the father of a resulting child, despite his lack of intent to become a father.” Id. at 4-5

Because it can be argued that Prop. 8 makes it clear that marriage is between a Man (XY) and a Woman (XX), all such ersatz attempts to create ‘fatherless’ children as a matter of law may now be open to challenge.
This includes such bizarre double standards that say amongst other things, that fraternal twin brothers can have different paternity.

Consider the case of a woman who uses a dead beat dad factory / ‘sperm bank’ to conceive one male (XY) son, and then later engages in heterosexual intercourse with the same man (the prior ‘anonymous’ donor), and conceives another male (XY) son – his fraternal twin brother.

The First Boy (who Inherited His Father’s Y Chromosome via intentional ‘donation’) is held to have No Legal Father – not an absent one or a deadbeat, but no legally existent male parent, despite the scientific evidence of his own genes – because the court says the Male who ‘donated’ had No Intent to Procreate…

His twin brother (exact same Y Chromosome), because he was conceived by heterosexual intercourse, does have a Father recognized by law (even if the Mother claimed to be infertile or conception was unintentional), and that Man can be sent to prison for failure to pay support for this Son only, based on scientific proof of parentage from the same Y Chromosome.

Prop. 8 threatens to invalidate such insanely contradictory anti-scientific misandry, which is based on a hatred of normal heterosexual intercourse and not ‘love’ for those of the same sex, and which is a central factor behind the attack on Prop. 8.