I just saw a news story that reminded me of a card I saw last week about some people in Australia having issues due to changing sperm donation laws.
The TL;DR here is that a man went through Craigslist to make some extra money donating his sperm to a couple that wanted to have a baby. The woman who carried that child was inseminated, but they did not follow the usual sperm bank donation procedures. The state decided that he should be paying child support (because the recognized mother is on welfare, and the state doesn't want to pay more) and they recognize him as the father.
Still, the women have said that they do not want child support from him. Yet the state is pursuing it.
Why is this an issue?
First off, let me say that they all should have followed proper procedure for artificial insemination. There would be a record of it then, and there would be less room for the state to try to pursue this case.
Other than that, though, the big issue is this: why is the state trying so hard to get him on this? The women don't want it. But the state wants to make an example of his case for a few reasons: 1) to encourage people to follow proper procedure
2) because they don't want to recognize the couple that is raising the child as a couple, as they are same-sex
And I find that to be ri-dic-u-lous. Come on, Kansas, get your act together.
Clearly, the women do not want to pursue recognizing him as a father (and even worked with him to have him sign a contract saying he would not request fathers' rights and would not be responsible for the child). So why is it up to the state, simply because they do not want to pay welfare?