IT'S 2013 AND I DON'T AGREE ALREADY!

This is absolutely ridiculous! So, in a nutshell, a Kansas man donated his sperm to help father a child for a lesbian couple. Well, that couple has since parted ways and now he man is being ordered by the state to pay child support for the daughter he helped conceive. WHAT? If he was just a sperm donor, how is this guy liable for the child? Weren't there contracts signed before the in-vitro fertilization? Come on! 

Back in 2009, 43-year-old mechanic, William Marotta from Topeka, responded to a Craigslist ad posted by an Angela Bauer and her former partner Jennifer Schreiner, who were seeking a man to be sperm donor so they could conceive a child. The three made an arrangement to have Marotta's sperm artificially inseminated into Schreiner. Under the terms of the agreement, Marotta relinquished his parental rights, including all financial responsibility. There you go! It's right there in black and white. So, why is Bill Marotta responsible to pay child support again? I guess we're about to find out. 

 In 2010, Bauer and Schreiner, who continue to co-parent eight adopted children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years (Who are they? The Brangelina of the Lesbian community?), parted ways, which raised the issue of who would pay child support for their little girl. Then, earlier in 2012, Bauer, who had been supporting Schreiner and the children, became unable to provide health benefits for the three-year-old, due to a 'significant illness' that prevented her to work, and the couple applied for state services, which prompted the state to request the name of the child's father. Because Schreiner was the child's sole parent under Kansas law, which by the way, does not recognize same-sex marriage, the state was unable to collect child support from Bauer. So, Kansas Department of Child and Families filed a child support claim against Marotta. That is so unfair! What if this guy never wanted to father a child for this particular reason? A contract is a contract! Once you make him financially responsible, there is a breach in the contract. I don't agree with this at all!

Wait till you hear how the court gets him! This is so messed up! Okay, so as if this case wasn't complicated enough, they're saying that Marotta's contract with the women, which stated he wasn't liable for financial responsibility for the child, was null and void because the insemination wasn't performed by a licensed physician. Oh come on! Supposedly, even though the state is going after Marotta on behalf of Bauer and Schreiner, the two women have said that they support Marotta in his efforts to fight the claim and question whether the state's decision has political motives. 

It seems that the women aren't going after Marotta for the child support. It sounds more like the state is going after him for it. All they wanted was help from the state, but since the state didn't recognize same sex marriage, they decided to go after the father of the child and make up some excuse to void out the contract. This is a pretty dirty situation on the state's part and I to see Marotta come out on top for this one. He hopes to have the case dismissed and will go in front of a judge on January 8.