<p>“You’re kidding right?”</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Post 241 should say <em>most</em> legal experts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some definitions of these terms (e.g. UK law) provide for “illegitimate” children to become “legitimate” if their parents later marry.</p>
<p>Actually, in many places there is a process where a child can be “legitimated” simply by the father acknowledging paternity. See, for example, [New</a> Child Legitimation Law a success | Department of Human Services](<a href=“http://dhs.georgia.gov/new-child-legitimation-law-success]New”>http://dhs.georgia.gov/new-child-legitimation-law-success) </p>
<p>The citizenship provisions you cited above also refer to a child becoming “legitimated” – (these are cases where there is child born out of wedlock abroad, with a US Citizen father. The US has jus soli citizenship standards, by which all persons born in the US are citizens by birth; children born abroad to US-citizen parents have a statutory right to claim citizenship - but in the case of out-of-wedlock offspring of US-citizen fathers, they must be “legitimated” prior to their 16th birthday. See: <a href=“http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600instr.pdf[/url]”>http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600instr.pdf</a></p>
<p>It is very obvious that the only remaining legal concern about “legitimacy” is tied up with the issue of establishing paternity, whatever the marital status of the parents at birth.</p>
<p>Again, standard drafting is to refer to “issue acknowledged” or language like that. It’s better to have this become a question of proof - was this an acknowledged child - rather than exclude a child by not updating a will. I’ve seen that happen: guy writes out a child, writes the child back in, writes her out … gets sick and fails to write her back in though he spoke of doing it. Big family problem.</p>
<p>The root of “legitimacy” is in inheritance laws and in the US those have been updated. There is no primogeniture, no passing of landed titles to the first born male where legal status of parentage would be important. </p>
<p>This is not a complicated point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Gay</a> Couples Who Sued in California Are Married](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/couples-in-california-marriage-case-lose-no-time.html?_r=0]Gay”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/couples-in-california-marriage-case-lose-no-time.html?_r=0)</p>
<p>Hmm…I posted a nice long response, but it didn’t take. I don’t really care to type it all again. </p>
<p>The term “illegitimate” is still in use. It’s not going disappear or be abolished anytime soon. I failed to communicate effectively leaving many aghast that I call children illegitimate. That’s not the case. :rolleyes: The offended haven’t asked for any clarification so I won’t provide one. </p>
<p>This aghast-ness stems from the wide array of stances and viewpoints of CC. Some are traditional, some would love to punch out old-fashioned ways with the iron fist of the 21st century, and few are able to walk the line.</p>
<p>It’s amazing what comes out of a misunderstanding. :D</p>
<p>As an estate planning specialist who has been drafting wills and trusts for nearly 30 years, I can tell you that I have never used the terms “legitimate” or “illegitimate” in defining the parent-child relationship. A biological child is a child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. My standard definition of “children” includes adopted, but not step. Occasionally, a client will make a special request to include step, or exclude adopted, but that requires custom drafting. I have never had anyone exclude a child from the definition based on the marital status of the parent.</p>
<p>Thanks, LasMa (post #248), for getting this thread back on track. That is, indeed, something to celebrate: in both Los Angeles and San Francisco, same-sex marriages resumed today on a non-discriminatory basis. Most same-sex couples will need to wait until Monday because county clerks’ offices are closed for the weekend. But it’s a huge deal that California has now re-joined the list of states where same-sex marriages are performed and legally recognized. It’s also impressive that the judicial and administrative machinery was able to move so expeditiously to make this happen.</p>
<p>^^ Impressive indeed. Apparently it’s customary to wait 25 days before enacting a Supreme Court ruling. I’m glad the Circuit Court decided there was no good reason to wait. I think AG Kamala Harris is responsible for the administrative machinery moving so quickly. She’s been all over this since Wednesday, urging the Circuit Court to lift the stay immediately. She also performed one of the ceremonies today. :)</p>
<p>And then there was a day in history when the judicial system granted the wishes of only a few at the expense of the majority of America. This Day in History would begin the downhill derailing of universal moral standards ethically , religiously, physically, emotionally, culturally, and traditionally.</p>
<p>How does the marriage of a gay couple affect you physically? Really curious.</p>
<p>And BTW…it’s the judicial system’s job to see that the Constitution protects everyone…even the few.</p>
<p>“The offended haven’t asked for any clarification so I won’t provide one.”</p>
<p>I did.</p>
<p>“I have never had anyone exclude a child from the definition based on the marital status of the parent.”</p>
<p>I actually have. Once. For a very specific, dare I say it, legitimate reason. The father was very, very wealthy. Had a child out of wedlock as a young man on the way up. Supported and parented that child all of her life. During her childhood mother had a baby with a other man and gave the baby the same last name as the older child but did not name the man as father because there was no question. Acknowledged father of child one, nothing to do with child two. Mother always told kids he was father of both and they believed it. Over the course of young adulthood daughter came to hate father for screwing over “his” younger child. The younger child engaged in a years’ long campaign to get a paternity test, including harassing the man’s wife and children. When he became terminally ill, he did submit to a paternity test. Not the father as had always been known by everyone other than the woman’s two kids. Since he expected to die while the situation was in chaos, his attorney included only the children of his marriage in his will. He didnt die imminently but never reunited with his daughter.</p>
<p>saye329: Based on your posting history, you seem to be a rising HS senior. Your beliefs at age 17 may not be your beliefs forever. Even if they aren’t out, you have gay classmates. Lots of students will be out at all but a few colleges. It is okay to be gay in large swathes of the USA. It is going to be more and more okay for your generation. This is a great thing for kids who are gay and won’t harm those who aren’t… really. :)</p>
<p>What do you want clarification on, emily?</p>
<p>
Gay marriage doesn’t physically hurt anyone. May cause some physiological disorders, but that’s nothing some medication and a nice one-on-one session with a therapist can’t handle.</p>
<p>Thanks for that clarification ALH.That explains a lot.</p>
<p>Niquii77: you just graduated from HS?</p>
<p>Perhaps it is inappropriate to ask, but I wish those who aren’t parents would clarify when posting. It would really be helpful to me in reading and thinking about your posts. Also responding. I think you deserve a response.</p>
<p>:):)</p>
<p>alh, I’m not the best with clarifying or fully expressing my viewpoints. It’s something I’ll openly say because it is true. But everyone should clarify, whether they are a parent or not.</p>
<p>Niquil, this is a parent forum, so many posters assume a particular poster is a parent unless specifically told otherwise.</p>