THE BREAST IS YET TO COME!

In the day of same sex marriages, this business idea is absolutely brilliant! Go figure that it had to be started in France, but you can bet your ass this will make its way here to the U.S. Anyway, a Paris woman recently posted an offer on a French website to breast-feed babies of homosexual male couples, because obviously men cannot breast-feed, for 100 Euros a day. That's a $130 a day! The post stirred up some crazy media interest, as it should've, just weeks after a divisive same-sex marriage law was passed in France. 

The post, which the website said it was verified as genuine and legal, read: "I am a young mother in perfect health, a trained nurse of 29, and I am renting my breasts to milk-feed infants." I say this is a brilliant marketing idea! Gay men, who are married, will either have to adopt or look for a surrogate mother, right? Well, they will have to breast-feed eventually or use formula. Why not use the same process to find a surrogate mother to find a surrogate breast for breast-feeding? This woman is definitely onto something here! The offer, addressed to male homosexual couples who can marry legally in France since May, promises up to 10 breast-feeds a day. She is mobile and based near Paris. 

Alexander Woog of the e-loue website where the offer was posted said that his staff had contacted the person and had no doubt about her identity and the seriousness of the proposal, nor the legality of the service proposed. Woog went on to say, "Our legal advisers are sure of this. It's illegal in France to sell maternal milk but this is a person proposing a service, not selling the milk in flasks." 

France had recently joined more than a dozen countries to legalize marriage and adoption of children by same-sex couples. It does not, however, permit surrogacy or assisted reproduction for gay and lesbian couples. So much for that idea! The woman who posted the offer could not be reached or confirmed, but she has responded via the website that many couples have replied to her proposal. She said, "I've received more than a dozen requests, but only half of them were serious. The rest were from perverts."

Woog stated that his website, which was created in 2009 as a platform for users to offer or hire anything legal online, checks any posts that raise an eyebrow. The breast-feeding offer was the second major eye-catcher since the website was founded. The other was a user offering to rent out two goats as lawn-cutters. I think the breast-feeding offer is a little bit more legit. Here's the question, though; would you trust some stranger to come to your house to breast-feed your baby? It's not like she's coming in to walk your dog. Her bodily fluids will be going into your baby's mouth. Another question is how sanitary will it be if she has more than one customer? How many babies’ mouths were on that breast before yours? These are just some things to think about, but I still say a BRILLIANT idea!

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.