Flush from their victory in the Supreme Court, politically active gay leftists are now demanding that Government embrace the legal fiction that two men or two women can create babies.
Three same-sex couples sued Arkansas health officials Monday for refusing to name both spouses on their children’s birth certificates, arguing the state is violating their constitutional rights after gay marriage was legalized nationwide.
This is a reason why the state should be issued a divorce from marriage. Yet the traditional right (to some extent at least) continues participating in this ponzi scheme of a debate just as the progressives want. Props to Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Michigan for seriously debating getting the government out of marriage.
Makes perfect sense. Since a family no longer implies genetic relationship, no reason a birth certificate should approve the fiction.
Unless the birth certificate itself is going to claim under law that it functions to record genetic links, and not legal links, then the family can put whatever they want on it.
It also means that without mandatory DNA testing on all live births, the “father” should be written in as “unknown” or “uncertain”.
Here would be an interesting problem, however:
Who declares these fictions? Is this not a statement made under oath that the state, through the birth certificate, is codifying? And if the birth certificate shows two women or two men, are they not actually committing perjury?
On the other hand, if the mother declares a particular man to be the father on a birth certificate, and then sues the man for child support, if he gets a DNA test to show that he is not, has not the mother committed perjury?
Parents whose names are on the birth certificate are *legal* parents, not necessarily *biological*.
If it were otherwise, Maury Povich would be out of a job.
Paul, thank you for posting.
I guess what VtheK was going for is that he doesn’t support the gay movements desire to assemble families legally the way straights do.
What confuses me then is why he got gay married himself. He could have just visited a lawyer and got all the necessary paperwork drawn up. At least, that’s what people argued on here for years.
How exactly is a homosexual marriage “consummated”? Riddle me that, Batman…….
This is only concerning married lesbian couples one who got pregnant by artificial insemination.
Down at the bull farm, the studs are vacuumed of their sperm which is frozen and sold to inseminate selected cows. This is a high dollar process in which genetic records are carefully kept and recorded and the final costs depend on the sex of the offspring.
This has long been worked out among the pedigreed cat and dog breeders as well.
So, where is the issue when a woman goes the route of test tube breeding? The lesbian mate has no DNA in the game, so why should she be listed as a participant in the conception process? One lesbian is the mother and the other lesbian is a step parent or adoptive parent.
In English Common Law, the status of legitimacy is dependent on whether the parents are legally married when the child is conceived. However, the tacit understanding in English Common Law was that the parents were one man and one woman.
Under the Brave New World concoction of marriage, one lesbian is genetically linked to the child and the other lesbian is linked to the child by statue only.
Heather does not have two mommies. Heather has a biological mommy and an unrelated co-mommy. You can change the language to make you feel good, but you can not change the biological facts of reproduction.
I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “parent” is. In a biological sense, there’s a male and a female involved. Funny how progressives love to lecture the rest of us on science – until the science is inconvenient at which point it’s all about feelings.
As Paul points out in #4, though, legal parents are not necessarily biological parents. Fair enough except that, these days, if the BC is to be kept current, the names of the parents will need to change as the kids are passed between households and the occasional marriage.
A BC is a document showing the date and place of birth and the biological parent(s) – if the father happens to be known which is not a certainty these days.
A BC doesn’t make a parent but why is it that I get the feeling that this debate is not about the kids?
Yes heliotrope, many families are blended. Some families have a bio parent leave either through death, an accident or by choice. Non bio adults step in and take
Over the responsibilities of parenting and documents are amended
SSC may either be bio or adoptive parents. Just like Herero couples.
But the document is just a document.
Families come in all compositions and configurations.
SALT LAKE CITY — Within days of becoming licensed foster parents, newlyweds John Wright and Wilson Bateman got a telephone call from a caseworker.
A boy and his two sisters needed a foster family. Would they like to meet them?
The next thing they knew, they were getting acquainted at an ice cream shop. “They stole our hearts when we met them,” Wright said.
Shortly after that, the children, ages 3-12, starting living with them full time. That was five months ago.
Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, the foster care placement wouldn’t have been an option for the couple or the children. Under Utah law, people in relationships that were not “legally valid” were prohibited from fostering, adopting or providing kinship care to children in state custody.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865632457/Changing-landscape-Same-sex-couples-among-Utahs-newest-foster-parents.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%3Fref%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Of course.
After all, to “real LGBT people” like yourself, marriage doesn’t actually have any value; it’s a trophy and something you want because your having it antagonizes others. It’s your equivalent of pissing on a crucifix in public.
That’s because, CrayCray, you, just like your friend rusty, are really just a troll. You don’t have any interest in actual discussion or thought; you’re just here to attack and antagonize other people for attention.
Sorry rusty, that doesn’t work.
You and yours screamed and screamed and screamed and screamed that marriage had nothing to do with childraising or procreation or children.
Furthermore, rusty, you have pissed and pissed and pissed and pissed that there is no advantage to any type of family structure and that kids don’t need two parents or a mom and dad or anything like that.
Therefore your attempt to use “a better environment for kids” runs smack into the lies you’ve already told.
I don’t get how this non-biological familial fiction can be supported long term given GSA (genetic sexual attraction). How many generations of in-breeding til genetic deficiencies pop up and dna tests for marriage are brought back?
I know its a shot in the dark, but technology has done a lot to bring people from remote places together. It can’t be that hard to end up in a relationship with an unknown biological relative.
I think it would behoove states to pass laws that state that the birth certificate must contain the names of the biological mother and father if known. If either wish to remain anonymous, it can be stated at “withheld”. Under no circumstances should a name be placed on the birth certificate that has no biological connection.
From there non-biological adults may adopt the child.
As Paul said a certificate can have legal parents on it, but the original certificate for bio parents remains intact. If a parental termination or adoption is done, the original certificate is sealed. This is how people find out their birth parents by unsealing the records. The married couples are using the “born during marriage” standard whereas a bio child is automatically legally the husband’s. The whole reason for that law is that it is assumed that the husband can biologically create the child, and second that the Wife is only having sex with her husband. A husband can disestablish paternity on a child though through a divorce proceeding in most states. The article says that only SOME of the couples have gone through the adoption process. If that is the case, then they should be put on the SECOND certificate. The ones that haven’t shouldn’t be. Here’s why: Paul cites the “legal parent” standard. Unless an adoption has been done essentially terminating the bio Father’s or Mother’s rights, they are still both the bio and legal parents. Termination requires due process, since parental rights did (and still should) trump the right to marry. Unfortunately, three states have already diluted parental rights, and I believe it should be challenged. Two state courts have ruled that there can be 3 or more legal parents, and California passed a law to that effect. This dilutes the bio’s parental rights. Furthermore, just doing a divorce with two parents is a cluster—-. The standard of custody is in the best interest of the child in most state. Imagine 4 divorced parents. How is it in the best interest of a child to be shuttled to 4 different homes. I think these types of rulings and laws will have long term effects that will be horribly detrimental to children, but hey- we are such a narcissistic society-forget the children, who are they?
Rusty,
Do you just cite $hit without thinking. Foster parents are only called parents. Legally they are temporary guardians. Unless the court terminates the parent’s parental rights, and the foster parents adopt; they have no long term legal rights to the child. That has nothing to do with this case.
And BTW Paul, you cite Maury Povich.. If an unmarried father disestablishes paternity, he s taken off the birth certificate. I know in my state if a mother asks for state bennies, she must list a possible father. She cannot list it as unknown.
We had a case where the mother was pregnant with another man’s baby, but she listed her new boyfriend with his permission. It was overturned n court, because the bio dad challenged it. By putting the man she wanted on the birth certificate and not bio dad, she was essentially trying to terminate his rights without due process.
Do you just cite $hit without thinking.
That is his modus operandi, yes.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the article didn’t seem to distinguish between birth certificates. The couples appeared to want both their names on a birth certificate to establish legal paternity. Just as straight married couples have legal paternity rights over their children.
Going back to the original intent of gay couples just wanting to assemble their families legally with the same rights. Otherwise, what is the point of being gay married and having children.
But if the couples are trying to eradicate the name(s) of the biological parents, please share in the article where that is specified.
Okay, I reread article. It makes sense for the couples to use court order to get both spouses on the certificate.
So I guess the lawsuit is about removing the bio parent(s) names from the original certificate which makes absolutely no sense.
Thanks Mel.
From reading the article, it would appear the State is demanding the non-bio parent go through adoption proceeding (how to get the court order for change).
I can only assume the extra hassle is costly and straight couples don’t have to, so why do they?
By citing Board of Health as the only way to change their vital statistics laws, i’m going to say they are considred biological facts until someone can find an aryicle pointing otherwise.
Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, the foster care placement wouldn’t have been an option for the couple or the children. Under Utah law, people in relationships that were not “legally valid” were prohibited from fostering, adopting or providing kinship care to children in state custody.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865632457/Changing-landscape-Same-sex-couples-among-Utahs-newest-foster-parents.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%3Fref%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Comment by rusty — July 15, 2015 @ 6:53 pm – July 15, 2015
Melle
Sorry this was confusing for you! The changes in Utah now allow for the first steps of foster care to happen for SSCs. This opens the door to adoption. And down the road the document may or may not be changed to reflect the adoptive parents as legal guardians.
Much like other cases regarding foster care and the transition to formal adoption, there are important considerations when families finally move forward with final adoption paperwork.
Being able to get both parents names on the document is important
A federal judge said Wednesday that Utah must recognize the rights of a married lesbian couple by issuing a birth certificate for their infant daughter that lists both of the women as legal parents. “The state has failed to show any legitimate reason, actually any reason at all, for not treating a female spouse in a same-sex marriage the same as a male spouse in an opposite-sex marriage with regard to be recognized as the legal parent” when the child has been conceived with donated sperm, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson said. The ruling in the case of Angela and Kami Roe is the first in the wake of the June U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex unions in all 50 states, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union said.
Rusty,
Again, your case is completely different. When you get a sperm donation; you essentially terminating the donator’s rights in the process. It is the same reason a surrogate was not held liable for child support when that woman from the view didn’t want the baby. Again, the same sex partner should have to adopt the sperm donors child. I believe that during the sperm donor process; they go through a de facto process, and I agree in this instance both should be on the certificate BUT ONLY if they go through legitimate sperm donor process. If they are doing it off the radar, the court could accept that it was “donated” and essentially order a legit. father cut out.
I don’t understand removing bio parents (this info can actually be useful with regards to future medic costs etc) but I do think with gay marriage being legal that when kids are involved legal papers reflecting who the parents are is important.
If a lesbian or gay couple adopt children in some way as a couple and that couple later divorced both parents should be responsible. A non bio parent in a gay relationship that ends shouldn’t get a free pass on future support of the children and both should have rights with regard to visitation.