Supreme Court overturns lower court ruling. Both same sex spouse can be named on birth certificate.

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a state court ruling that allowed Arkansas to refuse to list both same-sex spouses on birth certificates, a decision that helps clarify the scope of protections provided by the high court's landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...cking-birth-certificates-for-same-sex-couples

I had no idea that both "parents" - and I put that in quotes only because one of them cannot be the bio parent - wouldn't be listed on a birth certificate. I personally know a woman who had a man who is not her child's bio daddy listed as "father" on the birth certificate and nobody gave her grief. I figured that you could list whoever you wanted, as long as both "parents" signed off on it.

This should make those stupid custody battles that some states make same-sex couples have obsolete, which can only be a good thing.
 

black dog

Free America
I would believe that since a birth certificate is a legal document to prove who is this person's parents. If the legal parents are two men, two women, a woman and a anonymous donor or a man with a anonymous donor it should be listed on the certificate. It would help cure some of the problems certain lifestyles have with making decisions at the doctor's, hospitals, attorneys, schools and so on.
The children will figure it out at a young age what's going on.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Note to Sapidus........it doesn't make a difference what the BC states......

Two dudes or two chicks can't make a baby......just sayin'
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I had no idea that both "parents" - and I put that in quotes only because one of them cannot be the bio parent - wouldn't be listed on a birth certificate. I personally know a woman who had a man who is not her child's bio daddy listed as "father" on the birth certificate and nobody gave her grief. I figured that you could list whoever you wanted, as long as both "parents" signed off on it.

This should make those stupid custody battles that some states make same-sex couples have obsolete, which can only be a good thing.

I wonder if I can have mine changed to list Warren Buffet as my father, so I can inherit his stuff? After all, if we don't care if the BC is accurate, why not?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I wonder if I can have mine changed to list Warren Buffet as my father, so I can inherit his stuff? After all, if we don't care if the BC is accurate, why not?

If Warren Buffett agrees to it, why not. Or perhaps you need to re-read my post.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
IMHO a Certificate of Live Birth should contain 2 things;

who popped the kid out, and if known who the dna donor was aka the Father


if people want some other 'form' or certificate to assuage their world view or hide an adoption ok fine ......
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I had no idea that both "parents" - and I put that in quotes only because one of them cannot be the bio parent - wouldn't be listed on a birth certificate. I personally know a woman who had a man who is not her child's bio daddy listed as "father" on the birth certificate and nobody gave her grief. I figured that you could list whoever you wanted, as long as both "parents" signed off on it.

This should make those stupid custody battles that some states make same-sex couples have obsolete, which can only be a good thing.

Although I absolutely believe that a child is best served if they have both a father and a mother - I've always been ok with same-sex couples if only for the fact that having even one loving parent is preferable to a childhood without one at all.

No matter how a child learns to cope, there's always some pain if you never have a parent.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
This makes a joke out of a legal document.It's like swearing to a falsehood.

But who gives a #### any more as long as the queers are happy.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If Warren Buffett agrees to it, why not. Or perhaps you need to re-read my post.

:lol:

I saw that. My point was more about the falsehood than getting to choose a parent. What good is a birth certificate that names "parents" who are not parents? I get the whole adoption thing, but there's still documentation of who the biological parents are separate from the certificate adoptive parents get.

Unless science has changed drastically since I was in school, and practiced it with the fathering of my children, I feel confident two people of the same sex cannot both be biological parents of a child. I'm more than happy, as noted above by Sam, to have two people loving and caring for a child. Hell, I'm happy with the polyamorous families, so long as it remains non-incestual. But, that doesn't mean if Tom and Carol have a child, and Tom is married to Alice that Alice is listed as "co-mother" on a birth certificate for the child Tom and Carol had. She can love the child, she can help raise the child, but the child did not come out of two wombs at the same time.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This makes a joke out of a legal document.It's like swearing to a falsehood.

But who gives a #### any more as long as the queers are happy.

Why? Because in your narrow view "parents" are only who gave birth? That's a pretty distorted view of parenting and it ignores the shear number of people who've adopted or taken in a child they themselves never birthed.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
That's the important part.

This should contain only factual information, regardless of "feelings" or "wishful thinking."

It's the opposite of important. It's clueless and based on nothing but hatred.

If a couple (man and woman) can't have kids, what happens? They may go to a surrogate. In your view, the birth certificate should be the surrogate mother and the actual father? Not, you know, the actual people taking care of and parenting of the child?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
If a couple (man and woman) can't have kids, what happens?
They may go to a surrogate. In your view, the birth certificate should be the surrogate mother and the actual father?


IMHO they should adopt - anything else is man playing G_D
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That's the important part.

This should contain only factual information, regardless of "feelings" or "wishful thinking."

Well, not really. As it's a legal document, it should contain legal information. If two women or two men are the child's legal parents, certainly it should say so on the birth certificate. If a sperm donor doesn't want to be legally responsible for the child, obviously his name wouldn't be on the legal document.

But I'm not sure how that works. When a woman has a baby and gives it up for adoption, is she still listed on the BC? I'm guessing not, otherwise it would be a simple matter for all these adopted kids to find their birth parents, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

Also, if a woman has a child as a surrogate, who is listed on the BC? My understanding is that it's the two legal parents, not the birth mother.

We do know that if a woman has a child through insemination from a sperm bank, the donor's name is not on the BC.

So already birth certificate information can contain what they legal parents of the child want it to contain, which is why I ASSumed that same-sex parents were both listed on the BC even though one of them is obviously not a biological parent.
 
Top