text:
By Nova Safo, CNN
Follow on Twitter: @nova_safo
Editor's Note: On March 26th and 27th, the US Supreme Court will hear two key cases regarding same-sex marriage. Every Monday and Tuesday in March, CNN Radio will feature stories about issues related to same-sex marriage.
Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.
(CNN) - In Iowa, gay couples have been able to get legally married since 2009, when the state's supreme court upheld a lower court ruling striking down a gay marriage ban.
But the Iowa Department of Public Health has refused to grant birth certificates that list both spouses in a gay marriage as the legal parents of newborn children. That decision has left families in legal limbo, and it led to a lawsuit that has thrust the gay rights debate right back to the state's supreme court.
The couple involved in the supreme court case are Heather and Melissa Gartner. Even though they are legally married, Melissa Gartner's name was erased from their daughter's birth certificate. Heather Gartner, who was the biological mother, was the only one listed:
[6:21] "When you have somebody tell you that your marriage is not equal to your counterparts, because of who you're married to, you can't be a parent to this child – it's very hurtful. I mean, honestly, when the first birth certificate came, it felt like someone had smacked you."
Gay rights advocates say the Department of Public Health's decision has left families in a precarious legal state. A birth certificate is a valuable document that legally ties a parent to a child, they argue, and without it, parents may be unable to perform even simple tasks such as checking their children in and out of school.
But the Iowa Department of Public Health has argued that it will provide a birth certificate naming both parents, once a parent that is not biologically related goes through a stepparent adoption. The department told the Iowa Supreme Court during oral arguments in December that since Melissa Gartner is not biologically related to Mackenzie, she cannot be listed on a birth certificate until she legally adopts her as a stepparent. The department argued it is required by law to provide an accurate birth certificate that records a child's biological relatives.
A lower court ruled in favor of the Gartners, saying that once gay marriage became legal in Iowa, the Department of Public Health should have automatically begun to recognize both spouses as parents – as it does with legally married opposite-sex parents.
That is what other states have done, according to Angela Onwuachi-Willig, professor of law at the University of Iowa.
[9:49] "Every state that has addressed this issue has allowed both parents to be put on the birth certificate. We have no reason to believe that there's any marriage equality state that is doing anything like what the Iowa Department of Public Health is doing."
The Iowa supreme court is now considering the case, and there is no timeline as to when it might issue a ruling.
Listen to our story above to learn more about how families are affected by the "Iowa anomaly," to meet the Gartners and another affected family, and to hear about the legal questions the Gartner's case has raised.
Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.
It would seem that the abhorrent gays have not figured it out yet...NO ONE LIKES YOU and forcing your immoral lifestyle down the throats of the rest of the world only alienates and widens the gap between you and an accepting society.
After reading the article I wondered something. Many times a woman may put down the name of their spouse and the childs real parent is someone else so are they going to do more to check on parental DNA? And, what happens when a couple unmarried comes in and they claim 'he' is the father? Does he then have to adopt the child or is it a pass because they are a heterosexual couple? Just a thought.
I live in Iowa......the Dept would be happy to make the change but it would need to be done legislatively. Surprise, surprise, the GOP Governor and his ilk are against having the forms reflect fact without a fight.
Okay, this has all gone WAAAAAY overboard. Two women CANNOT make a child together, therefore only one can be listed as a biological parent. IT ISN'T ABOUT "EQUALITY", it is about FACT.
Right now if a man and woman are married and have a child, the husband is listed as the father whether or not he biologically is. Tell me again how this is about FACT.
And IF worms had arms and machineguns birds would not mess with them.
The state has a solution, the same solution that occurs when a heteralsexual parent is not the biological father. So what is the issue?
You're right, but not the way you think. The state does not require a woman to prove that her heterosexual husband of record is the biological parent of her child in order to put his name on the birth certificate. Therefore, yes, the state already has a solution: allow the name of the mother's spouse to be put on the birth certificate. However, they refuse to implement it.
"Two women CANNOT make a child together"
Neither can an infertile couple, but they both still go on the birth certificate. So here's a question for you, if one of the women donates her egg to be implanted in the other and fertilized by an anonymous donor who's are biological parents?
The issue is for newborn children so if both are infertile your comment has no bearing (since the only way they would become a parent would be well after the original certificate is made).
At least one of the gay parents is biological and could have a newborn.
that was suppose to read who is are...
wish there was an edit button...LOL!
who are the biological parents....
Two women CAN biologically have a child – since at least 2001. Thanks science.
Adoptive parents aren't biologically the parents of their kids but they have certificates and rights as the child's new parents.
If a straight couple where the man is infertile use a sperm donation the husband is automatically put on the birth certificate. Why not for a gay couple? If Melissa Gartner had been Melvin Gartner Melvin would be on the birth certificate.
When a male/female couple who can't conceive ADOPT a child, it's the same situation. Neither one is the biological parent, so what do we do? Leave the birth certificate blank? That's ridiculous.
Birth certificates are more about legality than biology. If a lesbian carries a child conceived through sperm donation or otherwise, and has a legal partner (through marriage or domestic partnership) that partner is legally entitled to be listed as that child's parent. If a straight woman can legally list a man who is not her child's biological father on the birth certificate, there is no reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed to do the same.
Don't try to excuse discrimination with faulty logic.
A child needs loving parents. A child doesn't need a parent who beats or abuses his partner or children whether gay or straight. This whole idea that someone is a better parent because of their sexual orientation is Crazy. A child doesn't need a crazy parent either.
Many cases of same sex couples having kids is not nearly as simple as two married partner using an anonymous sperm donor from a sperm bank. There's a case in Michigan where a lesbian couple claims the one partner's husband wasn't really a spouse but a sperm donor. The woman and the man were MARRIED, had a child yet the now lesbian couple wants to shut the husband out of the child's life because they say the only reason the woman married him was to have a baby and get health insurance to have the baby.
There are no shortage of sperm donors on Craigslist willing to inseminate women naturally for free. The cost of insemination at a doctor's office using a sperm donor costs well over 5K. It's a lot cheaper to get pregnant the old fashioned way using a volunteer from Craigslist- but then is that guy the donor or the father? If a lesbian gets pregnant from heterosexual s-x with a man should the man (the actual father) be on the child's birth certificate or the lesbian wife?
A lesbian couple used a craig's list donor and then several years later broke up. When the woman with child filed for state welfare, they found out who the dad was and now he's having to pay child support. It's not always neat and clean using craig's list.
I agree why should the common sense of putting down the biological parents as mother and father get in the way. Since two men cannot biologically have children, but can get married it goes to reason that they should be put down as the parents of if a woman wants to list a coat rack as the father then why not or a man wants to list a a farm animal as the mother, then who are we to judge.
You're relating two people in a loving relationship as farm animals or a coat rack. That speaks volumes on the levels on your lack of education.
You can bet that opposite sex step parents don't have to show any documentation to get a kid from school.
Just one other thought, doesn't it make sense to only list the biological parents, so that when this child gets married it can be traced back to ensure he is not marrying someone of his own blood line?
If a woman is pregnant and marries a man who is not the biological father, or a woman has a child by a man other than her husband, Iowa lists the husband on the birth certificate.
Thanks for the clarification... do you have source for this information.
actually, if the woman is unmarried when she gets pregnant, she has to provide a paternity test to have ANYONE else's name on the birth certificate– but if she is married when she gets pregnant, the state will put the mother's husband (i.e. spouse) on the birth certificate UNLESS a paternity test result is obtained.
In other words, they changed their laws after paternity tests were made available– not all that long ago.
it is required by law to provide an accurate birth certificate that records a child's biological relatives.
I guess this is the sticking point. Question: when a child gets adopted does the birth certificate change for the child?
Don't know about Iowa, but in Ohio the birth certificate is changed after an adoption.
If they adopt the child, they can modify a document to prove parental rights. This is crazy, you have always been able to adopt a child and be the legal parent. The Gay community is using this for political gains.
I think the issue is that gay parents are being forced to prove biological relation. Straight coupes aren't. Any man who shows up at the hospital can put their name on the birth-certificate if the mother consents. While the laws may be in place to record who the biological parents are, no state requires proof. There is no DNA test (even for the mother), who could have been impregnated with a donor egg. Do you think they ask the donor's name to be listed on the birth certificate? The answer, of course, is no.
Don't know what is done today, but my mother in the 50s got a certificate of live birth from NJ, like Obama had, that only stated there was a birth certificate on file. This document did not provide any vital information such as parents, etc. Also as with the Obama situation, it isn't easy to get a copy of the original birth certificate. Considering this, it is doubtful that my adoptive father was listed on an actual modified birth certificate. It is going to get very cumbersome, and costly, to document all the "anomolies" that are surfacing.
Adoptees have real birth certificates with their true birth records that are sealed. Even babies in open adoptions where the adoptive parents are at the birth have to file for adoption and have the birth certificate changed. The child has a REAL birth certificate that lists the actual parents. There is a real fight amongst adoptees in closed adoptions to get their true birth certificates released to them so they know who they really are. Donor conceived children in other countries like the UK & Australia have the right to know who their real parents are at 18, but anonymous donors are banned in those countries. Only in the US can children have their true biological parents hidden from them. Attempts to ban anonymous donors in the US have gone no where largely because the LBGT calls any attempt to restrict anonymous donors homophobic.
The msot essential information to decide this case isn't in the story. How does Iowa treat typical married couples where the mother is inseminated by a sperm dodnor? Does the father have to go to court to legally adopt the infant, or is the mother's husband automatically declared the father? Similarly, would the wife be considered the mother without an adoption hearing if she carried the fertilized egg of an egg donor that had been fertilized with her husband's sperm? If only the gay parent has to seek adoptions then this alw is being applied in a discriminatory manner. If all those parties have to seek adoption then it's just a stupid law.
Very well thought out debate. You can't cover one aspect without covering them all. Can't wait to hear the outcome of all of this.
I would have to agree with that argument. It makes total sense that it should be the same whether or not it is a same sex couple or heterosexual couple. Regardless if people don't like it, it's discrimination and not fair on all counts even if they are same sex couples. Drives me nuts. Just make it equal already.
And please fix the mistake in the article. You mean "affected."
Thank you for your question. Your question is answered in the audio version of my story, which is the more complete story from CNN Radio. The text in the blog is intended only as a quick summary. Basically, an opposite-sex married couple is presumed the parents of a newborn child and both spouses are automatically listed on a birth certificate. Only same-sex married couples are being denied a similar process. The state argues that since in the vast majority of cases opposite-sex couples are biologically related to their children, then making that presumption on a birth certificate leads to a reasonable rate of accuracy on birth certificates. However, it argues such accuracy can only be achieved by listing only one spouse in a same-sex marriage. The state argues that it is required by law to establish paternity on a birth certificate, and that such laws would have to be changed for it to alter its practices. The plaintiffs argue that no other state has taken this position, and that once the state supreme court ruled gay marriages legal, then all laws that pertain to marriages and its various implications in other state law, should be automatically considered altered. That is the legal precedent in all other states. Iowa's approach has been unique. And that is why it's called the "Iowa anomaly."
These are not parents, parents are moms and dads. No matter what they think this kid will alway want a real dad.
Why don't you let the kids of gay parents speak for themselves? Most of them have no problem with having gay parents. Many are lucky to have any parents at all. And the research has shown that kids of gay parents don't turn out much different than any other kids.
I find that most are better behaved.
Sure, there are some but the stats and history indicate that children with both mother and father do better. I am sure we will try to re-write all the data.
You mean like you are trying to rewrite the facts?
"[S]tudies on children dating back 25 years conclude that children raised by gay and lesbian non-adoptive parents fare as well as those reared by heterosexual parents (Breways, Ponjaert, Van Hall, & Golombok, 1997; Chan, Raboy & Patterson, 1998; Golombok, Perry, Burston, Murray, Mooney-Sommer, Stevens, & Golding, 2003; Wainwright, Russell & Patterson, 2004)."
A 2008 report from The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Agency, America's most respected experts on adoption.
Actually, Rodboy, the research has shown that kids of gay parents are no different than other kids. You may be referring to studies that have shown that families from broken homes are more troubled. This research says that kids do better with two parents, full stop. The gender of the parents was not addressed.
Rodboy, thanks for the "stats, history, and data"... Oh wait, you didn't provide any.
I didn't have a "dad" in residence until I was five. That is when my mother remarried. He was basically a nice guy, but neither one of us would have been terribly upset if the other was absent. Gys, your contention that a child will wish it had a father as well as a mother is your opinion which is easily refuted. All you have is your opinion that a child "should" pine for a father, i.e., a value judgment, not a fact.
As a child of adoption, it is very upsetting when the lives of children in foster-care are made harder by those who choose to continue discriminating against the gay community. The gay community is highly likely to adopt children in foster-care and could help give so many children a much needed home. My grandfather told me that he is OK with gay marriage, but not with gay adoption. I told him that he didn't know what he was talking about, as I would have taken gay parents over no-parents any day. He conceded his point, as should all of you. You don't know what you're talking about and you can't speak for all of us who have been adopted and who carry a heavy heart for all of those who won't be adopted.
All I will say is the CHILD has rights too and has the right to know who his/her biological parents are (unless the donor, if any, refuses). Your percieved rights do NOT trump the child's. Since the state will make new certificates as parents change this is NOT an issue. STOP being sensitive, it is NOT an attempt to miminize Gay parenting.
Yes it is. Biological parents need to be known in case of a family history of something but these women are the childs parents. Theyre going to raise the child. If you think this isnt infringing on their rights then lets just go back to segregation. Because treating someone different because of sexual orientation is the same as treating them different because of the color of their skin.
So the CHILD has NO rights? How insensitive. As long as the state has a remedy no issue. What you say would be correct IF the state refused to make changes.
If the Gay parents would die, how would the child know who her biological parents were? She would not unless it was stated on the original birth certificate.
This is an issue that ALL couples have and is NOT restricted to gay parents. STOP making it an issue that only effects them, it does not.
That's NOT what was said. Sure the child has rights. The same rights as any other child. If it were the child of an infertile heterosexual couple, and they used sperm and/or egg donation, would you think the birth parents would not deserve to be on the birth certificate, that the child would have a "right" to some stranger that donated the genetic material? (And by the way, most sperm/egg donation is anonymous, as in, the donor does not want to know the child or for the child to know them.) What about adoption? They're treating this couple like any other couple...except that one parent has to go through the additional hoop of "adopting" their own child simply because they are not genetically related to them. That has nothing to do with the child, and does not affect the child in any way. It's just harassment of the parents.
I'm adopted. My biological parents are not listed on my birth certificate, my adoptive parents are. It has not ruined my life, nor will it ruin yours if the same is done in the case of a child of gay parents. In fact, the child will have his or her biological mother on there, which is 50% more than I had, isn't it?
dx2718 and heliocracy
Your issues I dealt with, sperm doners sometimes don't want their ID known, therefore it would be OK to put whatever parents on the original certificate.
As for adoption, sure your current birth certificate has your adopted parents, but your orignal will have your biological parents. You are actually supporting the state's case. They say they will alter the certificate upon adoption just like they do for straight couples.
To have Gay parents put on the original does the child no good, IF straight couples have to adopt FIRST to change the certificate then gay couples should too.
How many states require biological parents to be listed? The answer is none. If a woman uses a donor egg and donor sperm, but gives birth to the child, her name is put on the original birth certificate. Any man she chooses can then put his name on the birth certificate. There is no DNA testing, so there is no true listing of biological parents. All the "original" birth certificate does is list the first two people who claimed you as their child.
If the mother is not married to a man at the time of conception, the biological father can only be listed on the birth certificate if a paternity test is done. So, basically, your argument that the child *will* have more information about their biological family under the current Iowa law is completely wrong.
Larry, I don't know about all states, but NJ didn't issue a new birth certificate in the past. when an adoption occurred What they issued to adoptive parents was a form of certificate of live birth stating an original birth certificate was on file, such as Obama had which caused a lot of trouble for him. My mother got such a document to hide from me that the guy I knew as "Dad" was not my birth father. Maybe the procedure has changed as that was a long time ago. However, come to think of it, the state would be lieing if they issued a birth certificate stating an adoptive parent was a biological parent. Just an opinion from personal experience, kids aren't fooled for long. Unfortunately we don't know all the ramifications of abandoning traditions until after we get down the road.
It's not the doctor's decision to let any kid know who his "real" parents are.
It is the right of the child to know! period
Nope, it's not. Most sperm/egg donation is anonymous, and adoptions can be either open (in which case biological parents are part of the picture) or closed (in which their identity is hidden). Many people track down biological parents as adults. Some do it for genetic counseling. Others – usually ones who are adopted, rather than the product of sperm/egg donation – to satisfy personal curiosity. There's no reason to give a child access to bio-dad or bio-mom when they have two loving parents who are raising them. Especially if bio-mom or bio-dad signed a paper that said they had no interest in the child and/or wished for their identity to be hidden from the child.
Don, it's the PARENTS' right to decide when and how they should tell their kids about their parentage, not the doctor. Would you want a doctor to take the liberty of disclosing things to your kid that you should be responsible for?
Interesting news from the UK. Article from the Daily Mail. Known sperm donors (gay) sued for visitation rights of the children they fathered from via donation for lesbian couples.
"Sperm donors were handed the right to see and play a part in the lives of their biological children in a landmark High Court case yesterday.
They may now also win the right to regular contact with the children, even though they are not bringing them up.
The ruling by the Family Division decreed that a sperm donor need never have had a sexual relationship with a mother in order to have a say in the child's upbringing."
Seems like the Brits have the right idea looking out for the child's best interest to have a biological father in their life.
I guess those ladies should have some right to child support then.
Two women can't produce a baby together. Before severing the biological father's rights and listing a non-related woman on the birth certificate, shouldn't the couple have to submit proof that the biological father has indeed given up his legal rights to the child? Step parent adoption seems the right way to go. Denying a father the legal rights to a child he has not given up is not right.
Please say you are joking. If my wife and I cannot have a baby together and she gets inseminated, should that person be notified and have rights to interject into our lives? If my wife needs to use someone else's eggs, should that woman be notified and get rights while my wife does not? You fail to realize that gay couples trying to have kids are just regular people that want to raise a family. Just like millions of heterosexual people around the world, however, they do not have the ability to procreate. I don't see you complaining that hetero couples that can't have kids should not have rights.
should that person be notified and have rights to interject into our lives?
And there is a requirement to know the child's true blood line lest they end up marrying their biological sister in the future.
Except that there is NOT, in Iowa, a right to know who your father is.
If the mother was not married at the time of conception, Iowa does NOT allow the father to be listed on the birth certificate WITH or WITHOUT his permission without a paternity test (which, you know, cost money). So either way one would need a paternity test to find out who one's father was.
Sperm donation comes with such proof (that is, bio-dad has to sign the papers before he even donates). Most states if someone is married to the birth mother, they are automatically on the birth certificate. It's one of the benefits of marriage. For example, if a woman gets pregnant and then breaks up with baby daddy, and marries someone else before she has the baby, new dad is the father of the baby, unless they specifically say otherwise. Or if a woman's husband is infertile and they use donor sperm to get pregnant, husband, not sperm donor, is the father. Equal rights means SAME treatment for gay couples as there would be for straight. Second mom automatically on the birth certificate as the second parent. End of story.
OK... I'm in favor of same-gender marriage, but this is going too far. My dad, the one recorded on my birth certificate is not in fact my biological father. Even in different gender marriages it is a requirement that the non-biological parent officially adopt the child before their name can be placed on the certificate. As there is a viable and unilateral option these parents should be following the written law, not seeking a special exception to the law because they are same gender.
Did you even read the article?
How did they know your dad wasn't your bio-dad? Did your mother own up to it so bio-dad could be on the birth certificate? Most states the spouse is automatically assumed to be the other parent, and goes straight onto the birth certificate without genetic testing unless birth mom says otherwise.
All of this would be unnecessary if society only had some kind of means to encourage a man and a woman to care for the children they create together. But what would we call such a thing?
hmmmm Marriage?
I think you're confused. These aren't children up for adoption, given up by heterosexual couples. They're biological children of one partner, conceived using a sperm donor, just like a heterosexual couple's children if the husband is infertile.
I consider myself a Christian, I have a personal relationship with God. My stance on gay whatever is, if being gay according to the Holy Bible (Word of God by revelation) is a sin; then that sin is no worst than any other sin. OK, for me that means that they get rights according to the words of our constitution, and/or the democracy that we stand for. Religious or not they have the same rights as every one of us. As a heir of Jesus Christ we are to pray and intercede on the behalf of one another if it truly concerns us in a positive way. Now, here's a new insight that the Holy Spirit has revealed to me: According to the photo image associated with this blog; when I see a gay couple (females), what does it mean that one has to imitate the male factor in a heterosexual relationship. Does that not suggest "insecurity" in terms of "identity?" I'm thinking in regards to bisexuality being a born trait vs. nurture/nature, or maybe desire/modern trend to try something new?
the one with the collar is the father.
Several points:
1. are you actually making all kinds of assumptions of what these women must act like, just based on a photo? Seriously?
2. why do you presume that the way she's dressed means she's trying to act like the "male factor"? What makes you think they feel there needs to even be a "male factor" in their relationship? Why does there need to be? There doesn't.
3. people dress the way they feel comfortable. Who's to tell them not to? Sorry if it makes you (or anyone else) uncomfortable if it threatens their normally-assumed gender norms. But that's your problem, not theirs. Enough with the "hetero-centric" thinking. Same-sex relationships don't need to mirror opposite-sex ones.
there is a dominant one always in a relationship you fool
The thing that some straight people can't wrap their minds around is the idea that a relationship doesn't have to fall into a "dominant/submissive" paradigm. Gay couples aren't trying to emulate any kind of heterosexual relationship. Many gay couples have very equal relationships. One might take on the traditionally "dominant" roles, while others share equally in all responsibilities. Mind-blowing, huh?
I must state that I am not trying to be mean and I know in text this will come off as rude. if you use that logic, then if your wife "wears the pants" in the relationship, that doesn't make you a woman does it? No... of course not. And your child will not be harmed by the fact that your wife is the dominant one.
The false idea that there must be a dominant in a relationship is why so many marriages fail.
To answer your question, read the Bible a little more closely. You would think that if Gay Marriage was such a sin either Jesus or Paul would have made some reference to it. They don't. If gay marriage is a sin then it is the only sin that is not mentioned once in the Bible.
You are incorrect
Dustin, which Bible do you read?
It's starker than that. There's some evidence that Jesus actually performed same-sex marriages. http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm
Answer: You are not a Christian.
A "real" Christian would not sit in judgment of others, under any circumstances. Your judgment of this couple based solely on your uneducated, subjective interpretation of a photograph shows us all that you are not a believer in the Bible.
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your "faith" (some might call it your prejudice) and try to understand why you feel the need to judge those who are different, when your Bible says you should not.
quote – Answer: You are not a Christian. A "real" Christian would not sit in judgment of others, under any circumstances
By that logic, Jesus Christ was not "Christian", as he told the Canaanite woman to "sin no more", and drove the money changers out of the temple for violating the law. We are commanded not to sit in prideful judgment over others, but encouraged to call sin what it is and lovingly try to correct it.
Oh please, you're just using that as an excuse to justify your prejudice toward the gay community. The divorce rate of Christians are around 50%, their greed is through the roof, their gluttony is why so many are obese...but yet here you are only using your "judgement of sin" on gays. What a hypocrite and a liar.
actually, Jesus was NOT a christian. He was jewish. He always said he was jewish and never claimed to be christian.
I think the photograph suggests that lesbians are not aiming to attract men. No need for bleaching their hair, coloring their lips and nails to show sexual readiness. No need for breast implants or short skirts. Ask your holy spirit about this when you're next in touch.
You're joking. Lesbian women are just as attractive as hetero ones and do all the same things to beautify themselves.
It's just a ramification of the dissolution of gender norms. Men's styles, when worn by either gender, allow others to make certain assumptions about the wearer. Generally, men's fashion is meant to indicate that the wear is capable and confident. Women's fashion–again, as typified in our society–is generally meant to indicate desirability. So if a woman (regardless of her sexuality) wants to project capability and confidence rather than desirability, she dresses "like a man".
you forgot to take your medication.
Stopped reading as soon as I got to the word "Christian," for I knew that whatever you have to say is informed by mythology, lies, and a need to control the lives of others to fit your narrow, spoon-fed, ignorant views.
Why is it that with most gay/lesbian couples one looks predominantly masculine while the other looks predominantly feminine? Take the picture above for instance. Are they trying to appear as 1 man and 1 woman?
Also [and this is just out of curiosity because I really don't know] do most gay/lesbian couples who raise children allow their children the freedom of choice to choose a straight lifestyle? Or do they teach their children to be gay/lesbian?
And how do gay/lesbian couples teach their children about where babies come from? Wouldn't this tend to confuse a young child?
IOWA-wake up and get with the 21st century! Geesh, it's not scary, they won't hurt you. Get over yourselves and treat humans all the same. You are no better than anybody else.
What about the rights of the child? Does not the child have the right to know who his/her biological parents were? The state says it can make a new certificate so I see no problem. STOP being sensitive and making this out to be something miminizing Gay parenting, because it is not.
Since married gay parents aren't automatically given parental rights like a married hetero couple are, yes it is exactly about parental rights.
I'm pretty sure parents don't teach their kids to be gay or straight, otherwise straight parents wouldn't have gay children. I'm also reasonably sure that the children of gay couples arrive into this world basically the same way that children of straight couples do, so it shouldn't be any more confusing to explain the process to them.
until the kid realizes dad doesnt have a wee wee
Please do not reproduce and perpetuate your ignorance and immaturity.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/opinion/obeidallah-outrage/index.html .
"Most" gay/lesbian relationships DON'T. Why do you care if they do? It's their issue.
The question about whether G/L parents "allow" their kids the choice of whether to be gay or straight would be funny if it wasn't so naïve. People do not "choose" to be gay or straight. Same-sex couples allow their kids to be whoever they are. There is no more need to convince them to be gay, than there is to be straight.
Well, I'm a female and I have two mums and I happen to like guys! I didn't choose to be straight or anything, I just grew up liking guys. Also, neither of my mums looks masculine so I find it offensive that people assume that one of the partners has to look like a guy. Even after 20 years of being together, my parents still look at each other in a loving way every day. I wish that one day I could find that person who will cause me to do that as well. Just so you know, my sister is married (to a guy) and has 4 kids and both of them are Episcopal priests. Having gay/lesbian parents is just like having hetero parents because it doesn't matter! And Mary, who commented below, a lot of "normal" couples use surrogates when they can't have children. Are they abandoning their morals as well?
What you are witnessing is not that there is a "male identified" lesbian and a "female identified" as part of the couple. No you assume that to provide yourself with a level of familiarity for these lesbians relationship. It allows you to assume a the opinion that their relationship is like yours. Even the comment "one of them has to be dominant" Well, i wont argue that point BUT Dominant does NOT mean Male. Sorry We has Free Will.
Not all gay couples are "femme/butch", just the ones you notice. For every couple like this, there are probably dozens more you don't even register as gay because they don't fall into these stereotypes. And if they do, it's a matter of personal taste, not an attempt to emulate a heterosexual paradigm.
Gay parents know better than anyone that you can't "teach" anyone to be gay or straight. In fact, most of the time, kids of gay parents are straight. And they don't turn out much differently than other kids, except they're usually more tolerant of others' differences and they don't adhere as rigidly to traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Kids generally aren't confused as adults are in regards to understanding that everyone is different in some way.
One advantage kids of gay parents have is that gay parents usually let them grow into their own personality, unlike many straight parents who try to force their kids into a mold that will result in a near carbon-copy of themselves, especially in terms of sexuality.
They don't "give their children freedom of choice to be straight or gay/lesbian," since it's not a choice. Rather they support whoever the child is. They certainly don't "raise the child to be gay/lesbian," which isn't even possible. If a kid is straight, there's nothing that's going to "turn them gay." (Do you think you could have been 'raised to be gay/lesbian'? If so, you're probably bisexual.) Statistics show the same percentage of gay/lesbian parents' kids are gay/lesbian themselves as the percentage of heterosexual parents' children that are gay/lesbian.
It is not that MOST LGBT couples have one partner appearing more masculine and the other feminine, that is simply your bias view. They are not TRYING to APPEAR as one man and one woman, they are simply dressing and styling their hair as they see fit. Also, if heterosexual parents raise a gay child, do you not believe that gay parents cannot raise a heterosexual child? OF COURSE! Homosexuality isn't a course of study like a language is, it is not TAUGHT or LEARNED, it just is, just as it occurs in nature with other animal species. Finally, they teach their children the same things other parents do with regards to reproduction. Although there are some parents, heteronormative and non-heteronormative alike, that do not even teach this and leave it to the school's sex education classes.
I can understand the court's desire to make sure that a non-biologically related person is actually authorized to be the legal guardian of a child (hence the adoption). But surely there could be a much better way to acknowledge this kind of family arrangement. Why not add a line in the marriage license registration for same-sex couples that any child born to one of the people in the marriage (baby conceived with male partner sperm or baby birthed by female partner) will be legally considered the full "biological" child of the non-biological parent. This can be further cemented by listing the other parent's name on the birth certificate. This protects the child, guaranteeing guardianship, and acknowledges the other parent's rights.
The justification of biological parentage is BS. As a married woman, if I were to have an affair with another man and he were to father my child, my husband's name would still automatically be put on the birth certificate despite not being the BIOLOGICAL parent. I would have to fill out other forms declaring another man to be the biological father of my child. When a single mother applies for a birth certificate for her child, she can also fill out another form to declare any man to be the father of her child on the birth certificate with his consent and he does not have to prove to be biologically connected to the child nor does he have to apply to adopt.
thanks for sharing that your a cheater
"You're". Moron.
IF you had read it closer, you would have seen the IF in her statement. She never admitted to having an affair. I guess you just had to get your two cents in somehow.
Gay marriage. What a sad joke. Their children should be given up for adoption.
The sad joke, is your life. Your parents should have been practicing safe sex, the world would have been better served.
The political correct acceptance of all line is going to far when it surpasses the true data relating to the well being of children and the psychological effects of being raised without both a male and female role model in a heterosexual relationship. Human Nature requires this.
That data is already in. Kids raised in same-sex households are just as well-adjusted (or better) than in opposite sex households. Plenty of studies have shown that. Try to keep up.
Obviously you know nothing about the data. Read up before you spout off.
What's sad is that you would rather have a kid grow up with no parents in an orphanage than have loving, capable gay parents.
If you think this is bad, you should hear what law makers in Canada overlooked. In the rush to gay marriage, legislated by a court and not elected officials, no one bothered to make sure there were provisions for gay divorce. No lie. That left people married when they did not want to be. It was no funny for those involved.
Actually, it's not true. Gays in Canada have been getting successfully divorced since the first year that they were allowed to marry. There was no alteration of the current legislation needed since it addressed "spouses" instead of husband and/or wife.
it sickens me to hear kids call a woman "dad" or for a kid to say i have 2 dads or 2 moms...you can call me what you want but this is the beginning of the decline of the human race..everybody talking about times have changed.. YES THEY HAVE!!! FOR THE WORSE!
yeah, bigotry is such an admirable quality
When a child has two moms, generally, the child will not call a mom "dad". Two moms may be called mom and mama, mommy and mom, etc. It is not that difficult. The child has two loving parents. This is all that is important. Period.
"but this is the beginning of the decline of the human race"
Since when is having a respectful loving long term committed relationship a bad thing?
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.
Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.
A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child's or adolescent's life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.
Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
People like you are no better than the lynch mobs of the 1960's. The way we look back at those mobs with loathing and embarassment is the same way the next generation will look back at you.
Okay, you're a busybody bigot. What business is it of yours what families do within their circle?
People like this would rather a child be stuck with two abusive heterosexual parents that would beat them black and blue or neglect them than two homosexual parents that would love, feed them, and care for them. Some people are so blinded by bigotry that it's sickening.
Sounds a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
yea cause im sure there arent any abusive gay couples get real
Your ignorance sickens the rest of us.
please speak for yourself and only yourself from now on
You should take your own advice.
Um, Christianity is the real cause of the decline of civilization. No one cares what you have to say.
@truth... Your head has been buried somewhere for way too long. There have been gay couples for thousands of years, but it was forced into "the closet" when the dark ages came. When religion started to dictate what was moral and what was not people had to hid who/what they really felt. I think that since we are becoming a more enlightened and open-minded society, we are, hopefully, getting better. BTW, I have NEVER heard a child call a same sex parent anything other than a variation of mom, when both parents are female, and dad, even when both are male. I now proclaim you cured of "head-in-arse" disease.
How simple can this be? It's physiology, it's our physical reality not a desired reality.
Only ONE of these women is the biological parent. The other woman is NOT related to the child. Gay marriage doesn't change the child's blood relatives!!
Or should we say that someone is a blood relation because it makes them feel good? Just simply list ONE person as the "biological parent" and the other as "legal parent". Take responsibility for your actions and methods, and tell the truth.
Define biological mother. Is that the one who gives birth or the one who contributed the egg? Suppose one lesbian is the egg donor and her partner is the surrogate. In states that don't recognize surrogates, the woman who gives birth to the baby is the mother on the birth certificate even though the biological mother by DNA is the partner. Compare this to the surrogate story CNN also as on the site. The surrogate was able to go to another state where the laws did not recognize the intended parents and the surrogate had the legal standing to give the baby up for adoption.
What a crazy world we live in. It's all just very unfortunate for the children. As we know from adoptees in closed adoptions, babies grow up to be adults who want the truth of their biological relatives and true biological parents. At least with adoptees, the records do exist. Imagine having no idea who your biological father is or which of the two 'mommies' is actually shares the same DNA. It's a trainwreck waiting to happen for all these donor conceived offspring. Other countries have banned anonymous egg & sperm donors and there are records of who donor conceived children's actual parents are available for them. But if the US did that, it's be considered bigoted.
shutup, idiot-gay people are adopting MILLIONS of unwanted kids abandoned by straight people-show a little respect. Very few have their own biological children. A little education will assist your ignorance-ALL studies show gays raise kids just as well as straight people-so mind your bigotry-its pretty disgusting.
Norman, I respect what you are trying to say. However, I had my first biological child in 1994 and my second in 1996. My point is I did this before it was "trendy," and gay couples have been having biological children for years. Many of the lesbian parents I know have, in fact, had children biologically. In one case, the birth mother was implanted with the partner's eggs - this was done for various medical reasons. Both moms are very much the children's parents. I also know many lesbian and gay parents who adopt. This should be such a non-issue. It sickens me that people think I am less of a parent or my children are somehow disadvantaged by having a parent who is lesbian. It is so difficult for me to understand.
Wow, Norman. That was rude. You are correct that gay couples are adopting unwanted babies. (I wish those families nothing but happiness.) But, the reality is that the names of those wonderful adoptive parents do not show up on the birth certificate. The birth certificate, in most states, is a legal document that shows who the biological parents are.
norman you shut up
Get with it. The times they are a-changing. Besides, a court has already spoken, and it seems the supreme court would agree, since they spoke loudly in 2009.
One thing your post is missing is Common Sense. When a straight couple has a child do they both have to prove they are biological parents in order to appear on the birth certificate? Is one of the parents required to adopt their own child regardless of their DNA?
The answer to both of those questions is no. So why should a legal gay /lesbian couple who are just as committed parents have to jump through extra hoops? Again.. discrimination. If your premise is correct... every parent should have to prove maternity or paternity to appear on the birth certificate.
No, but the basis for putting the married parents on the birth certificate is that the husband is assumed to be the biological parent. In many states, for example, if you are married to someone and then get pregnant by someone else, even if you are separated from your husband, the husband is still considered to be the biological father and is still listed on the birth certificate. There is no presumption of biological relatedness with same-sex couples because both can't physically be related to the baby. This isn't some horrible bigoted idea, it's just a part of the law that hasn't been laid down yet in that state because same-sex marriage is still new there.
It's been four years. It's not rocket science.
Go read the law: http://www.idph.state.ia.us/genetics/common/pdf/gen_chapter44.pdf
paternity test is required if there is no marriage, but not if there is marriage– except for gay couples. Why?
Parenting a child out of wedlock does not require biological proof to be put on the BC, only consent. If a married woman were to have a child with a man who is not her husband, her husband would still automatically be listed as the father on the birth certificate unless a separate declaration is filed. Again, no biological proof is usually needed.
So no, it's not that simple. If same-sex parents in a state where gay marriage is legal have to jump through hoops to get the non-biological parent to be named on the birth certificate, the same rules should apply to heterosexual couples. If this is the way they are spinning it then single mothers should require proof to declare the father on the BC and a legal adoption should be required as should women who have children born of extra-marital affairs.
It's one thing when gay parents have to jump through these hoops here, where gay marriage is nowhere near being legal. It's just silly when the marriage *is* legal. I know someone who had to go through the process of adopting her own d*mn kids. Parents shouldn't have to do that. Married parents should have to do it even less.
From what I understand, among other things this is another of those financial unequal treatment things gay/lesbian couples have to deal with. Even if legally married, the non-biological parent is not recognized as a parent. The problem is it costs big bucks to legally adopt a child and why should the spouse have to pay this expense simply because it is a same sex marriage when heterosexual couples who decide to have a child using a surrogate or a sperm donor are both recognized as the parent without having to go through an adoption proceeding, even though one of them is not the biological parent..
What a load of BS. Biological parent concern? Seriously? So they do the same thing to a mother that uses someone else donated eggs? Do they make the birth mother apply to adopt b/c no genetic relationship? They're just being intentional in their display of disapproval and discrimination.
Your logic is what fails! The reality is there is only one true biological parent. However, in the case of a married couple, the husband becomes the father, and is listed on the birth certificate as same. Which is in keeping with the laws and practices of the majority of most states. Whenever the wife is impregnated, regardless of who the biological father is, the husband is assumed to be the father and is listed as the father.
If the mother is unmarried, the father listed as unknown, which is in keeping with the fact that only the father's identity can be a mystery. There is no way for the mother to be listed as unknown as she typically will give birth in a hospital for which her information is obtained and noted on the birth certificate. Even in cases where the child is abandoned, great pains are taken to determine who she is, if for no other reason than to identify the child's mother.
The best way to a gay or lesbian can protect their relationship with their child as a non-biological parent is through second-parent adoption, in which the non-biological parent adopts the child with consent of the birth mother (or original adoptive parent), without terminating the parental rights of the first parent. (If the genetic father is not an anonymous donor, his consent may be required as well). This process helps many lesbian parents in states that do not allow same-sex marriage. In fact, second-parent adoption is a more powerful protector of their parenting relationship than marriage, because same-sex marriage will not be accepted in all states but states must honor the second-parent adoptions of other states.
Even when same-sex marriage is legal, that doesn't mean that the biological father has already consented to give up parental rights. You can't just get pregnant by some guy, marry a woman and then say that he has no parental rights. Unless it was a documented anonymous sperm donation, there has to be a consent form signed by the man. Otherwise you are just stealing parental rights from someone to give them to someone who isn't even related to the baby. I hope there is no state that would do that, and I don't think there is. Let's not confuse the issue here.
You are just spewing nonsense out of the keyboard, it's obvious you didn't even read what Diana wrote.
There are some states in this country that makes the husband the legal father, no matter who is the true biological father is. So why is the rules for gay marriages different? Want to set the state up? Get a divorce, quit your job a little time, apply for medicaid and see who the state goes after to pay for health coverage? I bet you it will be the other gay parent.
Oh my god who the hell cares?!?!?!
Does it really matter, these lesbians have a kid and realistically only one can be the mom. Under Father they should put None. End of story!
I think your tune would change, if you were ever denied parental rights to one of your children.
parental rights isn't the issue. Legal guardian, even 'parent' sure. But the other woman does NOT belong on the birth certificate.
"But the other woman does NOT belong on the birth certificate."
They are legally married in their state, so there is no reason she shouldn't be allowed to go on the birth certificate.
James, again, youre a complete phucckin moron. Both the women are parents and both belong on the BC
They are not being denied parental rights, because the non-biological parent has to apply for adoption to become a step parent. New Jersey has this in place, if an infertile couple uses a surrogate mother, then the women has to apply for adoption for her own child. It's pretty messy stuff overall and the laws vary nationally. In some states the infertile parent can apply for parental status during the pregnancy so their name goes on the birth certificate when the baby is born and it saves courts time and money later.
In Iowa the hetero non-biological parent would be automatically put on the BC, no adoption needed. So yes is is about denying parental rights to a gay married couple. NJ law has no bearing here.
the one with the collar is the father
no they should put the one with the collar as the father
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more than 61,000 infants were born in 2010 as the result of in vitro fertilization. Nearly 8,000 of these pregnancies came from donor eggs. An estimated 1,400 babies were carried by surrogates. There are no good estimates of how many children are fathered by sperm donors, although back in 1988, someone arrived at the figure of 30,000 a year. Most of these donors are NOT listed on the birth certificates because egg and sperm donation in the United States takes place under cover of anonymity
I was legally adopted at the age of 15 – I knew who my biological parents were. My mothers name was on the birth certificate, my fathers name was listed as "unknown". My birth certificate now lists my adopitive parents as "mother" and "father"... All the "birth parents", "biological parents" arguments are ridiculous when you have people with birth certificates listing the parents as people who I didn't even know when I was born. A birth certificate is a record of a live birth – it's not a DNA record, it's not a medical record, in most states it's a legal document with the childs name and the people who are or acting as the parents.
What about the case the case of surrogate moms. Who is the "birth" mother?
Ditto sperm donors.
Exactly! Or egg donors! I donated my eggs to a friend and her husband who were unable to have their own children. I am the biological mother. My DNA was used to make the subsequent children...am I on the birth certificate? No. Should it be? No. It is in their records that their family history is mine and their fathers, not the woman who carried them...because she is not genetically connected to them. But nevertheless, her name is on the birth certificate.
Shouldn't the true and honest name of the person(s) who caused a child to be born be included on the birth certificate of a child that was born of a woman's egg and a man's sperm? I understand if either are unknown, but just for the sake of making people feel "good," we're now willing to tell lies and untruths just to satisfy people's pseudo natures. If you don't agree with the procedures of listing the names of the true parents, then adopt the child afterwards, or don't do the procedure at all. It is better the truth be told, than a bunch of lies and half truths!
I am seeing the world change right before my eyes and I absolutely can not believe it!
The problem with your argument is once the child gets adopted the adopted parents names go on the birth certificate and then it's still a pseudo.
@Goodsmack01: Yes, the world is changing right before your very eyes. It has been, is, and always will be changing. It's called progress.
I would like to be in the world just about two or three centuries from today.....just to see where all these "distortions" of the natural order end up.
Do they require genetic testing for the husband? In some (many?) cases he may not be the biological father.
Didn't you read the article about the surrogate who refused to have an abortion. State laws vary. That surrogate went to Michigan because Michigan does not recognize the intended parents and the surrogate is the birth mother- not the intended mother. If a gay couple used a surrogate in Michigan, the surrogate would be listed as the birth mother- not the gay men.
When a child is adopted, a new birth certificate is issued, by the department of public health, showing the "new" parents as the parents of the child whether there is a biological relationship or not. There is no mention of the biological parents on the new birth certificate. This change of the parents seems to indicate that the legal relationship is what matters on the birth certificate – not a biological one. Since this is true with adoptions, it seems reasonable that it would also be true for same gender parents. The legal relationship says this person agrees to be responsible for this child.
But true birth certificate remains for adoptees and more states are allowing adoptees access to their original birth records with their biological parents names on it. It makes searching for biological parents far easier than paying a private investigator 10s of thousands of dollars and getting nowhere. Donor conceived offspring have no original records to find. The truth of their biological roots can be hidden from them. There are adoptees that didn't find out they were adopted until their adoptive parents died and their original birth certificate is their own source of information about where they came from.
Many very progressive and liberal countries have banned anonymous egg & sperm donation for a reason. The rights of the child to know his or her biological parents is more important than the rights of the parents to have a child. Unfortunately, since so many same sex couples use donors, an legislation against sperm donors especially in the US gets fought down by the LGBT lobbyists. With advances in IVF technology, the vast majority of donor sperm purchases are by single women & gay couples. This is a shame because some sperm donors have more than 100+ children that are even reported. It's only a matter of time before donor conceived children who share the same father marry each other. Unless they have access to their true biological records of how they were conceived and who their real parents are, half-siblings could marry and have no idea.
The people at the Iowa Dept. of Public Health who made the decision to discriminate need to pay a very heavy price for their actions.
I'm not quick to judge to Health Department just yet. There should have been some legal definitions and procedures on how to deal with this situation when the legalization was drafted. The Health Department is somewhat correct in that it shouldn't list someone on the birth certificate just as a parent just because they are married. Suppose it had been a straight couple and the woman was pregnant with another man's baby. The person she's currently married to is not the father and not legally liable for child support. The biological father is liable regardless of whether or not the couple is married. The current husband could adopt and the biological father could relinquish his rights, but until that is done, the biological father is still responsible.
Who fathered the child? Does he have any rights? Suppose it was a friend and she got pregnant through intercourse and not from a sperm donation and artificial insemination. The biological father is the other legal parent until he relinquishes his rights.
But that's not true. If a woman who is married becomes pregnant, her husband is legally the baby's father, by definition. The "biological" father has no rights or responsibilities what-so-ever, unless he sues for them. Babies of a married couple are considered products of the marriage, unless a legal proceeding specifically changes that.
lol rob lmao
Do they DNA test married dads to make sure they're the biological father? It seems like if they're going to argue biological accuracy as the standard, that they need to be consistent with this new found due diligence.
A man can always lie and claim he is the father but a woman cannot lie because she could not make sperm
You are required a blood test to get married. When the baby is born it is tested. Doesn't take a rocket scientist long to figure out who the biological parent is. with 2 men or 2 woman it is an impossibility.
There is only one state that still does a blood test before marriage, and that is MA. The test is done for syphlis – what? The blood test at birth is done only to determine blood type – that doesn't necessairly tell you who the father is.
The test is for STDs, not DNA.
"with 2 men or 2 woman it is an impossibility."
So it is when one member of a straight couple is infertile. Duh!
A presumed father's name is on the birth certificate. That does not always mean that the father has established paternity. Establishing paternity really relies more on the mother acknowledging who the father is than marital status. If a couple is married, together or the mother wants child support, it's not a complicated matter. But a woman can put any name on the birth certificate she wants, it doesn't make that person the legal father of the child. Unmarried fathers have to establish paternity, especially if they want standing in the court in regards to custody/visitation. If a couple is not together and a mother does not want the unmarried biological father to have custody, there's a lot a mother can do to prevent him from establishing paternity and having legal standing to file for custody.
Much of the law has far more to do with child support than anything else. And let's not forget, there have been donor conceived children of lesbians that have forced the donor to pay child support. Courts look for a guy to pay for the child. That's how it's been, that's how it's always going to be. Judges might not know that a straight couple used a donor or surrogate but when two lesbians appear in court, the judge will know there's a biological father who's not paying child support. There's a lot in our society who believes the guy who knocked up the girl better bend over and pay- donor or not.
Do they really expect the rest of society to pretend that they're both the biological parents of the child ? Children have the right to know who their biological parents are, for many reasons. If non biological gays and lesbians have their feelings hurt by that then they should stay away from kids.
Children have a right to be loved. It does not matter whether the parent is gay or straight, every child deserves to be loved and cared for and none of you have the right ot get in the way of that with your beliefs and religious views.
The real anomaly that the writer is referencing is it is impossible to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers listed as the biological parents. That is a fact and no way to dance around it in your attempt to be so liberal and accomadating.
"The real anomaly that the writer is referencing is it is impossible to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers listed as the biological parents."
It's also impossible to have one mother and 2 fathers but's that's what happens when a man in infertile. The man who donated the sperm is NOT put on the birth certificate. Your logic fails.
Hate to tell you this, but it's called "second parent adoption," and it's been happening in some states for almost twenty years.
@ellid name two and the law.
@Really, that's only in the instance of the father not being known! And in I.V.F., the father is anonymous as his sample was submitted anonymously, one reason for which, is to avoid any potential for future financial responsibility, aside from other privacy issues.
Gays and lesbians, just as their relationships are false, are now creating this false reality in which lies are now becoming the truth.
"Gays and lesbians, just as their relationships are false, "
They are not false, they are legally married in their state. Thanks for showing you have poor reading comprehension.
So having your name on a birth certificate equates to being able to love a child or not?
So, let's use your poor logic. Then that means when an infertile couple uses another man's sperm, that man then becomes the biological dad and not the man the women is married to. Right? LOL! Duh!
The fact is the sperm donor is in fact the biological father.
But they're not put on the birth certificate! Duh!
But the donor is not the legal guardian which is what the BC is for.
"The Iowa supreme court is now considering the case, and there is no timeline as to when it might issue a ruling"
I wonder how the court will rule after three justices were voted out in 2010 after they legislated from the bench instead of waiting for a vote by Iowans on allowing same sex marriages. I believe the governor is gone as well.
They didn't legislate from the bench, the constitutional amendment stating that all persons shall enjoy equal protection under the law was duly ratified. This idea of that we need to put peoples rights up for a vote so we can create second class citizenships for certain groups, or that judges need to rule in favor of that unwritten law... that would be legislating from the bench.
How about the polygamists? They are even worse than second class citizens – they go to jail! (And don't try to confuse the matter with under-age wives – there are polygamists in jail when all the wives are consenting adults.) So where do you draw the line? Do only the deviants that you like get "rights", or are all deviants entitled to rights?
roxi, youre a stupid idiot. polygamy is biblical, so if religious kooks want it, they can fight for it
Wow, Norman! And why is it your business how many partners somebody has? If you recall (which you probably don't), when gays were protesting the Mormon church over Prop. 8 in California, the gays were yelling things like, "you want a man with two wives, we want a man and a husband." But you're missing the point (which, from your rant, isn't surprising). The point is that everybody can agitate for rights, and the argument for polygamists rights to marriage is exactly the same as that of gays. So, who are you to say that their claim for equality should be denied?
Is it fair to assume the whole issue here is that biological parents who have their names on the birth certificate take pride in having this official document by the state stating they are the "biological" parents to their new bundle of joy they brought into this wonderful world? I don't believe it states biological on the certificate however I think traditionally that is what is felt when they receive it. Does anybody acknowledge their feelings that it might and it must lessen the value of the BC or there would likely be no argument? What about those thousands of people?
The birth certificate has a spouse for the mother and father in that is how babies are made. Homosexual couples cannot be a father and a mother to the child. At least one of the lesbian couple can have the baby, but a homosexual men couple are biologically denied. People can argue with nature, but they will lose and then they make it political and that which is blatantly un-natural becomes natural. No body wants to stick any part of thier body into a sewage pipe, but if we can glamorize it, then the rules change, but it is still a sewage pipe. Biologist recognize this. Even animals that many will point to as homosexual will choose one of the opposite sex if they are given the choice.
You obviously don't get that husbands do it to their wives that way too. LOL! Should we deny them their civil rights too?
" Even animals that many will point to as homosexual will choose one of the opposite sex if they are given the choice."
That's not true, it's been documented in over 1500 other species.
At first glance, my inclination was to agree with the DPH. There is definitely a value to having a record of biological lineage. Then I thought back to the birth of my two children. Nobody asked me for a DNA sample to establish paternity. In theory, another man could have been the father of the child. We could have used an egg donor, meaning that I had a biological link but my wife did not. We could have used a sperm donor, meaning the roles would be reversed. The point is that there was no 100% certainty that we were the biological parents, as defined by DNA. I suspect the same can be said for virtually all births in Iowa. Therein lies the discrimination.
Not true. Under the law, a baby born to a married couple is legally the couple's child. A husband does not have to "prove" paternity of his wife's child. (Paternity can be questioned, but unless it is specifically challenged, the husband's paternity is assumed.) If a man impregnates a married woman, that man will have no claim to the child unless paternity can be proven. Otherwise, the woman's husband is the legal father.
Your response is a good argument in favor of putting the names of the legally-married gay couples on the birth certificates, though it's obvious from your comment below that you didn't mean it that way.
Except that when the "husband" is another woman, it's pretty hard to assume paternity.
When a male teabagger mates with a female teabagger their spawn is called a baggette.
The hospitals argument is dumb- all they had to do was put *b next to the mothers name for biological and *nb for non biological so that it was clear which of the two was the birth mother.
The states that allow gays to be on the birth records are wrong. Birth records are there to provide record of the biological data of a person. Since gays cant reproduce, they shouldnt be allowed to put whatever they want. If you dont know where the biological info, then it stays blank or put (unknown). That is the standard for all and it should apply to all!
Well, since your basic premise is exactly wrong your argument is moot. The birth certificate specifies legal parentage at time of birth and very frequently lists non-biological parents. VERY frequently.
No, they are not. Medical workers will not assume without testing that the people on the birth certificate are the biological parents; there are countless cases when people find that their fathers are actually not biologically related. The medical risk of the assumption that the father on the certificate is the biological one is so great, that this limitation is completely irrational at this point.
so adoptive parents cannot have their names on the birth certificate of an adopted baby? Really?
Birth certificates aren't DNA tests. Your logic fails.
Read the article, the position of the State is that the non biological parent can apply for adoption at which point she can be granted the status of step mom.
Non-biological infertile men don't have to do that when their wives use another sperm donor, the law is discriminatory! Your logic is a failure.
I applaud the Iowa Department of Public Health for doing the right thing and making it hard for these deviants to go about with their daily lives. Iowans did not want gay marriage, it was forced on them by activist judges. Iowa Department of Public Health is part of the legislative branch that is elected by the people. H omosexuality is an abomination
Yep, perfect example how this represents discrimination. Even the bigots acknowledge it was done out of prejudice. Though of course they applaud it.
Definition of Activist Judge: One whose interpretation of the law is in opposition to the far right wing nuts.
Maybe Fred thinks gays should be made to wear pink triangles on their stripey suits, and that they should be rounded up and put in special camps. That seems to be the general thinking of his sort.
They already look like freaks. They should just shut up and stop trying to impose their lifestyle on everybody else.
And how exactly are gay people forcing their lifestyle on everyone else? And since when is loving someone of the same sex a 'lifestyle' any more than loving someone of teh opposite sex is a lifestyle? If you're not gay or bisexual, it is unlilkely you will want to marry someone of the same sex, so it doesnt' affect you AT ALL.
You make a great point, Nathalie: you believe in polygamy too!
"You make a great point, Nathalie: you believe in polygamy too!"
The bible does, so the Christians should support. Oh...next will be bestiality and incest too right, but that's legal in many states already, more so than gay marriage. LOL!
Most christians reject polygamy. There are people who want to practice it, though. And yet they go to jail! How can that be? Why don't they have freedom to marry? Keep in mind that during the Prop 8 battle in California, when the gays were attacking the Mormon church for their support of the prop., gays called them hypocritical for wanting multiple marriages while rejecting gay marriages. So, to answer your question, it is gays that argue that all sorts of deviant behavior should be considered normal.
"it is gays that argue that all sorts of deviant behavior should be considered normal."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be "cured."
Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.
There are religions that do allow gay marriage.
In July 2012, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex relationships.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in 2009 voted to recognize and bless same-sex unions
Judaism – The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements have supported gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, since the mid-1990s. In June 2012, the Conservative Jewish movement approved a ceremony to allow same-sex couples to marry
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.
Nice try, Actually. But Actually, none of that explains on what basis polygamists (assuming all are loving, consenting, adults) should be denied their marriage licenses. Are you arguing that people that like multiple partners/spouses ARE mentally ill?
Polygamy should be legal based on the law and the bible.
"Nice try, Actually. But Actually, none of that explains on what basis polygamists (assuming all are loving, consenting, adults) should be denied their marriage licenses. Are you arguing that people that like multiple partners/spouses ARE mentally ill?"
By the way my posts was in response to your lie about deviant behavior comment.
Actually, you're getting confused (are you a man?) So, to summarize: I believe that gays are in the wrong to try to impose their lifestyle on everybody else, for example by trying to up-end marriage laws in the whole country. Nathalie argued that they are not trying to impose their lifestyle on anybody else because if a gay couple gets married it doesn't affect me "AT ALL." That is a ringing endorsement of polygamy, because exactly the same could be said about polygamy – "it doesn't affect you AT ALL!" Therefore polygamy is justifiable for exactly the same reasons that gay marriage is justified: equality for everybody, and it's nobody's business how many partners somebody has. Or do you want to deny rights to those that you don't like?
Roxi, you should stop posting, you have really bad reading comprehension. Actually, answered your question moron and you skipped right over it just so you could post your poor logic....again.
um, guys, you're coming across as weirdos! You're saying she lacks reading comprehension, but instead of rebutting any of her points you're spewing your name-calling garbage (typical behavior for leftists). But there is something very interesting going on here: you didn't answer the question! It looks like a pretty simple question, too: why shouldn't people who have multiple partners be allowed to marry their multiple partners? Well? Don't you think that people with multiple partners should have equal rights?
Eric, I think the one called "Actually" actually did answer the question – or at least tried to. The problem is that the answer is so moronic that it doesn't merit a response. But, just to set the record straight, here goes: "Actually's" answer was, "Polygamy should be legal based on the law and the bible."
Huh? Something that is illegal should be legal based on the law? And what does the bible have to do with American law or public policy? I'm not sure what's more astounding: how deluded these people are, or how smart they think they are.
Our two friends, Actually and Really, cannot make a coherent argument, or even understand a simple question. An argument for gay marriage that appeared higher in the thread was that nobody should object to it because it doesn't affect anybody else. Of course that's not true (the whole point of this discussion is that it changes a whole lot in our society), but even if that argument were valid, it raises a question: if the argument is valid for gay marriage, why is it not also valid for plural marriages? It could be that gays reject the idea of multiple partners, and find such a lack of fidelity abhorrent and immoral, and therefore they seek to deny polygamists their marriage rights because gays don't agree with it. But that wasn't how they justified their objection to plural marriages. Instead, the best they could do was Actually's bizarre posting about polygamy being supported by the law (or something like that) and also the Bible. Very strange indeed, but it was useful in showing just how weird these people really are.
Fred is a believer in the old testament – when it comes to gay people. He completely ignores old testament rules when it comes to what you can eat/wear/marry/etc.
Because the bible is taken very literally, except when it is not.
Actually Jesus came to fulfill the law and free us from it. That being said, we are still bound to the moral code given to us by God because that reflects God's character and that does not change. Sexuality is a moral issue and therefore Christians address it using the moral code provided in the Bible by their God. That is why this Levitical law, the one pertaining to homosexuality, is still prevalent and not the ones about pork or shellfish. To be honest, it is actually easier to define what is sexually moral than what is sexually immoral. Sexual morality: Sex between a married Man and Woman. Sexual Immorality: Everything that falls outside this guideline.
So you support the biblical moral right of soldiers to kidnap women and bring them home, too?
The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
the whole point of a birth certificate is to record a birth, isn't it? it's not called a "these are the parents who are legally responsible for this child" certificate. it's not called a " this is who donated genetic material to the creation of this child" certificate either. in this day and age, we can't even be sure the woman carrying the child is biologically related to the baby. (egg donors, surrogates). if we are going to use a document, that is supposed to simply be the record of birth, to instead be used to state who is legally responsible for the child, then we should be able to list the primary caregivers of that child, regardless of what sex they are. we already DO this when we list non-bio ppl as parents, in the various fertility scenarios that occur these days. this argument that non-bio parents must go thru an adoption before they can be listed on the BC is doesn't really hold water in light of that. we do absolutely NOTHING to ensure that the name listed as the father on a BC is REALLY the bio father, but they are trying to force these ppl to list some random guy, who donated his DNA and wanted nothing else to do with it, as the father, instead of a woman who actually wants to parent as the other mother. the problem lies in what the info is being provided for. why DO we list parents on the BC? the days when a child was who he/she was based on whose blood was in their veins is long past in this country. if we are now using the BC as a way to record legal guardianship rather then lineage, then both of these women should be on it. if we are going to use it to just record a birth, no parent should be listed on it, and there needs to be a separate document to list legal guardians, bio parents or otherwise. so what is the purpose of this document? because it seems to me, it is to establish who the legal guardians are these days, and if it doesn't matter for so many hetero ppl that non-bio parents are on it, without all the rigamarole of an adoption, then it shouldn't matter here either.
"But the Iowa Department of Public Health has refused to grant birth certificates that list both spouses in a gay marriage as the legal parents of newborn children"
"But the Iowa Department of Public Health has argued that it will provide a birth certificate naming both parents, once a parent that is not biologically related goes through a stepparent adoption."
A birth certificate should be a record of who the biological parents are, to the best knowledge of all parties. Who the legal parents/guardians are, should be another record. Changing parent's names on a birth certificate according to adoptions or losing custody, even for hetero parents, seems like a bad idea to me.
It may seem like a bad idea to you but it has been reality for about as long as there have been birth records. Instead of redefining the BC as a bloodline certificate, perhaps we can create an optional bloodline certificate that has nothing to do with the legal parents and is simply a biology/genetics report. It is only recently that we can determine paternity with any sort of certainty.
Unless DPH performs a genetic paternity test, the suggestion that the male on the birth certificate is the actual biological father is arbitrary and unenforceable.
Heteros can't seem to stay married and raise their kids together. Until we get our own acts together, who gives us the right to say no to gay couples?
This pesky thing called the law. If you don't like it, move. Kids need a mom and a dad, both bring needed and unique skills to raising a child. I'd like to throw a baseball to either woman and ask her to show me a cut fastball grip.. Exactly, these are two selfish Libs who like all Libs when they don't get their way, they ask a Judge to give them and make everyone else give them their way. What a lucky kid
My dad never could throw a ball straight, I suppose he should never have been allowed to have kids.
Shouldn't have been allowed to have kids and was probably gay. That should be the test, throw a fast ball or get labelled gay and not be allowed to marry a woman or date one even, get them out of the pool for all the straight men.
I love all this crap. It has to be the way it is because any other way might mean my way isn't the best and I have to be the best. Sigh.
BTW, that pesky law thing? They change all the time or would you use the same argument against inter-racial marriage. It WAS the law at the time it was fought and defeated.
Except for that pesky thing called, the Constitution. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Kids deserve a mom and a dad, except when moms (or dads) are single. And heck, aren't orphans better off in foster homes or orphanages than in the care of a loving, stable, gay couple?
Geez, you really are a clueless one.
I'm she the kid is a lucky one, to have two loving parents who want them. children need family- be that one parent, two heterosexual parents, two homosexual parents, grandparents, etc. There are plenty of families only run by one parent, should they not be allowed to have kids? Do we take kids away from widows and widowers because kids need both parents? Love makes a family. And you said 'under the law'....too bad Iowa actually rejected discrimination in 2009 and legalized gay marriage, joining the twenty-first century, so it is according to the law.
She is not the father or mother, just a legal partner. The father can be on the birth certificate, the sperm came from a male person. She can't adopt the child as her mother can she? The child has a mother and father, sperm and egg. Unless she claims the sperm came from her, she's out of luck for now. Can there be two mothers on a birth cert.?
Simple, type in the name – print.
Even in the article it notes that they are willing to put the other mom on IF she goes through the adoption process. The only difference here is that she is not male. A male in the same position does not have to do that even if he is not the bio dad. Clearly discrimination.
The law is what the state defines. Since the state has legalized same sex marriages, then the law in this case must recognize both spouses on the birth certificate, regardless of the biology involved. As the marriage contract creates the situation where a person entering into a marriage supplants all others as next of kin, then the children should enjoy the pertinent results of that contract, namely, that the spouses are both next of kin to the children. There should be no other document required to establish that.
There you go bringing facts into this.... That just won't do!
What is the Health Department's purpose for listing any parent on a birth certificate? Is it to list biological parents? Is it to list legal guardians? As a health department, there is a legitimate reason to know biological parents and keep track of that. These stats are used to research genetic conditions and diseases. This is separate from legal status that the state confers to legal guardians, whether biological parents or adoptive parents. As an adopted person, the state where I was born keeps copies of two birth certificates. The first lists my biological parents. The second, which is what is provided to me for legal purposes, lists my adopted parents. Perhaps the solution is to add additional lines to allow listing of both biological and legal parents. That is within the power of the state legislature, not the health department.
All legitimate questions. But since the current practice is to include non-bio parents if they are male then there is no logical or legal argument to not include the other female parent. Same situation biologically AND legally since they are BOTH supposedly equally and legally recognized spouses.
That is interesting. In the state where I was adopted, my amended birth certificate took the place of the original. The reason for birth certificates in general is to establish who is legally responsible for the child.
Seems to me that if marriage is the relationship that bonds two people and a child is born within that union (using technology or not), each person in that union becomes a legal parent. Iowa allows for equality of marriage; therefore, it follows that Iowa should grant parental rights to each parent in the relationship equally.
what if the child of same sex couple's won't want them when he grows up?
Well, what if the child of a hetero couple won't want them when he grows up?
What if the the child of same sex parents doesn't want them when that child grows up?
what if your kids don't want you when they grow up? they can emancipate themselves. It works the same way... duh
Now that Sarah Palin has been broomed from Fake News she will have more time to devote to her new book of baby name suggestions. It will be called "The Sarah Palin Book of Baby Names". Here are some of her favorites... Fargo, Spatula, Bristol, Mudflap, Trigtwit, Pinhead, Ringworm, Trak, Mucus, Checkvalve, Pooper
"That is what other state's have done ..."
" ... to meet the Gartner's and another affected family ... "
English is your business. Please learn how to use an apostrophe.
How embarrassing. You are absolutely right. And we've now fixed the error. Thank you for pointing it out.
Lynn Truss wrote an excellent, humorous book, "EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES" that exposes the hilarious misuses of punctuation and grammar. It should be required reading for all up to the 8th grade reading level that most media write to.
Page 51 – Ni**er's Out (a sign seen in New York, under which was written, wickedly:"But he'll be back shortly.")
Dear Pedro:
Do not argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and defeat you with their experience.
but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
Yeah, that weird stuff called experience from which people learn. Better to avoid that Pedro, it will make you a fool.
All talk of sexuality aside my opinion is that both biological parents should be listed on the birth certificate even in the case of hetero single mothers, so the child can look up medical history and genealogy. Not to be discriminatory, but for information. An adoptive parent on the original birth certificate complicates the research on genetic diseases and other such things.
Then logically all fathers should be tested for paternity as a significant number of BCs are already incorrect due to infidelity. Of course this may lead to a few more single parent households but the child will at least know their pedigree, eh?
Excellent point Markin, no guy should have to pay for the consequences of his wife's infidelity and a little more transparency would do everyone good. If it isn't mine, it could go off the cliffs of Sparta for what I care.
Simple solution. Every baby born get DNA profiled, and is kept on record by the state – just like a birth certificate.
The father must be tested and compared to make sure he is the father.
For historical purposes, all adults must also be tested and cataloged. We'll be able to determine who are the absent fathers,
who's been fooling around (look out, congress critters), and pinpoint genealogy and hereditary conditions.
BC become purely genetic records. There is a separate "who owns you" (i.e., guardianship) document.
Nothing differs between straights, gays, single parents, married, divorced, or any other distinction.
Interestingly, the child of Kardashian who is still married to the sports guy, is the legal child of wife and husband under state law. Should the wife go to her heavenly reward, then the husband would be presumed to be the next of kin and legal custodian of the child.
A birth certificate is not a pedigree. The law should be applied equally.
Beth, why do you hate men so much?
Umm, you seem to be the one with a chip on your shoulder. Why can't you just want everyone to be treated equally?
Cause the gay scares me and I might catch the gay (even though I am more arroused by gay pron then by straight pron, but I REALLY don't want to talk about that) and I have to discriminate against things that scare me so I can jusitify my fear. #Sarcasm
MARTIN, has it occured to you that we are not all equal. No matter how many laws are passed and no matter how hard everybody tries, we are not all equal. Just because people want to cross thread the system and life, then have laws changed to give them equal rights doesn't make it right. Having said that I do believe everyone should have the right to choose their way of life, just stop trying to force everyone else to agree it normal (it isn't).
It is pedigree, everything you are; is a culmination of all those that came before you.
But a BC is not a bloodline document. Never was. Unlike a canine pedigree no one was watching who your mom was mating with to be able to ensure your bloodline. At least I assume they weren't.
so have your DNA run, 23andmecom has it for 99 bucks, you don't need another person to know what you are made of.
The only defining difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is sexual behavior and the resulting ability based on behavior to procreate or not. Pregnancy and childbearing a fruit of heterosexuality, not homosexuality. When I see lesbians or homosexuals wanting to be parents, what I see is the true instincts of heterosexuality being exhibited. These women were born heterosexual. The proof is in their desire to be parents. All else is behavior and preference.
And you thought of that all by yourself? It shows.
Catholics...so funny.
And thus far, nobody has offered anything logical to debate these comments of mine...just wisecracks. Probably soon to be followed by name calling or trying to get my posts deleted. Typical gay liberals....living in denial and wishful thinking.
I don't like kids, can't stand them, no desire to have them, no desire to be pregnant, no desire to get anyone pregnant. I'm gay. So does that prove I was born that way according to your rational?
Sexual orientation is determined in the womb. Many gays and lesbians will tell you they knew they were "different" when they were too young to know anything about sex, and many parents also knew or suspected their child was not heterosexual. Pay more attention to science and less to religious propaganda and you may educate yourself!
Wow, is that 100% fact? How did they determine that? Trying to educate myself....
In the womb, huh? So when this defect can be detected in prenatal testing, guess what will happen to all such babies? Good thing America believes in abortion.
Or to the doctor that is want many more visit during your lifetime ensuring their properity by telling you that you're different and need counciling.
"Wow, is that 100% fact? How did they determine that? Trying to educate myself...."
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
There is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"
But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.
This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not defined by sexual activities (most of which are shared between the two groups any way), but by sexual orientation. There is a difference.
Also, there are many gays that have fathered or mothered children (from "normal" sexual intercourse activities.)
And many heterosexual couples that have fathered or mothered children from not-so-normal methods.
Just because you have a very narrow view of the world, doesn't mean the real world is narrow.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Just because heterosexual intercourse is the original way to reproduce does NOT mean that heterosexual intercourse *causes* people to awaken natural instincts for parenting. That's ridiculous.
Bonding with a child as a parent is not the result of the parent's sexual behavior. It is the result of caring, nurturing, and supporting a child ... usually by an adult and often in pairs.. but that's not a requirement. Intercourse does not precede the awakening of parenting instincts. If that were the case, then why do we have so many unwanted, neglected and abused children born to so many heterosexual people? Why do we have so many well intended parents seeking guidance on how to be good parents? You'd think that all that heterosexual intercourse would have triggered those instincts, as you claim.
Pedro, you have much to learn.
PS – I am not a gay liberal.
you are a perfect example of the confidence/knowledge graph. the concept is that people are most confident in their opinions when they have almost zero knowledge of what they are talking about. IF... they do begin to gain actual knowledge of the subject the confidence they have in the view drops until it hits zero and they realize they didn't have the faintest idea what they were talking about. You are clearly stuck at the zero knowledge/maximum confidence area..OKA the stupid zone.
So be it, done and done
Procreation is proof of heteosexual orientation? That's your argument? Without any fact to back this statement up at all? Where's the proof that only males and females who are attracted to the opposite sex have the ability to procreate? Where's your proof that only males and females who are attracted to the opposite sex have the desire to become parents? You have no facts to back up your argument. I would counter by pointing out that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of males and females who are attracted to and/or are mated with same sex partners ARE or have been parents, which would point to the idea that parenting and the desire to parent have nothing to do with sexual orientation. You BELIEVE otherwise, but belief has nothing to do with fact.
If you think that being gay is a choice, you must be gay. You're choosing to be straight, right? I think you would be a lot happier if you were true to yourself and came out. It's accepted these days by most people with the exception of bigoted dicks who are scared of their own sexuality.
First, not all heterosexuals can and do procreate. What do you want us to do with all of them?
Second, we are discussing the legal issues, not the biological ones.
Why not let people list three or four parents on a BC? Why should it be limited to two? After all.....it takes a village right? How can having two females make sense, but having three men and also a "trust?"
You give a great example as to why gay marriage is a natural extension of hetero marriage. It requires no real definition changes of parents (2 people) or marriage ( 2 people). You have to start bringing in all sorts of complications that also happen to apply to thousands upon thousands of straight couples as well to try to argue your case.
Gay marriage is not an extension of natural heterosexual bonding and parenting. Its just a pretense of such.
To you perhaps. But unless you are gay you wouldn't really know would you? Personally, I'll take the word of thousands of couples that feel differently.
I can imagine some of these people live in such a delusional state, and congregate with others with a similar delusion, that they might say no one can understand any of these issues but them. And well, considering they are delusional I might agree.
It does seem to me that your beliefs point to a delusional state. Both 'delusion' and 'belief' require an acceptance despite evidence to the contrary.
Pedro..I think you should move back to Mexico...Mexican's belong in Mexico NOT in the USA!!
dude you have a logic impairment. the proper analogy would be... what if a heterosexual couple had fertility issues and used a sperm donor to get pregnant. if the father who is not the biological father is still on the birth certificate than so should the "other" parent in the lesbian couple. That is an accurate comparison.. you posed what we call a straw man argument.. which is what people do when they are not very bright.
That actually seems to be the heterosexual desire. Marry. Divorce. Re-marry. Divorce again. Re-marry again. Their children really do need a list of the numerous adults who have, for some period of time, assumed a parenting roll of that child.
Just because you disagree with the court does not give you the right to make up your own rules. The head of The Department of Public Health should be fired immediately.
Birth certificates are intended to document the bloodline of a child, not just the birth stats of a child. Its obvious that two females cannot create a pregnancy nor can they give birth to a singular child, thus listing two females on a BC is simply ridiculousness. But....then again... our world is getting fairly ridiculous.
Now you are trying to rewrite history. BCs have been LEGAL parentage documents, NOT bloodline documents. There are millions of BCs with non-bio parents listed.
If your argument is a birth certificate is to record blood-lines then why not require DNA testing of all males listed, which no one ever questions, on birth certificates. It has been generally excepted that the "parents" of the child born are their biological parents but that may not be true. With infertillity and donated sperm and egg all hetrosexual couples can write down that they are the parents on a child birth certificate and only one or neither "parent is biologically related, and no one questions it.. So your argument doesn't work in the 21st century.
21st Century? is it now possible in the 21st century that a female can fertilize another female? Perhaps in the 22nd century a woman could be impregnated by a horse. Are you open minded enough to accept that too?
Once again the perverted minds jump to bestiality for no apparent reason...Wow.
Wrong. Birth certificate has nothing to do with bloodline. It is simply a legal document saying you were born and where and who your LEGAL parents are. As an adoptee, my birth certificate gives my adopted parents name – not my biorents.
The research in Australia back in 2003 or 4 sugests it is headed toward creating sperm from any body cell, men could very easily become obsolete in the next century, so maybe it is you that should open your mind.
Ah, that men could become reproductively irrelevant – there's an inspired thing to wish for! Imagine a world without testosterone – kinder, more compassionate, more creative, nature-loving, child-nirturing and peaceful. Thanks for that nice interlude to my work day.
Birth Certificates should list only the actual biological parents. Anything other than that is untrue and is based on emotion, not fact or logic.
Oh really? What about egg and sperm donors? Whoever the parents are when the child is born should be listed as the parents, period!
They can adopt. A birth certificate is intended to document not only the birth, but also the bloodline. The lesbians can adopt. So can others regardless of gender.
Historically, the BC has been a LEGAL document. Everyone knows that until recently (paternity tests) you could never be certain who the real father was. You may WANT the BC to be a bloodline document, but it has not been treated as such in the past or present.
Any other adults....desiring to be parents can be adoptive parents and have legal responsibilities as such by legally adopting. Thus lesbians lovers a can adopt. But its obvious a child cannot be born of two mothers so why on Earth would two lesbains want to fabricate an impossible illusion.
It has been normal practice for years for non-biological straight parents. Play nice there, Pedro.
The issue seems to be that the Iowa Department of Public Health doesn't ask for any proof on who are the biological parents. The husband is automatically assumed to be the bio-father.
Is that assumption, that is at the root of this case.
"Should" is arguable. Reality is that they do not. The BC is used for LEGAL parentage. BCs are created almost daily in every state that include non-biological parents. Especially for sperm and egg donor based pregnancies.
Maybe there needs to be a new parallel document that specifies biology but that is a question for another day as it involves all the complications of donor privacy and adoption privacy. Very complex. Much too complex to deal with on a BC.
But birth certificates DON'T list biological parents. Does the state of Iowa conduct a paternity test on every infant born to verify who the biological father is? Of course not. That's not the function of a birth certificate.
I am sure there are thousands if not millions of children who are born and the biological father is not the one actually listed on the birth certificate. To assume otherwise is ignorant. This bloodlines idea you keep spouting about is ridiculous, we are not dogs.
Stop using gay not to follow laws. It is the LAW for everyone deal with it...If you are NOT a child's parent you MUST adopt.. you can't just start putting non biological parents on birth certificates this is getting ridiculous..
Wrong. A male spouse does not have to go through adoption when there is a sperm donor. That has only been mentioned about thirty times here.
Except they're not. Non-biological parent husbands are not required to adopt the children – they can just put their names on the birth certificate. So why can't non-biological parent wives do the same?
MEG! Stop discriminating! This "these people are different from me so they deserve no rights" stuff is getting ridiculous. How about PEOPLE NAMED MEG MUST NEVER SPEAK. That is JUST as reasonable as discrimination against gays.
Possibly even more reasonable! 🙂
Do a man and woman who have a child where one of the adults is not biologically related to the child have to do the same? If so, I agree. If not, it's wrong.
Does the Iowa Department of Public Health require a paternity test for ALL male spouses (the "husbands") before their name is placed onto the child's birth certificate ???
I know in most states, when the woman giving birth is legally married, it is presumed that the other spouse is the other parent.
Same in Iowa, that is why this is such a clear case of discrimination.
The whole reason for the legal father is to make sure some guy is on the hook for child support. There was a case profiled in the NYT of a guy who's wife cheated, had a kid with the other guy, divorced her husband and the husband was on the hook for child support when the wife was living with the biological father of the child. The guy had raised the kid for years and didn't want to lose the relationship with the kid.
Legal father laws are slowly changing with DNA tests, as are the laws regarding paternity with unmarried couples. There's are more unmarried straight couples having babies than gay ones. Courts want to make sure those guys are paying child support.
Didn't some lesbian couple in the midwest demand child support from a known donor?
Yes, there is that automatic presumsion of legitimacy, but to lookat it from the Iowa Dept. of Public Health's point of view, that presumsion is being made in the favor of a gender that is biologically capable of impregnating a woman. Or in tha case of a gay male couple, the "parent" left off the birth certificate is not capable of gestation.
Except that even in the case of a known sperm donation they still do not require the male spouse to go through the adoption process to be added to the BC. So it is still clear discrimination.
There is a BIG difference between a male biologically capable of impregnating a woman, and being the one who actually did impregnate that woman.
And it would seem that the male in question is NOT biologically capable or they would not have used a sperm donor. Maybe their marriage should not be recognized since they are not able to procreate naturally?
Yes you're right it is a case of presumption because a heterosexual couple can biologically reproduce and homosexual couples cannot. Now you want the heterosexual couples to pay for a test in the off chance the male is not the father?
So we discriminate one way or the other.
My personal opinion is that both biological parents should be listed on the birth certificate even in the case of hetero single mothers, so the child can look up medical history and genealogy. Not to discriminatory, but for information.
However, BCs are legal documents that also determine parental responsibility so that would not work. Also, many donors are anonymous. Another fail. I do believe this IS an issue that bears further study and improvement but it has little to do with current equal treatment issues. Currently a male spouse that is KNOWN not to be the bio-dad is automatically listed as the parent. Thus the clear discrimination.
IF they force non biological hetero parents to adopt first then they should do it with same se x parents.
IF they do not force non biological hetero parents to jump thru that hoop then it is NOT equal treatment under the law and it is discrimination based on se xuality.
I think there is an argument for both points of view (forcing adoption or not) BUT the law needs to be applied EQUALLY.
IF this is a case of the law NOT being applied equally (and it appears that is the case) then state resources are being WASTED by a person or department pushing their own agenda in defiance of the people of the state and the law.
Heterosexual step parents are NOT on the birth certificate. They have to adopt. Gay people are just going to have to follow the Law like everyone else...
In this case there is no 'step' parent involved. A step parent would imply requesting parental rights for a child from a previous marriage, that is not the case here.
Iowa state law says if married at time of birth then spouse goes on BC, unless there is a COURT order of alternate paternity.. They are trying to treat same sex spouses differently.
The BC is a LEGAL document, not a biology report.
MEG! Stop discriminating. The law used to say one human being could own another. So we should just say "it's the law, quit whining you slaves". Are you so blind? I go back to the "people named Meg have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER" law. Why, by you argument, should we not follow that law? It makes just as much sense. Given your comments, it actually makes MORE sense.
It wasn't all that long ago that women named Meg (or pretty much any name) had very limited to no rights. Ever hear of women's suffrage? Go back further, and Meg would be mere chattel......hmmm....maybe not so bad a thought after all. How about Meg? Willing to go with the laws as they were?
Heterosexual married couples still have to adopt children if they are not the biological parent. This is true even if one of the parents is the biological mother or father. This is only a problem if she is not allowed to legally adopt the child that she is not the biological mother of.
Actually, not true. The husband does not have to go through a legal adoption process if his wife is impregnated with donated sperm. Case dismissed.
Stop using gay not to follow laws. It is the LAW for everyone deal with it...If you are NOT a child's parent you MUST adopt.. you can't just start putting non biological parents on birth certificates this is getting ridiculous..
Stop using false equivalencies to bolster your right wing Jesus freek case Meg.
Sorry Meg, you are simply wrong on the facts here. The state does not require a male spouse to be the biological father to be listed as the parent. It is that straightforward. This is simple discrimination.
Did not Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus prove that it is possible to pray away the gay? And palintwit, you are a twit.
No, he did not.
Marcus Bachmann is the biggest queen in any room he enters. That he married a beard doesn't change that.
marcus bachmann is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo gay
the poor man is fat because he is eating the pain in his soul from denying his true self to conform to church doctrine.
It's quite simple:
There are plenty of opposite-sex couples where one spouse is unable to procreate, who rely on surrogates. The DPH isn't doing this to those couples, it's listing both spouses as parents on the birth certificate even though only one of them is biologically related to the child. So there's absolutely no question here that this is unequal treatment under the law, violating both state and Federal law. Iowa considers them legally married. It MUST treat them the same as any other married couple. PERIOD. There is nothing to debate here.
What's shocking to me is that the DPH officials who perpetrated this believed they would ever get away with it. Whoever is responsible for this policy should be immediately terminated. They've violated the public trust by deliberately setting up the government for a lawsuit they will inevitably lose, and the only possible explanation for why is that someone there hates gays. What other reason could there be?
Hammer -> Nail
Direct hit!
20 years from now, CNN is going to be filled with stories of all the children of gay parents looking for their real parents. Kids have a right to know who they are biologically related to. The sperm donor's name should be on the birth certificate and not hidden from the child. 2 women can not have a child together. Their child has a right to know where the other 50% of their DNA came from
Once again another ignorant person trying to logic. You should not attempt to use a tool until you have been properly trained in its use.
Your argument is equally valid against heterosexual couples. Or should I say invalid? Your questions have nothing to do with the sex of the parents and only to do with rules/laws in place for ANYONE using donors or surrogates and/or adoption.
trying to "use" logic.
-Almost as bad as me trying to use language.. 🙂
Actually, I kind of like the use of "logic" as a verb.
Yeah, it does kind of work doesn't it? However, I'm a grammar conservative and really can't condone a drive-by verbification.
Doh! Did it again!
How is this any different than the adoptees fighting to get their original birth certificate? Many states now have laws saying adoptees have the rights to their real birth certificate and names of their real parents. Many adoptees adopted by straight parents spend their whole lives searching for their biological relatives. It's important for them to know who they really are.
Donor conceived offspring may never have the ability to get their real birth certificates or ever find out who their biological parent is. Unlike other countries, the US allows completely anonymous donation. Donor conceived children will not have any chance of finding out important genetic and health information. It's only a matter of time before these kids start getting really mad at a system that keeps them from ever knowing who their biological parents really are.
Than Iowa should ban it since they couldn't possibly accurately fill out a birth certificate.
While that is a legitimate concern it has nothing to do with the sex of the parents. However these issues are handled, same sex couples should be treated the same a hetero couples. Its simple logic and its the law. ( In states that recognize gay marriage)
Unlike straight couples, it's obvious with gay couples that a donor was involved. States should not be so concerned about equal rights for gays that they overlook the right of the child to know both their biological parent's identities. There is going to be no hiding from these kids that they have a donor parent out there.
Even when it is known that a donor is used straight couples STILL do not have to go through adoption. Either change the rules for straight couples or apply it equally to gay couples. This is NOT about how donor info is handled, its the simple fact that a gay couple in an IDENTICAL KNOWN situation are being treated differently.
It's better than never existing at all, isn't it?
Jake… you really have no clue what you are talking about. Many children born to same sex parents are granted the ability to contact the donor if they choose to at the age of 18 (this age is chosen to protect the donor). It is actually the donor who decides if they want to be an open donor or not. The birth certificate has nothing to do with it. If all the donors were listed on the birth certificates they would be responsible for child support and the care of the child if something were ever to happen to the biological parent, that would be a rough situation for many donors seeing as they often have more than one biological child out there. . This goes also goes for heterosexual couples that use a donor due to infertility. You think some man wants another man's name listed on his child's birth certificate. Before posting at least attempt to not look so ignorant.
Exactly, the BC is a LEGAL document, not a biology report. These are completely different. I too like the idea of a child being able to know about bio history at minimum and to potentially meet bio parent if it is a mutual wish.
Pretty much every tea party patriot south of the Mason-Dixon line is spawned from an incestuous relationship. This explains why so many of them have webbed feet. And yet they rally against gays. Go ahead baggers! Eat your Chick-fil-A. Clog those arteries!
Iowa is not south of the Mason – Dixon line. Remind me again, why is gay marriage Illegal in CA?
I'm a screaming liberal from south of the Mason-Dixon line, please don't use that as the demarcation of stupidity. There are plenty of morons on boths sides north, south, east, and west of that line. And the only person I know of with webbed feet is also on the left, the child of a non-incestuous relationship, and did not vote for Christie to be governor.
The simple question that for some reason is not covered in the article is – What is there position if the husband in a heterosexual marriage is not the biological father of the child. This could happen in the case of an extramarital affair or through IVF (with the wife's egg) or IUR with donated sperm. In most states, at least in the latter case, the husband is the legal father. The same law should apply here.
This is the exact reason the courts will end up siding with the parents. This is straightforward discrimination against two legally married people.
"A lower court ruled in favor of the Gartners, saying that once gay marriage became legal in Iowa, the Department of Public Health should have automatically begun to recognize both spouses as parents – as it does with legally married opposite-sex parents."
What part of that did you not understand?
The DPH considers both spouses in opposite-sex marriages to be the legal parents. They don't even ASK if someone else is the real parent. So to answer your question: they are indeed treating same-sex and opposite-sex couples differently, even when one spouse in an opposite-sex couple isn't the biological parent.
Gays and Lesbians are a direct sin against god, its not natural, do you see gay lions in the savannah?? all these sick perversions are going to hell, I still cannnot believe that our society has actually accepted this huge atrocity. just another reason for it all too end.
I laugh at the hatred of gays and lesbians here. Don't you know most gay people come from straight parents. If you don't think gays should raise children. all these dam straight people need to stop having gay babies problem solved lol
Are you proposing that a test be developed so that gay babies can be aborted?
No that was total sarcasm hence the "lol" at the end
I think this was a remark pointing out how most gay people have two straight parents, you twit.
Alice, why don't you make it end for you sooner... put a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Then go play with your happy hating angels.
I thougtht you "funny" people wer supposed to be non violent, but obviously not.
You definitely need to have a large bowl of Kellogg's fruit loop cereal so that you could CLEARLY understand the concept of being "looped" I will pray for your salvation at church
Please don't. If we wanted salvation we'd get it ourselves. Run along and play with your imaginary friend now. Let the adults use the internet in peace.
I hope you are praying for Alice as well because she is clearly disturbed.
Your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't give a damn. Even if he existed, aren't his teachings all about love? Who the f*** are you to say what love is or isn't good enough for God? You say he's all powerful but then try to exert your own will upon his teachings. What hubris...
Alice, You are 100% correct. My thoughts...
To the best of my knowledge, it takes a man and a woman to procreate. I truly think, yes, truly think that someone forgot to have a large bowl of kellogg's fruit loop cereals. Having a large bowl of Kellogg's fruit loop cereal would give you a clear understanding of being "looped".
Getting "looped" does NOT, repeat does NOT result in pregnancy.
This subject heading seems very strange and queer indeed.
I am going to have to consult with the chief fairy, the honorable Miss Tinkerbell for a comprehensive elucidation:)
God help your poor children– if you have any. They don't stand a chance with genes like yours.
Hi Alice,
Glad to hear your opinion. Interesting that you chose a 'biological' argument. Did you know that there is compelling research to suggest that homosexual humans have benefitted mankind from an evolutionary standpoint? Think about it, human children require more care than ANY OTHER ANIMAL on the planet. It takes many years and in ancient times, the more family members who stuck around and didn't have children of their own, the more hands available to help raise a child. It's a family unit with many adults helping. Therefore having a gay uncle or aunt was a benefit to a child. While this argument might not be enough to get past the hatred in your tone, I hope that you can at least be open minded enough to consider that maybe God had a plan for ancient man and this is all HIS doing. Who are you to judge HIS work?
NO NO NO! Having a gay adult around the child might spread the gay. #Sarcasm (and you KNOW that's the way they think.)
Actually, yes, you do see gay lions in the savannah, ~9% of all animal populations are homosexual. It is natural, it is the way they are born. I am presumming you are a Christian. Pity that you are going to hell as well. That hate spewed screed makes Jesus cry.
Alice, don't you get it? Your God is gay also. Have you EVER heard of a religious person who is not gay?
For crying out loud – your Pope just retired because he molested little boys. And every single minister/priest/rabii etc.. has molested little boys. All of us have read hundreds and hundreds of stories about this. All of the Boy Scout leaders are gay also – we've read hundreds of stories where they covered it up.
So get off your damn religious grandstand and admit you God-Sters are just like everyone else when it comes to being gay.
Dang – I'll bet you still burn witches whereever you live ... get out of the cave once in awhile.
God is not gay, he likes to get unmarried women who are engaged to other men pregnant though. Abstinance, only 99% effective.
Hah! There is homosexuality in nature, my dear. Besides that, people are opening their minds and seeing the illogical hatred of people like you. That is why society has become more accepting of these perfectly normal individuals. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Humans can be a sin? How does that work? I though sin had to be chosen, and there had to be some harm involved in it. .
you must be free of sin..congrats!!!
She gets to cast the first stone.
In fact, (and you are welcome to look it up if you have trounle believing it) someting more than half of large mammal species DO have a gay subset. It is well-documented in both predators and prey species, antelopes, elephants and lions specifically. As with humans and other apes, the percentage varies from around 8% down to under 1% in the wild, much higher in zoos where the stress levels and lack of alternatives are an issue. So, like most things biological, it is an inherited bias which can be swung either way by experience in Most cases. Sexual orientation is Not binary; it is a continuum. The vast majority are more straight than gay simply because that leads to more decendants. This is Evolution in the real world. And, gay persons frequently contribute to the success of their genes by improving the health/resources/social structure of their extended family, just as childless aunts and uncles, etc. often do.
This argument is insane. I am the adoptive parent of 2. The birth certificate shows one parent,myself as the father. For those of you who argue only a biological parent should be listed on the birth certificate flies in the face of all adoptive parents. If a couple is married and adopted a child both name is on it even though they are not the biological parents why should gay married couple be treated any differently. If two married people have a surrogate aren't they both listed as the parent yes!! The whole argument of how two married people should document the birth of the child should be the same across the board.
Certain people just WANT to believe ANYTHING that goes against a form of relationship they disapprove of. Too bad that the closest thing to a logical argument they can come up with also goes against many common practices among non-gay people.
Your adoptive child has another birth certificate that they potentially could have access to. More states are allowing adoptees to their real birth records so they can find their biological relatives. I'm against anonymous donor conceived offspring. After knowing adoptees who are desperate to find their biological roots, I think it's cruel for parents to bring a kid into the world without knowing who the donor is. As for surrogates, very few if any surrogates are genetically related to the child. The intended parents are often the genetic parents or an egg or sperm donor is used. There are states where even straight couples where the unrelated parent has to adopt the child. That's why most surrogates are recruited in states with laws friendly to surrogates like California.
However, NONE of that is relevant to the question of equal treatment. The point to this story is that the rules are not being applied equally in equal situations.
Your argument is completely separate from the gay/straight marriage question as it affects both equally.
Thomas, what are you, a single male, doing adopting two children. Is it not God's plan for a single father, to love, care, and provide for two children that he didn't create. Because you stepped up, gave a good, loving home to these two children, you will rot in hell. Just like any gay couple that provides a loving, caring home for children.
She did not adopt that is the problem................. she wants rights through marriage not even heterosexuals have that right you must adopt your step children...
No you don't Meg, they aren't step parents and therefore is isn't an adoption. Now go ask Jesus for forgiveness.
This has such a simple solution. Allow the mother field to have two entries (for lesbians), and let the father field have two entries (for gay men). If the baby has 2 mom's, then list to mom's in the mother field. If the baby has 2 dad's then list two dads in the father field. The mother field should stay blank if a lesbian couple doesn't know or want the bio dad listed. The mother field should stay blank if a gay male couple doesn't know or want the bio mom listed.
This is not an issue of having the appropriate forms. They have already said that they will amend it if they go through a formal adoption process that is not required of a male in the exact same circumstance. So this is strictly a matter of discrimination by their own admission.
Sorry, have to agree with the state on this one because the ruling is erroneous on the fact what if the straight biologocal parant had a kid from someone other than her husband. Would the initial certificate have both husband and wife, NO. It would have the Mother and the guy she slept with. Her husband would be added until he adopted the child.
Of course this would be moot if they divorces because she slept around. But, only the biological parants should be first put on the certificate. Some day that child will want to know who her father was.
Double standard. A lower court ruled in favor of the Gartners, saying that once gay marriage became legal in Iowa, the Department of Public Health should have automatically begun to recognize both spouses as parents – as it does with legally married opposite-sex parents. The dept says the birth certificate has to show the biological parents then it says it will change it if the parent legally adopts the kid???
STOP being selfless and think of the child. The state says they can alter the certificate so what is the problem? The child needs to know who actually was his Mother and Father by birth. The child HAS that right to know!
This is a problem that also effects straight couples, so it is not an attempt to miminize Gay parenthood.
You are WRONG. The birth certificate would state whoever the woman said was the parents. There is a long history of this happening.
Sorry – I don't agree. The husband is listed because he is "presumably" the father of the child. If the other man wants to be listed as the father – he has to prove paternity. Then, with proof, the State will recognize him as the legal/biological father of the child.
With two women, you have a spouse without the capabilities of contributing to the DNA of the child. Being impossible to prove paternity (whatever?), a legal adoption seems in order.
This is a totally different story. Not at all similar to a husband unaware that his wife has cheated on him.
I agree with the State on this one.
Sorry, still wrong. If the the child is the result of a sperm OR egg donation they will list both spouses of hetero couples. So in an equal situation they are using a completely different standard only for the gay couple. State loses this one.
STOP being selfless and think of the child. The state says they can alter the certificate so what is the problem? The child needs to know who actually was his Mother and Father by birth. The child HAS that right to know!
This is a problem that also effects straight couples, so it is not an attempt to miminize Gay parenthood.
"woe to those that corrupt innocent children against their will into unnatural sinful lifestyles; as for them that do it, will be eternally condemned," and those that condone such lifestyle and practices, at the end, are just as guilty.
Please crawl back under your rock. There's already enough morons. BTW "judge not lest ye be judged." hypocrite!
Steve, try reading the surrounding verses for some context in your "judge not lest ye be judged" assault. If youre going to use teh Bible for a weapon you should at least point it in the right direction.
Who are you quoting?
I am not sure why Iowa needs to change its laws or practies to match those of other states or to be acceptable to every person's feelings. This is something that is within the powr of the people of a given stat to decide. If the non-biological parent wants to adopt the child, she should take the necessary legal steps instead of saying it should automatically be handled annotherr way because of the couple's feelings. If Iowa handled things the way this couple preferred, the biological father might equally well claim his feelings were hurt because his connection to the child is not recognized by the state, without due legal process. Equality and equivalency are two different things. Biologically, one can assume that a child is the progeny of the male and female member of the couple but that is not a valid assumption with a same sex couple. While both moms may want to be the parents of this child, there is a biological father out there and the state needs to acknowledge his existence and determine that he has terminated his rights. Otherwise, there is a legal mess ahead ( and more hurt feelings). Too often males are disregarded in these situations. It is not the province of state or federal government to ensure everyone's feelings are not affected.
Actually, making the assumption is just a social thing not based in reality. Reality is that a male spouse will automatically be put on the birth certificate even if it is known that he is not the father. Complete double standard. They sure don't list the sperm or egg donors for couples that go that route. There is no difference, the biology argument failed as soon as they made exceptions for hetero couples. The male spouse does not have to adopt and it should be no different for a woman.
Why bother with a birth certificate listing parents at all then. It seems we now list the parents we would like to have rather than listing the actual birht parents. Just name teh mother and let it go. I mean the loser who actually fathered this child has no reason to feel he's supposed to be legally recognized as teh father, right?
Birth certificates just define the legal parents. People just seem to thing it has something to do with biology. Studies have shown that historically a significant percentage of BCs have the father incorrect due to infidelity. So even that 70 year old BC may well not list a bio dad since no proof was or now is required.
The question still comes down to equal treatment. If you want BCs to be an accurate genetic record(now that we have the technology) that is fine as long as you impose this on hetero couples as well.
The idea of a gay marriage having children is a result of confusion and will result in unnatural behavior from the offspring's because of the environment induced ... regardless of what the "so called study" findings (LOL) which is clearly unnatural behavior and fornication and end up with further confusion. YOUNG CHILDREN MUST NOT HAVE ANY PART IN THIS DISGUSTING CHOICE OF LIVING (period)
How can you make this claim at all? I suspect that this results from your ignorance and you don't actually have any experience with children being raised in alternative environments, or even much exposure to the LGBT community. Because I can tell you with conviction that you're absolutely wrong in your assumption.
I was raised for a majority of my life by my two mothers. My father didn't have much to do with me or my siblings (I am the second youngest of four). Today we're all well adjusted adults, with no 'unnatural behaviors' or 'confusion' exhibited. My oldest siblings have started their own families, I am serving our country, and my youngest sister is currently an honors student in college. We grew up in an accepting, caring environment, where our moms were just like any other parent – they drove us to youth sports, took us on family outings, helped us with our homework. Your conception that being raised in an alternative lifestyle is somehow 'unnatural and harmful' is completely illogical.
"completely illogical".
Thus, there is no argument you can make that could penetrate that veil of ignorance. Facts never get in the way of TRUTH.
Bre – I wouldn't argue with them too much, it's like your head meeting a brick wall. Glad for you, but this person is afraid of the gay, that they might catch the gay, and cannot accept that even though his saviour had nothing to say about homosexuality either way.
Yes, gay parents will of course raise more gay children. It is obvious since all heterosexuals raise heterosexual children...... oh wait.....
Have you ever heard of this little thing called research? Studies have shown that children raised in families with same-sex parents develop like any other child. My goodness. Using God to back up your hatred is the only abomination here. Try using logic next time.
Well, I need to say that I don't like that idea in the first place....
The parents are very important in kids development, and they will make the most important mark on the kids.
If the parents are gay, what will be the outcom....
By the way the proff for that relationship beeing wrong is the fact that they can not have the kids in the first place...
Very recent studies confirm that children of gay parents are thriving. The British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) has issued a report stating these findings from the Cambridge University's Center for Family Research. At this very moment, the UK government is urging more gay couples to adopt, for the sake of children, so, please, do get informed before posting such discriminatory opinions.
Not he issue, please stay on track.
That is the issue made by the original poster. Why did you not admonish under that post? Perhaps because this goes against your TRUTH?
Reality is moving forward and leaving the ignorant behind.
Um, lesbian couples can physically have children. Now this requires a sperm donor and the other lesbian will not be biologically related, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have children. Now, gay couples do have to adopt, but your arguement is invalid.
so in Iowa if a married man and woman have a baby by anonymous sperm donation (because let's say the man is shooting blanks) and the mom gives birth, do they make the dad adopt his child before he is on the birth certificate?
they should, that would show equality
Actually I believe the non-biological father would technically have to adopt the child in this state. Of course it is easier for heterosexual couples to lie about this. No one is going to follow up on an application for a birth certificate to see if the parents really are the biological parents. With gay couples it is obvious that they can't both be biological parents. Since a homosexual couple cannot physically reproduce, it's just going to be different than a heterosexual marriage & the state is right to realize the legal difference. Obviously there is a father somewhere & there likely will be weird random cases where sometime later a biological father comes forward and tries to claim paternity rights. Maybe the system needs to be streamlined so there is an easier way than adoption, but legally there needs to be a separate what to establish legal guardianship for any case where a non-biological parent is going to be on the birth certificate.
Unless Iowa is different from pretty much every other state, the male spouse is ALWAYS put on the certificate as the father no matter who the biological father is (i.e. sperm donation, infidelity) without any need to adopt.
they deserve to have both names on the certificate. they're the parents and have the right to have their names on it!
...that would be the wrong thing to do (period)
Why? Who says its wrong?
Why, 'Cocopuf' says it's wrong. And he clearly knows all about the abominations and confusions that surround the gayness. So there.
What do you do when the child grows up and wants to know who her Daddy is? This is why regardless of who is married to who, the biological parants are listed on the original. Same thing for unmarried couples if known.
Wrong. Many adoptions are sealed and the child is not able to find out the parents identity.
Also, in the case of sperm and or egg donor or even surrogates, ONLY the names of the LEGAL parents are listed on the certificate. This has NOTHING to do with biology.
There is no logical reason to exclude a same sex spouse from the certificate when biology is not used in any other case. This should be an easy one for the state supreme court.
They should have had the kid out here in CA! There is a whole industry called "birth tourism", where Asian women who are pregnant, fiy into the U.S., give birth in a "maternity hotel", and then go back to whatever country they are from when they get the OFFICIAL COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! I don't think any question is asked about who is WHAT "parent" to the child! Its got AUTOMATIC U.S. CITIZENSHIP-which is what these "birth tourists" want!
The non-biological gay parent has to legally become guardian of their partner's child-through the courts or OR adopt their partner's child as their own"adopted " child. They BOTH can have their own biological children ,if they want, but they still would have to become legal guardian OF ,or adopt the other gay partners child...so they can be a family.
Why? That is not the case for hetero couples. Sperm donations are used all the time and there is no need to adopt. That argument does not fly.
But gay couples and gay marriage scare me and I must discriminate against them to justify my fear. It's different and that makes me uncomfortable so hide it. #Sarcasm
You forgot to say 'abomination'.
I kinda think ONLY the biological birth parent should be listed on the birth certificate,because you don't normally list your friends,aunts,buddies,cousins,lovers on a regular birth certificate.Just the birth parent(s) ONLY.I think the other parent would have to adopt their partner's child since it isn't THEIR biological child.That's how regular straight-sex people do it and that's how gay people should do it too.
If I, as a female, am married to a man, and I cheat on him with another man, get pregnant, and tell no one, the state will list my husband on the certificate, based upon the marriage alone, without any proof of paternity. Therefor, if marriage is already counted in the state as proof of paternity, it needs to be equal. Further, if my husband found out his was not the father afterward, and still wanted to act as father, there would be no need for an adoption, he would already be legally tied to the child upon birth. Adoption is expensive, and unnecessary. The precedent is already set, as evidenced by this process: the marriage is enough for the paternity.
In that case, you would be breaking the law by lieing about paternity. You would probably never be caught unless the actual father was aware that he was the father & went through the legal process to gain parental rights. If a gay couple were able to pull off that same lie, they could also be able to get both their names on the birth certificate. Of course they can't pull off that lie because everyone knows that it takes a man and a woman to reproduce. It is not discrimination to acknowledge that fact. It's just the way human reproduction works.
Actually, biological paternity is irrelevant for birth certificates, male spouses are automatically added even if there is a known sperm donor. Married male spouse automatically gets benefit of parenthood without need for adoption no matter who bio dad is.
Actually women do no need men anymore to reproduce. Same with men.
But common sense says 2 of the same gender can't procreate. What if the child wants to know who her father is (and you were dead). No way she could find out. STOP being sensitive. Just adopt the kid and then everyone including the child will know who is what.
Why does the same-sex parent have to adopt and the opposite sex parent in the exact same circumstance not have to? No logic there. It doesn't answer your hypothetical bio-parent question anyway. This is no different from a hetero-couple using a sperm donor and there is never any question about the birth certificate or adoption in that case and the child is extremely unlikely to ever find out who bio dad is.
don't have problem with gay women they don't spread all our diseases from invasive anal intercourse ..any doctor will tell you the number one way to batter you immune system is have a lot of anal sex with multiple partners over time ...the real reason for AIDS ...do the research you will discover this is true yourself.
eeee yeah. That is so terribly inaccurate that it's a little bit disturbing. Regardless, I rather doubt either of the women featured in this article are having regular anal intercourse. I don't know that for sure, but it's just a hunch. So they're probably safe from the AIDS. Unless they're shooting dope – your call on that one.
The paperwork just needs to catch up.
A birth certificate should have five slots – legal parent/legal parent/gestational mother/genetic father/genetic mother.
It might be that the genetic father (or mother) is just an anonymous donor number, but even that would be valuable medical information. (And if it's the same, just write "same", just like when the credit card billing address is the same as the shipping address)
I agree. Why does this have to be so difficult. And all of you out there with your "trail of lies" theories. Give me a break! The functions of the Birth Certificate is for legal biological tracing. Therefore I agree with the idea of slotted legal birth certificates as Demaris states. Let's not make life more confusing THAN IT ALREADY IS!!
The function of a birth certificate os for LEGAL tracking. Since the women are married, then they are the legal parents. Again, if it was an anonymous sprem donor, there is NO chance of legal biological tracking and since that does happen, then either anonmous sperm donations end or the legally married people are the parents listed at birth.
Actually, the BC has traditionally been used for establishing LEGAL parentage. It has always been known that a certain significant percentage of BCs are inaccurate due to infidelity. It is also currently only a LEGAL document as shown by how donor pregnancies are handled.
And this whole question has nothing to do with the sex of the parents since it affects gay and straight couples equally.
The department argued it is required by law to provide an accurate birth certificate that records a child's BIOLOGICAL relatives. But that is a patently FALSE position, since, as the story states the Department of Public Health automatically recognizes both legally married spouses as parents without genetic testing of the husband to prove he's the father. It is a legal presumption that the spouse [typically the husband] is the biological parent. The law can just as easily presume the birth mother is the genetic mother, but that can be false too, as it is with gestational surrogacy. Who the heck want's to put an impediment in the way of a child having two legal parents anyway?
Great piece, but the Gartners' lawsuit is in state court, not federal court.
One of the functions of a birth certificate is to establish a biological paper trail. Biologically speaking, two men and two women, under at least today's technology, can't be the biological parents of an infant.
Sorry, but you're wrong. It might be the default assumption that a child born in wedlock to a heterosexual couple is the genetic descendant of the wife and the husband, but that is not always the case. However, no one ever checks to confirm this, and I bet that if hospitals started trying to do so in this political climate many would call it an invasion of privacy. I am not stating that many wives cheat on their husbands. I'm referring to artificial insemination situations, which are perfectly legal and do not have to be disclosed upon birth. In these cases, the child is not the biological offspring of the husband, but he gets full paternal rights due to the bonds of marriage. Why isn't it so for a same sex couple? This does not sound like equal treatment under the law to me.
Couldn't agree more.
The mother has to sign a document saying that the father is the biological father in order for him to be put on a birth certificate. I'm sure if there was an obvious reason to doubt the father's paternity-say if the baby appeared to be a different race than either parent-then paternity tests would be needed. The problem is that even though both the moms want to be parents, there is a biological father out there somewhere and the state needs to legally determine that he has terminated his rights.
Copied from Iowa state law:
2. If the mother was married at the time of conception, birth, or at any time during the period
between conception and birth, the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the
father of the child unless paternity has been determined otherwise by a court of competent
jurisdiction, in which case the name of the father as determined by the court shall be entered by
the department.
So unless a court has said otherwise the male spouse is the parent. This holds true, even in the case of a sperm donor. So why not for a female spouse with a sperm donor?
I believe the intent of this law is to protect the biological father if paternity is contested, however, I am not an attorney and my interpretation offers little value. Since it is obvious Melissa is not the paternal parent, she should not initially be on the birth cert unless she follows the apparent simple steps to adopt the child, in which case her name can be on the birth cert along with the bio mother's. Not discrimination, simply an extra step to take. If anyone can be listed on a birth certificate, what is to prevent a child's birth certificate from listing 50 parents? What if you are in a polyamorous relationship? can you list everyone in the group on the birth certificate? I am all for listing gay couples on a birth certificate, but I believe the steps the state is taking are fair as long as the process is simple and quick. For example while completing the birth certificate application, the "adoption" form is offered at the same time so both parents can immediately be listed on the birth cert. Birth certificates have been around for years, and while the intent is to list legal guardians, or "parents" the presumption is that the "parents" are considered a man and a woman. Times change and everything needs to change with the times. Gay marriage is becoming more socially acceptable and eventually it will be legal in all states. Birth certificate processes should follow closely behind.
Except, once again, a male spouse who is KNOWN not to be the biological parent does not have to adopt. It REALLY is that simple. Make it equal one way or the other or it is wrong.
There is no need to change BC rules for gay marriages, just follow the same rules as they are now enforced on heteros.
Agree. But we've abandoned our morals and two women or two men will either be using sperm banks or surrogates for something that should be between one man and one woman.
Iowa shouldn't do this, a child is the natural result of a union between a MAN and a WOMAN, not two fags.
We abandoned your morals. I am smart enough and wise enough to tell right from wrong. I am not going to accept the morality of bronze age societies that recognized marriages where the wife was kidnapped and forced or that executed homosexuals. When you realize that morality comes from the principles of the Golden Rule, Harm Reduction and not wronging those who have not wronged you and doing right by those who have treated you well, then you will be a better person, Mary.