Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court order that allowed same-sex parents throughout the state to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their children.

It let stand the certificates obtained by three lesbian couples who had challenged the Arkansas Health Department Vital Statistics Bureau's refusal to identify the three couples as the adoptive or biological parents of their respective children.

They won approval for their listing as parents in a narrow decision by Little Rock Circuit Judge Tim Fox. The same judge then issued another decision extending that recognition statewide.

The state appealed the decision that allowed same-sex couples statewide to be listed, saying it conflicted with Arkansas statutes and left birth registrars in legal limbo.

The state Supreme Court agreed and said that “the best course of action is to preserve the status quo with regard to the statutory provisions while we consider the circuit court's ruling.”

Preserve the status quo is easier than just allowing same-sex couples to list themselves on a baby's birth certificate? I mean how hard is it to write two male names or two female names instead of one male and one female? I'm smelly something fishy here, and it certainly doesn't help any that this is occurring in Arkansas or anything.

ETA: AugustusMasonicus posted this on page 2, but it needs to be put in the OP for people to read about heterosexual couples:

Identification

A child that has been brought into the world by artificial insemination is a live birth with a birth certificate signed by the attending doctor or midwife. The mother is listed on the birth certificate along with the date, newborn's full name and time of birth. If the mother is not married she can choose to have the name of the father listed as unknown or the area can be left blank. If the mother is part of a couple her husband will be listed as the birth father.


Effects

The fact that a donor has gone to a clinic to donate his sperm does not make him the legal father of any child that is born from the artificial insemination. Any adult that is taking part as a donor or recipient must think the situation through and be aware of the facts. The donor is providing the biological material that will aid in the insemination process. He should be aware that he enters into an agreement to make this donation and that ends his part in the process. He is not legally the father of any child that may be born as a result of his donated sperm. The sperm donor will never have any right to access the birth certificate of any child that is born due to his donation at a facility.

Source

I think the biological parents should be on the birth certificate, just for tracking reasons, IE 2 biological siblings getting married, or genealogical tree in the future, or whatever legal reason there is to know who is who.

If the BC are issued with the same sex couple listed as the parents, will there still be a records that identify the biological parents? I know that I would want to know who my biological parents were, if only for family medical histories. Also, if they are not the biological parents and their names are put on the BC, wouldn't that qualify as falsifying a government document?

I'm 100% in support of equal rights for all, so I am simply playing devils advocate here. But the questions above, I believe, are legitimate to the discussion.

One question remains, which the article did not make clear. Are these same sex couples using surrogates to have their children, in which one of the couple is a biological parent or are these cases of adoption?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do they allow them for cousins?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good. If the couple didn't spawn the child through sexual reproduction then their names shouldn't be on the birth certificate. How stupid would that be? There should definitely be another form for guardians of the child to sign.

originally posted by: Indigent
I think the biological parents should be on the birth certificate, just for tracking reasons, IE 2 biological siblings getting married, or genealogical tree in the future, or whatever legal reason there is to know who is who.

What happens if they were using a surrogate? In vitro?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good. If the couple didn't spawn the child through sexual reproduction then their names shouldn't be on the birth certificate. How stupid would that be? There should definitely be another form for guardians of the child to sign.

Why?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

This isn't about adoption. It's about things like in vitro, test tube babies and various modern medical procedures to induce pregnancy outside of sex.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
If the BC are issued with the same sex couple listed as the parents, will there still be a records that identify the biological parents? I know that I would want to know who my biological parents were, if only for family medical histories. Also, if they are not the biological parents and their names are put on the BC, wouldn't that qualify as falsifying a government document?

I'm 100% in support of equal rights for all, so I am simply playing devils advocate here. But the questions above, I believe, are legitimate to the discussion.

One question remains, which the article did not make clear. Are these same sex couples using surrogates to have their children, in which one of the couple is a biological parent or are these cases of adoption?

Doesn't matter. If one of them is surrogate then he can put his name on the birth certificate along with the female that carried the child.

Lol, I can't believe this is even a discussion. This just goes to show why nature intended men to be with women. Good on you for letting everyone know that you're for equal rights though. Kinda like saying "I'm not racist, but..."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It does not matter how, a biological parent is the one that transmit the genes to the child. You can google it if you don't believe me

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good. If the couple didn't spawn the child through sexual reproduction then their names shouldn't be on the birth certificate. How stupid would that be? There should definitely be another form for guardians of the child to sign.

Why?

Because a man and a woman had that child. If it's a test tube and wasn't a tadpole that was transferred from a man to a woman during intercourse then perhaps the name of the lab should be on the birth certificate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't about adoption. It's about things like in vitro, test tube babies and various modern medical procedures to induce pregnancy outside of sex.

In that case, then I say that the same sex couple should be listed as the parents. When heterosexual couples make a withdraw from an anonymous sperm bank, I doubt that the father is listed as "anonymous".

I'm really torn on this one, Krazy...
A birth certificate is just that. Certificate of live birth. Parentage listed. If in vitro or sperm donor, that should be on the line. Until such time medical science can change gametes to fertilize eggs.

Do I really care one way or another? Not really. But then again it's not a fight I have a dog in...and I can see the other side of it as well.

Edit to add:
The post above mine raises a great issue with the anonymous thing amongst hetero couples. This is really perplexing.

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It does not matter how, a biological parent is the one that transmit the genes to the child. You can google it if you don't believe me

Who shows up on a birth certificate if a mother (in a heterosexual relationship or even a single woman) goes to a sperm bank? Just out of curiosity.

originally posted by: LSU0408
...perhaps the name of the lab should be on the birth certificate.

Would the lab then be obligated for all child rearing and fiduciary responsibilities?

It should be the biological parents on the birth certificate. If an adoption takes place afterwords that is a separate issue. This is a medical record and it contains the genetic information and family history that may be needed by the child later in life. I don't see this as a marriage equality issue, but a statement of fact.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't about adoption. It's about things like in vitro, test tube babies and various modern medical procedures to induce pregnancy outside of sex.

In that case, then I say that the same sex couple should be listed as the parents. When heterosexual couples make a withdraw from an anonymous sperm bank, I doubt that the father is listed as "anonymous".

Nobody makes a withdraw from "anonymous." They get to choose the sperm after looking at the men that the sperm belongs to. It's not some grab bag where you stick your hand in and pick a container and hope for the best.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't about adoption. It's about things like in vitro, test tube babies and various modern medical procedures to induce pregnancy outside of sex.

In that case, then I say that the same sex couple should be listed as the parents. When heterosexual couples make a withdraw from an anonymous sperm bank, I doubt that the father is listed as "anonymous".

Exactly, and that's my point. Concessions are made for heterosexual couples but for some reason homosexual couples can't have those concessions made.

a reply to: LSU0408

So what do they put on a birth certificate if a mother of a heterosexual couple withdraws from a sperm bank? The real father's name or the mother's husband?

What about donor eggs?

So tell us why you think it would be acceptable for two same sex genders to be on a birth certificate. Did they actually create said child? No, so how would they be the biological parents?

This PC stuff is getting out of hand.