Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

a reply to: Klassified

For heterosexual couples they'll list the husband instead of the donor.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

THANK YOU! Case closed!

Lol, why is it closed?

Equal application of law and all that.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

Yeah but how we see it and how "they" will see it is night and day.

Well it is common sense, but yay for the PC agenda I guess.

Why go out of your way to screw up a child's life?

Selfish with a side of ego.

originally posted by: LSU0408
Which says nothing about a homosexual couple.

The proper application of the 14th Amendment means it does not have to mention anyone. Equal protection under the law is just that.

Just because some people have a bug up their ass about the gays does not mean they have to be pigeon holed to fit into that person's narrow minded view of the world.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care if it is on the BC or not I am just stating there should be a record and in the case of donors there is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU0408
It should be. If they created it, they should help pay for it. And not with my tax dollars, with their own paychecks.

That is pretty absurd. So all sperm banks should start setting up college funds for the children that were derived from the transaction?

You're moving goal posts. We were talking about a lab artificially creating a kid that didn't come a pair of nuts or created inside a female, remember? Stay on track Augustus.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Klassified

For heterosexual couples they'll list the husband instead of the donor.

Then I don't see the problem here. They're simply discriminating against gay couples.

originally posted by: LSU0408
You're moving goal posts. We were talking about a lab artificially creating a kid that didn't come a pair of nuts or created inside a female, remember? Stay on track Augustus.

Labs do not just whip up children for the hell of it. They are created for persons who are legally adopting them.

Try to follow along.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care if it is on the BC or not I am just stating there should be a record and in the case of donors there is.

Well then you should have no problem listing the homosexual parents on the BC right?

a reply to: Klassified

Yea, I edited the OP to clear up the confusion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

obviously.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.

As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?

Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Sorry, it's just weird to see us in agreement for once. Especially about a lgbtq topic.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the standard procedure for birth certificates of adopted children.

The adoption certificate will be used by the Registrar to create a new birth record. This will list the new adopted information, i.e. the names and information of the adoptive parent(s) as the legal parents of the child. The child's birth date and other details may or may not remain as listed, depending on the circumstances of the birth. Information about the biological parents will be removed from the official record, and the new information regarding the adoptive parents will officially replace the original birth records, if any.

Read more: family-law.freeadvice.com...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook

Here is standard procedure for birth certificate of child conceived with anonymous sperm donor:

The fact that a sperm donor is never mentioned on a birth certificate gives the right for the birth mother's husband to be listed as birth father. The man who will be there for the mother, his wife and their baby is the man who is listed as the true father on the permanent birth record. The birth certificate will be exactly the same as any newborn and the fact of a sperm donor involvement is only known in the confidential records of a donor facility.

Read more : www.ehow.com...

And the standard procedure for surrogate:

Because the surrogate's egg is used, the surrogate's name will remain on the original birth certificate as the Mother along with the Intended Father's name. The only way to avoid the surrogate's name being represented on the birth certificate is for the Intended Mother to employ a step-parent adoption.

Single fathers with a partner have the option of completing a second parent adoption if their state law allows it.

www.findsurrogatemother.com...

So, it looks like the existing standard procedure for most states is to allow the adoptive parents to be the official parents listed on the certificate, regardless of whether the child was conceived traditionally, or by in vitro, or by surrogate. That is unless you're gay and live in Arkansas.

Sounds like discrimination to me.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.

As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?

Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.

Lesbians can't give birth? Wow. That's news to me...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Care to answer the question I've asked to a few people in this thread already?

Sure, because a birth certificate is supposed to be for genealogy and disease prevention, not for ownership like a pink slip for a car.

Here is a quote from a woman.that was conceived using a donor that would like to share their view of the subject.

A birth certificate is not a deed of ownership. It is a record of a child’s birth, as in who they came from & should not be about anyone’s ego. The biologicals should absolutely be listed, so that the child will know who they came from genetically and nobody is able to lie to them. I think the whole truth should be available to us and treated as a basic right. But I would hope that, in the future, we could all deal with the truth being out in the open (i.e.: donor/biological parents printed on the paper version). ​My thought is that a birth certificate should record all relevant information so that the child has a record of everything pertinent to themselves, regardless of whether anyone else chooses to disclose it to them or not. I think it’s important to show the use of a donor. I’d like to think that if any of the future generations of my family were trying to look in to their family tree, that they wouldn’t come across a wealth of information from my social father which, biologically, would have no relevance to them. I also don’t like the fact that I feel my birth certificate is inaccurate and fraudulent. I would like both on my birth certificate. I consider both my social father and my biological father the “dad” and being donor conceived to me is something to be proud of. Having that on mine would make me very happy.

Kristi Lado, Board Member, Pennsylvania Adoptee Rights (PAR)

a reply to: TheLotLizard

Let's see, should I trust some anonymous person, or the several links already posted in the thread saying the standard procedure for heterosexual couples that go through this same process is to list the adoptive parents and not the actual parents? Man... That's a tough call... Oh wait, no it isn't.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

All well and good that an anonymous person gave their opinion but the law has been explained above quite clearly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and Augustus should probably calm down and get out of rage mode. Neither of you are thinking clearly and you both still think everybody hates the gay. Why can't you put the name of two men on a birth certificate? Because it's reserved for the mother that gave birth. Even that post you thought you cleverly added on the first page backs my point up. It relates to the mother having the child. Not gay couples.

This politically correct and fake ass equality BS is old, tired, and has become extremely lame.

Arkansas is being a bit heavy handed in this instance. If they have a legitimate concern about record keeping they should have a separate form for lets say non-traditional births (homosexual or hetero) that is used for record keeping.