Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

originally posted by: LSU0408
You and Augustus should probably calm down and get out of rage mode.

I am quite fine son, I do not let these issues wind me up as the law sorts them out properly based on our Constitution which the homophobes and bigots like to cite when it is convenient for them but sadly tend to ignore when it applies to people whose sexuality they tend to have an issue with.

a reply to: LSU0408

Apparently you don't know what "gay" is... You do know that women can be gay too, right?

Well i don't care about gays, Inbreeding leads to serious medical conditions and should be avoided, DNA tracking is important and its necessary to know who came from who, and if a law is stupid said law should be changed.

Birth certificates should reflect who is the biological parents

Common sense is irrelevant for some people it seems

a reply to: Indigent

So what's wrong with blood testing two people trying to get married to prevent such things? Also, how often does such complications actually happen in real life with heterosexual parents who went through this process? I certainly don't hear about it happening a lot. Looking at the odds, it is VERY unlikely to happen. PLUS the sperm bank probably does keep a record of who the actual parents are.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

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

I agree with this. I think ALL information should be available on the BC. They shouldn't be doing this for hetero's or gays, because it's a lie in both cases. Nevertheless, if they're going to do it in one case, the law says they can't discriminate, and not do it for the other.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it strange not all states perform the blood test. I know in some states you have to wait 3 days because of the blood test in others there is no wait. I suppose it is less of an issue now with a more diverse gene pool and a widely spread population.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I found the source of the quote so you, so it is not anonymous anymore.

You are welcome

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it strange not all states perform the blood test. I know in some states you have to wait 3 days because of the blood test in others there is no wait. I suppose it is less of an issue now with a more diverse gene pool and a widely spread population.

Probably a states' rights issue. Some states may be a little lax in that regard because they may run a little more fast and loose with incest laws.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

Great, the source is identified. So how does his opinion trump existing law on the matter again?

My biological mother is not on my birth certificate, my adoptive mother is. But her partner isn't, which I hadnt considered until now. Hmm, I'd like to get that rectified. But I imagine legal and biological affiliations are right/left hand.

When someone is listed on a birth certificate they have financial obligations with laws on the books.
Does the same type laws apply to same sex couples?
Not sure if that has been ironed out yet..

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'd imagine so, and that would be more reason to want to list the homosexual parents instead of the biological one. The biological one may not even know the child exists, meanwhile the homosexual parents had the child conceived so they could specifically take care of it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

One Sperm Donor, 150 Sons and Daughters

Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.

Listing the biological parents would be simpler, but stupid outdated laws and prejudice seems to blind people

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU0408
You and Augustus should probably calm down and get out of rage mode.

I am quite fine son, I do not let these issues wind me up as the law sorts them out properly based on our Constitution which the homophobes and bigots like to cite when it is convenient for them but sadly tend to ignore when it applies to people whose sexuality they tend to have an issue with.

It's not about people that have a problem about sexualities.

It's about people who morally know right from wrong and don't need to use a law as a crutch to justify their decisions.

I for one would rather know where I came from and my genealogy that goes along with it like family diseases and my origins that are actually useful to me in my life.

But I guess you would rather force me to believe in a lie from birth. Because of course that's for the greater good of me,right?

a reply to: Indigent

What about creating a separate blank for instances such as this that would remove legal and financial responsibility of the donor from the child? Because listing the biological father, for either homosexual or heterosexual couples, would make the donor responsible for the child.

Though keep in mind, this controversy in Arkansas only applies to homosexual couples.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wont say this again

if a law is stupid said law should be changed

a reply to: TheLotLizard

So your problem is with the law in total, but the controversy in Arkansas is only for homosexual couples. What about heterosexual couples?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I get what you are implying but you might be surprised to find that most of the southern states are the ones that require a blood test. If I recall it is not just to screen for relations but also certain diseases.

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.

Guardians? no, they will be the parents, not the guardians.

My own personal opinion about BCs is that they should list who the biological parents are, the mother that gave birth and the sperm donor, but only because to me a BC is suppose to be a document that shows who made you.

A "parent" can be anyone. Anyone can be a Dad or a Mom. You could have 2 moms or 2 dads...or more I guess.

But a BC can be very important to someone who was not raised by those that biologically made them.....who may have a history of health that will be important to the child later in life. There for it's important to know who the biological mother and father were.

For legal guardianship of a child, perhaps it would be better it there was a different document for that. One that simply lists who has legal guardianship of a child. It could be biological mom and dad, step parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents or yes, same sex couples.