Arkansas Court puts basic biological truths ahead of same-sex parents rights
Source: AP
Arkansas highest court on Thursday threw out a judges ruling that could have allowed all married same-sex couples to get the names of both spouses on their childrens birth certificates without a court order, saying it doesnt violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.
The state Supreme Court also issued a rare admonishment to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox, saying he made inappropriate remarks in his ruling that struck down the birth certificate law. Fox had cited the U.S. Supreme Courts decision legalizing gay marriage in his ruling last year that said married same-sex couples should have both names listed on their childrens birth certificates, just as heterosexual married couples do, without requiring a court order.
In the state Supreme Courts decision Thursday, the justices sided with the state attorney generals office, saying Arkansas has a vested interest in listing biological parents on birth certificates.
What is before this court is a narrow issue of whether the birth-certificate statutes as written deny the appellees due process, Justice Josephine Linker Hart wrote in the courts majority opinion.
In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has. It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.
Read more: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/12/arkansas-court-puts-basic-biological-truths-ahead-sex-parents-rights/
Once again, demonstrating the equality of the GLBT community is not even remotely complete. Too many think the GLBT fight for equality is over; it isn't!
Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Behind the Aegis
(53,833 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)This is heartbreaking
Massacure
(7,498 posts)Why does a birth certificate need to list two names? It wouldn't be difficult to list three or four. For example, have the birth certificate list the biological father, the biological mother, the legal father and the legal mother. Say for the sake of argument Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth warren are married, and Donald Trump is the sperm donor. Couldn't the birth certificate just state:
Donald J Trump - Biological Father
Hillary Clinton - Biological Mother
Elizabeth Warren - Legal Father
Hillary Clinton - Legal Mother
That way the kid know's who his biological father is and when he grows up he can talk to his doctor about prevention of genetic diseases such as how his biological father had a yet to be identified disease which will be known as Distorted Reality Disorder.
Kuhl
(30 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)mantis49
(808 posts)For future health related issues, it is important for everyone to know their genetic background. This would solve that problem yet still allow recognition of the legal parentage.
jmowreader
(50,453 posts)Mangled Apricot Hellbeast - Biological Father
Hillary Clinton - Biological Mother
Elizabeth Warren - Legal Parent
Hillary Clinton - Legal Parent
This way you're not calling women "legal fathers" or men "legal mothers."
(On edit: This would also come into play when someone gave up a child for adoption at its birth to an opposite-sex couple. )
Behind the Aegis
(53,833 posts)The biological father DOES NOT have to be listed, it is whoever is there claiming to be the father. I am OK with making sure biology is available for medical issues, but to pretend this is about "biology" is BULLSHIT and this is nothing but ONE MORE attempt to delegitimize the families of GLBT people and as expected, there are those who go along to get along.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Unless the biological parent signs away their rights (sperm donation, surrogacy), biology identifies a parent to the courts.
Sadly, some rapists even have the right to visit the children they fathered via rape: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/parental-rights-rapists-explainer/
Behind the Aegis
(53,833 posts)You know who is on my birth certificate? My biological mother and my adoptive father. Given his participation in my life, he is my father!
This is nothing more than another way to denigrate and disrespect the GLBT family unit. For people who are supposedly so worried about family values, they really love to shit on ours!
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)being anywhere near Hillary makes me sick.
BigDemVoter
(4,149 posts)NOTHING would surprise me coming out of Arkansas, and I apologize in advance to my wonderful liberal friends who live there. I know you all feel like you're at the end of the world. . . .
For the record, Arkansas is an undiscovered natural paradise. It's such a shame that it's been overrun by yahoos.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)In the case of a marriage, the two people in the marriage are the legal parents.
This isn't a hard one. Unless your aim is to attack the rights of LGBT people.
Behind the Aegis
(53,833 posts)That is exactly what it is. This BS about it being about the importance of "biology" is a red herring. These people generally have no regard for science and now, all of the sudden, they are worried about it? Riiiiiight!
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)sperm banks to get the names of donors, and couples, both heterosexual and gay, use sperm banks. Are they going to list the father's name as "Anonymous Sperm Donor" or will they go to court to get those names?
Or even, "Anonymous Egg Donor" or will they go to court to get those names?
Or will surrogate mothers be listed as the parent on a birth certificate instead of the woman or man who will actually raise the child and with whom the child lives? Two married men use a surrogate mother, using sperm from one of the men, a child is born - the two married men are the actual parents, not the surrogate. Why should her name go on the legal birth certificate?
What about adoptions? Are they also going to require that the names of the birth parents go on the legal birth certificate along with the names of the adoptive (legal) parents?
No, they aren't. Because the word "legal" has meaning.
When a married couple, a man and a woman, have a child - whose name goes on the birth certificate as the legal parents?
Is the state going to draw blood from the newborn to make sure they have the biological father? Because if that "biological nexus" is that important to the state, they should. Each and every time a woman gives birth, test the baby to make sure you have that "biological nexus" intact.
Oh, will the heterosexual couples find that insulting? Really? Oooohhh...how sad. It's OK to demand that from Gay couples (the "biological nexus" but not from you? Oooh....my heart bleeds for you.
Of course it's insulting! DUH! It's demeaning, and strips you of your worth. DUH! DUH! DUH! - that's the fucking point behind what Arkansas is doing. To delegitimize marriage between two men/two women by attacking their status as legal parents.
If that trumped up phrase the "biological nexus" actually played a role then the state must also demand names from the sperm banks, the egg donors, and both birth parents, and place their names on the birth certificate, and not the names of the legal parents. See how many heterosexual couples like that. Being relegated to legal second class in their child's life.
A birth certificate is a legal document. I'll keep repeating that until people fully understand what that means. A legal document that grants legal rights to the child.
I know some states want the father's name in cases of aid to children, etc., and I know that not every legal father ends up being the biological father when it comes to child support disputes, but that kind of thing isn't what is going on here.
And please note, legal parent as opposed to biological parent - so I know people understand the difference.
That birth certificate matters. It means the names on the document are the legal parents of the child.
resistance2016
(86 posts)I'm in the goddamn Stone Age.