Iowa high court OKs same-sex parents on birth certificate

May 3, 2013 Full story: The Leaf-Chronicle 27

Married same-sex couples have the same rights as married heterosexuals to have both parents listed on the birth certificates of their newborn children, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#2 May 3, 2013
This is why we have supreme courts in the US, kudos to them for doing the right thing. Surprising in Iowa, but hey, it's good to be surprised sometimes.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#3 May 3, 2013
Supposing a person that has a non-biological person listed on their birth certificate as a parent wants to research their heredity for medical reasons, or just for researching their family tree ? What then ?

A birth certificate is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and a PUBLIC RECORD. It should document ONLY THE FACTS OF THE BIRTH.

I'm against the court's decision.

A better solution is to have the one parent legally adopt the child so then a legal document is established that lists both gay parents.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#4 May 3, 2013
I believe that true genealogy should be recorded while ALSO respecting a gay adoptive parent(s) on a legal document. It would be nice if they did mandatory DNA tests on all parents to show they are indeed the true parents/true father so their can be accurate genealogy recorded, not just tracing the name but the true bloodline.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#5 May 3, 2013
*there

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6 May 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Supposing a person that has a non-biological person listed on their birth certificate as a parent wants to research their heredity for medical reasons, or just for researching their family tree ? What then ?
A birth certificate is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and a PUBLIC RECORD. It should document ONLY THE FACTS OF THE BIRTH.
I'm against the court's decision.
A better solution is to have the one parent legally adopt the child so then a legal document is established that lists both gay parents.
Um ... you don't pose any problems, most fathers on the birth certificates are actually not the real fathers anyway, so ... nothing changes by allowing same-sex couples to alter that.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9 May 3, 2013
Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong again, freak. Then what else is new.
Aw, you can't actually counter what I posted, how cute.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#10 May 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Supposing a person that has a non-biological person listed on their birth certificate as a parent wants to research their heredity for medical reasons, or just for researching their family tree ? What then ?
A birth certificate is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and a PUBLIC RECORD. It should document ONLY THE FACTS OF THE BIRTH.
I'm against the court's decision.
A better solution is to have the one parent legally adopt the child so then a legal document is established that lists both gay parents.
You're showing your ignorance again, Foxy.

Putting the legal parents of a child on a birth certificate is standard practice across the United States, and has been for many years, in adoption. If previous birth certificates were issued with the biological parents listed those previous documents are not destroyed -- there is a paper trail that can be followed.

It was common decades ago for adoptions to be "closed" meaning the documentation recording the biological family relationship was sealed by the courts which made it really hard for an adoptive child to research their biological heritage. Today "closed" adoptions are rare and are usually done at the insistence of the biological parents who don't want to be known or discovered for whatever reason.

Most adoptions today are "open" with as least records kept by the adoptive parents indicating the child's biological family tree -- and in most cases there is contact maintained with at least some of the bio family.

With my two adopted kids we have contact with the bio family and our kids keep in touch with the bio family themselves as well (our kids are teenagers now.)

As was also pointed out in this thread, it's also presumptuous to expect the parents listed on a birth certificate, even in cases where the purported bio parents are raising the kid, to mean that child has an actual biological relationship to the parents. Do you know of any places that require paternity tests to be performed before a father is listed on a birth certificate?
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#11 May 3, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Supposing a person that has a non-biological person listed on their birth certificate as a parent wants to research their heredity for medical reasons, or just for researching their family tree ? What then ?
A birth certificate is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and a PUBLIC RECORD. It should document ONLY THE FACTS OF THE BIRTH.
I'm against the court's decision.
A better solution is to have the one parent legally adopt the child so then a legal document is established that lists both gay parents.
I see your concern, but you are misinformed. When a child is adopted, the adoptive parents names do go on the birth certificate. This ruling just says that the same will be true in the case of a same sex couple adopting, surrogatinf, etc.

And as a same sex couple with both our names on the birth certificates of our two children, I can assure you that behind each birth certificate is a mountain of documentation as to what happened biologically. There would be no problem tracing genealogy if they wanted.
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#12 May 3, 2013
equalityboy81 wrote:
I believe that true genealogy should be recorded while ALSO respecting a gay adoptive parent(s) on a legal document. It would be nice if they did mandatory DNA tests on all parents to show they are indeed the true parents/true father so their can be accurate genealogy recorded, not just tracing the name but the true bloodline.
They required DNA in the birth of our daughter but not of our son. Guess it's up to the judge

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#14 May 3, 2013
Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Counter what you posted??? Are you fking insane? You say most fathers names on birth certificates are false, you're even stupider than I thought. A very slim margin of names on birth certificates are false and most of that small margin are because the woman names the wrong guy as the father. The vas majority of the names are correct. When you open you're stupid mouth, make sure you have the facts instead of idiotic ramblings from the freak squad.
No, I said they are not the genetic fathers, only using more common language. Someone already explained why most are not the genetic fathers yet you pretty much ignored those facts.

So who is the idiot? Seems you are.
Pandora

Winter Park, FL

#16 May 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Supposing a person that has a non-biological person listed on their birth certificate as a parent wants to research their heredity for medical reasons, or just for researching their family tree ? What then ?
A birth certificate is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and a PUBLIC RECORD. It should document ONLY THE FACTS OF THE BIRTH.
I'm against the court's decision.
A better solution is to have the one parent legally adopt the child so then a legal document is established that lists both gay parents.
I strongly disagree. My wife and I took the less expensive route for her to get pregnant. The guy willingly donated his sperm and left, understanding he had no ties to the child. I should not have to get thru a war with any courts to adopt what's already mine. We are legally married despite societies opinion and my son is my son. I signed the birth certificate and would have not heard otherwise. The only thing we asked of the donor besides his sperm was blood type, and any immediate family illness for the childs sake healthwise.(as should anyone doing the turkey baster method do) I'm B+ n so is my son. My immediate fam and my wife's are a perfect resource for any health problems he may have. And so far there has been none at all. If I wanted to adopt which they still don't allow us to do... I would have but to adopt what I created (in every sense of the word) is preposterous. With the love we give our son and the truth about his creation, he himself is not concerned with biological anything. If I might add, when a man and woman have an artificial insemination procedure the husband doesn't have to adopt his child, so why should we?! Neither do they give u any info on the biological donor. Unless u pay a lot more money. Let this ravish and if you're not gay or lesbian why be on this forum with straight unopened minded opinions anyway...
Pandora

Winter Park, FL

#17 May 4, 2013
I also agree with kittenkoder every step of the way. Jethro u are simple minded and more than likely one of those guys on some woman's child birth certificate. Paper is paper. Being there is a whole other ball game. I am 24 yrs old and no one is on the fathers line on my birth certificate. Nor was anyone there. My sister has a different biological father. We know who he is... But guess what, my mom signed her birth certificate in both places and on the father line she signed her ex husbands name. Yea they let her do it and this was only back in 1985. It doest matter who signs or if its signed at all. if the child want to know there history a peice of paper aint the answer. its up to the parent to be honest with them. So really all the biological crap and who can sign is a load of BS!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#18 May 4, 2013
Pandora wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly disagree. My wife and I took the less expensive route for her to get pregnant. The guy willingly donated his sperm and left, understanding he had no ties to the child. I should not have to get thru a war with any courts to adopt what's already mine. We are legally married despite societies opinion and my son is my son. I signed the birth certificate and would have not heard otherwise. The only thing we asked of the donor besides his sperm was blood type, and any immediate family illness for the childs sake healthwise.(as should anyone doing the turkey baster method do) I'm B+ n so is my son. My immediate fam and my wife's are a perfect resource for any health problems he may have. And so far there has been none at all. If I wanted to adopt which they still don't allow us to do... I would have but to adopt what I created (in every sense of the word) is preposterous. With the love we give our son and the truth about his creation, he himself is not concerned with biological anything. If I might add, when a man and woman have an artificial insemination procedure the husband doesn't have to adopt his child, so why should we?! Neither do they give u any info on the biological donor. Unless u pay a lot more money. Let this ravish and if you're not gay or lesbian why be on this forum with straight unopened minded opinions anyway...
Um. I'm gay and have been out for over 30 years.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#19 May 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Um. I'm gay and have been out for over 30 years.
You still act like an ignorant straight person. Which makes the real straight people look bad.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#20 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You still act like an ignorant straight person. Which makes the real straight people look bad.
You say that just because I want only the FACTS on a legal document ???

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#21 May 4, 2013
Fred wrote:
That's a bunch of BS. That's total fraud.
Funny, that's the exact same thing we all say about your endless stream of lies, liar.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#22 May 4, 2013
Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Counter what you posted??? Are you fking insane? You say most fathers names on birth certificates are false, you're even stupider than I thought. A very slim margin of names on birth certificates are false and most of that small margin are because the woman names the wrong guy as the father. The vas majority of the names are correct. When you open you're stupid mouth, make sure you have the facts instead of idiotic ramblings from the freak squad.
Oh, you mean like all the false names YOU use, liar?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#23 May 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that just because I want only the FACTS on a legal document ???
Wait, you think that legal documents are even meant to have facts on them?

Joking aside, the father, nor mother, of a child does not have to have a genetic link, and on many birth certificates they do not have actual links to the child. Some by choice, some because of adoptions and abandoned children, others because no one wanted to know the genetic father or admit that their daughter was sleeping with a bunch of men to get pregnant. Some are the result of rape. A lot are single mothers with no father on their birth certificates. Then there's the ones we don't know about ....

You are deluded if you think that such records have ever been based on genetics, it's who is willing to take responsibility for the child that is important, because a birth certificate is like a contract in many ways.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#24 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, you think that legal documents are even meant to have facts on them?
Joking aside, the father, nor mother, of a child does not have to have a genetic link, and on many birth certificates they do not have actual links to the child. Some by choice, some because of adoptions and abandoned children, others because no one wanted to know the genetic father or admit that their daughter was sleeping with a bunch of men to get pregnant. Some are the result of rape. A lot are single mothers with no father on their birth certificates. Then there's the ones we don't know about ....
You are deluded if you think that such records have ever been based on genetics, it's who is willing to take responsibility for the child that is important, because a birth certificate is like a contract in many ways.
WOW ! You're ALWAYS absolutely WRONG !

:)

And I thought you were going to ignore my posts ???

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#26 May 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW ! You're ALWAYS absolutely WRONG !
:)
And I thought you were going to ignore my posts ???
You mean you like to deny reality just so you can make it up, basically.

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/...
Here's one example of such:
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/...

Sheesh, you can't be this ignorant, can you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Family Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Court bars kids from Jehovah's Witness activities 34 min UNchained 33
Jim Bob Duggar Says Petition To Cancel '19 Kids... 36 min Belle Sexton 6
Person of the week: Jessica Marchetti (Mar '12) 1 hr fapper 7
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 2 hr union indoctrination 31,507
For Once the Anti-Vaxxers Aren't (Entirely) to ... 4 hr Vaccine Caused 6
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 5 hr kjw51 164
Why I'm still a Catholic (Oct '13) 8 hr Ben_Masada 137
More from around the web