California bill would let birth certi...

California bill would let birth certificates reflect same-sex parents

There are 30 comments on the Reuters story from Aug 20, 2014, titled California bill would let birth certificates reflect same-sex parents. In it, Reuters reports that:

Birth certificates in California would be changed to more accurately reflect families in which parents are of the same gender under a bill passed by the legislature on Wednesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Elizabeth Johnson

Falls Church, VA

#1 Aug 21, 2014
This makes NO sense at all. How could you do this? Everyone knows that to have a birth of of a child that a man and woman is needed. The birth mother needs to be listed as the mother. It is needed for genealogical and medical purposes of the history of the child.

Adoption it is unnecessary, In an surrogate situation the mother should be listed somewhere in the records.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#2 Aug 21, 2014
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
This makes NO sense at all. How could you do this? Everyone knows that to have a birth of of a child that a man and woman is needed. The birth mother needs to be listed as the mother. It is needed for genealogical and medical purposes of the history of the child.
Adoption it is unnecessary, In an surrogate situation the mother should be listed somewhere in the records.
Why does a surrogate mother NEED to be listed at all? She is NOTHING more than a incubator for 9 months!!!

By your position....why WOULDN'T the sperm donor NEED to be listed?

The sperm donor is more biologically attached to the child than a surrogate would be!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3 Aug 21, 2014
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
This makes NO sense at all. How could you do this? Everyone knows that to have a birth of of a child that a man and woman is needed. The birth mother needs to be listed as the mother. It is needed for genealogical and medical purposes of the history of the child.
Adoption it is unnecessary, In an surrogate situation the mother should be listed somewhere in the records.
I'm adopted, by a heterosexual couple. My birth certificate only lists my adoptive parents. At the age of 45, I have no knowledge of my birth parents, my genealogy, or my family medical history.

All adoptees, whether adopted by a gay or straight couple, are in the same boat. None of them have their birth parents listed. If they need genealogical or medical information, there are channels for requesting that, but it isn't automatically provided for anyone, nor are the birth parents' identities.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Aug 21, 2014
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
This makes NO sense at all. How could you do this? Everyone knows that to have a birth of of a child that a man and woman is needed. The birth mother needs to be listed as the mother. It is needed for genealogical and medical purposes of the history of the child.
Adoption it is unnecessary, In an surrogate situation the mother should be listed somewhere in the records.
That's not the way things work in many instances outside of same sex couples.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Aug 21, 2014
"Genealogical...purposes " equals "mormon whatever it is on board."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6 Aug 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does a surrogate mother NEED to be listed at all? She is NOTHING more than a incubator for 9 months!!!
By your position....why WOULDN'T the sperm donor NEED to be listed?
The sperm donor is more biologically attached to the child than a surrogate would be!!!
Of course.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#7 Aug 21, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm adopted, by a heterosexual couple. My birth certificate only lists my adoptive parents. At the age of 45, I have no knowledge of my birth parents, my genealogy, or my family medical history.
All adoptees, whether adopted by a gay or straight couple, are in the same boat. None of them have their birth parents listed. If they need genealogical or medical information, there are channels for requesting that, but it isn't automatically provided for anyone, nor are the birth parents' identities.
And just knowing who your bio parents are is no guarantee that you'll know anything *useful* about your family medical history, either.

My husband and his brothers (all between 58 and 65) are all now more than 10 years older than ANY male on EITHER SIDE of their family before them has lived. The men in their family have all dropped dead of massive heart attacks in their mid-40's. Because of advances in medical science and nutrition education, their generation represents the longest living men in their family.

They have *no* idea what old-age medical situations might be ahead of them because no one in their family has ever lived long enough to know what they might be. Alzheimers? Cancers? Prostate problems? Not a clue. There's just no family history of it because they all died so young.

In my case, all the men in my family have been stumbling drunks that either died in their 60's from stress-related illnesses or lived into their 90's, drinking and smoking cigars, happy and healthy as ever until they died in their sleep. Does it help me to know that? Not really.... I don't drink or smoke, never have. I certainly eat more healthy than any of my ancestors ever did. Does that mean I'll live into my '90s and die peacefully in my sleep? Who knows?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#8 Aug 21, 2014
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
This makes NO sense at all. How could you do this? Everyone knows that to have a birth of of a child that a man and woman is needed. The birth mother needs to be listed as the mother. It is needed for genealogical and medical purposes of the history of the child.
Adoption it is unnecessary, In an surrogate situation the mother should be listed somewhere in the records.
Birth certificates are legal documents that establish legal responsibility and authority of the parents. They are not medical records.

What's your solution for the millions of children every year that are born to single mothers who refuse to put the father's name on the birth certificate? They can't ALL be named Jesus....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9 Aug 21, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth certificates are legal documents that establish legal responsibility and authority of the parents. They are not medical records.
What's your solution for the millions of children every year that are born to single mothers who refuse to put the father's name on the birth certificate? They can't ALL be named Jesus....
Great answer.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Aug 21, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Great answer.
Immaculately argued, even.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#11 Aug 21, 2014
Creating a baby does not make you a parent.....RAISING one does!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12 Aug 21, 2014
Gremlin wrote:
Creating a baby does not make you a parent.....RAISING one does!
Absolutely.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13 Aug 21, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth certificates are legal documents that establish legal responsibility and authority of the parents. They are not medical records.
Birth certificates are a record of birth, nothing more. They establish only that a person was born, when, where and the name(s) of the mother and, usually, father.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#14 Aug 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth certificates are a record of birth, nothing more. They establish only that a person was born, when, where and the name(s) of the mother and, usually, father.
Try to take an infant child on board an international flight without a birth certificate to prove that you have the legal authority to take that child out of the country and then let me know that a birth certificate is nothing more than a record of a birth.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#15 Aug 22, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm adopted, by a heterosexual couple. My birth certificate only lists my adoptive parents. At the age of 45, I have no knowledge of my birth parents, my genealogy, or my family medical history.
All adoptees, whether adopted by a gay or straight couple, are in the same boat. None of them have their birth parents listed. If they need genealogical or medical information, there are channels for requesting that, but it isn't automatically provided for anyone, nor are the birth parents' identities.
Thank you for saving me the typing to say what you just said.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16 Aug 22, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to take an infant child on board an international flight without a birth certificate to prove that you have the legal authority to take that child out of the country and then let me know that a birth certificate is nothing more than a record of a birth.
It is nothing more than a record of birth. If you are traveling out of the country the baby needs a US passport. You can leave the birth certificate at home, it's only a record of birth.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#17 Aug 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It is nothing more than a record of birth. If you are traveling out of the country the baby needs a US passport. You can leave the birth certificate at home, it's only a record of birth.
Okay then, try to take an infant on an international flight with just a passport and no proof that you're legally responsible for that infant. Do you think that airlines take infants traveling alone?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#19 Aug 23, 2014
Southwest Airlines, international flights:
A birth certificate is required to validate the age of all infants under age two.

Why is it required? To prove the child is under two years old.
Why does this matter? Children older than two must pay for a seat, up to 2 and younger can fly in an adults lap without a ticket.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#20 Aug 23, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay then, try to take an infant on an international flight with just a passport and no proof that you're legally responsible for that infant. Do you think that airlines take infants traveling alone?
Nothing on a birth certificate indicates who is legally responsible for a child. It is a record of birth.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#21 Aug 24, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing on a birth certificate indicates who is legally responsible for a child. It is a record of birth.
In California, when an adoption occurs the Birth Certificate is changed to list the adoptive parents as part of the Court order. It's always been so.

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.

US Governors Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Don Barros Serrano 197,445
News Donald Trump breaks with nation's only Latina g... 26 min Abacus 73
News Albany police arrest woman for Liebel Street bu... (Aug '12) 28 min I Hateu 6
News Bristol Palin to marry U.S. Medal of Honor winn... (Mar '15) 49 min Jaimie 1,305
News Oklahoma lawmakers OK bill criminalizing perfor... 1 hr serfs up 75
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 1,874
News Trump to stump in New Mexico, nation's most His... 2 hr barnyard 87
More from around the web