Posted on 11/15/2006 2:28:48 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Birth Certificate to Say Baby Has 2 Moms Nov 15 4:50 PM US/Eastern
By GEOFF MULVIHILL Associated Press Writer
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J.
Two women will be listed as parents on the birth certificate of a baby born this week in New Jersey, one of the first implications of a state Supreme Court ruling that gives same-sex couples access to the same rights as married couples.
The state and the women agreed in a closed family court proceeding Monday, the day before the child was born, that both women should be listed in light of the landmark high court ruling. A judge agreed with the state and the women, lawyers said.
In New Jersey, birth certificates are typically mailed to parents.
Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida said the women are the first he knows of to take advantage of new rights granted by the Oct. 25 ruling.
The Burlington County women, who are registered as domestic partners, did not want their names made public, their attorney Stephen Hyland said.
Under state law, the husband of a woman who gives birth through artificial insemination is listed on the birth certificate as the father. No such provision is made for lesbian couples, who often go through lengthy and costly adoptions to give both women equal rights as parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I'll wait.
If you don't see the irony in your own post no amount of argument will suffice.
Now THAT, my friend, is where we agree.
HIS name will only be needed on the checks.
How about this: It's a naturally occurring phenomenon.
sw
WRONG!
There are not two parents in this case and their sick formula of an extra "mother" is incomptable with the concept of family; this inability to understand basic concepts is what leads them to confuse "selfishness" with "love". (Both in regard to the women's relationship with each other and their relationship with the child.) Your comments about bigotry and intolerence betray your view that it is all about the two women. It is not; it is about the child. There is nothing wrong with "intolerance"; as a matter of fact, we need quite a bit more of it.
Grim.
Orwellian.
Yes, and you had to ADOPT to get that. This homosexual couple got it without adopting, is my point.
Also, the original birth certificate still exists for medical/legal/historical purposes in state records and archives.
This child has a bilogically/medically/historically inaccurate original birth certificate, not a revised one. It's bad social and legal policy to create corrupted records for PC purposes.
Care to share with the class HOW these mores were changed in law? See my next response below for a hint.
Social attitudes change, but the ideals of Liberty and the Representative Democracy endure.
The changes we are witnessing in law are not coming about through legal means. We have the ability to amend our foundational laws when our Representative Republic so desires. No, the current social mores and legalization has been brought to us by the black-robed tyrants we were warned against by the founding fathers.
Democracy? Representation? In a pig's eye!
Well, sort of depends on your definition of "naturally occurring," doesn't it? I mean, if the "I was born that way" argument is lacking in evidence, then would you apply the phrase to the long-documented environmental factors? In either case, the origin of the condition is irrelevant to its objective normalcy. It's also irrelevant to whether it may be viewed as a positive thing or a negative. After all, cleft palates may be deemed as "naturally occurring," but one would be hard pressed to make the argument that it is a desirable condition.
The problem, such as it is, occurs when those social norms, mores, etc. begin bleeding into places where they are forced,unwelcome or have no foundation.
I'd wager that most of the people voicing negative attitudes on this thread have little experience with gay folks or same sex parents -- however, they know they don't want to be exposed to it and that's a valid reason.
Bad things happen when things do not occur naturally in a community.
More birth certificate fun pingster! ;-)
Amazing, isn't it, the hubris of the Supreme Court of New Jersey? It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for two women to conceive and give life to a child. Whether the chicks like it or not, a MAN has to be part of the equation. So the name of the father can be left blank, but there is no way the 'father' is a woman.
Insanity, thy name is PC.
Big Time Truth BUMP!!
Whether it's viewed as a negative, positive or null depends on the environment.
You better think deeper than that. Or we are really in trouble. Sit back and really think . This is a lot more than a simple social shift. Don't look at what is obvious. look at what is not so obvious.
Two of our daughters were born at home to a midwife. We had to file the legal documents with the state for the birth certificates. Those original documents are all available through the state, should they request that information.
My daughter loves to be asked if she was "born in a barn." Since our apartment at the time was attached to a barn, she always smiles and says "yes."
My youngest daughter had in a similar situation, i.e. from a same sex couple, in her kindergarten class. The other kids in the class seemed to have no problem with it, at least none I heard, and the little girl was quite sweet, polite and very well adjusted, certainly a lot more than several of the other children. It was quite obvious that she was loved at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.