umm part of the reason for a birth certificate is to document who the genetic parents are. This shows they care more for themselves than for the child.
That’s what I was wondering, too. What is customary in the situation of adoption? Whose name is on the BC? I though the BC was a matter of biology but in this case, there are two men listed, neither of whom have a biological connection to the child.
Imagine in 20 or 30 years when he has to show his bc for some legal reason (not to run for president because it’s officially not required any more). It will show two men and no women - how humiliating. Very, very selfish.
While the birth certificate is supposed to show who the bio parents are, it is also supposed to show who the adoptive parents are, too. After the adoption is finalized, an amended birth certificate issued.
I agree, but the original is usually sealed, and sometimes destroyed.
I can see restricting access more than usual, but the kid should be able to find out his real genetic ancestry and who his real parents were. When he becomes an adult. The genetic ancestry part is more and more important as more diseases are found to have a genetic component, at least so far as perceptibility and sometimes in the sense of "genetic defect".
But the fact that birth certificates, even the "vault copy" can be changed, should bring a dose of realism to those who think some document, even if not a forgery, that is made up from the current data on the BC, is sufficient to prove "natural born" status. It' also why Hawaii and the US State Department won't accept the short form for some purposes and in the case of State, from some countries.