Nicole Singley and her wife Jennifer had been married for more than a year when their son was born in Indiana in 2015. Jennifer had carried the boy, conceived through artificial insemination, and Nicole was there to cut the umbilical cord.
But the next day, while holding their son in the hospital, they were told that only Jennifer’s name would appear on the baby’s birth certificate.
Two years later, the couple is expecting another child, this time a daughter carried by Nicole, and they are still pushing the state to allow both members of married gay couples to be listed on birth certificates the day their baby is born. The course the state recommends in cases like these: adoption.
In other states, the law has been on the Singleys’ side. State “presumption of parentage” laws, which allow hospitals to list a woman’s husband as the father of her child on a birth certificate — even if paternity hasn’t been medically established — have largely been extended to married lesbian couples after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. Many states did so voluntarily, while courts settled the issue in others, including Florida and South Carolina.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
9 comments:
To list two women or two men as the biological patents is a biological as well as a scientiical imposibilty thus .a king the document an outright lie. So now the state's are in the business of denying scientific and biological fact just to make a few people feel good? What a freak show that is, P.T. Barnum would be proud of this!
Funny how they love each other, not any man but each wants to have a baby.
The contributors of the sperm and egg that met to create the child should be the only people listed as parents on a birth certificate. Create additional line(s) on the forms to describe any other relationship(s) to the newborn.
9:36 I think there are a few people who would argue that your parents are those who raise you. I think that's what they're fighting for. Not a biological record for their child but the right to have both parents names documented should something ever happen. Shouldn't be a big deal.
sure your parents may be who raises you. but the biological parents do not change. They need to list the biological donors on the birth certificat and give the gays an adoption certificate. OR they could just do things the way we are clearly designed to do things. Just a thought.
Don't think this is good at all but if they included a co parent spot that would be okay.As far as the mother and father, there are good reasons for that to be kept the same.
Although i agree to a certain degree that this is wrong, i have a "but" to add. In the case of artificial insemination using a donor, is that donor who is anonymous named on the birth certificate? No he is not.Nor is an egg donor listed. So while i agree it takes a biological mother and father to create a baby, it more so takes a parent to raise said child. Who be it for me to question who a person chooses to love. With so many unwanted chilren being born and then "raised" by single parents i would be happy to have 2 woman or 2 men listed on the birth cettificate. Who cares so long as that child has loving,supportive parents for the rest of their lives
Have no problem with a gay couple adopting children or having them through surrogates (male couple) but come on, do we have to keep talking it to death? It gets old. Really old after a while.
The purpose of a birth certificate is to define the genetic family tree and keep track of inbreeding and other traits passed down through generations, hence the blank space in the "Father" column when it is unknown. The future may include a DNA formula on that line, but should never confuse the purpose with "Two Mommies".
Post a Comment