Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And the fight continues:

Arkansas Supreme Court halts birth certificates for same-sex partners
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court order that allowed same-sex parents throughout the state to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their children.

It let stand the certificates obtained by three lesbian couples who had challenged the Arkansas Health Department Vital Statistics Bureau's refusal to identify the three couples as the adoptive or biological parents of their respective children.

They won approval for their listing as parents in a narrow decision by Little Rock Circuit Judge Tim Fox. The same judge then issued another decision extending that recognition statewide.

The state appealed the decision that allowed same-sex couples statewide to be listed, saying it conflicted with Arkansas statutes and left birth registrars in legal limbo.

The state Supreme Court agreed and said that “the best course of action is to preserve the status quo with regard to the statutory provisions while we consider the circuit court's ruling.”

On Dec. 1, Judge Fox held that a state law restricting parentage identification to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this year legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

"(The) decision affords the plaintiffs, as same-sex couples, the same constitutional rights with respect to the issuance of birth certificates and amended birth certificates as opposite-sex couples," Fox wrote at the time

Read more at Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arkansas-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0TT35U20151211#qCtg0DD5oOLUAhZK.99

Seems like it will take a while to get rid of all the laws that were placed in the way of equality over the years.

Ar'Kansas.. get your gak together.

I mean really?

SMDH...

I think the word "temporarily" should have been in the stories headline a little more prominently. It's not a really well written article - as I understand it, it's more like an injunction while they consider the circuit court ruling. Is that correct?

Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

 Ouze wrote:
I think the word "temporarily" should have been in the stories headline a little more prominently. It's not a really well written article - as I understand it, it's more like an injunction while they consider the circuit court ruling. Is that correct?

Seems like it went:

Circuit Court: State law is stupid, put their names on the certificate.
Circuit Court: While you are at it, makes this ruling effective state wide
State: Nope, it's against the law!
Supreme Court: Yeah, let's stop this and think about it.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

I googled this and it looks like when you adopt a child, they issue an amended birth certificate with the adopted parents listed on it. So it doesn't seem that's the case normally, although if any adopters or adoptees want to weigh in they'd know more.

 Ouze wrote:
I think the word "temporarily" should have been in the stories headline a little more prominently. It's not a really well written article - as I understand it, it's more like an injunction while they consider the circuit court ruling. Is that correct?

It seems from the article that there was an injunction because the ruling conflicts with other laws, and this will give time for consideration to be given so a proper legal framework may be set up. But that is less sensationalist and click baity than "No Birth Certificates for Same Sex Parents"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

States have been putting adoptive parents on birth certificates for quite a long time, so there really isn't any difference between putting a "mom and dad" who are not biologically related on the certificate or a "dad and dad" who are not biologically related.

To be clear, when I'm criticizing the way the headline is written, I mean the actual story, not the way it was presented here.

 Ouze wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

I googled this and it looks like when you adopt a child, they issue an amended birth certificate with the adopted parents listed on it. So it doesn't seem that's the case normally, although if any adopters or adoptees want to weigh in they'd know more.

Not the full legal text, but here is the short explanation of the process via the Oklahoma Department of Health Website:

Adoption

An adoption occurs when one or both of the individuals determined at the time of birth to be the natural parent(s) are changed to indicate an individual who is not a natural parent. The parental information as well as the child’s name (if desired) will be updated in accordance with Oklahoma law and upon receipt of the court order.

Please note that if an individual was born in another state but adopted in the State of Oklahoma, the Adoption Decree is forwarded to that state of birth for processing and if a child was born in Oklahoma but adopted in another state, the Adoption Decree will be forwarded to the State of Oklahoma for processing. We do not maintain birth records for individuals born in other states.

When an adoption occurs and we receive proper documents from the Court, the original birth certificate is removed from the file and replaced with the new adoptive birth certificate. The original birth certificate and court documents are placed in a sealed confidential file and only opened by order of the court or as provided for in Oklahoma Statutes.

When applying for a copy of the birth certificate, any time after the adoption, the adoptive birth facts should be given including the new name of the child (if changed) and the new name(s) of the parent(s). Many individuals are confused when applying for a birth certificate years later indicating to us that they were adopted and do not know their parents names. Remember that once an individual is adopted the adoptive information is the only information that need be provided to obtain the official birth certificate of record.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

States have been putting adoptive parents on birth certificates for quite a long time, so there really isn't any difference between putting a "mom and dad" who are not biologically related on the certificate or a "dad and dad" who are not biologically related.

In that case, why is this an issue?

 Ouze wrote:
To be clear, when I'm criticizing the way the headline is written, I mean the actual story, not the way it was presented here.

Likewise. I was just assuming that d copy and pasted it from the source without an edit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

I googled this and it looks like when you adopt a child, they issue an amended birth certificate with the adopted parents listed on it. So it doesn't seem that's the case normally, although if any adopters or adoptees want to weigh in they'd know more.

Not the full legal text, but here is the short explanation of the process via the Oklahoma Department of Health Website:

Adoption

An adoption occurs when one or both of the individuals determined at the time of birth to be the natural parent(s) are changed to indicate an individual who is not a natural parent. The parental information as well as the child’s name (if desired) will be updated in accordance with Oklahoma law and upon receipt of the court order.

Please note that if an individual was born in another state but adopted in the State of Oklahoma, the Adoption Decree is forwarded to that state of birth for processing and if a child was born in Oklahoma but adopted in another state, the Adoption Decree will be forwarded to the State of Oklahoma for processing. We do not maintain birth records for individuals born in other states.

When an adoption occurs and we receive proper documents from the Court, the original birth certificate is removed from the file and replaced with the new adoptive birth certificate. The original birth certificate and court documents are placed in a sealed confidential file and only opened by order of the court or as provided for in Oklahoma Statutes.

When applying for a copy of the birth certificate, any time after the adoption, the adoptive birth facts should be given including the new name of the child (if changed) and the new name(s) of the parent(s). Many individuals are confused when applying for a birth certificate years later indicating to us that they were adopted and do not know their parents names. Remember that once an individual is adopted the adoptive information is the only information that need be provided to obtain the official birth certificate of record.

Out of curiosity is that he same as Alabama, because that is the state this ruling concerns.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

States have been putting adoptive parents on birth certificates for quite a long time, so there really isn't any difference between putting a "mom and dad" who are not biologically related on the certificate or a "dad and dad" who are not biologically related.

In that case, why is this an issue?

In this instance it's just that the law doesn't allow for two parents of the same sex.

I honestly don't know why. Initially I was thinking that this was another one of those laws that was passed to stop gay adoption, but it seems oddly specific and now I'm not sure that even a state like Arkansas would go "Gays can't marry, and they can't adopt, and if they can adopt they definitely can't put their names on the birth certificate".

So now I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply a case of an old law that has always existed and which has to be adjusted to fit into the new times. It could be a 50 year old law that was simply written with the words "mother" and "father" so with "rules as written" there is no legal way to write the names of two mothers and two fathers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
To be clear, when I'm criticizing the way the headline is written, I mean the actual story, not the way it was presented here.

Likewise. I was just assuming that d copy and pasted it from the source without an edit.

I tried to make it a little shorter for the forum, but I don't think I actually ended up shortening it at all. I didn't intend to click-bait the thread, I'll paste the original headline into the OP.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

States have been putting adoptive parents on birth certificates for quite a long time, so there really isn't any difference between putting a "mom and dad" who are not biologically related on the certificate or a "dad and dad" who are not biologically related.

In that case, why is this an issue?

In this instance it's just that the law doesn't allow for two parents of the same sex.

I honestly don't know why. Initially I was thinking that this was another one of those laws that was passed to stop gay adoption, but it seems oddly specific and now I'm not sure that even a state like Arkansas would go "Gays can't marry, and they can't adopt, and if they can adopt they definitely can't put their names on the birth certificate".

So now I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply a case of an old law that has always existed and which has to be adjusted to fit into the new times. It could be a 50 year old law that was simply written with the words "mother" and "father" so with "rules as written" there is no legal way to write the names of two mothers and two fathers.

How hard could it be to scribble out some words with a red crayon and rewrite the section

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

How hard could it be to scribble out some words with a red crayon and rewrite the section

This is state legislature we are talking about

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

How hard could it be to scribble out some words with a red crayon and rewrite the section

This is state legislature we are talking about

Right, because tax dollars couldn't possibly go into something more beneficial than the state legislature.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

How hard could it be to scribble out some words with a red crayon and rewrite the section

This is state legislature we are talking about

Right, because tax dollars couldn't possibly go into something more beneficial than the state legislature.

If there is any place more dysfunctional than Washington DC, it's the 50 wanna-be Washington DCs scattered around the nation!

Sad but so so very true.

 d-usa wrote:

If there is any place more dysfunctional than Washington DC, it's the 50 wanna-be Washington DCs scattered around the nation!

And that's before we get into municipalities, townships, counties, school districts, fire protection districts, and the way all of them interact.

 d-usa wrote:
I tried to make it a little shorter for the forum, but I don't think I actually ended up shortening it at all. I didn't intend to click-bait the thread, I'll paste the original headline into the OP.

Should have made it snappier: When gays tried to adopt a baby, you wouldn't believe what happened next! Or - Change you're baby's birth certificate with this one weird trick.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I tried to make it a little shorter for the forum, but I don't think I actually ended up shortening it at all. I didn't intend to click-bait the thread, I'll paste the original headline into the OP.

Should have made it snappier: When gays tried to adopt a baby, you wouldn't believe what happened next! Or - Change you're baby's birth certificate with this one weird trick.

"Watch this judge DESTROY their adoption" and "Liberals HATE him"?

I like it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

How hard could it be to scribble out some words with a red crayon and rewrite the section

This is state legislature we are talking about

Right, because tax dollars couldn't possibly go into something more beneficial than the state legislature.

If there is any place more dysfunctional than Washington DC, it's the 50 wanna-be Washington DCs scattered around the nation!

Especially since this is Arkansas we're talking about, there's an added hurdle to any sort of law like this: what does the Bible say??

(Note, Im not saying that to drag this thread in THAT direction, just that we all know how Arkansas is)


I sincerely hope that this move is temprorary, and that if the SC rules that there are other state laws on the books preventing this, that THOSE get changed to fit reality, and not the other way round.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't biological parents go on Birth certificates? I mean, if your parents are homosexual... clearly one of them isn't biologically related therefor not on a birth certificate

Not necessarily. Absent fathers don't go on the birth certificate. Present fathers who have been cuckolded do go on the birth certificate, although they are not biologically related..

That does not matter, anyway. The birth certificate isn't a genetic health device, it's a bureaucratic monitoring device for helping with cencus records and people's identity.

Refusal to list same-sex parents seems merely a spasm of petty discrimination against homosexual relationships. Sadly we have come to expect that from places like Alabama.

That said, no doubt they are following their religiously dictated conscience, so perhaps we ought not to blame them too much. I am sure it will all get resolved satisfactorily in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supplementary; in the UK, unmarried fathers can't register their children. It has to be done by the mother. She can put the father's name on if she likes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Not necessarily. Absent fathers don't go on the birth certificate. Present fathers who have been cuckolded do go on the birth certificate, although they are not biologically related..

I recall a case being held in the Detroit area where the courts jailed a man over non-payment of child support for something like 12 years. Eventually, he was released, charges and CS dropped because when he took it to open trial, it came out that the woman made up a "random" name because she thought the form absolutely had to have a father (which should tell you something about her, no?), and that random name happened to be his.

I deal with helping people established paternity or maternity in California. Can't speak to Alabama's statutes regarding paternity but several things immediately come to mind when reading the article excerpted. First, the article talks about couples not married couples. Big difference there. Dad's don't just get to be on the birth certificate if they are in a relationship with mom, they have to be married, or mom and dad have to fill out a declaration of paternity to say he is the only possible father. With a same sex couple, clearly the partner can't be the father so no way to get on the birth certificate there. Opposite sex couples may have an easier time getting away with perjury, but that isn't an argument that fraud by same sex couples should then be automatically allowed.

If the couple is married then there is a statutory presumption that the non-birthmother parent is the child's other parent. That presumption in California uses sex neutral language. If the language specified "father" rather than "parent" and the purpose was to identify most likely biological father, then the statute wouldn't apply to two women, married or no.

That presumption can be a double edged sword. It's great if you are an intact well functioning couple that planned the pregnancy, a potential disaster if mom hooked up with someone else to get pregnant and her marriage partner wasn't down with that and doesn't want to be legally responsible for 18 years.

The other thing I winner about which isn't real clear is what do the couples really want. It's this about the birth certificate or being the legal parent, because they aren't necessarily the same thing. If a dude wants to be the legal father of the baby even though he knows he's not the bio dad, there are ways to do that, but being listed on the birth certificate isn't a necessary part of that.

My clients, including same sex couples, haven't wanted to change the birth certificate, they want the presumed parent status which gives them full parental rights and responsibilities.

California is ahead of other states regarding adjusting laws to accommodate same sex couples, but there are other laws may have been written with no intent to impact same sex couples and you can't necessarily hand waive a change and have it work right. It takes some effort to tweak things and in some cases you may be getting a raw deal just like all the hetero dads out there.

TLDR: Article doesn't make clear that any discrimination is happening at all, and sometimes unforseen consequences of a change (even good changes) have to be worked through which can take time.