General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMarried fathers (same-sex couple) not allowed on birth certs of their own bio babies
This is bigoted cruelty. There are children involved. But this judge puts his prejudices ahead of their welfare.
http://www.queerty.com/cruel-texas-judge-refuses-to-allow-names-of-gay-dads-to-appear-on-their-own-biological-childrens-birth-certificates-20140618?utm_source=bb82&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=texasdads
Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs met four years ago. They were legally married last year in Washington, D.C. In April, they had twins, Lucas and Ethan, with the help of an egg donor and a surrogate mother. Each of the men is the biological father to one of the babies, who are technically biological half-brothers.
And heres where it gets tricky.
Only the surrogate mother who has no biological ties to the children, since the embryos were transferred to her is on the boys birth certificates. The fathers are not legally defined as the parents of their own children. And when they petitioned to have this corrected, the judge, who had full authority to fix the error, said no.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If biology is the requirement to have the parent's name on a birth certificate, then a DNA test will tell which father is the biological father of which baby. The egg thing is confusing because of donor eggs. My guess is that field would be left blank, however, if this were a man and woman married couple, my guess is that nobody would have a problem listing the wife as the mother on the birth certificate even though she is not biologically related to the baby.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But the judge didn't agree to put either of their names on either birth certificate, although what they were asking was for both of their names to be on both. Right now, the surrogate mother is the only person listed on either birth certificate.
Here's another story:
http://www.glaad.org/blog/video-texas-dads-denied-parental-rights-their-own-twin-sons
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I just don't see it making any sense. Of the three involved in the births of those boys, the only one no biologically related is the surrogate mother.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Although I guess I'd say "genetically" instead of "biologically" as pregnancy is a biological function, but "genetically" and "biologically" are often used interchangeably. But the person of everyone involved who should least be on the birth certificates is the only one on them.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)on the biological versus genetic specifics. I'm going to use genetic from now on because it is more precise.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Without [co-adoption], if something happened to either me or Joe we dont have any legal recourse to keep the others biological child, Hanna said. The state could come in and separate these two brothers.
The laws and courts aren't keeping up with the times. These children should not be in legal limbo.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)for those asking what bigotry looks like. This is it...
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)should be listed on the birth certificate.
If not for the sake of the parents (i.e. to avoid looking like assholes for not doing it), but at least for the sake of the children, who have a right to know who their parents are.