Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:04 PM Jun 2014

Married 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 here’s 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.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Married fathers (same-sex couple) not allowed on birth certs of their own bio babies (Original Post) gollygee Jun 2014 OP
Now I have to go look up how twins are made again LOL snooper2 Jun 2014 #1
That is seriously fucked up. MadrasT Jun 2014 #2
+1 nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #3
This does not make any sense at all. Jenoch Jun 2014 #4
They know which dad is the bio father of which baby gollygee Jun 2014 #6
i understand how the details of the story are being presented. Jenoch Jun 2014 #7
Yeah right! gollygee Jun 2014 #8
Thanks for the clarification Jenoch Jun 2014 #9
This is a sad situation: ohheckyeah Jun 2014 #5
Asshole judge. Solly Mack Jun 2014 #10
Now this is actual bigotry nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #11
All biological parents pipi_k Jun 2014 #12
 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
4. This does not make any sense at all.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:49 PM
Jun 2014

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)
6. They know which dad is the bio father of which baby
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:58 PM
Jun 2014

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)
7. i understand how the details of the story are being presented.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:04 PM
Jun 2014

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)
8. Yeah right!
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:06 PM
Jun 2014

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)
9. Thanks for the clarification
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:40 PM
Jun 2014

on the biological versus genetic specifics. I'm going to use genetic from now on because it is more precise.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
5. This is a sad situation:
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:57 PM
Jun 2014

“Without [co-adoption], if something happened to either me or Joe we don’t have any legal recourse to keep the other’s 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.

pipi_k

(21,020 posts)
12. All biological parents
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:29 PM
Jun 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Married fathers (same-sex...