Isn't the birth certificate supposed to name the biological parents? Unless modern medicine has developed capabilities I'm not aware of, those can't be a gay or lesbian couple.

Why can't they put one name under mother and one under father?

Why does it have to be changed?

Sorry this reminds me of work and all those little details I am requested to do and I don't see the purpose.

"1984" wasn't an instruction manual.

You're really cool with the attempt to ungender language? To make ungoodthought impossible? Wow.

This is about a birth certificate. Creating a child requires a sperm and an egg. The sperm comes from a male, the egg from a female. These are the two people who are supposed to be named on a birth certificate. If this is discriminatory, the LGBT movement needs to take it up with mother nature.

Naming guardians or non-biological parents on a birth certificate is just wrong; this conflates biological (and potentially medical) issues with legal issues, and simply should not be allowed. Non-biological parents may become guardians or adoptive parents. However, that is an entirely different set of paperwork.

Upon adoption children are issued a new birth certificate with their adopted parents listed on it. This is routine (whether you like it or not) so it seems completely reasonable that same-sex couples would have both their names on one, too.

Upon adoption children are issued a new birth certificate with their adopted parents listed on it. This is routine (whether you like it or not) so it seems completely reasonable that same-sex couples would have both their names on one, too.

Exactly, Fink-Nottle.

Who would argue with this?

So what is wrong w/using "parent"?

It's a legal(?) document and words matter on those. A male cannot be a female Mother and so on. They can be a loving parent.

If "they" want to be in the straight world just most of us then do it.

If their agenda is to change everything that offends them then continue on and they will get the battle they seem to want on issues that have nothing to do w/their sexual orientation.

No, birth certificates aren't meant to show the biological parents; they're legal documents and list the legal parents. The situations you use a birth certificate for---registering a kid for school, getting a passport, getting a learners permit or drivers license, etc---have nothing to do with biology. Medical records should show who the biological parents are whenever possible, and should be available to adopted children.

That said, the word parent should suffice, for straight or gay ccouples, because mothers and fathers are supposed to be legally equal.

If Marraige can be between any 2 people, why can't "mother" be defined as a person, or "father" be defined as a person? What does gender have to do with being a parent?

I think birth certificates should have the names and SS#s of the bio parents.

Create a secondary from called a guardianship certificate to denote who the legal guardians are.

After all when a couple divorces and the one with primary custody gets remarried the new spuose is not put on the birth certficate

Fink Nottle! Do you love newts?

time passes on...

the document eventually carries 2 "parents" names, and then only one, in the name of the "flexible family"...

and then none, as the very idea of naming a parent on an identification document seems un-needed... then the government just issues an identification number upon birth.

The government is then your parent, giving you identification upon birth.

An entire nation full of worker bees, who may or may not know who they should relate to, if anyone.

Each step, seemingly logical in itself, leading you to where you don't wish to go. The relativity of it all making principle as flexible as families that no longer exist.

Look at where you are and where this all is heading, all to please the vanity of smaller and smaller groups. So they don't feel left out, or slighted.

Since most of my family is adopted, I am not an innocent bystander. The idea of the FAMILY unit was key, and not the province of the GOVERNMENT.

But that IS the flip of the coin, to look at The Government as BEING society, rather than just an offshoot of the way society functions.

It'd be easy to write a dark, dystopian future about all of this, but I'd be afraid that I'd get it right.

SAD, let's go the other way: why are there only two places on the birth certificate for parents?

"Upon adoption children are issued a new birth certificate with their adopted parents listed on it. "

And it causes a lot of problems when a child needs to trace through their genetic background in order to address a medical issue. The only reason it's been allowed in the past is because adoption wouldn't work without it. (And anyway, that's a 20th-century phenomomen... prior to that, adopting parents were usually aware or had some record of the birth circumstances of a child that they adopted.) There is no such concern with gay parenting.

I agree that the purpose of the birth certificate needs to be the recording of the actual circumstances of conception and birth. If gay parents really want, the government body can issue a separate "certificate of parenting" stating who the legal parents are, without gender roles assigned. Although to me that smacks of licensing... do gay parents really want to go there? Is it worth a new level of government intrusion on everyone just so a gay man can call himself "mother" and feel good about it?

"The situations you use a birth certificate for---registering a kid for school, getting a passport, getting a learners permit or drivers license, etc---have nothing to do with biology."

Jenny, forgive me for putting it this way, but you may not see the problem becuase you're a woman and it isn't your concern. The problem with that statement is that, for fathers, biology is legality (except when it isn't, but that's a different problem). A man who is named as the father on a birth certificate is always potentially on the hook for child support (unless he can disprove his biological parentage within the very narrow window of opportunity allowed to do so).

So yes, for the purpose of fatherhood, the biology has a strong correlation to the birth certificate. Actually it does for motherhood too, but barring very unusual circumstances, maternity is easy to determine for obvious reasons.

Cousin Dave, speaking of paternity fraud, do you or anyone else know whether California et al have fixed that loophole (or whatever one calls it) that, in 2000, allowed women to pick names out of phone books and force that man to pay child support with little chance of being punished for it? Thanks for any info.

Lenona, as far as I know, it has not changed. In a lot of states, you have 30 days from the date of birth to contest paternity. If you don't receive notification of the event within the 30-day window, tough luck.

But does SHE have to jump through any hoops at all to prove the man is the father in any of those particular states? Not that it would be completely fair to the man even if she did - after all, if he's serving in the military, he might not get the notice in time. Even so, it would slow down fraudsters if there were procedures that made it harder for them to pick the names of strangers.

Lenona,

The answer is no. The mother in most states can pick any name for the father on a birth certificate and he will be liable unless he acts in a short time frame. The most ridiculous case I hear of was in Florida. A man received notice he had unpaid back child support. He responded I was 10 when the child was born. The state said doesn't matter, you still have to pay and started garnishing his wages.

On another front, is there going to be a fight over who gets to be the mother? When you both have the same genitalia who gets the kids by default and who has to pay?

This is really two issues, in my opinion. The first being the right of the child to know what his lineage is, and the second the right of the child's parents to have a legal document of that fact.

I'm with those who say that birth certificate should be for biological parents. I especially liked the commenter who said that a "certificate of guardianship" should be issued to the legal guardians, whatever kind of relationship they are.

Look, Amy, I'm sure I'll meet a gay couple with children sooner or later, but I don't think I could bring myself to call one man a wife or mother, nor one women a husband or father.

Isn't the birth certificate supposed to list the biological parents, anyhow? Why must gay men or lesbian women get offended, if some do, just because they are not named on the birth certificate?

If I were gay and raising a child with another man, I don't think I would give a rat's ass about who was actually on the BC. And yes, the mother could come visit, too.

Regarding your ad, Amy, in my case, it's Good Manners for People Who Sometimes Say F*ck With Both Middle Fingers Extended.

And it causes a lot of problems when a child needs to trace through their genetic background in order to address a medical issue. The only reason it's been allowed in the past is because adoption wouldn't work without it. (And anyway, that's a 20th-century phenomenon... prior to that, adopting parents were usually aware or had some record of the birth circumstances of a child that they adopted.) There is no such concern with gay parenting. -- Cousin Dave at May 13, 2014 7:58 AM

A birth certificate has the same implications as a marriage certificate. There is a religious aspect that is how you are to raise a child within the church. Then there is a legal aspect that includes guardianship, inheritance, and other similar things that a legal marriage involves.

The number of children that have no clue the they were adopted away from a paternal father is a lot less than you see on TV. The amount that need to explore the family tree is even more miniscule.

@"Naming guardians or non-biological parents on a birth certificate is just wrong"

Are you saying sperm donors should be listed as 'father' on birth certificates?

I'm not opposed to gay couples raising kids, but there is no precedent, that I'm aware of, for amending a child's original birth certificate to identify a non-biological relative as a birth parent.

Adoptees may be provided an amended birth certificate ( ABC ), but their original ( OBC ) is held with their adoption records, and children born to a surrogate parent still have that parent identified on their BC - it's not changed to reflect the nominal parents even if the non-birth parent has contributed eggs. In both situations, courts have held that an OBC is a medically significant record of the child's genetic lineage and shouldn't be adulterated.

I think the appropriate course for gay couples is to follow the adoption model, which would provide a legal ABC but maintain an OBC on file with the state.

As an adoptee, I have no access to a birth certificate with my bio parents. I only have a BC with my adoptive parents.

Sure would have been great for medical reasons, that doesn't change the legality of the accessibility.

I found my bio family through an online adoption registry and that only works if both sides are looking.

To me the only way it makes sense for both gay parents to be on the BC is if they went through the adoption process. Which is probably what they should do for their own protection if they break up. Social mothers in lesbian couples get treated like dads; if they both are on the BC (because of adoption) they would be on more equal footing.

But does it really matter what the form says? Do we really want to spend more money to change the form so a few people get the label they want? Sure change it if the form was going to be changed.

NicoleK, yes, of course, I love newts!

As to everyone who wants birth certificates only for biological parents that's beside the point here. They currently are not necessarily for biological parents thus there is no reason to not issue them with the names of same-sex parents.

"Why should it matter to anyone what people choose to have on their child's birth certificate -- which parent's name is in which box? "

Well, it doesn't matter -- up to the point where they start dragging it through courts, at which point it's costing me, as a taxpayer, money to indulge someone's wish to redefine the English language and force everyone to comply with it. When I face legal jeoparty because I refuse to use the term "mother" to refer to a male (because words have meanings, y'know), that's where I put my foot down.

Yes, they can force me to say it. But what happened to that "persuation" thing? Are they really interested in arguing their case, or do they simply wish to be totalitarians?