It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
I also remember a while back that a guy who supplied his sperm for a same-sex couple.When that couple
split up HE had to pay child support.


That story is so sad! The state blackmailed the lesbian couple, telling them that if they didn't reveal the sperm donor, the child couldn't get health care. He had even signed a contract with the couple, relinquishing all rights and responsibilities to and for the child, but the state ruled it null and void, because the insemination wasn't performed by a certified doctor. The couple is working with the biological father against the state's decision.

www.avoiceformen.com...

As regards the question of custody, it would be handled just as any other couple's divorce and custody would be handled. In court.
edit on 12/11/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Just thought I would share my experience concerning birth certificates from the point of an adopted child.

My official birth certificate lists my adoptive parents that have no biological/genealogical connection to me.

The original birth certificate with my biological parents named is impounded. NOBODY has access to it including myself. For all intents and purposes it does not exist.

The argument about a birth certificate being a absolute genealogical record is complete and utter BS. They are altered regularly and in reality are only proof of the time/date and where one was born. My adoptive parents even had the option of changing my name on the birth certificate at the time of adoption.

The really crazy thing about this...If the partner in the gay couple not on the BC were to adopt the child, the birth certificate would have to list them on the birth certificate.

This whole thing is nothing more then saber-rattling, and those in Arkansas that are causing a fuss about gay couples on BC are just doing it for political reasons.
edit on 11-12-2015 by Dreamwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

That story is so sad! The state blackmailed the lesbian couple, telling them that if they didn't reveal the sperm donor, the child couldn't get health care. He had even signed a contract with the couple, relinquishing all rights and responsibilities to and for the child, but the state ruled it null and void, because the insemination wasn't performed by a certified doctor. The couple is working with the biological against the state's decision.


There are a lot of states I would never live in...hehe It really seems they can fight this since with Surrogate Mothers the new parents do paperwork for the pre-birth order and the court instructed the hospital to use the new parents names on the BC. It almost sounds like that maybe this couple didn't do it that way and in that case they might be screwed.


edit on 11-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.


As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?


Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.


That's completely asinine. Lesbian couples have children with no problem.

Utilizing a sperm donor.

Just like hetero couples do.

Gay men adopt children.

Just like hetero couples do.

What happens when a child is adopted? The original birth certificate, with the original last name, is sealed and a new one is issued under the new last name.

Literally nothing you've said applies to anybody other than gay couples. Hetero couples do the exact same thing every damn day as what gay couples do, but it's different because queer, right?

Get your bible out of other people's lives.



Get my Bible out of other peoples lives? Back off dude. It's not the Bible that tells me two men can't screw and produce a child, nor can two women. Next time someone smears # all over your pancakes, don't get pissy and try to take it out on other posters. If you can show me a link where two men slept together and produced a baby, or two women, I'll retract my statement.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Dreamwatcher, excellent post.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I hear you about what states you wouldn't live in. Me, too. Yes, all of these little side issues will have their day in court until it's all ironed out and politicians stop using them for political gain. There will, no doubt, be casualties, like the sperm donor.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a paper trail involved in those procedures. All of the medical information is on record and available upon request.


As AugustusMasonicus pointed out in cases of sperm bank donation, the legal husband (not the sperm donor) gets listed on the birth certificate. So why should homosexual couples be treated differently?


Because the mother of the child in Augustus's link signs the BC after she gives birth. When has a homosexual ever given birth? Do you understand the wormhole this creates when you guys constantly cry about equal rights? This is not equality, you're looking for special privilege rights. Men can't have a baby together. Women can't have a baby together. That's what nature says, and no amount of protesting and crying will change that. They simply can't give birth to a child.


Lesbians can't give birth? Wow. That's news to me...


You think they're gonna scissor together and make a baby or are you purposely being obtuse?


No I'm saying that a lesbian couple can go to a sperm bank and get sperm to have a baby. Just like a heterosexual couple can do the same. You are the one being obtuse here. I've laid out what I mean plain as day, yet you are purposely trying to muddy the waters with stereotypes and bias.


And that woman's name will be on the birth certificate. Why would you put the name of someone that didn't give birth to a child, on that child's birth certificate? I have a feeling you think I'm trying to say that gays shouldn't adopt kids and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the birth certificate should be reserved for the birth mother. My cousin just adopted his wife's child that was from another marriage. Kid's father didn't want anything to do with him. He signed adoption papers, not a new birth certificate.
edit on 11-12-2015 by LSU0408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: kaylaluv

You missed the last part where it says "if their state allows it..."

It's not discrimination just because you disagree with it.


It's not discrimination if the state doesn't allow it regardless whether the man's partner is a male or a female. It IS discrimination if they allow it for the man's female partner, but not for the man's male partner.


Ok well, even though I disagree, you have to remember that all of this is still new and none of these rules were laid out before everything was put into motion. This whole "equal rights" thing hit the ground and exploded when it should have had a plan laid out to hit the ground running. Just be patient and everything will work itself out.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

You may or may not be a bigot, but your education on gay rights and tolerance for gay causes is sorely lacking. You don't appear to be up to speed knowledge-wise on what you are talking about either.


Ok Krazy. I've only been hearing about it and reading about it and watching people on both sides of the isle piss and moan about it since it first reared its head at the national level. But ok.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Apparently you don't know what "gay" is... You do know that women can be gay too, right?


Tell that to the LGBTQ... They're all gay, so why do they need a moniker to distinguish themselves?


Actually, no that isn't true. Transexuals or transgendered aren't necessarily gay. Bisexuals probably consider themselves as gay as they consider themselves straight. Seriously, open up a dictionary written within the last few years and not in the 1950's.


I don't know what they prefer, so why don't you tell me who I can properly refer to as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, that way none of them try to call me a homophobe or bigot for disagreeing with them. Can you do that for me?


They'd prefer to be treated like completely straight people, but apparently asking such things is just TOO much to ask for, because you can't even be bothered to understand the entire situation before throwing out your opinion.


I'm not a fan of revised history or redefined meanings, but thank you. They were being treated like straight people until they wanted special treatment. Straight people couldn't marry a person of the same sex either. Equal treatment.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
This whole "equal rights" thing hit the ground and exploded when it should have had a plan laid out to hit the ground running. Just be patient and everything will work itself out.


This whole "equal rights" thing has been a fundamental value of our country since its inception. It's not new. The government screwed up when they started applying laws (like marriage) to some citizens, but not others, in direct violation of the Constitution. Religion in government has been a huge impediment to equal treatment of citizens in this country for many years. I can certainly understand that some would be impatient.

You're right that it will work itself out in time though.


originally posted by: LSU0408
It's not the Bible that tells me two men can't screw and produce a child, nor can two women.


Is someone stating otherwise? No. No one said they could.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Krazysh0t



They'd prefer to be treated like completely straight people, but apparently asking such things is just TOO much to ask for, because you can't even be bothered to understand the entire situation before throwing out your opinion.


What you said here, reminds me of a quote that appropriately applies:


“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.” ― Bill Bullard




Yet this entire thread and forum revolves around every poster's opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

You can get biological parents info on other documents kept on file if you choose to seek it. That's assuming that both biological parents are even known. Sometimes, the woman doesn't know who the father is. Life goes on.


Something KrazySh0t could have made a point to mention when he started this thread.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NthOther

So where is your outrage for heterosexual couples that do this and list the husband as the father instead of the sperm donor?


Everyone just continues to ignore your valid questions .. ugh.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
So much ignorance and stupidity coming out on this issue.

Krazy, what the hell were you thinking posting this thread?



Just to reiterate.

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.” ― Bill Bullard



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Maybe, but you'd have to apply that to heterosexual couples too then.


Yeah, that applied to all adopting families, not just gay couples. BC's should be reserved only for the mother that gave birth and the father that gave his seed to her. At this point, I guess things just have be as technical as possible.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I live in Arkansas, and although i'm not a hater for gays and Lesbians, I don't think its a good idea, to mess with a Birth Certificate, Why in an earth would two people who did not Birth the actual baby be put on the certificate. I think this has more to do with making the same sex couples mentally feel better about themselves, not the child. what does it matter who's name is on the Birth certificate, as long as they are Legal Guardian. Whoever the biological people are, should be on the Birth Certificate, Not going to say Biological parent, because to be considered a parent in my eyes, means exactly that, to Parent a child, not just give birth to them.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When someone is listed on a birth certificate they have financial obligations with laws on the books.
Does the same type laws apply to same sex couples?
Not sure if that has been ironed out yet..


Good question. And who keeps the kid when the couple splits? Betcha that can get real ugly.


I also remember a while back that a guy who supplied his sperm for a same-sex couple.When that couple
split up HE had to pay child support.


Reeeeeally? Very interesting.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Glassbender777
I live in Arkansas, and although i'm not a hater for gays and Lesbians, I don't think its a good idea, to mess with a Birth Certificate, Why in an earth would two people who did not Birth the actual baby be put on the certificate. I think this has more to do with making the same sex couples mentally feel better about themselves, not the child. what does it matter who's name is on the Birth certificate, as long as they are Legal Guardian. Whoever the biological people are, should be on the Birth Certificate, Not going to say Biological parent, because to be considered a parent in my eyes, means exactly that, to Parent a child, not just give birth to them.


You clearly haven't read the thread. Your questions and issues have already been answered.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU0408

Which says nothing about a homosexual couple. That talks just about the mother having the child. I think the gay couple should fill out adoption papers or whatever it is that they have to do. Not a birth certificate though.


The point is that for heterosexual couples since the beginning of sperm banks the donor is never known and the husband's name is on the BC, also for adoptions an amended BC is done with the new parents listed and the real parents are not traceable. For Surrogate births the court will instruct the hospital to enter the Intended Parent's names on the birth certificate and not the real mother/father names.

So though your argument makes sense it really isn't how it is ever done, so I'm trying to understand how in this case it would be different.



There's always somebody that seems to want to change everything as it stands currently, so why not just rebuild the entire thing.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheLotLizard


Sure, because a birth certificate is supposed to be for genealogy and disease prevention, not for ownership like a pink slip for a car.

I agree with this. I think ALL information should be available on the BC. They shouldn't be doing this for hetero's or gays, because it's a lie in both cases. Nevertheless, if they're going to do it in one case, the law says they can't discriminate, and not do it for the other.



I doubt anyone would have an issue with all that info being on there. Those two queers, or gays (whatever is the proper term for them) are gonna feel pretty bad the first time their kid gets a shot of penicillin and swells up and dies because they didn't know it was allergic. Or when they take it in for a doc appt and can't tell the doctors of any family illnesses that may be hereditary. But hey, who cares, right? At least their names are the only names on the BC.

I agree, but the issue is more than a gay issue. This same thing can happen in the case with a hetero couple, who went this route, and the adoptive father/mother is listed as biological, instead of the true biological parent. This is an issue across the board.
The OP is still correct, in that gays are being discriminated against for no logical reason, considering they do this with heteros without question. In my opinion, it is unthinkable that this is a practice at all, whether straight or gay.


They definitely need to separate the biological parents (no matter the situation) from the adoptive parents.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join