California To "Modernize" Birth Certificates And The Definition Of Family With Passing of AB-1951

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, May 13, 2014.

  1. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +382
  2. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,482
    The methodology is certainly silly, but I think what they're trying to get at makes sense.

    Would perhaps have been a little more rational to just have two blanks labelled "Parent" rather than "Mother" and "Father" blanks though.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,721
    Likes Received:
    413
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,790
    I suppose there was a time when birth certificates might have been meant to have value for geneological purposes. Granted, any non-biological parent being listed would have ruined that, but this makes a total joke of it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,345
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,011
    How is that "Orwellian"?

    And what happens right now if a couple uses a surrogate mother to have a child - do you think the surrogate mother's name should be on the birth certificate?
  5. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +382
    It is the redefinition of language. Mothers are female, and fathers are male. The bill allows for a heterosexual male to be listed as mother, and it allows for a heterosexual female to be listed as father. It renders the terms meaningless and indistinguishable.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,482
    Not any more so than the reissuance of birth certificates with adoptive parents replacing the birth parents (with the original birth certificate then being sealed in the adoption files and unavailable to anyone), which is a pretty common practice across nearly all jurisdictions.

    While genealogical uses may have been a nice side effect of birth certificates, they aren't why they exist. They were originally essentially a record of the tax base of the jurisdiction and have been hybridized over time to serve all sorts of random and unrelated purposes.
  7. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,345
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,011
    "Orwellian" doesn't mean the redefinition of language. As for the rest of it, you seem to be overlooking the fact that only allowing 1 mother and 1 father doesn't reflect reality. At least that's the case if we accept the idea that adoptive parents should be allowed to be listed on a birth certificate, and I don't feel it's my place to tell adoptive parents they have no business being on their child's birth certificate.
  8. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,721
    Likes Received:
    413
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,790
    As we've completed bailed out on the idea that there are specific roles on a child's birth certificate to be played, can we at least modify the family law to make it legally impossible to create a duty of child support in anyone not put on that birth certificate? After all, it's entirely discretionary in this model, so it shouldn't be too hard to say "these two people (if it stays limited to two... ffs) are the only ones that can be legally obligated to support the care of this child".
  9. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +382
    I am not saying that adoptive parents shouldn't be able to be on a birth certificate. All I am saying is that a lesbian couple is not a father and a mother. California saying that lesbian partners can constitute a father and a mother is indeed very Orwellian.

    Also per wikipedia Orwellian can refer to:

    -Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.

    -The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used are "doublespeak", and "newspeak".

    California introducing the concept of female fathers and male mothers on a birth certificate definitely qualifies for the term.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. ThePlayer
    Offline

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,468
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,942
    Look for women to start growing their own penis shortly.
  11. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,345
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,011
    But as the birth certificate currently stands a lesbian couple adopting a child would have to check "mother" and "father", because there is no option to check "mother" for both. With these changes there would have to option to both check "mother", or "parent". You're so caught up in the case of a woman possibly checking "father", that you're overlooking this.
  12. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,647
    Does this have anything to do with the govt making people do something? Or does it just give them an option to use if they want?
  13. busigator96
    Offline

    busigator96 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    14,222
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +445
    Do you think they did this for same sex parents?
  14. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +554
    How is this promoting the disintegration of the family? Traditional families can still fill out the birth certificate as before. But now, other family arrangements such as homosexual couples can now be included on birth certificate forms. What's the harm? It certainly isn't with the children, as the only study that said growing up with gay parents was harmful has been completely debunked and not admissible in court.
  15. RealGatorFan
    Offline

    RealGatorFan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,138
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +485
    I wonder what the family tree will look like in a 100 years? I pity the person trying to make sense of it. Before the Age of Same-Sex Couples, you could assume accurately that the male parent is the father and the female as the mother. You could also use that information to determine any genetic abnormalities based on sex of the parents. That all is changing fast. The idea of a family tree is disappearing fast. You already have the issue where a male figure fathers multiple children with multiple women. Most women in this case have no idea who the father really is. I figure maybe 2 more generations of this and a doctor won't be able to treat children because they have no idea what the family tree looks like.
  16. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,090
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +792
    Good point. However, the way laws are written I bet one needs to be specific as to the father and as to the mother. Like custody etc. Just a guess.
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    California is becoming a state that is mandating bastardization... With this the Liberals there are closer to Sal Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Commie bastards!
  18. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    Lol... You make too much sense in this post. :D
  19. gatorman_07732
    Offline

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,603
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +3,910
    What is it about regressives that want total chaos in society?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,647
    Big Brother's not making anyone do anything. Traditional mothers and fathers can still fill out the form exactly as they always have. But, there are same sex parents. So now they can fill out the form the way they want.
    I agree with you - what's the harm?

Share This Page