Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, May 13, 2014.
As usual, Obama is ahead of the game. He's already modernized his birth certificate.
"To trifle with the vocabulary which is the vehicle of social intercourse is to tamper with the currency of human intelligence." - Oliver Wendall Homes
Well, it is a good thing 96% of Americans consider themselves of average intelligence or better.
Maybe the State of California can redefine the word "intelligence" while they are at it?
Correct, they are not the mother or father on birth certificate. As others noted, they may become the legal guardians, as mother and father, through the adoption process and even have the original birth certificate placed under seal. Again, it's just an issue of truth and accuracy. Why is that so troublesome?
So, in parallel, you would be fine if they issued a birth certificate listing the genetic parents and then immediately sealed that one away forever in a file that is near impossible to ever have unsealed and gain access to, and then issued an amended birth certificate listing the gay couple as parents?
Pardon me if that seems like pointless formalism and a grand waste of time to take the steps necessary to issue a birth certificate and then immediately lock it away for good and issue an amended birth certificate that would look exactly like the one that you are complaining about.
"sealed that one away FOREVER"? "near impossible"? "amended birth certificate"?
You take great license in your exaggerations to the extreme. I know that you are a knowledgable counselor based upon your other posts. You are clearly aware of the processes and procedures that are already in place to address adoptions and legal guardianships. I have not proposed anything different; but you have for some unknown reason. Again, what is so troublesome to you and others with memorializing the true and accurate state of one's birth/adoption/etc?
In addition, any couple, gay or not, cannot just take a newborn and say "hey, this is my kid now, so please put us down as mother and father." There is a legal process to address adoption and legal guardianship. Thus, the "birth" parents have legal rights and responsiblities until that legal process is completed. There is no "grand waste of time" as Ben puts it. It is a legal requirement. Otherwise, the rights of the "birth" parents have not been properly resolved and that would leave a huge potential for uncertainty and discomfort for all concerned.
Yes, there absolutely is an amended birth certificate issued. The new birth certificate does not indicate that the parents are adoptive, and is issued with the same issuance date as the original birth certificate. The original is then removed from all of the files and trasmitted to the State's central registrar where it is placed permanently under seal and may not be accessed except pursuant to court order.
Exactly. And you have a problem with that? Note, it was your use of extreme words that sparked my reply. You know as well as I do that getting such information unsealed is not a "forever" or "near impossible" matter, particularly if it is the adopted child requesting the information upon reaching age of majority. Moreover, my overriding point is that there is no reason to avoid the truth at the start/birth.
The use of the phrase "amended birth certificate" is correct. That's exactly what it is (although it tries to pretend it wasn't amended and to look exactly like the original one).
And it is sealed forever, and absent consent from all the parties is very difficult to get unsealed without an overwhelmingly good reason by anyone, including the adoptee.
So your concern is that the truth is difficult to reveal? Instead, you would rather falsify the original document to make the truth wholly unknowable?
Let's face it, this is just CA being its usual nutty self. "Let's just allow anyone to be a mother or father because that is what makes them feel good. Why should we be restricted by biology or nature or facts? Aren't we just super enlightened and awesome!"
Sometimes, your mind can be so opened that your brains fall out.
I remember studying ecology in elementary school. I thought it was all about planting trees. Who knew it was all about gay parenting .
One can always find an exception to any rule. Yes there are some very healthy single parent families out there. But they are extremely outnumbered.
It is pretty much a given - as a whole - that the lack of a father figure in a family - whether that figure lives with the family or not - has negative results more times than not. What we don't know right now, is what is the long term implication of Johnny being raised by two Lesbians (no father figure) or Cindy being raised by two gay men (no mother figure). Maybe nothing, Maybe something. I don't know. We will just have to agree to disagree. I just don't think we have enough data.
Let me be real frank, and likely insulting to you, fastsix:
You don't know Squat about adoptions! You don't know Squat about moms and dads of adopted kids.
"Just legal guardians".....?
Here is an interesting article written in 2011. I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying its wrong. I'm saying we need to keep looking at it.
Let me Frank, your reaction is what I would expect.
The problem some people have is that they see "homosexual" and they get so focused on that, they forget that they are parents adopting a child and should be afforded all the same rights and privileges as any adoptive parents. In other words, if you believe adoptive parents deserve to be on the birth certificate, and deserve to be called "parents", then that belief should be held regardless of whether the adopting parents are heterosexual or homosexual.
The problem is I see people promoting SIN. Come future, if the issue is Incest then that will be the focus !
You call adoptive parents "...just legal guardians.." that is why I say: You know nothing about adoption. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Nyet. -0-.
I repeat you are totally and completely Clueless as to adoption. Totally.
These words are strong, but it is close to home.
You're missing the entire point of my argument.
"If I recall HS Biology, there is a father (sperm) and a mother (ovary/uterus/etc). It seems rather illogical to have the name of someone who was neither the father or mother on a . . . BIRTH certificate. If you don't know who the the father is then leave it blank - which is often done, sadly. After that point, there are ways (some mentioned above) to hash out who will be identified as legal guardians, etc."
My post was to point out to him the unintended consequences of his belief that homosexual parents shouldn't be listed on a birth certificate because they don't provide the sperm and/or the egg. I don't think it occurred to him that if that was true for same-sex adoptive parents, it would also be true for heterosexual adoptive parents. I think all adoptive parents should be allowed to be on their child's birth certificate, and that they should be considered more than "legal guardians", regardless of whether they provided the genetic material, and regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Hope that clear it up.
There are thousands of stories where adopted children want to find their real mother or father, I know this is a little different, but does the child have the right to know his heritage as far as his father or sperm donor, or whatever term you want to give it? What the hell is the child going to think when the birth certificate read two women or two men are the mother and father?
This should be about the child and not satisfy the ego or obsession of two adults.
What is the hell is the child going to think? Probably that he is adopted.