"Second Parent"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
My father wasn't what I consider to be what a father should be, maybe he should have been called 'second parent"..This is just so wrong. A loving man is a FATHER whether it's biological or not, same as a loving woman is a MOTHER biological or not. This is what you will get if Romney becomes President one day. He's so out of touch he doesn't even know what the Boston subway fare is..


Birth certificate policy draws fire
Change affects same-sex couples
By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | July 22, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney's administration is advising hospitals to cross out the word father on birth certificates for the children of same-sex couples and instead write the phrase ''second parent," angering gay and lesbian advocates and city and town clerks who warn that the altered documents could be legally questionable.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's spokesman, said yesterday that the Department of Public Health, which the governor oversees, has been has been advising hospitals to alter the documents since last year, when the first children were born to same-sex married couples were born.

Fehrnstrom insisted that the practice is legal. But city and town clerks, who register and store birth records, argue that the cross-outs on the birth certificates could make them open to challenges by passport agents, foreign governments, and other officials. They have repeatedly asked Romney to create a new birth certificate for the children of same-sex parents that would include gender-neutral nomenclature.

But Romney has resisted, arguing that the Legislature must first pass a law authorizing such a change.

''The fact remains that this is a document that could be questioned in years to come," said Linda E. Hutchenrider, Barnstable town clerk and past president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks' Association. She sent a letter in October asking Romney to formally revise the birth certificates for the children of same-sex couples.

So far, only lesbian couples have been affected, advocates said.

Data from the Department of Public Health show there were 61 children born to married same-sex couples in 2004, out of approximately 80,000 children born in Massachusetts. This year, the number stood at 75 by July, suggesting a growing phenomenon as some same-sex couples enter their second year of marriage.

''I don't care whether there is one child in the Commonwealth or 500 children in the Commonwealth affected by this," said Hutchenrider. ''They should not have a birth certificate that has crosses on it. They should be allowed to have a birth certificates that really looks valid."

The controversy is the latest standoff between the Romney administration and city and town clerks over how to handle the wave of new documentation emerging from the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in May 2004. The practice of changing the birth certificates was reported yesterday in the Patriot Ledger of Quincy.

In her letter to Romney, Hutchenrider said the first birth certificate she received from a hospital that had delivered the child of a same-sex couple had the word father crossed out with an X and an asterisk written by its side. At the bottom of the birth certificate, a hospital official had written second parent, Hutchenrider said.

Official birth certificates ''have never been allowed with strikeouts," Hutchenrider said in her letter to Romney. ''That calls the integrity of the certificate into question."

In an interview yesterday, she said: ''There are many places in this world where a child will need a birth certificate and just to allow it to appear as it does, I find it distasteful."

In February, Romney, on a political trip to South Carolina, told a Republican group that he was dismayed by the clerks' effort to have birth certificates revised for the children of gay couples. ''Some [same-sex couples] are actually having children born to them," Romney said.

''It's not right on paper; it's not right in fact," he said. ''Every child has a right to a mother and a father."

Gay couples and their children protested the remarks outside the governor's office, accusing Romney of exploiting them for political gain.

Yesterday, Fehrnstrom said the governor believes that hand-altered birth certificates are valid.

''As long as they're recorded, they're valid," Fehrnstrom said.

He argued that the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage put the onus on the Legislature to change the birth certificates.

Fehrnstrom cited a passage in the SJC decision that postponed the start of gay marriages for 180 days from when the ruling was issued in November 2003 ''to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

Nevertheless, the administration did not wait for the Legislature to act when it rewrote marriage certificates for gay couples to say ''Party A" and ''Party B," gay rights advocates said.

''There's no action that needs to be taken for the Romney administration to make birth certificates reflect the nature of Massachusetts families," said Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. As the birth certificates are now, Granda said, ''they are valid documents, but they raise unnecessary questions for one segment of the population, and that's not right."

Fehrnstrom argued that the administration's decision to rewrite marriage certificates and not birth certificates was consistent with the court ruling on same-sex marriage, known as Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

''The Goodridge decision addressed the issue of marriage, and the case with the marriage certificates goes to the heart of the court's ruling," he said. ''With respect to any ancillary issues, we are proceeding cautiously in the absence of legislative guidance."
 
:scream: :banghead:...

Why are people so stupid? Argh! Also, why exactly are government officials feeling a need to stick their noses into this sort of thing again?

I agree with you, MrsSpringsteen-as long as the guy takes care of the kid and loves the kid and will raise it well and all that good stuff, he's a father. Period. End of story. Nothing else matters.

Angela
 
hey, Mitt ...

......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯..//
.................../.... //
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'\'...\.........._.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
...............\.............\
................\.............\
 
How would you prefer the birth certificates to read?

seems the easiest way would be like this...

Mother and Mother

or

Father and Father
 
Irvine- not assuming you know this simply because you are gay, but I am wondering if you have seen any research on how children of same sex marraige adjust in a society dominated by heterosexual family systems. I can imagine that children with same sex parents may feel "different" (for lack of a better word)due to the large majority of their friends having heterosexual parents, having heterosexual teachers or coaches, movies and tv with mostly heterosexual families, etc.

I am not asking this question as any sort of criticism of gays adopting children or having a child through artifical insemination. I am just honestly curious.
 
MaxFisher said:
Irvine- not assuming you know this simply because you are gay, but I am wondering if you have seen any research on how children of same sex marraige adjust in a society dominated by heterosexual family systems. I can imagine that children with same sex parents may feel "different" (for lack of a better word)due to the large majority of their friends having heterosexual parents, having heterosexual teachers or coaches, movies and tv with mostly heterosexual families, etc.

I am not asking this question as any sort of criticism of gays adopting children or having a child through artifical insemination. I am just honestly curious.


no problem.

check these articles out:

http://www.reason.com/0508/fe.js.all.shtml

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097048/

http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
 
MaxFisher said:
How would you prefer the birth certificates to read?

seems the easiest way would be like this...

Mother and Mother

or

Father and Father

Or should the sperm donor be listed as "Father"?

In our ever evolving matrix of society relationships, broader terms may be necessary?
 
nbcrusader said:


Or should the sperm donor be listed as "Father"?

In our ever evolving matrix of society relationships, broader terms may be necessary?



is father a biological or social relationship?
 
Irvine511 said:




is father a biological or social relationship?

Actually what is the legal definition of father, as used when placing the parents names on a birth certificate. Is it the biological father or the person who intends to act as the child's father regardless of biological relationship?
 
Well, the state of Massachusetts must be heaven on earth, without a single pressing issue whatsoever if this is what its political leadership is spending their time on.
 
Again, to remind people, Massachusetts is, de facto, ruled by its Legislature, which has been, at least, 2/3 Democratic for a decade now. The governor has, essentially, been rendered a figurehead, so Romney is a bit cranky that all of his vetoes get overridden.

On the other hand, that should also mean that the Legislature should be able to make and change all the laws it wants, so we should be putting the pressure on the Legislature to change their laws, including a repeal of the 1913 law forbidding marriages that home states would not recognize. After all, it is well within their power, and there's no worry about Romney standing in their way.

Melon
 
Irvine511 said:
hey, Mitt ...

......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯..//
.................../.... //
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'\'...\.........._.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
...............\.............\
................\.............\

Brilliant!
 
anitram said:
Well, the state of Massachusetts must be heaven on earth, without a single pressing issue whatsoever if this is what its political leadership is spending their time on.

No kidding.

Also, martha, hmm, good question-there've been a few other idiots roaming around out there lately that I could think of as well, but I'd say Mitt would certainly be up there on the list.

Angela
 
Mitt Romney is going to run for President and needs to appeal to a more conservative base, that's why he's spending time on this.

I guess he thinks it's OK to make things difficult for people by altering their birth certificates.

And this isn't about whether gay people make good parents..I for one happen to think anyone can be a good parent w/ love and everything else that's required. Sure it might cause problems for the kids outside their families in society, but so can many other familial issues. I didn't start this to become another "debate" about homosexuality.

I happen to think a person's actions, intentions, words and deeds, and love make them a Mother or Father, not merely biology. And they are certainly worthy and deserving of having the title of Mother or Father, not merely "second parent".
 
Irvine511 said:




is father a biological or social relationship?

I guess the question is really "what is the purpose of a birth certificate"?

Fathering is an interpersonal/social relationship.

However, we probably want some system that tracks the biologial succession in our society.
 
nbcrusader said:
However, we probably want some system that tracks the biologial succession in our society.

I think that birth certificates should have both biological parents listed, if only to provide a biological record. If there is a tendency for inherited diseases, the child should know ASAP, and knowing who his/her biological parents are would help.

I do understand that sometimes the biological parents aren't fit to raise a pet rock, let alone a child, so the child would consider his adoptive parents his real parents, and rightfully so. But the birth certificate should have nothing to do with that; it should be the biological record for legal and medical purposes.
 
Sue DeNym said:


I think that birth certificates should have both biological parents listed, if only to provide a biological record. If there is a tendency for inherited diseases, the child should know ASAP, and knowing who his/her biological parents are would help.

I do understand that sometimes the biological parents aren't fit to raise a pet rock, let alone a child, so the child would consider his adoptive parents his real parents, and rightfully so. But the birth certificate should have nothing to do with that; it should be the biological record for legal and medical purposes.

Exactly right. I don't understand why some people have a hard time understanding that.
 
martha said:
Which is why men have made it perfectly legal to indentify the father as legally "unknown" for so long.

What's the alternative? I'm sure this policy is open to abuse, but there are at least some cases (albeit probably a tiny minority) where the mother genuinely doesn't know who the father is. If that's the case then what alternative is there to recording the father as unknown?
 
A question worth asking is if there are other reasons why birth certificates are altered in the heterosexual realm.

As far as I know, birth certificates note the "legal parents," not automatically the "biological parents." If we want birth certificates to just list biological parents, then we'll have to change the law and insist that everyone abide by it equally.

Melon
 
Last edited:
melon said:


As far as I know, birth certificates note the "legal parents," not automatically the "biological parents." If we want birth certificates to just list biological parents, then we'll have to change the law and insist that everyone abide by it equally.

Melon

True.
 
melon said:
A question worth asking is if there are other reasons why birth certificates are altered in the heterosexual realm.

As far as I know, birth certificates note the "legal parents," not automatically the "biological parents." If we want birth certificates to just list biological parents, then we'll have to change the law and insist that everyone abide by it equally.

Melon

Yes, a number of laws would change. Currently, for example, there is a presumption that the husband of mother is the father. In many states, the presumption cannot be changed.

Privacy advocates would also balk at "true reporting" of biological father status.
 
Back
Top Bottom