http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/31/lesbian-partners-birth-certificates

Quote :

"[b]Lesbian partners to be named on birth certificates[b] Lesbian couples having children through fertility treatment granted same birth certificate rights as heterosexual couples Lesbian couples who have children through fertility treatment can now register both their names on the birth certificate, following a change in the law. The change, which applies to couples in England and Wales beginning fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009, confers legal parenthood on a biological mother's female partner for the first time. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 granted lesbian couples equal rights as parents. The new regulations on the registration of births and deaths came into force today, although no child covered by the change will have been born yet. Lord Brett, the Home Office minister, said: "This positive change means that, for the first time, female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration. It is vital that we afford equality wherever we can in society, especially as family circumstances continue to change. This is an important step forward in that process." The Home Office said birth certificates would be made available with two "parent" sections, rather than mother and father. Ruth Hunt, the head of policy and research of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group Stonewall, said life for lesbian families would become fairer and easier. "As the law improves to provide further equality, knowing your new rights will help people make full use of the services they're entitled to," she said. "And, if discrimination occurs, the same knowledge can help them demand fair treatment. Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers." Critics said the change in the law was a blow against the traditional family model. "If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model," the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC. "We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message." Geraldine Smith, a Labour MP, agreed: "To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness." The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said 728 lesbians underwent IVF treatment between 1999 and 2006."

Yes, it's England, so fuck off about that.

Odd. I always thought a birth certificate was supposed to be a record that included the biological parents of a child. Seems like dependency laws would handle any other concerns, such as parental rights and such. Why fight to have your name as the progenitor, when you weren't a progenitor?

8/31/2009 8:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Why fight to have your name as the progenitor, when you weren't a progenitor?"

The answer seems fairly obvious to me. Why would the two women prefer Mr. Donor's on the certificate?

And why would they want Mr. Donor to have any legal rights what-so-ever regarding the child?

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2009 8:21:06 PM

a quick google revealed that in the uk birth certificates can reflect those who have "parental responsibilities" so if those responsibilities fall to two women i don't see how it's that big of a change

8/31/2009 8:42:42 PM

Heterosexual women "lie" all the time on birth certificates. Why can't a gay woman do the same thing?

8/31/2009 9:02:32 PM

My understanding was that birth certificates for adopted children frequently include the names of the adopted parents. Perhaps I am mistaken in that regard.

8/31/2009 9:39:30 PM

this really doesn't bother me so long as it's documented on there somewhere who the biological parents are somewhere. I mean, on account of in case this kid has some genetic disease from his dad's genes

8/31/2009 9:56:24 PM

the lesbian partner doesn't become a parent. that's bullshit. adoptive parent, yes. but not a parent. birth certificates should list biological parents or biological parent only. they want to make new meanings out of the word 'birth', that's up to them.

8/31/2009 10:03:48 PM

which one did they put as the dad?

8/31/2009 10:07:13 PM

^Isn't that a bit like asking which lesbian was listed as the husband at a wedding?

Having a section for recording biological information on the sperm donor for genetic disease purposes as BigEgo suggested sounds reasonable enough, and they could list the donor there, but since the article we all read to respond to this thread explicitly said they list them as parent & parent then I don't see any reason they would try to list a woman as a man as the premise of your question suggests.

8/31/2009 11:31:10 PM

Sadly biological information is relevant, which is a reason I'm disconcerted about my current understanding of adoption.

9/1/2009 12:13:01 AM

There should be a separate field for biological ancestry.

9/1/2009 12:53:42 AM

fuck a nigga and his sperm donation. he got paid for shooting his plug in the jar.

this story is totally unrelated to adoption, so any comparisons are invalid.

sperm donor doesn't have a right to lay any claim to any babies. the donors are extensively genetically screened to a ridiculous degree. if you've got anything sketchy in your genes or your past history, you are excluded from the sperm donor pool.

for sperm donation, in vitro fertilization is a different issue than an adoption. who the genetic father is, is already made anonymous anyhow -- you cant trace back the genetic father of a baby fertilized by donated sperm... and a donor can't seek out any babies that might have been made.

sperm donors are completely shut out of the loop. it's built into the system.





[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

9/1/2009 1:20:39 AM

Quote :

"the lesbian partner doesn't become a parent. that's bullshit. adoptive parent, yes. but not a parent. birth certificates should list biological parents or biological parent only. they want to make new meanings out of the word 'birth', that's up to them."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_lesbians_have_children

Quote :

"There are some very early experimental methods that can allow two women to both be biological parents of the child. They involve taking eggs from both of the women, using chemicals to transform one of the eggs into a sperm, and then fertilizing the egg with the sperm under a microscope. Then the embryo is implanted back into the uterus of one of the women."

Honestly, what point is there in a conservative making the argument that paternity should be determined by genes? In 10 years science will make that argument invalid and they'll be jumping to some other tenuous moral ground anyway.

This 'biological' argument certainly sounds like a slap in the face to adoptive parents. If you adopt a child, you should be their parents in every way in the eyes of society. If you oppose lesbians adopting children, then that's an entire different matter. But for heaven's sake, we don't need to be discouraging adoptions by making the legal documents say "well... you're not the real parents..."

And hey, with the new egg to sperm method, if they out breed the rest of us, we could be living on Butch planet in 500 years.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

9/1/2009 4:37:07 PM

yes, i am aware of the fertilized egg created from 2 eggs. but until women actually have such a procedure done, in a lesbian couple, only one is the parent.

and they can do what the want... if the want to raise the child of one of the partners, they can do it.

i am talking about a BIRTH certificate. a birth certificate should only mention biological parents, one or both, but biological only. i don't care what the genders of the biological parents are, one of each, two women, or two men, only biological parents should be listed on the BIRTH certificate. if one parent is unknown or a sperm donor, then one field should be left empty, which is actually a routine practice.

9/1/2009 4:46:04 PM

Quote :

"The answer seems fairly obvious to me. Why would the two women prefer Mr. Donor's on the certificate?"

Why should they have a choice?

Quote :

"And why would they want Mr. Donor to have any legal rights what-so-ever regarding the child?"

See, I don't know if simply having a name on a birth-certificate grants a person any legal rights, other than simple recognition of biological parent status. I could be wrong, but it's fairly common in most donor situations such as this for their to be explicit documentation in the donor process that precludes the donor from any such rights, so it's a moot point, I would think...

Quote :

"My understanding was that birth certificates for adopted children frequently include the names of the adopted parents. Perhaps I am mistaken in that regard."

Again, I could be wrong, but I think sometimes birth-certificates are scrubbed at the wish of the biological parents to prevent the child from finding out who his bio parents were.

Quote :

"i am talking about a BIRTH certificate. a birth certificate should only mention biological parents, one or both, but biological only. i don't care what the genders of the biological parents are, one of each, two women, or two men, only biological parents should be listed on the BIRTH certificate. if one parent is unknown or a sperm donor, then one field should be left empty, which is actually a routine practice."

I agree whole-heartedly.

What bothers me with this is the striking inequality of it, as well. If you've got two lesbians in a partnership and they decide to do it "the natural way" and find a dude to willingly bone, the guy is still listed as the other "parent." Same with two gay men who find a surrogate. it just strikes me as being so unequal. Maybe there are already allowances for this, I dunno.

9/1/2009 5:48:46 PM

Quote :

"See, I don't know if simply having a name on a birth-certificate grants a person any legal rights, other than simple recognition of biological parent status."

it doesn't really do that currently. the hospitals trust that the father is who the mother says it is. this information is inaccurate more than you'd think. there was an episode of this american life about it a while back.

9/1/2009 6:05:40 PM

ANONYMOUS SPERM DONORS ARE NEVER NAMED ON A BIRTH CERTIFICATE

THIS THREAD IS RETARDED

9/2/2009 12:20:33 AM

Quote :

"Isn't that a bit like asking which lesbian was listed as the husband at a wedding?"

pretty much. so whats the answer?

9/2/2009 12:32:07 AM

^^ Yeah, but usually two women aren't named, either... what's your point, troll?

9/2/2009 7:04:57 AM

so if a couple used a sperm donor and there was a man and a female on the certificate but the man had no relation to the child that would be ok?

this thread is retarded.

9/2/2009 7:35:48 AM

9/2/2009 8:16:34 AM

^^ I have no idea how that situation is handled at this point in time. but that doesn't make this thread retarded. Pointing out that doesn't take away the idiocy in putting two women down as the "biological parents" of a kid.

9/2/2009 6:27:14 PM

Really what this comes down to is what a birth certificate is supposed to record. Is it supposed to record legal rights and responsibilities, genetic heritage or is it just another bureaucratic document that has no real meaning?

9/2/2009 6:49:54 PM