[mikemike]

Absolutely not.

I remember a study a while in England where it was shown that a huge number of fathers were not the father of all of their children. Something on the order of 20%. The only way to ensure the biological father is listed on the birth certificate is to geneticly test the DNA of every baby. The study also pointed out the social costs of disclosure. Apparently a lot more people have flings, than ever disclose their fling, or get caught. It's all about social order.

Right, I think we have established that there are some serious flaws and shortcomings to the current system. The next question is, should the record keeping be improved so that vital records could be of use for dealing with lineage, answering medical history questions, and medical research? We can still keep the current system and even improve it to provide more flexibility to deal with contemporary non-traditional family structures by having a public record similar to what we have now where we list two parents who are equally civilly responsible for a child and we can have a private record collected simultaneously, privately, and in confidence with legal privacy protection which allows the mother to disclose any doubts or inaccuracies with regard to paternity. The medical community could potentially resolve those doubts discretely over time via tests. Blood antigen tests are 95% conclusive and more expensive DNA tests are 99.9% conclusive and most people eventually either donate blood or have blood drawn for one reason or another at which time, the answer could be found.

Estimates of the extent of paternal uncertainty vary.

Studies have found a discrepancy rate — when the presumed father is not the biological father — of anywhere from 0.8 percent to 30 percent, with the median being 3.7 percent, according to one review of such studies. Another study found that about 9 percent of birth certificates in Florida, even excluding births to teenage mothers, did not list the full names of the father, though it was not clear how much of this was related to uncertainty. Infant mortality was higher in those cases than if the father’s name was on the birth certificate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/health/paternity-blood-tests-that-work-ear...anted=all&_r=0

This is a matter of public health.

The three major drivers of an individual's health are to varying degrees genetics (which you have no control over), environment (which you have limited control over), and lifestyle (which you have a great deal of control over). By obfuscating a person's, neigh your child's genetic heritage from them and their doctors you are endangering their health and preventing them from making certain choices to mitigate health risks they are genetically predisposed to.

---

Last edited by mikemike; 10-26-2012 at 08:11 AM.

[jeffkrol]

People aren't plants but in the context of farming, Monsanto ~ Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?

By not including the father in child rearing, and deliberately cutting out someone exactly because he might have an interest in participating in that child's life she isn't doing the child a favor and will likely end up doing a poorer job at nurturing the child because she isn't providing the child with parental gender and care taking style diversity.

Without "god" or spirituality what makes a child not like a plant???

Who is to judge "who is doing who" a "favor"... Should the "strongest" just take the child since they would .. in theory.. be the best to rear them???

so "society" should step in to rule over the parents??? Is that "libertarian"????

[Ratmagiclady]

From a record keeping/data integrity/scientific perspective I think that maintaining a fairly large database of people and their heritage has great potential for medical purposes (although there is also great negative potential if we ever ended up in another hitler type situation). So I think it would be good if there was somewhere that the actual mother and actual father (a pointer to another record in the case of sperm donors and best guess/list of candidates/likelihood if the mother isn't certain) is kept even if that is just something that is kept on a need to know basis and separate from the legal identification purposes.

You demonstrate your bias right there, claiming that perhaps some sperm donor is the 'actual parent' whereas LGBT *families* should be treated as second-class, to the point of Romney even going to all that trouble to create messier forms, slowed-up bureaucracy, and more expensive legal procedures and potential future problems... Just to enforce that second-class status,
...while he'd made a campaign promise not to mess with LGBT rights as governor.... in which this is another case of him very directly showing himself a liar.

Any gay parents who might be out there dealing with this now, it sucks but this is relatively new ground and just keep in perspective that the problem you are dealing with in this situation is a legal quibble over semantics. Keeping that in mind don't let it affect the emotional relationships between your family.

"Semantics?" Legal documents are all *about* words. That's the *point* of legal documents. Dodging around with this notion that there must be some scientific genetic record when it's a justification to do this to LGBT people when no such requirment is imposed on *straight* couples about their genetics is just more of that bias, not to mention a dismissal of some real injustices,

...Not to mention the slimy ways Romney went out of his way to impose those problems on a minority he doesn't happen to approve of.

But a legal document can't be dismissed as 'semantics' when it *directly affects the legal and custody and financial and benefits standing of a family and child,* not some notion of genetic herritage that straight people aren't beholden to in the first place. And it can and does lead to real expense and harm. Claiming it's 'too new' doesn't justify that harm just so Romney can make our legal papers and proceedings messier and try to cast our families' rights in doubt, when it's Romney going well out of his way on the state's dime to disapprove of people's families by making a mess of their identity documents.

These are our childrens *identity papers,* not a foil for some religio-political authoritarian notions that only the breeding people are 'real parents.'

Some people really seem to insist first that the inequality doesn't exist, then go out of their way to trivialize and try to justify it when another instance is shown up.

[mikemike]

Without "god" or spirituality what makes a child not like a plant???

Society. Also morality is not a concept that the religious or spiritual have a monopoly on despite that being the religious bigots' propaganda agenda. Atheists can know the difference between right and wrong.

Who is to judge "who is doing who" a "favor"... Should the "strongest" just take the child since they would .. in theory.. be the best to rear them???

To quote Bob Dole, "it takes a family to raise a child." Attempting to go-it-alone is less good for a child than raising the child with a counterpart parent at least there part of the time which is less good than the best situation of raising the child together. Its not a perfect world, but like I said, I find it sickening that someone would deliberately skip the second and go straight for going-it-alone and plan on doing that prior to the child's birth.

so "society" should step in to rule over the parents??? Is that "libertarian"????

I don't know where you are getting this but my point in this thread is that society would be doing humanity a great favor by treating vital records as a piece of people's medical records and using that for public health purposes (a legitimate governmental function). As far as custody disputes go, it is an unfortunate reality of the legal system and society.

You demonstrate your bias right there, claiming that perhaps some sperm donor is the 'actual parent' whereas LGBT *families* should be treated as second-class

If you read the second sentence out of context of the first, "biological parents" might have been a better word choice but in the context of the first sentence where I was talking about keeping this record for scientific purposes I feel that it was implied.

"Semantics?" Legal documents are all *about* words. That's the *point* of legal documents.

My point is that the proper way to handle these legal documents should be sorted out by the adults before the child even knows how to read and certainly before the child ever needs to personally handle their birth certificate for some kind of identification like traveling alone by airplane or getting a photo ID. By the time that a child raised by gay parents ever lays hands on their own birth certificate I am sure thorough discussions about different family structures will have taken place and they will be prepared to see whatever word is on that piece of paper. Therefore, it shouldn't be a source of conflict and gay parents should temper the stress caused by sorting it out with the government with the understanding of how inconsequential it should be in the long run.

[reeftool]

Are birth certificates supposed to be of any use for dealing with lineage, hereditary diseases, tracking genetics, etc...

This has never been an issue for me so I am just asking out of curiosity.

With adopted children do they get a birth certificate with their biological parents names on it or the adoptive parents names? And what is the deal with IVF children who were sired from sperm banks?

Whatever the rule is for dealing with those types of situations, I think it would be applicable in gay parenting situations for non-biological parents.

I was adopted and I have no knowledge of who my natural parents were and no real easy way to get that information. It would be helpful in gaining health information. I'll admit that I never put much effort into gaining that info but there are some inherited orthopedic issues that have developed with me and now my kids but no means of getting any family medical history. There is value in knowing who your biological parents are. This issue is more political BS than anything else. Biological parents should be listed on all birth certificates. My two cents worth and coming from someone who has dealt with this.

[jeffkrol]

I don't know where you are getting this but my point in this thread is that society would be doing humanity a great favor by treating vital records as a piece of people's medical records and using that for public health purposes (a legitimate governmental function). As far as custody disputes go, it is an unfortunate reality of the legal system and society.

"Society" collecting personal data has always been a two edged sword............. for whatever the reason...
Arguments legal/moral/and financial abound..

Let's for the sake of argument someone uses a sperm donor who it turns out has a genetic flaw causing a child to be born w/ a financial liability.. Is it the donor legally responsible for the bills???.

Even in the case of an adoption legal issues can be a morass.. if the "biological parent" claims a "right" not initially granted or assumed...

Case in point, at one time to claim "benefits" for welfare a father needed to be named.. Assumption is this wasn't always honest and who pays for testing for proof...

[Ratmagiclady]

Society. Also morality is not a concept that the religious or spiritual have a monopoly on despite that being the religious bigots' propaganda agenda. Atheists can know the difference between right and wrong.


To quote Bob Dole, "it takes a family to raise a child." Attempting to go-it-alone is less good for a child than raising the child with a counterpart parent at least there part of the time which is less good than the best situation of raising the child together. Its not a perfect world, but like I said, I find it sickening that someone would deliberately skip the second and go straight for going-it-alone and plan on doing that prior to the child's birth.

Another false dichotomy, since you're demanding a genetic rationale to impose something on LGBT families that is not imposed on straight couples. Comparing LGBT couples to single parents to claim there's some justification for relegating LGBT couples and our children to second-class status is a well-known tactic of the Religious Right and it's not 'scientific' at *all.*

Unless you intend to gene-screen all children born and make them go through the same court proceedings to be considered your 'actual' parents, all you're doing is calling any straight couple, whether they're telling the truth or not 'scientifically validated,' while making a mess of things for LGBT people. (in which case, why bother mucking up birth certificates to show 'disapproval' if the actual genetics would be on file anyway? )

I don't know where you are getting this but my point in this thread is that society would be doing humanity a great favor by treating vital records as a piece of people's medical records and using that for public health purposes (a legitimate governmental function). As far as custody disputes go, it is an unfortunate reality of the legal system and society.

It's an unfortunate reality of the inequality in our society that people think some sperm donor or even rapist should have more parental rights over my family than my sweetie and I would.

If you read the second sentence out of context of the first, "biological parents" might have been a better word choice but in the context of the first sentence where I was talking about keeping this record for scientific purposes I feel that it was implied.

Considering there's nothing scientific about birth certificates to begin with, you're just trying to retroactively justify Romney's blatant bigotry and hostility.

My point is that the proper way to handle these legal documents should be sorted out by the adults before the child even knows how to read and certainly before the child ever needs to personally handle their birth certificate for some kind of identification like traveling alone by airplane or getting a photo ID.

What, say, by having appropriately-worded legal forms available instead of Romney insisting on a legally-dubious and extra-expensive and messy nether-status just cause he doesn't approve of LGBT people's lives? Blanks for two parents on a birth certificate is all you darn well need. Demanding the blanks say 'Father' is just an imposition of prejudice while imposing the costs, risks, and potential complications on LGBT people and their children for no good reason. If people want to include genetic parentage as well for any reason, that's fine, but that's simply not what birth certificates *are.* Never were.

By the time that a child raised by gay parents ever lays hands on their own birth certificate I am sure thorough discussions about different family structures will have taken place and they will be prepared to see whatever word is on that piece of paper. Therefore, it shouldn't be a source of conflict and gay parents should temper the stress caused by sorting it out with the government with the understanding of how inconsequential it should be in the long run.

The point is, who the Hel is Mitt Romney to impose extra, and totally-unnecessary stress, expense, and disadvantage on certain minorities and our children, just cause he wants to in the first place? Especially when he promised not to do just this sort of thing?

One thing you'd perhaps have to live through to fully-appreciate, but saying, 'Oh, you just sort this out with the government' assumes you *have the money* ...and the money for those lawyers and the like comes *out* of the very home and family you're trying to make these demands for bureaucratic messes on. Cause you think you can dictate that upon us.

And you really do have to live it to get some idea how much imposition and hardship real people go through for your heterosupremacist ideas of 'it's just semantics, but morality of right and wrong' ...never mind explaining how this love for 'small government' is supposed to jibe with putting other people through huge amounts of red tape, expense, and uncertainty just so Mitt Romney can demand a blank on a birth certificate say 'Father' and cast the legal custody of even biological LGBT parents and their partners over their children into doubt.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 10-26-2012 at 10:14 AM.

[grhazelton]

This diverges from the gay parent/birth certificate subject but the drift of the thread prompts me to toss this out. My wife and I each have had our DNA analyzed by 23andme.com. One fills a tiny vial with saliva, mails it off and in a week or so gets info on one's percentage of Neandertal DNA - its there for us of Northern European ancestry, and the presence of markers related to possible risk for various health issues, or whether one may be a carrier for various congenital problems.

Thus the question. While such information could be of value to our physicians, how much risk is there of insurance companies using the data against us? If I furnish my information to my doctor can he would he assert doctor patient confidentiality if my insurance carrier demanded my DNA info?

I find it hard to believe that whatever ethics health insurance companies might possibly possess would keep them from denying coverage should a DNA scan indicate a high risk of, for example, Altzheimer's. And the risk would be even greater if ObamaCare is repealed, as Romney promises to do.

Anyone else out there wondering about this?

[Ratmagiclady]

This diverges from the gay parent/birth certificate subject but the drift of the thread prompts me to toss this out. My wife and I each have had our DNA analyzed by 23andme.com. One fills a tiny vial with saliva, mails it off and in a week or so gets info on one's percentage of Neandertal DNA - its there for us of Northern European ancestry, and the presence of markers related to possible risk for various health issues, or whether one may be a carrier for various congenital problems.

Thus the question. While such information could be of value to our physicians, how much risk is there of insurance companies using the data against us? If I furnish my information to my doctor can he would he assert doctor patient confidentiality if my insurance carrier demanded my DNA info?

I find it hard to believe that whatever ethics health insurance companies might possibly possess would keep them from denying coverage should a DNA scan indicate a high risk of, for example, Altzheimer's. And the risk would be even greater if ObamaCare is repealed, as Romney promises to do.

Anyone else out there wondering about this?

Well, the genetics thing really is just to try and come up with a retroactive rationale to justify an ongoing inequality and injustice, ...birth certificates simply don't make a good body of genetic evidence as they are: certainly the idea that people would want to give up even more genetic privacy to cover for Mitt Romney to use bureaucracy to commit such injustices and inequalities is even more ridiculous: since birth certificates only ever really documented the *birth,* and any legal relationship between the parents at the time, not the genetic 'father' to begin with.

The fact that it's a lot easier to just screen your whole genome than guess something about a crossed-out blank on a legal document so that Mittens can hope LGBT families will be broken up by 'blood relations' later notwithstanding, of course. It's frankly just another instance of elaborate justifications to cause real people lots of trouble for the sake of what to uninvolved people is really just a petty little bit of heterosexist privilege.

[jeffkrol]

This diverges from the gay parent/birth certificate subject but the drift of the thread prompts me to toss this out. My wife and I each have had our DNA analyzed by 23andme.com. One fills a tiny vial with saliva, mails it off and in a week or so gets info on one's percentage of Neandertal DNA - its there for us of Northern European ancestry, and the presence of markers related to possible risk for various health issues, or whether one may be a carrier for various congenital problems.

Thus the question. While such information could be of value to our physicians, how much risk is there of insurance companies using the data against us? If I furnish my information to my doctor can he would he assert doctor patient confidentiality if my insurance carrier demanded my DNA info?

I find it hard to believe that whatever ethics health insurance companies might possibly possess would keep them from denying coverage should a DNA scan indicate a high risk of, for example, Altzheimer's. And the risk would be even greater if ObamaCare is repealed, as Romney promises to do.

Anyone else out there wondering about this?

Insurance.. Ethics surely you jest................... and some would require you send it to God for analysis..........

[gokenin]

Blah blah blah again yet another none starter issue. Where is the moral outrage against the states of New York, Vermont,New Hampshire , Connecticut, Maryland, Iowa and Washington oh wait none of them were run by the Republican candidate for President. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything except another red herring to throw out there and cause controversy. Whatever your feelings about gay marriage this is completely a non starter except for some people to come out and use it to say see here is proof Romney is homophobic and anti GBLT. Ok enough from be start your attacks at how insensitive I am but this is yet another senseless threat that are endemic of this forum

[jeffkrol]

Blah blah blah again yet another none starter issue. Where is the moral outrage against the states of New York, Vermont,New Hampshire , Connecticut, Maryland, Iowa and Washington oh wait none of them were run by the Republican candidate for President. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything except another red herring to throw out there and cause controversy. Whatever your feelings about gay marriage this is completely a non starter except for some people to come out and use it to say see here is proof Romney is homophobic and anti GBLT. Ok enough from be start your attacks at how insensitive I am but this is yet another senseless threat that are endemic of this forum

Gee tell us how you really feel..............
Any more senseless than a FF camera????? LOL....

[mikemike]

@Ratmagiclady if you never stop to reflect upon how good your life is compared to what it would be like 100 years ago, if you would have made it this far with your health problems, and how you are able to live openly in society with someone that you love I suggest that you do. Thats all I was trying to say. Speculating on the potential of using vital records as a way to make connections between medical records for everyone virtually for free compared to services like 23AndMe is just my way of comparing how we could make the world a better place for people who live here 100 years from now.

There are plenty of ways that these vital records could be improved so that they benefit society and be more PC in a world where homosexual relationships are more common and are used as vehicles for raising children. Personally, the biggest shortcoming I see with birth certificates (at least in my state I don't know if any state allows you to do this) is that they don't let you designate guardianship in the case that both parents pass away. That has to be done through a will. It would be nice to be able to do this for free I don't think it is something that needs to be required as I can also see the benefits of having it decoupled from the birth certificate.

[magkelly]

There are labs and gene tests now that can pinpoint a great number of potential major health issues whether an adopted child has the info on both parents or not. Yeah, it would be nice if the bio parents would at least fill out a general health profile for the child's file but having all their info on file as the bio parents kind of precludes them having any privacy. I personally do not believe that people who give up children for adoption should be forced to give up personal info or contact info for the later use of said child. Not everyone wants to be reunited with their bio child someday no matter how much that child might want answers or to meet them. I've had a couple of adopted friends go that route, seen them face some really painful rejection over their need to know their bio parents. Your real parents are the people who raise you, regardless of gender. The people who change your diaper, stay up all night and clean up after you when you are sick, who hold you when you cry, love you even when you royally f-up! A sperm and an egg that's just some genetic material unless you're the one doing all that.

It takes NOTHING away from straight parents to give gay parents the right to say "This is my kid." and in fact situations where the 2nd gay parent is not listed on the birth certificate are fraught with danger for those kids. If something happens to one parent if their name is not on the birth certificate it is a lot easier for someone else to gain custody of their children, and yes, that has happened. Grandparents of the bio parent step in and take children who have been raised for years by someone because they are "blood" and "next of kin" while the other parent is technically not. A couple splits and the bio parent takes the kids and refuses to let the non-bio parent see kids that they have raised for a number of years as their own. What's written in a will or a previous agreement isn't ironclad and quite frequently one gay parent looses out to another for whatever reason. Being on that certificate goes a long way towards giving the non-bio parent some legal rights when it comes to their kids. It's a lot harder for someone to step in and take their kids if they are on it.

Gay marriage and gay adoption, it's not just about gay couples wanting to get married because they love each other. It's about legalizing situations like these. This is a good part of why they are fighting so hard for the same rights as any couple. It's about inheritance rights, custodial rights, getting insurance, normal stuff that any couple needs to cover if they are going to make a life together. Marriage can be a sacrament, yes, but it's also a legal and binding contract and that contract protects them from being taken advantage of legally.

How anyone can see someone wanting a legal claim to their own child as "taking away" from straight parents is beyond me. I mean think about it. Would you like to raise your kid for a decade only for someone to step in and take your kid from you just because of a lack of a couple of pieces of paper? Would you like to lose not only them but the roof over your head, your business because of a lack of those papers? Because the "bio" relatives of your partner don't think you count as a "real" spouse or a "real" parent? Judges overturn wills in favor of bio relatives all the time. They give children to people they barely know all the time because they believe biology trumps actual years of parenting.

My Mom's first husband was my legal father for nearly a year after my birth. They had to fight him tooth and nail to keep me even though I didn't have a drop of his blood in me. Years later when I finally met the jerk he had the audacity to try to tell me I could be his child. Not because it was possible but because he wanted to paint my mother as some kind of slut. Never mind that they were in two different states for three years before my birth and that my mother would have as soon killed him at that point as ever slept with him again.

He was the man who beat her, who I suspect raped her throughout their marriage, who viciously took away any access she might have had to her other children, who tried to have her declared nuts when she would not return to him. No way, no how, impossible, yet, he tried to mind f-me just for the heck of it. Well, he picked the wrong kid to mess with as it happens because I knew all about him, his violence and his mind games and I said "Really? So you traveled 2500 miles, dodged my Dad's fists, drugged my Mom, and had your wicked way with her then?" Then I called him something far less than nice and walked away. Fact, even if my Mom wasn't by nature the most monogamous woman on the planet there is no way I could ever deny being my Dad's kid. There are certain genetic traits that I share with him and with his other kids that are just simply unmistakable.

But people like my Mom's ex? They are the reason that gay people DO need to be able to get legally married, to be able to legally adopt, and be on the birth certificates as the 2nd parent. The alternative is simply horrible and anyone who doesn't get that? Well, I'm sorry but having been in that kind of a situation all I can say is you're being awfully unfair and narrow minded because you clearly don't know what some people can get up to when it comes to gay parents and their kids, with any adoptive parents and their kids. Custody situations it can get too nasty and without that name on a piece of paper most non-bio parents simply don't have a legal leg to stand on. Heck, my Mom almost lost me despite a blood test and them being in two different states! Imagine my life if I had been raised by my mother's first husband, a man who hated my very existence because I was "proof" that my Mom had more guts than he ever gave her credit for. He ruined any hope my mother had of a real relationship with her other children and to this day I know for a fact that his family, those kids, and even my Mom's idiot family who were completely blind to this man's true nature and totally obsessed with their religion's archaic views on divorce to the point of condemning her for leaving a man who beat her still consider me a bastard.

Well, I'm NOT, not that I would care, but I'm not. My parents married the moment the ink was dry on her divorce papers and stayed monogamously married for over 40 years, and that fact is something I am very proud of thank you. Mr Arse can kiss my mine. I know who my REAL Dad is and it's not him, and I'd still say that even if I didn't have my Dad's genetics...

My Dad is not perfect, far from it, but he's been a real parent in every way. The very idea though that some guy who hurt my mother, who wasn't even my bio father could have been allowed to legally claim me as his child, put his name on my birth certificate, to then sue for custody? It just boggles my mind the sheer injustice of the situation.

[Ratmagiclady]

Blah blah blah again yet another none starter issue.

Despite the diversion into some thing about genetics that for some reason has only come up when someone points out a real and harmful injustice, perpetrated through big government bureaucracy by a Romney who'd claimed he would be 'good for gay rights' but instead used this whole thing to cause harm expense and inconvenience to LGBT families....

It's only a 'non-starter' cause you seem to approve of this action *by Mitt Romney* that is *yet another example of his dishonesty.*

But you don't 'approve' of 'homosexuals,' so that makes this not-have-happened? Or do you just like it?

Where is the moral outrage against the states of New York, Vermont,New Hampshire , Connecticut, Maryland, Iowa and Washington oh wait none of them were run by the Republican candidate for President. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything except another red herring to throw out there and cause controversy. Whatever your feelings about gay marriage this is completely a non starter except for some people to come out and use it to say see here is proof Romney is homophobic and anti GBLT. Ok enough from be start your attacks at how insensitive I am but this is yet another senseless threat that are endemic of this forum

It's also another bit of proof of his dishonesty considering his claims when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. You're comfortable with this, since it's just people you don't have the right 'feelings' about?

Other states have nothing to do with this since it didn't happen there. Which of course is another case of having piecemeal second-class rights because Romney is in fact homophobic and is pursuing an anti-gay program that his apologists won't *admit* to while simultaneously going to great lengths to try and cover for/justify.