Children of gay parents also targets of discrimination.

[MrFun]

(puts padding on wall for Boris)

For the record, I do think the parents are not prioritizing things correctly. They should be thinking of the interest of their child, first and foremost. Find another way to proceed with a legal action.

[Solomwi]

To clarify, Boris, the AG is simply defending the state in a lawsuit. AFAIK, he had nothing to do with the birth certificate's non-issuance or any step in that decision-making process.

[Ben Kenobi]

reissues BCs with the names of adoptive parents. They are treating *this* couple differently because they are refusing to do the same for them. There is NO SPECIAL RIGHT being asked for, it's the same damn right every other adoptive parent gets.

Sigh. For starters, it's not a *RIGHT*. Two, LA law forbids them to do so for gay couples, you want to change this, change the law. Three, not issuing the altered BC is not a violation of any of their constitutional rights, nor does it inconvenience them in any way wrt to their child's school enrollment.

So I take it you oppose reissuing birth certificates with the names of adoptive parents entirely, right?

Actually, yes I do. I think altering BCs for any reason is wrong.

The reality is that these men are both legally this kid's parents through adoption, and based on all sorts of precedent, there's no sound reason that a state should not reissue a BC with their names.

I can think of plenty of reasons why BCs should not be altered in any circumstances.

[MrFun]

I can think of plenty of reasons why BCs should not be altered in any circumstances.

Then tell us what your reasons are.

[Asher]

Then tell us what your reasons are.

What if you had a child that's really, really ****ing stupid and really, really bigoted? I'd want to alter the BC to remove any connection of me. I can see why Ben is terrified of the idea.

[MrFun]

[Boris Godunov]

Sigh. For starters, it's not a *RIGHT*.

No one said it was a "right" to have a BC reissued for adoptive parents. But it IS a right to be treated equally by the state, which does reissue birth certificates to adoptive parents in their names.

Two, LA law forbids them to do so for gay couples, you want to change this, change the law.

NO. IT. DOES. NOT.

Apparently you are so stupid you don't know the difference between a law prohibiting adoptions vs. state laws/regulations for issuing birth certificates. LA law prohibits gays from adopting w/in that state. But these parents adopted in NY, not LA. LA does NOT prohibit gay people from being the legal parents of children, nor does it prohibit their names from being listed as parents on BCs.

Adoption law has nothing to do with BC issuing rules.

TWO COURTS have already said as much.

Three, not issuing the altered BC is not a violation of any of their constitutional rights, nor does it inconvenience them in any way wrt to their child's school enrollment.

Again, no one has brought up "constitutional rights" but you. But if you knew **** all about the U.S. Constitution, however, you'd know about Equal Protection and you'd also know that just because a "right" isn't enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Actually, yes I do. I think altering BCs for any reason is wrong.

I can think of plenty of reasons why BCs should not be altered in any circumstances.

Go ahead and list some. But we all know that the only reason you REALLY are saying it now is because that saying otherwise would inconvenience your hate on the homos.

Even so, your objection to it is irrelevant because Louisiana already does it, as does every U.S. state. It is the norm. So your claim that this couple is asking for "special treatment" from the law is stupid and incorrect, period.

[MrFun]

I could use some good comedy - eager to hear BK's reasons.

[MrFun]

Ben, anytime you're ready to explain your reasons for not altering birth certificates for adoptive parents in general, we're ready to hear them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, have been working this morning.

My reasons have to do with my discipline. Sometimes the only record we have of a person is their birth certificate. I was able to find the hometown of my dad's dad's family from the birth certificate of a great-aunt who passed away. We had been told she was born here in Canada, and it was only her birth certificate that says otherwise. Because her certificate said Ortelsburg, East Prussia we were able to contact the family that stayed in Germany.

I think it's important for adoptive children to have record of their parents, at least to help them trace their origins.

[Ecofarm]

It's a "birth certificate", not an "adoption certificate". Isn't that reason enough alone? I cannot imagine that I am being bigoted... I want the title of the paper to match what it is talking about. Changing a BC sounds communist to me; that's historical revisionism.

[chequita guevara]

Life with Ben on ignore is bliss. I'm not even tempted to click to read his posts anymore. It is, however, ever so much fun watching people do battle with ferrous cranus.

[rah]

I agree that BCs should not be changed. It should reflect the biological parents whenever possible.

[Japher]

It would really help determining medical risks

[rah]

That's the main reason for me, but there are others.