Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa Supreme Court rules both lesbian spousesí names should be on childís birth certificate
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/03/iowa-supreme-court-rules-both-lesbian-spouses-names-should-be-on-ch | 3 May 2013, 10:25 am CDT

Posted on 05/03/2013 10:23:16 AM PDT by newgeezer

Iowa Supreme Court rules both lesbian spouses’ names should be on child’s birth certificate

Case surfaced after state refused to list nonbirthing parent on birth certificate

The Iowa Supreme Court Friday affirmed a district court ruling that both spouses in a lesbian marriage should be listed on a child’s birth certificate.

The court ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to reissue a birth certificate to Melissa and Heather Gartner, of Des Moines, for their daughter, Mackenzie Jean, who was born in September 2009. The department refused to list Melissa, the nonbirthing parent, on the birth certificate.

“It is important our laws recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children,” the court wrote in a 29-page decision issued Friday.

“By naming the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a married lesbian couple’s child, the child is ensured supported from that parent and that parents establishes fundamental rights at the moment of birth,” the ruling states.

The Supreme Court’s 2009 Varnum vs. Brien decision legalizing same-sex marriage provides the bedrock for Friday’s decision, the court noted.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: homofascism; homoism; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Deeper into the abyss.
1 posted on 05/03/2013 10:23:16 AM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

What about the child who may need to know who their biological father is? hmmmmm


2 posted on 05/03/2013 10:24:14 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do ithat when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

This is nothing less than state-sanctioned child abuse.


3 posted on 05/03/2013 10:25:39 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

I WISH that an EF5 Tornado would hit Des Moines and WHIPE it off of the map!


4 posted on 05/03/2013 10:26:49 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

They put the non-biological father on the birth certificate ALL THE TIME. The law doesn’t care about DNA, they care about the law. The husband of a woman who gives birth is legally the father - even if he isn’t the biological father. Kind of a messed up situation for some - their wife cheats on them - gets pregnant - and they are legally responsible for support of the resulting child.

Fun fun fun!


5 posted on 05/03/2013 10:28:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

And when polygamy becomes law, how many names will go on birth certificates?


6 posted on 05/03/2013 10:30:04 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Well, in this day and age, I’d like to see a “partner”, spirtual, emotional or otherwise be potentially held legally responsible for a life they commit to being, transitioned or sustained in whatever manner in support of their deviate lifestyle.

I actually see this as a stakehold in repsponsibility that lashes the other, not child-bearing partner, to a potential financial responsibility other than the poor schmuck man they may or may not have tricked into their deviate schemes.

Bring it on! Make both of them carpet munchers responsible for that life they misdirected and probably ruined. I say good.


7 posted on 05/03/2013 10:30:17 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Put the turkey baster on there too then - it had more to do with the baby than the “other” “mother”.


8 posted on 05/03/2013 10:32:29 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
This seems like a sensible way to warn the child's future employers about her dysfunctional upbringing.

Let me add that I believe no child should be put into this kind of setting. But then I worry more about the well being of the child than I do about the "fundamental rights" of her so called "parents".

9 posted on 05/03/2013 10:33:19 AM PDT by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Where do they list the sperm donor? After all, he is the biological father.


10 posted on 05/03/2013 10:35:16 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

And when the 2 lezzies break up - What man will they sue for child support?


11 posted on 05/03/2013 10:35:47 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

They don’t. See post #5.

That’s why laws against incest will be annulled. No legal way to keep track as it is.


12 posted on 05/03/2013 10:38:02 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

After polygamy comes... Yep, you guessed it.

After the moose bit my sister - she married him. Had a baby.

So now my nephew’s birth certificate shows Bull. J. Winkle as the daddy.

(This story while not true - is no more bizarre than two bull dykes as parents on the BC)


13 posted on 05/03/2013 10:39:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

I guess the biological father doesn’t count..


14 posted on 05/03/2013 10:44:06 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Constitution? What Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

This is going to really mess up genealogy research down the road. What they deem as “cute” or politically correct... roadblocks that child from finding out their true heritage or bloodline. Also, just gives them something else they can hate you for when they want answers to, “where is my Dad?”


15 posted on 05/03/2013 10:45:37 AM PDT by LaineyDee (Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
And when the 2 lezzies break up - What man will they sue for child support?

Already happened... they sued the donor in court for child support, and won. I believe it was a recent court case in Kansas.

16 posted on 05/03/2013 10:46:09 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

It is also important that birth certificate follow scientific principles of reproduction and list the genetic parents from whom the offspring has sprung, a genetic paper trail, if you will, which may be valuable later in life in diagnosing disorders and charting mutations.


17 posted on 05/03/2013 10:46:38 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Poor kids. As if they don’t have enough crap in their lives.


18 posted on 05/03/2013 10:47:12 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer seems to be working.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Dopey.


19 posted on 05/03/2013 10:47:34 AM PDT by jimfree (In November 2016 my 12 y/o granddaughter will have more quality exec experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

I guess they want to turn kids into freaks to be more in tune with our enemies.


20 posted on 05/03/2013 10:48:15 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer seems to be working.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Would it help prevent this ?

TOPEKA, Kan. — A sperm donor is being ordered to pay child support to a couple he helped have a child.

William Marotta says he gave up all legal rights to the little girl.

But under Kansas law, because the couple didn’t use a doctor to get pregnant with Marotta’s sperm, the state says he’s responsible for the monthly child support payments, according to FOX 4.

Marotta met the lesbian couple through a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.


21 posted on 05/03/2013 10:50:29 AM PDT by UB355 (Slower traffic keep right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Marotta is an idiot. I have no sympathy for him. Let the femi-nazi pro-butch courts rape him a new one.


22 posted on 05/03/2013 10:57:10 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: UB355
Would it help prevent this ?

If your article tells the whole story (and, if this was Kansas), a doctor would still be required to absolve the sperm donor of any responsibility. (Why is that? Why isn't a contract sufficient? Is the doctors' lobby that strong in KS?)

23 posted on 05/03/2013 10:59:45 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Actually, Mackinzie is a bastard. All else is just window dressing, pig lipstick.


24 posted on 05/03/2013 11:00:42 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert
Actually, Mackinzie is a bastard. All else is just window dressing, pig lipstick.

You must not watch the Disney Channel. If you had, you would know that you can go anywhere in your imagination.

25 posted on 05/03/2013 11:01:51 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Interesting argument here...


26 posted on 05/03/2013 11:07:49 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
“It is important our laws recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children,” the court wrote in a 29-page decision issued Friday.

I've scoured our constitutions again and a again, and no matter how many times I look, the legislative branch is the only branch with lawmaking power given to it.

27 posted on 05/03/2013 11:10:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Life, liberty, property, family, RKBA, sovereignty, security, borders, independence, the oath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
The Supreme Court’s 2009 Varnum vs. Brien decision legalizing same-sex marriage provides the bedrock for Friday’s decision, the court noted.

It did no such thing. Courts don't make laws. Iowa law to this day recognizes only real marriages.

28 posted on 05/03/2013 11:13:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Life, liberty, property, family, RKBA, sovereignty, security, borders, independence, the oath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

And then a year later, the ‘father’ claims ‘that’s not my child and I dare you to prove that it is’!


29 posted on 05/03/2013 11:14:52 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Well, yeah, and there was the recent case of the sperm donor guy who got sued for child support after the two “parent” queers split up. This is all “bedrock “of course.


30 posted on 05/03/2013 11:17:33 AM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

What an evil, Frankensteinian thing to do to human beings.....denying the Truth and Natural Law and artificially constructing an irrational reality for a child so he can not grow up in a realistic world. Always governed by “feelings” and never reaching maturity where Reason rules the emotions.

How evil and dehumanizing and selfish are these Marxists.

And to think we have a ‘Justice” system that denies Natural Laws (Science) and Reality and Truth. It is disgusting and evil and unconstitutional.

All Just Law has to be Right Reason.


31 posted on 05/03/2013 11:21:04 AM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
a baby takes a male and a female...a female and a female can not produce, nor a male and a male....

so be "married" you stupid idiots but you can't both claim parentage....its biologically impossible....

let this be a lesson...never let a dtr or niece or anyone female you know give up their baby to just anybody....make sure the child gets to a normal home with a normal marriage...

32 posted on 05/03/2013 11:26:14 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

This is quite literally a coup d’etat. The overturning of our republican form of representative self-government.

And the Republican “leadership” is complicit.

I’m so mad I could spit nails.

This is Varnum II.


33 posted on 05/03/2013 11:28:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Life, liberty, property, family, RKBA, sovereignty, security, borders, independence, the oath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
so these judges are using the lie about "financial" support to make up these insane rulings?.....so when does financial support have anything to do with parentage?

it'd be like letting an elephant and a woman be the official parents of a human baby because the elephant is strong and muscular and could protect the baby...

34 posted on 05/03/2013 11:28:59 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Deeper into the abyss.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ON the subject of ‘deep abyss’.

I understand that since MD has instituted/passed/signed the ‘do funny marriage bill’ that come 1JAN if a ‘couple’ are partners and NOT MARRIED, they will revert to just another shack up and will not be able to share bennies UNTIL they get married.
Watch the FALLOUT from this little act.

Not only will ‘they’ be suing because the state is FORCING them to marry, once they WIN (and surely they will) the regular shack ups will declare that since the ‘do funnys’ can share bennies without getting married, then the straight shack ups should get bennies also.

And figure that not soon after, conventional room mates (as we know them..share house/apt etc WITH NO SEX INVOLVED) will be clamoring to get in on the act.

SO FAR this just is for State Employees BUT you can imagine the rest of the state will attempt to follow suit. (Dependent on who ‘benefits’ from it).

These new rules are making my hairline ache.


35 posted on 05/03/2013 11:29:33 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 --I turn 75 next year- but remember, that's only 24 Celsius. (TKS R. Reagan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

“It is important our laws recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children,”

Even if we have to make it all up out of thin air!!!!!


36 posted on 05/03/2013 11:31:17 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (I may be drunk, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly. (Churchill))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
this could be a game changer as far as child support goes...because these judges just said it didn't matter who the bio parents were, just that two names go down on a paper saying they're parents for financial reasons...now its official...now its legal....they can't go after the baby daddy after the lezbos break up....because he would have NO official status...and he apparently is NOT the parent, let alone the father...

I don't mean to be hating on homosexuals....but its gone just too damn far especially when it comes to the welfare of a child...

37 posted on 05/03/2013 11:33:21 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Welcome to Bizzarro World.


38 posted on 05/03/2013 11:34:11 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
WHY ISN'T THE (sperm donating) FATHER OBLIGATED TO MARRY THE MOTHER, TREAT THE MOTHER AND CHILD WITH LOVE, AND PROVIDE CARE FOR MOTHER AND CHILD?

Why is this basic concept so difficult for a modern, educated, civilized society to grasp?

39 posted on 05/03/2013 11:50:05 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Because “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” ...


40 posted on 05/03/2013 11:57:50 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

let’s get this straight, two woman cannot produce a child, so a child, any child, when born is not the result of human reproduction of two women and yet a “birth certificate” - a certificate recording the result of an act of human reproduction, which cannot be an act achieved by two women, is suppose to lie about what “a birth” means and state, in error of the facts, that the child’s biological mother and her girlfriend are both “mother” of the child

it makes no sense whatsoever and the fact that it makes no sense stands regardless of anyone’s opinion about anyone being “gay”


41 posted on 05/03/2013 12:10:45 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Birth certificates are not supposed to be ownership registrations.


42 posted on 05/03/2013 12:14:43 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

of all the problems we face in this country and there are still some who seem intent on their sexual turn on and making it look like they’re a family.

These people need to stop this nonsense, it makes them look insane and mentally backwards.
The fact is that it takes a male and a female to make a baby

plain and simple

these people need to get a life


43 posted on 05/03/2013 12:19:56 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

You are right. So it isn’t a birth certificate.


44 posted on 05/03/2013 12:25:15 PM PDT by mom.mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

I knew a kid raised as a basket case by lesbians. I’m sure he’s committed suicide by this time.


45 posted on 05/03/2013 12:25:40 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

“married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children,”

Sorry, but I’m going to have to say it:

Except for the di*k benefits.


46 posted on 05/03/2013 12:31:50 PM PDT by rhoda_penmark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

So “parent” doesn’t mean PARENT anymore. Is that what they’re saying?


47 posted on 05/03/2013 12:48:57 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The bastard’s mother is the parent, the other is a nurturer


48 posted on 05/03/2013 12:50:36 PM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
They put the non-biological father on the birth certificate ALL THE TIME.

It's at least plausible that another man could be the father. But there is absolutely no way that this combination is possible.

Just another example of the re-definition of marriage also redefining parenthood and a multitude of other realities.

49 posted on 05/03/2013 12:51:15 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Just another example of the re-definition of marriage also redefining parenthood and a multitude of other realities.

And, whoever controls the debate gets to define the terms.

For example, who the **** knows (or cares) what "infringed" means anymore?

The very first time the SCOTUS handed down an anti-Constitutional ruling and it was allowed to stand, the writing was on the wall. The actual words in the Constitution mean NOTHING. Dubya's Chief Justice John Roberts made that quite clear with his Obamacare insanity. That may have been the final tipping point. Our precarious 5-4 majority is dissolving before our eyes and will soon be gone. "God Bless America" indeed. He did, even while America kept telling Him to get lost.</rant>

50 posted on 05/03/2013 1:32:39 PM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson