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

Skip to comments.

Texas Gay Fathers Denied Legal Recognition of Twin Sons Born Through Surrogate
Christian Post ^ | 06/20/2014 | Stoyan Zaimov

Posted on 06/20/2014 10:09:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Two gay fathers in Texas have been denied legal recognition of their twin sons, born through a surrogate mother, because same-sex marriage is not legal in the state. While the fathers are petitioning to be placed on the birth certificates, conservative group Family Research Council has argued that the case should not serve as a "back-door" for redefining marriage.

"Family Research Council supports the parental rights of anyone who is a biological parent, regardless of their marital or relationship status," Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at FRC, told The Christian Post in an email on Thursday.

"However, we believe that second-parent adoption, or joint adoption by two adults when neither is the biological parent, should be limited to parents who are legally married. In Texas, this would exclude same-sex couples."

Sprigg added: "Cases such as the one in Texas should not be used as a back-door method of redefining marriage, nor of affirming parental arrangements that deliberately deny, and deprive a child of, the benefits of having both a mother and a father."

The parents, Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs, fathered Lucas and Ethan, who were born in April through a surrogate, The Huffington Post reported earlier this week.

While each man is the biological father of one of the children, they have not been placed on the birth certificates, and have not been allowed to co-adopt each other's biological child. Only the surrogate mother is on the certificates, but she is not their biological mother, since embryos were transferred to her.

"As of right now in Texas two men cannot be on the birth certificate," Hanna explained in an interview on SiriusXM Progress.

"So our attorney followed the letter of the law. We petitioned the court. We had DNA testing there [in court] and petitioned the judge to ultimately remove the surrogate mother from the birth certificate, who has no biological ties to the boys. We would like each biological dad to be placed on the birth certificate of our own son, and then ultimately proceed to the second-parent adoption. The entire petition was denied."

The judge's decision has been criticized by pro-gay groups such as the Family Equality Council, with Executive Director Gabriel Blau stating that the judge "was wrong on moral, ethical, and legal grounds."

The gay couple, legally married in Washington, D.C., last July, said they are worried if something were to happen to one of them and adoption was denied to the remaining partner.

"The state could come in and separate these two brothers … We want to reiterate how important it is for a state to recognize each family, whether it's same-sex or opposite-sex, and really to ensure everyone has equal protection from the state," Hanna said.

Riggs added that they were "shocked" when the Texas judge said she could not grant their request under law, since they had heard of other gay couples in Texas that had been successful in their petition.

In February, San Antonio-based federal Judge Orlando Garcia struck down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, but due to an ongoing appeal process, gay couples are not yet allowed to get married.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; surrogate; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Jason Hanna (L) And Joe Riggs (R) in a Fox 4 interview posted June 17, 2014.
1 posted on 06/20/2014 10:09:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO FATHERS ON THE DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE! And why is it legal for a woman to surrogate for two deviants!?


2 posted on 06/20/2014 10:10:53 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
their twin sons

Someone needs to tell The Christian Post that a child cannot be the product of two men having sex. The child's father is one of them and its mother is the surrogate. Thus, there are no "two fathers" of this child.

3 posted on 06/20/2014 10:11:56 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The connection between homosexuality and commercial baby-manufacture is very strong. People who approve the latter and object to the former should take note.


4 posted on 06/20/2014 10:12:15 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Cynicism is a far greater spiritual danger than naivete." ~ Stephen Webb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yeah, like Texas is supposed to recognize that some newborn baby came out of one of these two deviant freak’s disease-ridden anus?


5 posted on 06/20/2014 10:15:07 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

While the fathers are petitioning to be placed on the birth certificates, conservative group Family Research Council has argued that the case should not serve as a “back-door” for redefining marriage.

_____________________________________________________

In first with “Never use that term in a thread like this”.

(Yeesh!)


6 posted on 06/20/2014 10:16:56 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Plus they are not twins, as twins have the same DNA. You know these people need to stop. This is just ridiculous. They don’t want those kids, they really don’t it’s all about getting attention.


7 posted on 06/20/2014 10:18:14 AM PDT by defconw (LUTFA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I usually support the FRC. They are almost always right. But this...
"Family Research Council supports the parental rights of anyone who is a biological parent, regardless of their marital or relationship status," Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at FRC, told The Christian Post in an email on Thursday.
This makes me go; "Huh??"

If you are gay, then yeah. Your parental rights SHOULD be called into question.

8 posted on 06/20/2014 10:21:28 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Alternate headline “Texas Rejects Illogical Fantasy Of Two Males Creating A Child”


9 posted on 06/20/2014 10:23:50 AM PDT by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The gay couple, legally married in Washington, D.C., last July, said they are worried if something were to happen to one of them and adoption was denied to the remaining partner.

Then move back to Washington, D.C. to satisfy your perverted life.
GET THE HELL OUT OF TEXAS!

10 posted on 06/20/2014 10:25:30 AM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DwFry; All

RE: Alternate headline “Texas Rejects Illogical Fantasy Of Two Males Creating A Child”

How many of you are willing to bet that the Federal Courts will eventually step in and reverse this decision?


11 posted on 06/20/2014 10:27:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
While each man is the biological father of one of the children, they have not been placed on the birth certificates, and have not been allowed to co-adopt each other's biological child. Only the surrogate mother is on the certificates, but she is not their biological mother, since embryos were transferred to her.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

12 posted on 06/20/2014 10:28:07 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

GREAT !!!!


13 posted on 06/20/2014 10:33:47 AM PDT by Patton@Bastogne (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
Apparently the surrogate is NOT the biological mother as she did not supply the eggs for the child. She was simply the incubator. Who knows where they got the eggs. Perhaps on sale at the piggly wiggly?
14 posted on 06/20/2014 10:35:54 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“back-door”

Oh, no..


15 posted on 06/20/2014 10:38:57 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: defconw

They are fraternal twins from what I can tell. They each had an embryo they fertilized implanted in the woman. The woman was NOT the egg donor, only the incubator.

I know. you need a flow chart to keep up with the deviancy. It gives me a headache.


16 posted on 06/20/2014 10:39:03 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Thanks for explaining. I know what you mean about the headache!


17 posted on 06/20/2014 10:41:34 AM PDT by defconw (LUTFA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: defconw

Oh, they want them. They want them at about 13-18 years of age in order to have easy access to young kids. Don’t think otherwise. Scratch a Homo find a ephebophile!

This is a NORM in the Homosexual community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia


18 posted on 06/20/2014 10:41:49 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Didn’t California allow three parents on a birth certificate?


19 posted on 06/20/2014 10:42:11 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

It was Florida.


20 posted on 06/20/2014 10:44:12 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

I think they would be half-brothers is the same woman donated the eggs.


21 posted on 06/20/2014 10:45:52 AM PDT by Andy'smom (How many more acts of love can we take?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am a Christian. I don’t believe in same-sex marriage. I don’t hate homosexuals. I believe that’s the stance of 99.9% of Christians. The title of this article is asking for trouble.


22 posted on 06/20/2014 10:46:17 AM PDT by woweeitsme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
They don't want them in the sense that you and I as straight people would want a child. I can't see how they could, their world view is disordered.

But I agree with you. I would not want my sons spending the night at their house at any age. It might be true that they would not molest their own child I doubt that holds true for other peoples kids.

23 posted on 06/20/2014 10:47:15 AM PDT by defconw (LUTFA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: woweeitsme

RE: The title of this article is asking for trouble.

Trouble for who? Can you elaborate?


24 posted on 06/20/2014 10:48:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Imagine being the poor kid who has a mans name down as “Mother” (or “parnet 2” with no mother at all on his birth certificate.

Imagine the twisted selfish men who would do this to a child.


25 posted on 06/20/2014 10:49:57 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: defconw
Plus they are not twins, as twins have the same DNA

Only identical twins do, Think about it, twin brothers and sisters obviously do not have identical DNA. Also, does anyone find it frightening that they just happened to get two boys?

26 posted on 06/20/2014 10:50:48 AM PDT by sharkhawk (Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

RE: Imagine being the poor kid who has a mans name down as “Mother”

Hey, if Heather can have two mommies, then Junior can have two daddies /s


27 posted on 06/20/2014 10:51:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Denied legal recognition” of WHAT?

This article is gibberish.


28 posted on 06/20/2014 10:52:20 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Why is it legal for a woman to surrogate for ANYBODY? The total effect is to split parenthood up into garbled fragments:

Etc. etc.

NONE of this is to the benefit of the child, or geared toward securing a child's natural right to derive his identity, kinship network, economic support and nurturance from his own natural father and mother.

It's all centered around adults' desires and not children's needs.

29 posted on 06/20/2014 10:52:58 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side wins everything else." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk

Well at the time I was thinking that if each “father” fertilized an egg from a diferent woman and then they placed both eggs in another woman, that they could not be twins. I missed a step some where. But that’s OK because this is just plain wrong!


30 posted on 06/20/2014 10:54:21 AM PDT by defconw (LUTFA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: defconw
There is no question in my mind as to the fact that they would and will molest these children.

We have got to stop sugar coating this. Homosexuals by definition are sexual deviants. They turn their nose, and anus, up to conventional social behavior. They have no compunction doing things on a regular basis that normal people would never do. It is a small step from homosexual activity to ephebophilia and pedophilia.

These people are sick. They are mentally ill and always have been. Simply because the Liberals in the APA said they are not mentally ill doesn't mean a damn thing. They say that biological sex is alterable but sexual preference is not changeable. The APA is as crazy as any of their patients.

31 posted on 06/20/2014 10:59:04 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Well...

Where do you think lawyers come from?


32 posted on 06/20/2014 10:59:19 AM PDT by pfony1 (Add just 6 GOP Senators and we "bury" Harry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Now the question is, why do we allow this? I know it’s rhetorical.


33 posted on 06/20/2014 11:02:00 AM PDT by defconw (LUTFA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I feel sorry for the twins having to be born into that kind of mess. Prayers up.


34 posted on 06/20/2014 11:05:50 AM PDT by dragonblustar ( Psalm 103, Psalm 37:7, Ephesians 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
I am sure that it was by design. They used donated eggs. Where they got them is a mystery, but if a woman could be prostituted to use her uterus for a price, I am sure women have no problem using their eggs for a quick buck.

They had the eggs inseminated by some Dr. Frankenstein in a lab and once they had male Zygotes they had them implanted in a women, for a price. Every thing was for a price and to them it is all worth it.

They get to flaunt their homo-nonsense, They get to make legal precedent and they get to have two sexual slaves in a short decade for their perverted pleasure and probably to be swapped around with their perverted Homosexual friends.

35 posted on 06/20/2014 11:06:05 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
They are fraternal twins from what I can tell. They each had an embryo they fertilized implanted in the woman.

Actually, they'd be more like step-fraternal twins, as they have different fathers. (Assuming both eggs came from the same woman.) If the eggs were different, then they wouldn't be related at all.
36 posted on 06/20/2014 11:18:24 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Beware. These poor children will never be normal.


37 posted on 06/20/2014 11:32:30 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whatever else these characters might be, they are not “fathers.”


38 posted on 06/20/2014 11:40:09 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
While each man is the biological father of one of the children, they have not been placed on the birth certificates, and have not been allowed to co-adopt each other's biological child. Only the surrogate mother is on the certificates, but she is not their biological mother, since embryos were transferred to her.

Doing this to a child is evil, pure evil. The kids should be taken away from these vile men and placed with a real family.

39 posted on 06/20/2014 11:43:30 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sorry...wrong thread!!


40 posted on 06/20/2014 11:45:19 AM PDT by woweeitsme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I think the “Family Research Council” needs to go back and complete their research as to what exactly constitutes a family, cuz this ain’t it.


41 posted on 06/20/2014 12:49:19 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

They’re not fraternal twins, because fraternal twins still share the same two parents. These are “womb-mates” I guess, but they’re not twins under any ordinary meaning of that term.


42 posted on 06/20/2014 12:50:47 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

California is NOT Texas.


43 posted on 06/20/2014 1:14:17 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

If the eggs were bought from the same seller, the children are half-siblings.


44 posted on 06/20/2014 2:03:18 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Cynicism is a far greater spiritual danger than naivete." ~ Stephen Webb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
They create an unconscionable, untenable situation with a helpless child, and then complain that the situation is unconscionable and untenable.
45 posted on 06/20/2014 2:14:14 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Excellent summary!


46 posted on 06/20/2014 2:37:31 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Cynicism is a far greater spiritual danger than naivete." ~ Stephen Webb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

It was Florida.

Miami Judge Allows 3 Names on Birth Certificate

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/miami-judge-allows-3-names-on-birth-certificate/


47 posted on 06/20/2014 2:46:01 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

They’ll keep trying.

Bill Would Allow Same-Sex Parents on Birth Certificates

Andy Miller and Brian Stephens fell in love 12 years ago while they were training for a marathon on the trails around Lady Bird Lake in downtown Austin. As they began talking about starting a family, they knew of only one same-sex couple who had successfully adopted.

“There weren’t a lot of role models,” Miller said.

Miller and Stephens adopted their son, Clark, days after he was born in 2007. But on Clark’s birth certificate, only Miller’s name appears under “father.” “Mother” remains noticeably blank — and Stephens’ name is nowhere to be found.

Texas law prevents gay parents from both being listed on supplemental birth certificate forms for adoptive children. The forms provide space for only one mother, a woman, and one father, a male. The gender-specific language was added in 1997 as a part of a renewed commitment to conservative values, said the amendment’s author, former state Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas.

Opponents of the provision say it compels same-sex families to present unwieldy paperwork to prove legal parentage for medical care, school enrollment and international travel, and prompts extra scrutiny that can embarrass or confuse children.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/28/bill-allows-same-sex-parents-birth-certificate/


48 posted on 06/20/2014 2:51:55 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
But on Clark’s birth certificate, only Miller’s name appears under “father.” “Mother” remains noticeably blank — and Stephens’ name is nowhere to be found.

Why aren't the natural mother's and father's names on the birth certificate as mother and father? If it's legal for two men - homosexual "couple" or not - to adopt a child, then the two men's names could appear on a legal document of the adoption, not as mother or father, but as "adoptive guardians."

For example, there could be a situation in which a woman who is a drug addict has a child, and her father, the child's grandfather, wants to adopt the child. However, they also consider it useful for his son, the child's uncle, to be a co-guardian, since the uncle is likely to outlive the grandfather. These two men would be "adoptive guardians" of the child, while "mother and father" would be the biological parents.

49 posted on 06/20/2014 3:00:34 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Cynicism is a far greater spiritual danger than naivete." ~ Stephen Webb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I agree. I do know in most states when a child is adopted they are issues a new birth certificate and the adoptive parents names are on it and the original birth certificate is destroyed. I think for the child’s benefit your idea is a good one.


50 posted on 06/20/2014 3:16:39 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 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