NYC changes birth certificate policy for lesbians

[Zuiderelle]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/2009_03_25_NYC_changes_birth_certificate_policy_for_lesbians/srvc=home&position=recent

NEW YORK - Married lesbian couples in New York City can now be listed as parents on birth certificates as soon as their children are born.

Before, the women would have to go through an adoption process to be listed as the official parents.

The city Board of Health voted Tuesday to make the change.

The state made a similar move in December, after a court ruling and a directive from Gov. David Paterson ordered state agencies to respect out-of-state gay marriages.

The city says married male couples still will need to adopt their children in order to be officially declared their parents.

Ok, except for the last sentence... at least it's a huge step in the right direction.



:bounce: :party: :applause:

[HockeyMom]

1. My daughter made the right decision

to leave bigoted Florida and move back to NY. Cannot wait until I can join her.

[FLyellowdog]

2. Sorry she had to leave the great Floridiot state

but glad she found a safe haven. It shouldn't have to be this way in America. :hi:

[imdjh]

11. That's really not fair

Is California "bigoted California"? Prop 8 passed in California with 52.24% of the vote. Amendment 2 passed in Florida with 61% of the vote, and only a fraction of the resources devoted to defeating it than were expended to defeat Prop 8. You and I both know that Florida is very much like California in the geography and demographics of who supports and opposes gay equality. We also know that like California, one obviously cannot count on some people who identify as members of the Democratic Party to vote against discrimination even as they claim to be making history in casting their presidential vote.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. why diff policy with men?

[Mabus]

4. I think the reason is... (clumsy explanation)

the policy is assuming at least one of the women is giving birth to the child. Therefore the birth mother can identify/name her spouse. However with male couples, because neither of them is capable of giving birth, they have to adopt.

[Zuiderelle]

5. I assume that you are correct. It will be a bit more difficult with men, by the "nature" of things.

[Mabus]

6. It was the only rationale that made sense to me.

When a woman gives birth you know she's the birth mother but you don't know, for sure, who the father is without further proof/tests.

I'm also happy that my clumsy explanation was understandable to someone besides me.

[XOEnterprises]

7. They don't necessarily have to adopt.

They could have a birth mother, with one of the men donating sperm for fertilization and having a woman friend/volunteer carry it, but it would be much more complicated to write a law that doesn't make that mother the primary parent. But then again, surrogate mothers aren't all that uncommon for straight couples who are infertile, so I don't see how that's any different than a gay male couple.

[Mabus]

8. We're thinking along the same lines

A surrogate mother is the biological mother. And the biological mother has to give up the rights to the child, or at least have some type of contract specifying what her rights are or aren't after giving up the child, whether to the state or other parties before the child can be legally adopted or otherwise given to others.

iirc, there are still some states that don't recognize surrogacy contracts. So, for protection of the parties involved, including the child/ren, adoption is the easiest way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. That seems a perfectly reasonable explanation n/t

[bluedawg12]

9. It's a positive first step. Thanks for the good news.