2y ago

Italy starts removing lesbian mothers’ names from children’s birth certificates

www.cnn.com Italy starts removing lesbian mothers' names from children's birth certificates | CNN

The northern Italian city of Padua has started removing the names of non-biological gay mothers from their children’s birth certificates under new legislation passed by the “traditional family-first” government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

You're viewing a single thread.

54 comments

Isn't the whole point of a birth certificate that it records the birth parents?
- Honestly I'm surprised it was ever allowed. A birth certificate should serve as a historical genealogical record and might be useful for tracking, for example, hereditary diseases like Huntington's. It's not much use if it's got an unrelated adoptive parent on it. Maybe there should be an additional field for legal caregiver when there's a difference.
  
  What about if the father is an anonymous sperm donor? Why wouldn't you write the other mom's name in the birth certificate?
  
  I would say it should still function as a genealogical record for a number of reasons, particularly as a useful medical record. If unknown, that should be specified - or include a reference to their anonymous medical records.
  There could be another field for adoptive second parent at birth, if this is necessary. Otherwise I can see how it might cause problems for the adoptive parent in the event of a divorce. Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.
  
  Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.
  You'd be entirely correct in that understanding. Unfortunately the actual facts of the situation don't make for a convincing piece of propaganda about just how victimized people are.
  
  At least to the extent of my knowledge, it's entirely acceptable to leave the spot empty if the father isn't known, or at least not made known to whoever is tasked with pushing the paperwork through.
  What is it that makes you people consider having adoptive parents being able to be listed on birth certificates a massive problem to fight for?
  
  You are frankly being disingenuous if you imply that the way law treats a birth certificate is as a genealogical record. That is simply not true, and so long as it is not true, arguments that that should be the criteria of being listed on the document are fallicious.
  
  I never said it did. Doesn't justify your retarded position of just putting whoever on it.
  
  The birth certificate is certifying the birth of a child, not their lineage of their parents. You are indeed attempting to use the document for something outside its scope.
- Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.
  Also, the point of the birth certificate is to record the existence of the child. This person exists, now they can be tracked (age, citizenship, etc), go to school, be taxed...
  
  Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.
  OK? What does that merit consideration for? Put down the parents, and fill out the usual slew of adoption paperwork.
  
  The "birth mother" is adoptive to you in that situation? Or the egg donor?

54 comments