I know that the international ultra conservative movement wants to erase LBGTQ rights, but this is one I hadn’t considered. Chiseling away the rights of gay parents in order to jealously guard the “traditional” family is mean and stupid.
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
217 points (97.8% liked)
News
23634 readers
3327 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a reason one of the five things prohibited under the UNs 1948 convention against genocide is the forcible transfer of children. This is a step down that same path.
As someone whose had a lesbian non-biological parent and a birther go to the court over our custody in Texas, I'm thankful the judge recognized my mom's legitimacy as our parent and gave her full custody. But it could have easily turned out differently simply because of the non-biological parent part, but at least her name was on our birth certificates and we had her last name from birth. Can't imagine it would have turned out the same otherwise despite the other person clearly being totally unfit to raise children.
The politicians acting like this isn't discrimination that acts against the interests of children are lying or ignorant of the downstream consequences.
So your argument is completely unqualified conjecture about what a judge might have done differently, given your presumed total lack of legal qualifications?
Having a non-biological parents recorded on a birth certificate is just about the farthest thing from a right. Quit the bullshit alarmism.
I guess Italy needs a reminder of what the rest of the world did to them the last time they chose Fascism.
Not like the rest of the world is that much better off
Your point?
Nothing says family first like legally busting up families.
Really unfortunate to see from Italy.
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?
Giorgia Meloni dico solo questo
Maybe as a benchmark. How is it handled with adoption? Is that also not registered?
Good for Italy, they are stepping on the right direction.
view more: next ›