Ontario Judge Rules 3 Parents on Birth Certificate

[sharkman]

In yet another morally bankrupt decision from yet another left wing judge, it was ruled that in registering a birth a lesbian couple can be accepted as 'co-mothers' of a baby. The judge accepted the notion that otherwise lesbians experience pain and hardship by feeling that there is something wrong or unnatural about their families. Riiiigghht.

It takes a male and a female to create a baby. Period. But facts like that can get in the way of how people may FEEL about it. So, I know, lets change the facts. Let's pretend that a baby can actually have 2 mothers. That way, they can FEEL included even though there's no possible way they can actually make a baby by themselves.

The more Canadian judges twist facts and truth, the more I wonder what goes on in their chambers.

[Warwick Green]

In yet another morally bankrupt decision from yet another left wing judge, it was ruled that in registering a birth a lesbian couple can be accepted as 'co-mothers' of a baby. The judge accepted the notion that otherwise lesbians experience pain and hardship by feeling that there is something wrong or unnatural about their families. Riiiigghht.

It takes a male and a female to create a baby. Period. But facts like that can get in the way of how people may FEEL about it. So, I know, lets change the facts. Let's pretend that a baby can actually have 2 mothers. That way, they can FEEL included even though there's no possible way they can actually make a baby by themselves.

The more Canadian judges twist facts and truth, the more I wonder what goes on in their chambers.

It mixes up natural parenting with the legal definition of marriage. If there can be three parents (as determined by the judiciary) why can't we have three married parents? We may have seen the first step to polygamy.

[Charles Anthony]

We may have seen the first step to polygamy.

-- or the irrelevance and subsequent abolition of state marriage.

[jdobbin]

If there can be three parents (as determined by the judiciary) why can't we have three married parents? We may have seen the first step to polygamy.

The court ruled this way because parents, step parents and legal guardians all have recognition now. The laws simply acknowledges a fact that already exists in families across Canada.

The law on polygamy still exists. I don't see that changing as a result of this.

[Warwick Green]

If there can be three parents (as determined by the judiciary) why can't we have three married parents? We may have seen the first step to polygamy.

The court ruled this way because parents, step parents and legal guardians all have recognition now. The laws simply acknowledges a fact that already exists in families across Canada.

The law on polygamy still exists. I don't see that changing as a result of this.

It was the judiciary that gave us SSM - that nobody but gays wanted. Who knows, we may see polygamy yet.

The RCMP don't want to charge the folks in Bountiful, BC with polygamy; they are worried it might be declared a constitutional right.

[jdobbin]

It was the judiciary that gave us SSM - that nobody but gays wanted. Who knows, we may see polygamy yet.

The RCMP don't want to charge the folks in Bountiful, BC with polygamy; they are worried it might be declared a constitutional right.

The judiciary didn't give Canada same sex marriage. It already existed. The law just recognized it and ruled the law that two equal people couldn't be married.

Do you have a citation for the RCMP believing that the courts would rule polygamy legal? I've never seen that.

[Riverwind]

In yet another morally bankrupt decision from yet another left wing judge, it was ruled that in registering a birth a lesbian couple can be accepted as 'co-mothers' of a baby.

I am sorry - what is immoral about give legal recognition to three people that at willing to accept the moral and financial responsibility of raising a child?

[Renegade]

It mixes up natural parenting with the legal definition of marriage.

I'm not sure it does. I didn't see that there was any requirement where any of the children's parents needed to be married.

The anti-gay crowd seems to be up in arms about this decison, possibly because it was initiated by a lesbian couple. But how about the following scenario:

Birth mother and birth father split. Birht father gets remarried to new wife. New wife wants to be also desginated the child's mother. Birth mother, Birth father, and New wife are all fine with it. Why shouldn't the court allow it? Would the anti-gay crowd still be POed?

[Renegade]

It was the judiciary that gave us SSM - that nobody but gays wanted. Who knows, we may see polygamy yet.

The RCMP don't want to charge the folks in Bountiful, BC with polygamy; they are worried it might be declared a constitutional right.

Why all the fuss about polygamy? Let 40 people be married to each other if they choose.

[jdobbin]

Why all the fuss about polygamy? Let 40 people be married to each other if they choose.

I think the debate is about the fact that most don't choose. The equality of joining together and separating is also ill defined. The law only recognizes the joining and separating of two people in marriage.

[Warwick Green]

It was the judiciary that gave us SSM - that nobody but gays wanted. Who knows, we may see polygamy yet.

The RCMP don't want to charge the folks in Bountiful, BC with polygamy; they are worried it might be declared a constitutional right.

The judiciary didn't give Canada same sex marriage. It already existed. The law just recognized it and ruled the law that two equal people couldn't be married.

Do you have a citation for the RCMP believing that the courts would rule polygamy legal? I've never seen that.

The courts interpreted the charter to read that SSM was a constitutional right. They could do the same with polygamy.

Fascinating case. In this one the sperm donor was recognized as the father with the lesbian wife wanting to be declared as the second mother. What if the lesbian couple did not want to give the sperm donor any recognition and he sued to be recognized as the third parent? I doubt the lesbian couple would be happy.

[Warwick Green]

Birth mother and birth father split. Birht father gets remarried to new wife. New wife wants to be also desginated the child's mother. Birth mother, Birth father, and New wife are all fine with it. Why shouldn't the court allow it? Would the anti-gay crowd still be POed?

I'm remarried. My second wife is the step-mother of the daughter from my first marriage.

[Renegade]

I think the debate is about the fact that most don't choose. The equality of joining together and separating is also ill defined.

Then the debate should focus should be on making sure there is freedom of choice. Even in two-party marriage there is the possibility of coercion, but that doesn't prevent the state from endorcing two-party marriage.

The law only recognizes the joining and separating of two people in marriage.

An unnecessarily restrictive condition. As with the previously restrictive condition of having one participant be male and the other female, this one too will eventually fall.

[Renegade]

I'm remarried. My second wife is the step-mother of the daughter from my first marriage.

So your daughter has no problem with two mothers?

[Drea]

I think it is ridiculous. The only people listed on the birthcertificate as parents should be the DNA donors. Period. This is a record of birth and has nothing to do with anything except the biological parents of the child.

If a person adopts a child do we change the child's birth certificate? Of course not -- the DNA donors never change.

[Renegade]

I think it is ridiculous. The only people listed on the birthcertificate as parents should be the DNA donors. Period. This is a record of birth and has nothing to do with anything except the biological parents of the child.

If a person adopts a child do we change the child's birth certificate? Of course not -- the DNA donors never change.

The issue is bigger than who's name get's put on the certificate. If the birth-mother dies, what standing does the other "mother" have in making decisions for the child. Unless she was recognized as a mother, the birth-father, who maybe nothing more than a DNA donor would have greater standing.

I believe even if the second mother adopted the child, it wouldn't resolve the issue, because the law would previously recognize only one mother, so in adopting, the second mother would replace the birth-mother as the child's only mother.

[Drea]

Then there should be an adoption certificate.

The birth certificate is a "certification of birth" with only DNA donors named.

[Warwick Green]

I'm remarried. My second wife is the step-mother of the daughter from my first marriage.

So your daughter has no problem with two mothers?

That's the normal arrangement. It's not two mothers in the sense that a judge has decided that the partner of a lesbian is also the mother of the other woman's daughter.

Monty Python could have done a great skit on this - "The Ministry of Silly Family Arrangements"

[Warwick Green]

The birth certificate is a "certification of birth" with only DNA donors named.

Not really. If a married woman gets pregnant her husband is considered to be the father even if he is not and his name will be on the birth certificate.

[Renegade]

It's not two mothers in the sense that a judge has decided that the partner of a lesbian is also the mother of the other woman's daughter.

From the child's perspective, how is it any different?

[Drea]

The birth certificate is a "certification of birth" with only DNA donors named.

Not really. If a married woman gets pregnant her husband is considered to be the father even if he is not and his name will be on the birth certificate.

Then it's a lie.

[Warwick Green]

It's not two mothers in the sense that a judge has decided that the partner of a lesbian is also the mother of the other woman's daughter.

From the child's perspective, how is it any different?

In the court ruling the child has two legal mothers; a step-mother however is not a mother.

In reality what the ruling means is that if the birth mother dies, the woman's partner will become the child's mother.

[Warwick Green]

The birth certificate is a "certification of birth" with only DNA donors named.

Not really. If a married woman gets pregnant her husband is considered to be the father even if he is not and his name will be on the birth certificate.

Then it's a lie.

Who's to know? If wifey has been stepping out and gets knocked up she is hardly likely to tell hubby the kid isn't his.

[jdobbin]

Then the debate should focus should be on making sure there is freedom of choice. Even in two-party marriage there is the possibility of coercion, but that doesn't prevent the state from endorcing two-party marriage.

An unnecessarily restrictive condition. As with the previously restrictive condition of having one participant be male and the other female, this one too will eventually fall.

Perhaps if Bountiful, B.C. continues to exist for many years and demonstrates how polygamy isn't limiting choice or fairness under the law, they might be able to challenge in court.

However, even if they do challenge in court, they would have to overcome government opposition. And that opposition is strongly influenced by the electorate.

[Renegade]

However, even if they do challenge in court, they would have to overcome government opposition. And that opposition is strongly influenced by the electorate.

You mean the same government and electorate who opposed SSM and in 1999 passed an motion affirming that marriage was only between man and woman. That same government, a couple of years later came around to the conclusion that yes indeed that SSM should be permitted.

Sometimes it take the courts to do what the government doesn't have the stomach for. The government and electorate will come around.