Florida has had same sex marriage since January 2015 and same sex adoption legalization since 2010. For a southern state, Florida is probably one of the most progressive southern states, but legislators are having issues in Tallahassee and opposition to adding a same sex couple to a birth certificate seems to have a lot of confusion with it. http://www.news4jax.com/news/politi...ame-sex-marriage-impact-on-birth-certificates JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Florida is one of four states with birth certificates that don’t reflect changes in modern parenting, but legislation that tries to modernize the wording is running into opposition. In Florida, by law, parents are still listed as father and mother on birth certificates. Lesbian couples who give birth must petition a judge if they want to be listed as the mother, the spouse or the parent. Equality Florida says the legalization of same-sex marriages means Florida birth certificates should reflect modern realities. "Parental presumption is one of the many rights which is afforded to marriage, and so if a same sex couple is married, one of the rights that they have is the right to an accurate birth certificate so they can be treated in the exact same way as opposite sex couples," said Carlos Smith, of Equality Florida. But the Department of Health doesn’t have the authority to list same sex couples as parents in Florida. "We have always assumed we know who the mother is, because the mother is the one bearing the child," said Rep. David Richardson. "But even that has changed, given the advances in reproductive technologies." The legislation was unanimously approved by a House Committee. Three members did not vote.
Editing cells in a sheet is pretty tough down in those parts. Maybe that there magic wizard box does not have the find and replace feature.
On the upside, it looks like the committee unanimously approved the legislation to update the birth certificates. I know Governor Scott, a republican, has been moderate on these issues, in the last few years. So, I tend to think if this hits his desk, he will sign off on it. I know that when they were trying to send anti-gay bills to his desk in 2013, 2014, and 2015, he vetoed all of it because he stated it does not promote business in Florida.
Rick Scott has also made strides in Florida too..... He has made some wrongs, right in the state, even though it was done rather quietly and under the radar. This sort of issue with birth certificates will hit under the radar and chances are, I tend to think the governor will approve it based on this last decision he made less than a year ago and on the heels of same sex marriage legalization in Florida. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/gay-adoption-ban-stricken-from-florida-laws-after-four-decades/ Gay adoption ban stricken from Florida laws after four decades TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A nearly four-decade-old law banning gays from adopting children, which hasn’t been enforced in five years, will come off Florida’s books July 1, but Gov. Rick Scott still wants private, religious-based adoption agencies to be able to turn gay couples away. Scott signed a bill Thursday that removes the adoption ban enacted in the days when entertainer Anita Bryant crusaded against gays. It is part of a larger bill that promotes adoption, and striking the language simply reflects reality after a judge found the ban unconstitutional five years ago.
Florida has to come up to the times and acknowledge that Same-Sex parents are worthy of being acknowledged on birth certificates.
This is a subject where i think we should leave it alone. A partner can adopt a child of their partner, but the child has a biological father and mother. This really has nothing to do with rights.
I agree, biological birth parents should be listed; followed by a transferral of perental rights and responsibilities to the adopting party.
They don't, I was talking about the issue of surrogacy and the partner (non-bilogical) adopting the child. Things get interesting when both partners have donated cells to a surrogate.
birth certificates shoudl ONLY have the real biological parents, never step parents or adoptive parents
Some birth certificates here don't even show who the parents are. Maybe the better argument is to state that parents are listed on the birth certificates and go from there.
The purpose of a birth certificate is the legal certification of a person's birth. It does NOT certify who the biological parents are. It DOES indicate who the legally responsible parents are. There is no shortage of birth certificates where the father is not named, even when known. I can cite you real world, anecdotal examples, if you like. And any family historian/genealogical researcher whose skills are worthy of the title likely has experience with and understands the above.
I agree they do not, but they should of been that way.... as they are called the "birth" certificate, people have a right to know who their biological birth parents (if known) are imo .
It's called a birth certificate, not a 'biological parentage certificate'. "Should have been" has nothing to do with what actually is. Since a birth certificate is also utilized to show who has legal parental rights in some cases, I have to take issue with the idea that it should be solely about registering the biological parents of a child. Restricting it this way creates more harm overall than good, in my view. I'm just not sure how you get to a point where knowing the identity of one's biological parents rises to the level of being a legally protected right. It seems like more of a romantic notion, than a practical one. That said, I have a friend who is adopted, who would certainly benefit from knowing more about her birth parents from a health standpoint. My brother-in-law's father was adopted; he is interested in discovering more about his paternal heritage. So I get what some of the arguments are in favor of it. On the other hand: My nephew and his wife have six adopted children. I know that in at least one case, they arrange 'sibling visits', so that an adopted daughter can maintain contact with her biological siblings that they did not adopt - it's a case where it is deemed safe for them to do so, because those children were placed with other adoptive families. However, maintaining contact with biological family members isn't a good idea in all cases. What is best for the child's welfare has to come before maintaining ties with biological family members who pose a risk.
parental rights should not be shown on the birth certificate, we should have that stored in another system
But we don't, and so far I haven't heard a persuasive argument for why we should. I'm not sure how you would even go about requiring a birth certificate to name the biological parents. If the mother refuses to name the father, what are you going to do about it? Fines? Jail time? Force a DNA test to determine the likely father? Are you going to then put in place law to force the bio dad to be financially responsible on the basis of such a DNA test? It opens a can of worms. I haven't even heard an argument yet as to what problems it purports to solve. I provided my own potential examples. You gave us nothing, though. I know of a case where a young, unmarried woman refused to put the biological father's name on the birth certificate of their child. He tried to sue for custody of the child. But when it came to paying the cost to prove his paternity and to change the birth certificate, he refused, because it would be 'too expensive'. He wanted the child's mother to pay those costs instead. The judge wasn't having it - and refused to recognize him as the child's legal father or to grant him custody. The bio dad wasn't willing to do what was necessary to protect his alleged parental rights, so he has none. He basically screwed himself. Another situation exists as well. There are men, who even though they know they aren't the biological father, consent to be named as the legal father on the child's birth certificate - to raise the child with its mother as if it were their own. So if you want a different system to assure legal parental rights, you're going to have to take all of these things and more into account. Meanwhile we already have a system that works - the use of the birth certificate to both certify a child's birth and to show who the people are that take legal responsibility as its parents.
