Your daily homophobia

[meegbear]

Gay marriage is having a pretty damn good week. On Wednesday, DC voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Maine's governor followed up by signing gay marriage into law. And then! New Hampshire lawmakers passed a gay marriage bill which now goes to the governor, leaving us all staring, longingly, at little old Rhode Island.

But as the big gay storm sweeps across New England, conservatives in other states are scrambling to bar the doors against gay rights. For instance: "The Louisiana legislature is moving forward with legislation that would bar the state from issuing birth certificates showing two people of the same sex as parents."

The move stems from a federal lawsuit in which a gay couple, who adopted a child in a New York court, tried to add their names to their child's birth certificate for health insurance purposes. When Louisiana refused to do so, saying they didn't recognize gay adoptions, the couple filed suit and won. (The state is appealing.)

The unfolding gay rights showdown is one of the most fascinating stories going on right now, so it will be interesting what happens when the bill goes up for a vote in the Louisiana House. Governor Bobby Jindal supports the bill. (Of course he does.) Because nothing says family values like denying kids health insurance and -- what's that other thing? -- their parents.

Meanwhile, as Obama stays eerily silent on the gay marriage debate, opponents like the ever-understated Marion Barry are kicking up dustclouds of outrage, warning of a "civil war." Rhode Island, your move.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/05/07/gay_rights/index.html

[Deja Q]

1. The more we encourage partnerships, the more likely it will be an accepted norm.

It would be Bobby Jingo too... His lot (republicans) are so full of their cant they can't be bothered to think, I'm sorry.

I am family values. I'm also a complex person, but that's beside the point. Two of the same gender in a civil partnership should certainly be encouraged! (Things were different in my 20s..., and times change. And I'll support good change. And fight stereotypes. Maybe more will.)

[Skinner]

2. Marion Barry is pathetic.

This week, on our local NPR affiliate, one of the reporters interviewed Barry at an anti-gay-marriage rally, and showed him a copy of the pro-gay-marriage bill from the DC city council -- which was co-sponsored and signed by Marion Barry. His responded by claiming it wasn't his signature. :eyes:

[meegbear]

3. Yep - fading into irrelevancy ...

good riddance!

[Terran]

7. good lord!

He IS still on crack, ferchrissakes!

[Democrats_win]

4. Republicans want to micromanage our lives. Gay or straight.

They've had so much success with the economy, why not try messing around with our personal lives too. Obviously gay marriage is such a big "problem now that we've given the banksters 12 trillion dollars.

Meanwhile the biggest hypocrite in America, Sarah Palin's daughter, tells teens to abstain from sex. This "advice" comes a couple of months after she gave birth as an unwed mother who obviously didn't follow her own advice and also didn't use protection. Yet the GOP has the nerve to go after gay people.

GOP: they put the "oh" in joke.

[Johonny]

5. I guess the law makes sense

I mean shouldn't the birth certificates show the actual biological parents. Isn't that the whole point of that record. They should probably change the laws regarding insurance that force them to have to try to change this record in the first place.

[Lex]

6. Adoptive parents names are added to the birth certificate

when children are adopted. That is standard operating procedure after an adoption.

Doesn't make sense to me that they would try to block that just because it is a same sex parent who has adopted.

[Rhythm]

8. But what if the parents went the anonymous sperm-bank route? Or through surrogacy?

Besides, when it comes to this particular issue, the rights should rest with the couple who are parenting the child. Having both names on the birth certificate guarantees a wide array of rights to the non-biological parent that might otherwise not be recognized, such as automatic custody in the event of the death of the biological parent, or automatic medical decision-making powers for the minor child in the event of an emergency (because medical powers of attorney are not always honored without a fight). Or even establishing survivorship for the minor child if the non-biological parent passes away.

Changing 'insurance rules' won't change these bigger picture issues.

[bluedawg12]

9. Nope, it doesn't make sense and not true 10% to 20% of the time on birth certificates..

>> A birth certificate carries the name or names of the people who freely admit to being the parent. There is no ‘test’ required - biological or otherwise.

It is estimated that between 10 and 20% of ALL children are not the biological offspring of those who claim to be their parents.<<
- http://www.365gay.com/news/la-moves-to-bar-same-sex-couples-from-having-names-on-birth-certificates/

.........

There are states that allow both parents of the same sex to be listed. New York allowed the same sex

parents to be listed and it is Louisiana who now wants to play games with gay families and their kids.

Jindal is desperate for some name recognition on the far right.


The Oklahoma State Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional in it's refusal to accept final adoption orders of other States that permit adoption by same sex couples.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6213.pdf
Page 36