Nova Scotia now allowing Mom and Mom on child's birth certificate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stampyhead, Sep 22, 2007.

  1. Stampyhead macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #1
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/09/20/birth-ns.html
    I'm not opposed to same-sex couples raising a child together, but this doesn't really make sense to me. No matter how much she wants to be, the mother's partner is not the father of the child. Isn't this place on the birth certificate supposed to be for the person whose sperm fertilized the egg that made the child? I could be wrong about this, but even so this still could engender logistical problems. If same-sex couples can list whomever they want as the child's father, then hetersexual couples should be able to do the same. So basically they can put whomever they like as the father of the child, rendering this part of the birth certificate completely useless. Am I wrong about this? Am I misunderstanding what they're doing? Or did the Nova Scotia govt. just not think this one through?
     
  2. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #2
    You're not wrong...except for the fact that heterosexuals couples often do (when a wife hides her infidelity, for example). Until they start DNA testing of child and the parents at the time of birth, you're right...this part of the birth certificate doesn't really have much use.
     
  3. Stampyhead thread starter macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #3
    Ah, I guess you're right. Now that I think about it, how would anyone know for sure without some sort of test? Silly me for thinking people were honest about that sort of thing...
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    How does this render the birth certificate useless? It serves the function that it always has: establishing who are the child's legal parents.
     
  5. Stampyhead thread starter macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    I always understood the birth certificate to establish who were the child's biological parents.
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    Nope. It's all about legalities. When my brother in law adopted my sister's son, a new birth certificate was issued and he is listed as the father even though he's not the biological father.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Remember the Anna Nicole brouhaha? That court fight was all about who was on the birth certificate versus who the sperm donor was.
     
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    No, that's what Maury Povich is for
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    I've had friends whose birth certificates were rejected at the border at some point or during a visa request told they need to get new birth certificates issued because some aspect of them didn't comply with current regulations (i.e. not because they were damaged/unreadable)... which goes along with what you're saying. It seems absurd to me that you would ever need a new birth certificate in a situation other than having lost or damaged your original. But it is a strange world.

    I don't have anything to add to the main point of this thread... bravo. Seems eminently reasonable. Hopefully this brings additional rights to male same-sex couple as well.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    I take it she's the US equivalent of our own Trisha Goddard, hosting televised DNA tests on a daytime show :D
     
  11. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #11
    Spot on...except she's a man.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    Oops. I suppose thinking some American lass named Mary had actually added a U was a bit too much to hope for :D
     
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    I'm under the impression Maurice is originally a European name... :p
     
  14. Stampyhead thread starter macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    Ha ha, awesome.
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    Maurice yes, but Maury?!? That's just some big-time colonial weirdness :D
     

Share This Page