Last year Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox issued a ruling that forced the State of Arkansas to put the names of three married, same-sex couples on children’s birth certificates. Yesterday the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned Judge Fox’s ruling.
Each same-sex couple has been legally married since the U.S. Supreme Court redefined marriage in 2015, and each has a child conceived via an anonymous sperm donor.
In each of these three cases, only one spouse—the woman who actually gave birth to the child—is a biological parent of the child. According to the Department of Health, only the biological mother of the child may be listed on the child’s birth certificate; you cannot list the name of a second, unrelated “mother” on the certificate.
The three couples sued the state, and Judge Fox ruled in their favor last year, saying the the birth certificates can be amended to list a second “mother.”
Yesterday the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned Judge Fox’s ruling, saying it is entirely appropriate for a child’s birth certificate to list his or her biological parents. In particular, the court noted,
“In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has. It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”
We are glad the Arkansas Supreme Court chose to uphold state law on this issue. As we have said before, birth certificates exist to record that a child was born and who the child’s parents are—not who happens to be married to one of the child’s biological parents. Birth certificates are not simply pieces of paper. They are vital records that need to be accurate and deserve respect. We should be careful not to let them become mere political ploys.
Photo Credit: By Brian Turner (Flickr: My Trusty Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
The company initially indicated it would not include content of this nature in its magazines in order to let parents discuss homosexuality with their children on their own terms, but reversed course after taking flak from homosexual activists.
You can’t make this stuff up. What’s next? Are people going to insist “Waldo” start wearing a red-and-white striped dress to be more gender-inclusive?
This simply further proves what we have said for years: Homosexual activists want to use children as pawns in their campaign to gain full acceptance of their lifestyles.
Photo Credit: Highlights for Children by Fuzzy Gerdes.
A new report analyzing a vast body of studies and research casts doubt on the prevailing notion sexual orientation and gender identity are biologically determined.
After analyzing decades of scientific data, researchers concluded,
“Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding. The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation. . . . .
“In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.”
Writing at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, John Stonestreet notes,
Their report also tackles the transgender question, comparing actual research to the lofty claims of activists. Once again, there’s a yawning chasm. Only a tiny minority of children who experience gender dysphoria continue to identify as transgender when they’re adults.
McHugh and Mayer [the researchers] insist that subjecting children to hormone therapy or to so-called “sex reassignment” surgery is an act of sheer ideology, not medicine or compassion.
And, they add, adults who undergo sex-change operations (which the Obama Administration is pressuring health insurers to cover) are still—get this—19 times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population.
You may recall in 2012 the former president of the American Psychological Association stated sexual orientation could change, and in 2014 the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital explained in the Wall Street Journal why the hospital stopped doing sex-reassignment surgeries.
Homosexual and transgender activists often liken sexual orientation and gender identity to race, claiming they are biologically determined and unchangeable. The science behind that claim, however, seems to be far from settled.
You can listen to John Stonestreet’s full commentary on the issue below.