Discussion for article #239406
Utah, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida. OhMyGodOhMyGodOhMyGodOhMyGodOhMyGod there are two woman almost kissing in the photo! Think of the Children! (Of course we don’t think about them any other time.) Why am I not surprised?
1 Like
GOP: Homophobic AND sore losers!
Florida is now asking the judge in that case whether the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges compels the agency to change its rules regarding birth certificates, claiming that there is a conflict between the Supreme Court ruling and the Florida law requiring husbands of mothers to be named on birth certificates.
Do you seriously not know what takes precedence between the Supreme Court vs. Florida law? Here’s a hint for you. The word Supreme. It really does mean something.
The word Supreme. It really does mean something.
http://www.grubgrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/burrito-supreme-taco-bell.jpg
so how does it work then? you HAVE to list a husband unless its two men? then its OK? or is that just misogynistic bullshit… that the woman has to provide a male spouse but two males not so much…
or a woman was raped or the baby was conceived out of wedlock and won’t name a man?
please clarify…
well, generally a birth certificate is issued for a birth, so a man giving birth would probably be such a world-wide wow(!) that the child’s identity would be known without needing a piece of paper. but what do i know?
but i assume that a woman giving birth now has a choice (according to the article):
- list the husband
- list the unmarried father
- choose not to list the father (mother as “unmarried”)
but a woman in a same-sex marriage (dammit, that’s a marriage, not a partnership) has no option to list her spouse. that’s is just plain crazy.
(this in reply to JCBlues above)