‘Basic Biological Truths’: Arkansas Supreme Court Overturns Ruling Allowing Lesbians to Be Listed on Birth Certificates

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Supreme Court of Arkansas has overturned a lower court ruling that allowed lesbian partners to be recognized on birth certificates even though they are not the biological parent, stating that it is not unconstitutional to “acknowledge basic biological truths.”

“What is before this court is a narrow issue of whether the birth-certificate statutes as written deny the appellees due process,” Justice Josephine Linker Hart wrote on behalf of the majority. “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.”

As previously reported, six lesbians had filed suit last year against the Arkansas Health Department’s Vital Statistics Bureau after it declined to recognize both women as the parents on the birth certificates, which they sought to do in order to obtain insurance coverage for the children.

The bureau stated that the women needed to obtain a court order in the matter.

In their lawsuit, the women alleged that the refusal violated the U.S. Constitution because they could not both be listed just like heterosexual parents. But the state argued that the requirement to obtain a court order is the same for heterosexual couples who have children out of wedlock and marry after the birth.

Last November, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox sided with the lesbian women, stating that the birth certificates should be amended to include both of their names.

He drew a distinction between the various plaintiffs, however, as some had “married” before the birth and some after. Fox said that the latter scenario was not as clear in his mind in siding with the women, but decided to likewise allow their names to be listed.

  • Connect with Christian News

But on Thursday, the state Supreme Court overturned Fox’s ruling, stating that there is an “important governmental objective” in requesting that biological parents be listed on the birth certificate, such as having genetic information available for medical purposes.

“The purpose of the statutes is to truthfully record the nexus of the biological mother and the biological father to the child,” it outlined. “On the record presented, we cannot say that naming the nonbiological spouse on the birth certificate of the child is an interest of the person so fundamental that the State must accord the interest its respect under either statute.”

“[T]he challenged classification serves an important governmental objective—tracing public-health trends and providing critical assistance to an individual’s identification of personal health issues and genetic conditions—and that the means employed—requiring the mother and father on the birth certificate to be biologically related
to the child—are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,” the court declared.

Cheryl Maples, the attorney for the women, decried the ruling, stating, “There’s no requirement that DNA be given or that there be a biological relationship to a child to get on a birth certificate for a father, for the non-birth parent. All you have to do is legitimize the child, and you’re entitled, if you’re heterosexual. This is wrong.”

But Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office said that they are satisfied with the outcome.

“If any changes are appropriate, it is the job of legislators to do so, not the circuit court,” spokesman Judd Deere told reporters.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Nidalap

    What’s this?!?
    Actual common sense?
    It’s so rare to see it now.
    It must be listed as a superpower.

    • Oboehner

      I guess a strap-on doesn’t qualify as fatherhood.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        Why does your mind go instantly to the gutter? Not everything is about sex.

        • Oboehner

          Right, sex had nothing to do with the baby, the stork brought it – scientific fact.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The issue is parenting. Not what those parents do in the bedroom.

        • Amos Moses

          but BIRTH IS ……………….

          • johndoe

            Adoptive patents have their names on birth certificates…they didnt give birth to that child

          • Jason Todd

            But we are talking about biological parents, not adoptive. Drop the red herring.

          • johndoe

            It doesnt matter. I have an adoptive parent on my birth certificate. Why would it matter if two same sex parents are listed? Either one of two males donated sperm to a surrogate or one of two females underwent IVF. Why does it matter if they’re both listed?

          • Jason Todd

            It does matter as the story and the ruling has nothing to do with adoption.

          • johndoe

            The ruling will be challenged shoetly and most probably overturned.

          • Jason Todd

            Maybe.

  • Mark0H

    No such thing as “two moms” or “two dads.” We need to push truth, not lies.

    • johndoe

      Sure there is…just your opinion

      • Amos Moses

        always funny how the person who says “just your opinion” is only expressing “just their opinion” and somehow that settles anything ………. NOPE …. just a sidestep of the reality presented to them and they cannot deal with it ………….

        • johndoe

          Its a fact of life that there are many gays who are parenting children.

          • Amos Moses

            and it is perversion…

          • johndoe

            Only in your feeble mind

          • Amos Moses

            yeah …. sure ……. ad hominem always wins ……. NOT …….. cant counter so call names and then run away ……..

          • johndoe

            I did counter your nonsense. You belie e what you will . I happen to know that gays have kids and do just as well at raising them as anyone else. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association both support the family structure consisting of same sex parents as equal and valid.

          • Amos Moses

            no you did not …….. you called a name and made a personal attack …..

          • johndoe

            Poor amos

          • Amos Moses

            still not an answer ………. poor debate technique but the best you can do when .. “Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored ………..

          • johndoe

            You’re not making sense. Same sex couples can do just as well at parenting as an opposite sex couple or a single parent. Too funny. It’s just nonsense to think that a same sex coue cannot parent. Nonsensical

          • Jason Todd

            Mark Regnerus.

          • johndoe

            Disavowed by his own professional society for his poor research . Hes a laughing stock in his profession

          • Jason Todd

            Never disproven by anyone. The disavowals were political moves and nothing more.

          • johndoe

            If you knew anything about his paper, you would know that his conclusions came from a sampling of two actual families with same sex parents. Read it and educate yourself. Funny how people on this forum are so desperate to deny gays the same rights as we have for the slightest of infractions. Politics had zero to do with his research. The standards of doi g good quality research had everything to do with it.

          • Trauma Specialist

            john doe is clearly aligned with sodomy and abominations. He does not want to see or hear or learn or know the truth, the way, the life. He wants to argue. Let him go. He is an antagonist getting ego satisfaction. He is as bias as his references in the politically correct age of this early 21st century.

          • johndoe

            Just aligned with equal rights

          • johndoe

            The Story In the summer of 2012, a well-respected university and sociology journal together handed the religious right a weapon in the marriage wars, dressed up as academic discourse. On June 10, 2012, Social Science Research’s website went live with “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” written by University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus, and “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological associations’ brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” written by Loren D. Marks, an associate professor in the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. The intention of Marks’ research review was to slam the American Psychological Association’s position that same-sex parenting is not harmful to children and to take down 30 years of scientific research showing that having gay or lesbian parents does not predispose children for negative sociological outcomes. Marks blasted most of the 59 studies cited by the APA for involving small, convenience sampling (where subjects are selected by the researcher because they are close at hand or otherwise easy to access), – among other criticisms. The problem with these studies, Marks argued, was that most of them were not large, random, or population-based. The intention of Regnerus’ study – which was funded to the tune of nearly $800,000 by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation – was to present the large, random, population-based study that Marks lamented was missing from the academic literature on same-sex parenting. And to the delight of the religious right community, Regnerus claimed his study found negative outcomes for the children who said one of their parents engaged in a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during their childhoods. Regnerus’ study was billed as a study of family structures, and it did compare the outcomes of children from some family structures, such as those involving intact biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, and single parents. But the group that was the focus of the study – same-sex families – was not characterized by family structure, but by relationship behavior. Thus, children raised by two always-married biological parents were then compared to children raised in a family where a parent had a same-sex relationship, regardless of the family structure. Using an outside research group, Regnerus screened more than 15,000 randomly sampled Americans. Of those, he surveyed about 3,000 young adults between the ages 18 and 39, asking how they fared among a series of social, emotional, behavioral, and economic outcomes, such as marital status, employment status, income level, criminal history, sexual orientation, suicidal tendencies, experience with sexual abuse, experience with drug and alcohol abuse, and overall happiness. Only the respondents who said their biological parents did not remain married throughout their childhoods were asked if their mothers or fathers had ever had a same-sex romantic relationship. If the respondent claimed his or her mother had a same-sex relationship, that mother was termed a “lesbian mother”; if the respondent said his or her father had a same-sex relationship, that father was termed a “gay father.” In the end, Regnerus came up with 163 “lesbian mothers” and 73 “gay fathers.” However, he found only two cases in which the mom and her partner were together for 18 years. He only found six cases wherein the mom and her partner were together for 10 or more years, 18 cases where the mom and mom and her partner were together for five years. In the majority of the entire sample of “lesbian mothers,” respondents reported living with their mother and their mother’s partner for less than a year or never living with the mother’s partner. Within the “gay fathers” sample, respondents rarely reported living with their father for very long and never living with their father and father’s parent for more than three years. What bound these supposed products of same-sex families was instability, because regardless of how long they lived with their supposed gay parents, Regnerus threw them all in the same bucket with the common variable of having had a parent who had a same-sex relationship. He compared this bucket to another bucket of kids who grew up with the same mother and father for at least 18 years. That the latter group turned out to have fared better is not surprising considering they enjoyed a life of stability in comparison to the former. Moreover, all of the young adults in the sample were born between 1971 and 1994, during a time when anti-LGBT animus was the societal norm. Not only was gay marriage illegal in every state, but gay sex was illegal in many states. Many of the “same-sex families” in Regnerus’ study likely resulted from dissolved unions formed by gay and lesbians trying to lead heterosexual lives. The New Family Structures Study fell under intense scrutiny because of these methodical flaws and because it was financed by two conservative groups with ties to the major anti-marriage-equality movement. (Though Regnerus assured his readers and the press that the study’s funders had no hands in designing or producing the study, it would later be learned this was not the full truth.) But more disturbing than the study’s misleading results is how the study has been grossly mischaracterized to push an anti-LGBT-rights agenda throughout the world. In same-sex marriage debates around state legislatures and in U.S. courts, lawmakers and social conservative groups have repeatedly misrepresented this study as research on same-sex couple parents compared to two biological parents The way Regnerus laid out his findings were indeed misleading. Though he was careful to note in his original paper that he studied children whose parents had a same-sex romantic relationship, rather than same-sex couple parents, at several points in the paper Regnerus referenced this group as “the children of same-sex parents,” which to the casual reader indicates two gay dads or two lesbian mothers. Furthermore, at the end of his paper, Regnerus concluded that it his study “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults – on multiple counts and across a variety of domains – when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.” Regnerus has declined to the call out anti-gay-marriage advocates for misinterpreting his research, with the exception of how his study has been used in Russia – where lawmakers have cited it to prohibit gay couples from adopting Russian orphans and to seize children from the gay parents. And though Regnerus has maintained that his study was driven by data rather than ideology, he has since gone on to testify against same-sex marriage – using his study’s findings – in legislative hearings and in amicus briefs submitted in the federal same-sex marriage cases decided this summer. Regnerus’ own professional body, the American Sociological Study, has denounced his study for its flaws and its misuse in former and ongoing same-sex-marriage cases.
            THE WITHERSPOON’S PLAN

            In 2010, conception for what would eventually be called the “New Family Structures Study,” was under way. At the time, University of Virginia associate sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox, who had been a fellow with the Princeton, N.J.-based Witherspoon Institute since 2004, was the director of the Witherspoon’s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy, where the study was conceptualized. The Witherspoon’s tax-exempt form for 2010 noted that one of the biggest accomplishments of this program for that year was “the initiation of the New Family Structure Study.” Wilcox recruited several scholars to work on the project, including University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus, who was eventually chosen to be the study’s principal investigator, though he had no research background in LGBT family issues. Wilcox later worked on as a paid consultant on the study – and evidence indicates he likely peer-reviewed the resulting paper in Social Science Research. Thus, Regnerus’ and Witherspoon’s repeated assertions that the study’s funders were not directly involved in the design and implementation of the New Family Structures Study are patently false. We know now that the study’s funders financed this project with a specific goal in mind: to produce evidence that could be used to argue against same-sex marriage, particularly with the anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually hear cases involving same-sex marriage. Records that were later obtained through public records requests through the University of Texas show that soon after Regnerus joined the New Family Structures Study team, Witherspoon President Luis E. Tellez told Regnerus that he wanted the study to be done rather quickly so that the results could be published before the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on same-sex marriage. “Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible but experience suggests we ought not to get hung up with deadlines, do what is right and best, move on it, don’t dilly dolly, etc.,” Tellez wrote in a Sept. 22, 2010, email. “It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court but that is secondary to the need to do this and do it well. I would like you to take ownership and think of how would you want it done, rather than someone like me dictating parameters but of course, here to help.” In a fundraising letter dated April 5, 2011, to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which ended up granting $90,000 to the New Family Structures Study, Tellez noted the urgency of getting the study published. “It is essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society,” Tellez wrote. “That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well.” Tellez’s wish was granted. Regnerus’ paper was published in a well-respected sociology journal in June 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up two legal cases involving same-sex-marriage only in December 2012. Starting the day after Regnerus’ study was published on through when the court heard oral arguments in March 2013, conservative groups pushed out amicus briefs citing Regnerus’ study in arguments to ban same-sex marriage and to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act – which at the time denied federal marriage benefits to legally married gay and lesbian couples. In the end, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the DOMA that barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage and dismissed an appeal over California’s same-sex marriage ban (effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state). And the high court did not consider citations of the New Family Structures Study in its written argument, though Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia briefly alluded to “considerable disagreement among … sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not” during oral arguments in the California case. And yet, the damage caused by Regnerus’ flawed, misleading study carries on. To read more about the negative impacts Regnerus’ study has had on the LGBT community worldwide, click here. The road to Mark Regnerus’ paper began years earlier, when religious right intellectuals began plotting how to use academic research to make a legal case against same- sex marriage. Academic research was needed because it was becoming increasingly difficult to make non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage that an average judge would buy. It was a series of meetings among social-conservative scholars that led to the publication of an influential short book titled, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, published in 2008 by the Witherspoon Institute and signed by and many of the leaders of the movement to fight same-sex marriage in America, including Robert P. George, who co-founded the Witherspoon Institute and National Organization for Marriage, and Jennifer Roback Morse, who founded NOM’s Ruth Institute. On the issue of same-sex marriage, the Ten Principles predicted that future academic research would show that “children reared by same-sex parents will experience greater difficulties with their identity, sexuality, attachments to kin, and marital prospects as adults, among other things.” But at the time there was no legitimate scientific research proving this point. The Witherspoon Institute attempted to prove this hypothesis in the study it financed a few years later, and though Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study did not really study children raised by intact same-sex couple parents, Witherspoon and its allies have promoted the study as if that were the case. Before Regnerus study was published, it was the Ten Principles that was frequently cited in court cases and legislative hearings to oppose same-sex marriage. But the claims against same-sex marriage in this old Witherspoon book were not based on scientific fact; whereas, Regnerus’ paper is billed as legitimate scientific research and is thus a more powerful tool.
            COMPROMISED PEER REVIEW

            Questions remain as to how and why such a flawed study was published in a respected sociology journal at breakneck pace, but we do have some answers. Regnerus submitted his study for review in February 2012. He told the Social Science Research Editor James D. Wright he was looking for a speedy review in order to beat a report from the funders detailing the study’s results. At Wright’s request, Regnerus submitted a list of potential reviewers, which is commonplace at many sociology journals. Wright, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida, then went to scholars and asked for a two- to three-week turnaround, which is largely unheard of in the world of scholarly peer review; because scholars are often university professors or have busy schedules, they are given several months to review the paper. Wright secured the reviews that came in quickly and the paper was accepted for publication within six weeks, published just a few months later. The other articles published in that same issue of Social Science Research were submitted, on average, at least a year before. But it turns out that two out of the three peer reviewers who green-lighted the paper for publication were connected to the study. Internal emails and documents obtained through public records requests show that even before Regnerus completed the research, the Witherspoon Institute was angling to make the research public. Regnerus therefore sought to protect himself and “limit criticism (at least a little bit)” by having the study peer-reviewed and published first. Just after Regnerus submitted his paper for review, he reached out to Pennsylvania State University sociology professor Paul Amato and informed him he put his name on a list of reviewer candidates. Regnerus encouraged Amato to accept, offering a few words of flattery. “I’d hope that if you’re asked to review it you would consider doing so,” Regnerus emailed. “I think you’re one of the fairest, level-headed scholars out there in this domain.” Financial records show the University of Texas paid Amato about $3,000 for early consulting work. Amato has said publicly that he divulged to Wright his association with Regnerus and his work on the study but told Wright it would not prevent him from judging the study fairly. He has since criticized the misuse of the study’s results to oppose LGBT rights. Amato was not the only peer reviewer with a potential conflict to review and approve Regnerus’ paper. Southern Illinois University sociology department chair Darren Sherkat, who sits on the journal’s editorial advisory board and led an internal audit into the peer review of Regnerus’ paper, filed a public-records request with the University of Texas in order to figure out which paid consultants had also been reviewers. A request of his request revealed invoices for consultant fees for two paid consultants: Amato and University of Virginia sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox, who played myriad roles on the project and whose undisclosed ties with the Witherspoon Foundation contradicted assurances from Regnerus and Witherspoon that the study’s funders were not involved in design or implementation of the research. This summer Wright told Inside Higher Ed that he asked Wilcox to review the paper and, despite his stated involvement as a paid consultant, he was “asked to proceed.” Records also show that Wilcox, who also sits on Social Science Research’s editorial advisory board, had the idea to pitch Regnerus’ paper to Wright because he was a friend of the late Steven Nock, a sociologist out of the University of Virginia, who testified against legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada in 2001. In his written testimony, Nock criticized the standing, mostly favorable, research on same-sex marriage. He described it as fatally flawed because most of the studies used small, convenience sampling, rather than a large national random sample study measuring the outcomes of the children of gay couple parents – which is what the New Family Structures Study had claimed to be.

          • Jason Todd

            TL; DR. Copy/paste. Could not give a link?

            However…

            The intention of Marks’ research review was to slam the American Psychological Association’s position that same-sex parenting is not harmful to children and to take down 30 years of scientific research showing that having gay or lesbian parents does not predispose children for negative sociological outcomes.

            Shows obvious bias toward subject of whatever this is and is therefore not relevant.

          • Patrick S

            If true, it is only because so many in his profession are politically motivated to help destroy the family unit and Christian based ethics.

          • johndoe

            Its true because of poor research ethics.

          • Amos Moses

            No …… it is nonsensical to think a woman can provide what a only man can provide ….. or that a man can provide what a only woman can provide …. children need both and in close proximity on a daily basis ….. two of the same sex cannot prove all of those needs …..

            choosing a life with a person of the SS has consequences and one of them is …… no procreation and no offspring ……… and it is DESIGNED that way ………….

          • johndoe

            Procreation isnt necessary for parenting or marriage. Plenty of straight folks who marry ans either cannot have kids or dont want kids or decide to adopt instead. Plenty of single parents out there also. No design to it. Evolution…..

          • Amos Moses

            yep … but raising a child properly IS …………..

          • johndoe

            Not at all. What does bei g able to procreate have to do with parenting?

          • Amos Moses

            being one man and one woman in a covenant relationship and raising a child in that environment does ……… both sexes represented to a child cannot be achieved in a SS environment ….. on a daily basis …. in an intimate and on going setting ….

          • johndoe

            Both sexes need not be involved for parenting to be successful. Kids are not involved in the intamacy of adults.

          • Amos Moses

            wrong …. yes it is …… “Kids are not involved in the intamacy of adults.” … kids are involved in the intimate life of those they live with …. intimate has nothing to do with sex … and it is unavoidable to not be intimately involved with their parents … the parents provide the role model for their life …….

          • johndoe

            Its your opinion that its wrong. Gays have been raising kids for a long time. The research shows differently. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with being a good parent

          • Amos Moses

            research lies …………. and so far i have not mentioned religion once in this thread ……… so FAIL and non-sequitur ……

          • johndoe

            LOL!

          • Trauma Specialist

            Well said Amos Moses, all that you have shared here. I think john doe wants to understand and this is why he is going back and forth with you. It is a cry for help, a cry to understand, a cry to end his confusion and turmoil within. Keep speaking and sharing your truth. It is wise and good for all humanity.

          • Trauma Specialist

            One day you will wake up john doe but until then, you just don’t “get it.” Your mind and eyes and ears can only believe what you see and hear from others egos as engaged and absorbed as yours has become. Do some soul-searching and when you seek, you shall find – truth of the soul. Until then you only have truth that liars have embedded and entrenched and ingrained in your mind.

          • johndoe

            I thonk ots you who doesn’t get it…..

          • Trauma Specialist

            I can see why you identify yourself as a john doe – without any identity – a non-entity. That is sad. Every comment you make only further demonstrates your ignorance, even sadder because you seem ego proud of your arguments that have no factual basis. Procreating is the only healthy means to the human Family and the only healthy human Family begins with healthy parenting. We are all God’s Children if we listen to His healthy parenting. Everything and everyone is connected. We are all one and when you understand the Holy Bible and ancient Holy texts from around all the world over thousands of years proven over all of documented human history, you will know what true connection means.

          • johndoe

            Your god doesn’t exist except for you. Trauma specialist is your real name???

          • Trauma Specialist

            Darwin’s theory remains a theory precisely for that reason – it is a theory that has done more harm to humanity via governments and science and medicine around the western world than any other known cause/brainwashing. Not one fossil has ever been found to prove the theory which with every passing decade only disproves the science further however, with every passing decade, more and more scientists and archaeologists and even atheist ones have proven the life and times of Jesus, the essenes, the dead sea scrolls, the book of Thomas. The proof in DNA, the proof in physics and metaphysics, the heart being the highest power of magnetic and electric energy in all the universe, the list goes on. Design is beyond human comprehension. Design still can’t be measured by any scientific device not even invented as yet. Science is only 400 years old. Dr Bruce Lipton, scientist, Dr Gregg Braden, scientist, Dr Brian Weiss psychiatrist, Dr Eben Alexander Neurosurgeon. The evidence for God and His highest power is all around us and everywhere. You just have to open your mind beyond what you have been told to believe, and clearly by your comment, what you have no knowledge about.

          • tatoo

            I know a lot of messed-up kids who were raised by a man and a woman. Many brought up in religious homes. Why is that?

          • Amos Moses

            because they are raising a sinner … and the parents are sinners …. and we are all given challenges in life …. that is not a reason to throw a child that is known to be averse to a good opportunity …. adoption is not a right ……..

          • Trauma Specialist

            It is because the ego manifested and compounded is nothing more than an ‘image.’ The heart and soul and healthy mind of a genuine human being with genuine humanity and genuine love has been buried beneath more ego defenses and mechanisms – voids so deep they can’t ever be fulfilled but want more and more and more and more, never ego satisfied. These manifested egos we know most basically as narcissistic personality disorder are in all places of perceived power – government, science, medicine, religion. My understanding of God’s Word is that the Church is falling away as the Holy Bible has forewarned. Religion has become to many who swear/lie they are righteous nothing more than a ‘business’ with an image – not all but many, Not all doctors or scientists or politicians but most. Religion does not equal God, it is a man-made invention, not of the soul but of the mind. Belief is of the mind, faith is of the soul.

          • Ira Pistos

            Actually, no they can’t do just as well. Inherent in such an arrangement is that they are teaching the child as acceptable that which will doom them to eternal punishment.

            So what this is in reality, is child abuse of the worst possible kind.

          • johndoe

            Proof?

          • Trauma Specialist

            Homosexuals do not do “just as well at parenting” as their ego pride takes over their minds and their lives and Children’s minds and lives, and so the intergenerational abuse/conditioning/grooming/manipulation of Children continues. Homosexual people cannot parent – adequately or appropriately or healthily, only with their own selfish and depraved and perverted desperate needs and wants. Proven fact is the golden standard for the care and wellbeing of a Child – a natural mother and a natural father – balance, harmony with nature, nurture with genuine love, not the ego’s version of ‘love’.

          • Amos Moses

            “Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored ………. good one ……….

          • tatoo

            Bullshit

          • Amos Moses

            yeah … it is that also ……….

          • Jason Todd

            Yes, and it’s commonly known as child abuse. Talk to Robert Oscar Lopez and Moira Greyland Peat.

          • johndoe

            Robertis a homosexual who publishes porn novels and has zero credibilty. Hes a professor of literature , not a researcher. He has an opinion on the matter but no research to support it.

          • Jason Todd

            Robert is a bisexual, not a homosexual, and that doesn’t disqualify him from talking about what he himself experienced.

            He is also the editor of the book, Jephthah’s Daughters, which is testimonies of other people raised by same-sex parents and what resulted.

          • johndoe

            Im in the field of Pediatrics. Would you like me to relate one or two of the horrors that Ive dealt with out of the heterosexual community of parents? Ive seen hundreds of abuse cases in the PICU over 19yrs and none of them came from a same sex household. Its the kind of stuff I wish that I could un-remember. So put your list together and we’ll compare the two.

          • Jason Todd

            So you cannot dispute what I am saying. Therefore, you are trying the moral equivalency argument. FAIL.

          • johndoe

            Not at all. No humans are infallible. Should we take the rights of parenting away from everyone? You’re trying to say that kids are worse off in gay families….how so?

          • Trauma Specialist

            Your story gets sadder. You state you are in the field of pediatrics then you are trained by governments. You have too many policies and procedures and systems in your mind. I suspect you have been traumatised by what you have seen and re-directed your anger at one group of people who have not lived by God’s Word either. They are Child abusers and homosexuals are Child abusers, and all are abused as Children themselves.When western medicine like yours really ‘gets it’ and governments really ‘gets it’ then you will know that it is the unaccountability of governments enabling Child abuse to go on and on and on. Then you will know that 1 in 3 Children are being abused and 76% have at least one psychiatric disorder and 50% have at least three psychiatric disorders. Then you will begin to understand why the world is such a mess and why you are so hurt and why governments and western medicine has not been helping generation after generation after generation but only enabling and feeding into the mass mental illnesses more and more and more. The best thing you can ever do in your workplace is pray, and in your home, and every day in your life, then you give compassion for each and every Child and compassion for homosexuals and compassion for Child beaters that God will deal with for they abuse minds and bodies and Children for one reason, they never healed but project their assaults onto others and force others to think the way they do and act like they do and tell the world that what they do makes them happy. God will deal with them. Our job on Planet Earth is to speak truth of all harm and to love. Sex is not love and love is not sex. Holy Union is the joining of man and woman. Sex is a new word that until the late 20th Century simply meant male or female. Genuine love is genuine humanity which is genuine compassion and empathy. When you give a care, a concern, a smile, a prayer for each and every Child you see, you are doing God’s work and that Child may never remember what you said but they will remember how you made them feel. God will deal with those who have been harmed only to turn around and harm others unrepentant and proud and forcing their ways on others. Our job is to genuinely care. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t share. Now I understand where you are coming from – trauma unhealed. Do some soul-searching and if you don’t give up, you will find God. When you find God, you will know exactly how to give genuine love for each Child you see in your work. I pray you haven’t chosen this profession for money, for ‘business’ because if money is your idol, you will never find God. I pray your eyes begin to really see beyond the suffering to the suffering that you can ease, the kindness you can show that will never be forgotten and ever Child, young or middle aged or old deserves it, not condoning sodomy but showing you care for their diseases – both mental and sexual they are not healing only manifesting that now sees them demanding God’s Holy Union and demanding to be parents and demanding all the control that was taken away from them as Children. You can either be a part of the solution or a part of the problem. You can feed into this argument between homosexuals and the divine, natural and universal order that was intended for human beings, or not. In the end there is no human being that can defy nature or God forever.

          • johndoe

            You have no idea what your talking about.

          • Mary Kilbride

            Biologically? Then that would create history. What you stated is an impossibilty. Plain and simple.

          • johndoe

            I didnt say that at all.

          • Trauma Specialist

            But it’s not a fact of true life, genuine life, natural life or Holy life. It never has been and never will be no matter how many governments and abused Children now adults with psychiatric disorders claim in their disturbed and sad minds.

          • johndoe

            No proof of any gods

    • Kyler Phoenix

      Yes there is. What a stupid thing to share.

      • Amos Moses

        “Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored ………. good one ……..

        • Kyler Phoenix

          Your level of education?

          • Amos Moses

            yours ………

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Candy. Full ride. For a start. The high school you dropped out of?

          • Amos Moses

            i went to UHK ……… paid my own way …..

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Doubt that. Degree?

          • Amos Moses

            did you need my CV also ……..

    • Mary Kilbride

      Absolutely. It is an imposibility for two men or two women to produce a baby together…therefore it is not in the constitution nor should it be. Stick with the truth.

  • james blue

    So if a married heterosexual couple use a sperm bank because the husband is sterile the husband cannot be on the birth certificate because he “does not have the same biological nexus to the child”?
    Should it be legal for a woman to lie on a birth certificate if the wife had an affair and the husband didn’t know it wasn’t his baby because ” there is an “important governmental objective” in requesting that biological parents be listed on the birth certificate, such as having genetic information available for medical purposes.”?

    • libertynottyranny

      You have no need to ask – you should be able to answer your own questions. Of course, you’re using a false premise to argue a point. Which only illustrates your own struggle w/ truth &/or reality.

      To the first, the answer is obvious (& covered in the article). The answer is obviously no – because the purpose is to record the biological nexus, not an emotional delusion.

      To the 2nd, the answer, again, is no. Of course it is not okay for the mother – or any other party for that matter – to lie on a birth certificate (or any other official state form) & you know that. & just because it could, or might, or has happened, has NOTHING to do w/ this case/ruling. Nor is the possibility that someone could violate the law (e.g. lie on a form) a reason to abolish a law. Again, the sole purpose is to record the biological parentage, not perpetuate a fantasy.

      The practice of recording birth lineage, & laws which go hand in hand, existed 1000s of years before “sperm banks” & “female ‘husbands’ or male ‘wives'”. If you want a “certificate” that says “mommy & mommy” or “daddy & daddy” – go to Walmart or print your own (Word & PowerPoint templates are great for that sort of thing).

      • Guest254

        Great Response

      • james blue

        It takes more than providing the egg or sperm to be a parent.

  • J J

    Which lesbian supplies the sperm?

    Hello? Answer, please.

    • Jenny Ondioline

      Is that a question that would be pertinent to a couple looking to adopt? Why would it matter here?

      • Amos Moses

        “Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored …………… Mikey ……….

        • Jenny Ondioline

          It’s adoption. It’s two people who have love to offer a child. I fail to see what else matters.

          • Amos Moses

            that they are raised in an environment with a male and a female role model …… two mommies or two daddies does not provide the needed environment ….. both sexes have things to offer that the other cannot access or provide ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There isn’t evidence to back up your claim.

          • Amos Moses

            it requires no evidence other than to acknowledge the truth …… which you seem incapable of doing …… i do not have to prove the sun will come up tomorrow …… it proves itself …. EVERY DAY …………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, a statement like that requires evidence, otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion. I thought you would have learned that by now.

          • Amos Moses

            the truth requires no evidence …. the evidence is not a measure of truth …. truth is the measure of the evidence ……….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Using that logic you can cite that your opinion is truth just because.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. the truth does not reside inside anyone ….. it is an external locus …. not an internal one ……..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So you can claim truth but others can’t when all you do is cite an opinion, is that how it works?

          • Amos Moses

            all you do is cite opinion …. i site scripture ……….. not my opinion and not my opinion of scripture ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Scripture is not proof. If it were, everyone would be Christian.

          • Amos Moses

            no ……. scripture is not proof to you ….. and you are a natural person ….. and cannot discern it ….. evidence is measured by truth …. not the other way around …… there is a gold standard and that gold standard is scripture ……… that you reject that standard is the weakness of your argument … not christians ……….. you seem to think you have free will ….. and yet you cannot choose christianity and the truth …… and there is a reason you cannot choose it ……. you are spiritually dead ……. dead men cannot choose anything but death ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Lovely proselytizing, but the fact of the matter is you can legally adopt and raise a child if you are a homosexual.

          • Amos Moses

            sure …….. but that was not my point …. that was your point ………… so what ………..

      • Jason Todd

        Red herring.

  • Guest254

    For the purpose of insurance…, so they won’t attack the insurance company for denying them rights but they will attack the cake people, the florist etc. Insurance companies have bigger lawyers, OH I see.

  • Michael C

    Ahh, I see. “Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored when it comes how the state treats straight parents but it’s totally fine to use as an excuse to disadvantage gay couples. Nice, Arkansas. Not at all surprising.

    • Guest254

      Disadvantage? You mean not having the ability for male and male or female and female to produce or reproduce offspring?
      Birth certificates are for biological purposes to keep record of biological family history. The data base is to keep factual accounts that maintain informations of family lineage, not for insurance fraud etc.

      • Michael C

        Birth certificates are for biological purposes to keep record of biological family history. The data base is to keep factual accounts that maintain informations of family lineage

        Were this the case, the state would require the name of an anonymous sperm donor listed on a birth certificate. They don’t. Actually, Arkansas law clearly states that the husband (a non-biological parent) is to be listed on the birth certificate (not the actual biological father).

        “Any child born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination shall be deemed the legitimate natural child of the woman and the woman’s husband if the husband consents in writing to the artificial insemination.”

        • Guest254

          the word artificial means false.

          Deemed legitimate, if.

          This is what happens when states begin to differ to accommodate man verses God’s divine plan for mankind.

          When a man and woman conceive a child, both parties undergo changes to adapt to take care of that child.

          Children are not a trophy to have to make a people complete to solidfy a family.

          Your arguments arent concrete. Alot of is that generate more questions and confusion.

          • Michael C

            The topic of this article is Arkansas law. Judges issue decisions base on law.

            …not “Guest254’s” personal religious beliefs.

            The thing you said about birth certificates issued in Arkansas is false.

          • Guest254

            It makes no sense that the sole birthright parent isn’t on the birth certificate. The child should have that right being born into the world. Whether natural or teat tube. Every single person deserves to know where they get their DNA. These articles are nothing but opinions that people want to use to input their views to suit the life they desire/lust to live.

        • Jason Todd

          Irrelevant.

          • johndoe

            How so?

          • Jason Todd

            Nothing to do with the story. Which you already know.

      • johndoe

        When you’re adopted, the bio dad is no longer on the birth certificate.

        • Guest254

          Okay…..
          Still doesn’t make them the biological parent. And neither is the adopted parent on the original birth certificate.

          • johndoe

            Wrong. My adoptive father IS on my birth certificate

          • Guest254

            Amended birth certificate.

          • johndoe

            It doesnt show as amended. It is just like any other bc.

          • Guest254

            Just like… the original is still at the health department or department of records.

          • johndoe

            Nope. I have the original

          • Amos Moses

            Nope ………… you have a copy …. an official sealed copy …. but nothing more …. the long form is held by the birth state …..

          • johndoe

            And it has my adoptive father on it. Keep trying.

          • Amos Moses

            You have never seen the official long form unless it was on microfiche or similar….. try again ….

          • johndoe

            So there’s no reason not to put them both on the bc.

    • Amos Moses

      Oh the Irony ……. the reprobate mind in action … or should i say inaction …. all reason in neutral ….. “”Basic biological truths” can freely be ignored” ……….. mikey …. what is really sad is you do not even see the outright duplicity and delusion you just displayed ………..

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Western children need biological parents who’d raise them. Exposure to homosexuality is a child-abuse because all children have rights to innocence and purity. Western culture must not make immorality a duty for children. What a Sodom. Where are real parents? Christian must be raised in the way of the Lord.

    • johndoe

      What about the children who are abandoned and orphaned? Theres nothing wrong with gay parents. Nobody has made immorality a duty for kids. Absurd

  • Pegasus

    It’s amazing that Americans talk about sex 24/7, yet they don’t even know that it takes a man and a woman to make a child. A child growing in the Brazilian rain forest knows what makes a baby and what makes a family, but Ivy League alumni think that any two random adults can be “parents.”

    Should be fun in the future when a kid starts researching his genealogy. “Mommies, I don’t understand – up until around the year 2000, everybody had a woman parent and a man parent!”

  • Amos Moses

    How the Homosexual Agenda is Capturing Silly (“Christian”) Women
    A “Pirate Gang Conversation” with Amy Spreeman & Steven Kozar

    on Pirate Christian Radio .

  • PilgrimGirl

    I applaud this decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court yet want courts to do more. It takes a male and a female to conceive a child because a child is meant to have both a mother and a father – not be reared by two persons of the same sex, etc.