U.S. Supreme Court Rules Arkansas Must Allow Lesbian ‘Spouses’ to Be Listed on Birth Certificates

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the State of Arkansas must allow the “spouses” of lesbian women who conceive by a male sperm donor to be recognized on birth certificates even though they are not the biological parent.

“Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment. As we explained there, a State may not ‘exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples,'” the court wrote in its 6-3 decision. “Indeed, in listing those terms and conditions—the ‘rights, benefits, and responsibilities’ to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access—we expressly identified ‘birth and death certificates.’”

As previously reported, in 2015, six lesbians filed suit against the Arkansas Health Department’s Vital Statistics Bureau after it declined to recognize both the biological mothers and their female partners as the parents on their children’s 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.

In November 2015, 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

Last December, the Arkansas 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.

“[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.”

It found that such a requirement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

However, upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion concluded on Monday that, in accordance with its 2015 ruling on same-sex “marriage,” birth certificate recognition is a right and benefit that accompanies the relationship just as much as between a married man and a woman.

It noted that when a married heterosexual couple has a baby via in vitro fertilization, the husband—who is not the biological father in such instances—is allowed to be listed on the birth certificate. Therefore, the court ruled that the same must be permitted for lesbian relationships.

“Arkansas has thus chosen to make its birth certificates more than a mere marker of biological relationships: The State uses those certificates to give married parents a form of legal recognition that is not available to unmarried parents. Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition,” the majority concluded.

However, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, stating that the state’s interest of recording a child’s genealogical lineage on his or her birth certificate “in no way” violates the Obergefell decision.

“[T]he State argued that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Obergefell—like ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders,” Gorsuch wrote.

“And it is very hard to see what is wrong with this conclusion for, just as the state court recognized, nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution.”


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
  • FoJC

    Confusion at birth. This is beyond sad. How twisted these children are going to be as they grow up with homosexual “parents” and now being told they don’t have a father.

    Come LORD Jesus, come!

    • Enrico Yourfault

      Come Lord Jesus…to do what? Punish two lesbians?

      • 2? How about Millions.

        • Enrico Yourfault

          That’s why you want Him back? Really?

          • No, i want him back because our World is full of Chaos and millions of Baby’s are been killed and Man has become Proud and Liar beyond proportion. Because Flesh has become more important than God. Because our Culture is saturated with disgusting , immoral, detestable things.

            Yea really though i want him just for that ? ( REALLY) ? .

          • You really ask such a stupid question? Really? oh boy…

          • Enrico Yourfault

            You want Jesus back to take care of your paranoid revenge fantasy, and not to do some good in the world instead? That says a LOT about you.

          • Paranoid Fantasy? LOL. sound you are living in one. I don’t remember ever saying punishing anyone. Good thing you talk about education because you show the lack of it : )

          • Shame-sung C.E.O

            Poor guy has no idea how bad that went over his head. LOL.

          • Enrico Yourfault

            Why don’t you explain it to me, smart guy?

          • Enrico Yourfault

            Oh, I thought you might have something intelligent to say after being so horrified about my comment about Jesus coming back to punish lesbians and you thinking that was just a dandy idea.

          • Your kind of slow aren’t you? First you exaggerate his comment, then you ask a stupid question. I’m sure the first person who comment it did not specify mean want Jesus back just to Punish “lesbians” if you have common sense(LOL) you would also see, know, look, find, that other people say that last line not just for “punish the lesbian’s” reason. But since you again lack any reading compression, lack putting things in perspective. Why would you worry about and intelligent reply? You seem to struggle with basic conversations and ask stupid questions and dramatize everything. Papasnarf answer your stupid question. Try reading over and over and over and over. And if you feel like you have not your answer. Sooner or later(lol) you will understand .

          • Shame-sung C.E.O

            Poor guy is hopeless, just another soul looking to nick pick and argument. What a pathetic life.

          • Enrico Yourfault

            Well, when someone says “Come, Lord Jesus, Come” in response to a story about two lesbians after making a generalized “woe is the world” comment about children growing up with two same-sex parents (something which psychologists take no issue with), I have to wonder what it is exactly they want Jesus to do about it after summoning him with such urgency. Stop world hunger? Nope, going to punish these homosexuals first.

            Worry about the stupidity of your own comments instead.

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      I agree it is beyond sad.And I also agree with Come LORD Jesus,, come.

    • FoJC

      Come LORD Jesus, come… to redeem this earth and the universe… to purge the Sin from it once and for all… to complete the Salvation started when I and my brothers and sisters in the LORD first believed… to deliver us into His Eternal Kingdom… and… those words don’t summon Him. The LORD will return at a time only the Father knows. Until then, we will continue to follow Jesus and look for His Return.

  • Neil Bragg

    That baby has a FATHER, a man.

    • Michael C

      Sure, biologically. …but that’s not the point.

      Just like when a heterosexual couple utilizes a donor for IVF, the anonymous donor is not listed as the father on the birth certificate. The husband is.

      Arkansas law, as it had already been established, places more importance on the role married parental figures plays in the lives of their children than the actual biological parentage.

      Arkansas law already allowed men who are not the biological fathers of their children to be listed as so on their children’s birth certificates.

      What’s good for the goose…

      • Reason2012

        So because they already abuse the kid by lying to him or her as to who his father is, you think it’s fine to abuse them much more and make them believe the anti-reality, anti-science fantasy that two women can be biological parents of a child? That they don’t really have a biological father? Were they grown in a test-tube? Typical abusing of kids to promote the perversion agenda, and activists as always are here to promote the abuse.

        • Michael C

          So because they already abuse the kid by lying to him or her as to who his father is…

          Who says that the children born through IVF to lesbian couples are lied to? Like seriously, where did you get that idea?

          I would guess that lesbian couples, on average, are much more open and honest with their children about their origins than heterosexual couples who conceive in the exact same manner.

          I would guess that there are many straight couples that never tell their children that they were conceived with an anonymous donor.

          A lesbian couple would have to be honest about this fact.

          …you think it’s fine to abuse them much more and make them believe the anti-reality, anti-science fantasy that two women can be biological parents of a child? That they don’t really have a biological father?

          Please tell me who is claiming that two women can be the biological parents of a child.

          Who is saying this? I would really like to know.

          • Reason2012

            Who says that the children born through IVF to lesbian couples are lied to? Like seriously, where did you get that idea?

            You need sperm that comes from a male to be born. Two women cannot create a human being. They’re being lied to, not telling them who their father is and another lie that they don’t have a father.

            I would guess that lesbian couples, on average, are much more open and honest with their children about their origins than heterosexual couples who conceive in the exact same manner.

            To call lying to a child that they had no father, but defied biology and were conceived by two children more “open and honest” only shows how intent you are at deceiving kids to promote your agenda.

            I would guess that there are many straight couples that never tell their children that they were conceived with an anonymous donor.

            All you can do is guess, then use that as justification for lying to kids and pretend they defy biology and have no father.

            A lesbian couple would have to be honest about this fact.

            Not being honest when they claim on the birth certificate there’s no father, but instead two women are responsible for their “birth”.

            Please tell me who is claiming that two women can be the biological parents of a child.

            It’s called a birth certificate – it’s for the kid to know who birthed him or her – who his biological parents are. So they’re in effect trying to pretend they both birthed this person, which of course is a flat out lie.

        • james blue

          So a heterosexual couple with a sterile male who use a sperm donor to have a child and put the husband’s name on the birth certificate even though he is not the “biological father” are abusing the child?

          • Reason2012

            So you don’t think a child has the right to know who his actual parents are? Figures. So you think it’s fine to lie to a kid and make him believe the lie that a person is his biological parent when he or she is not. So you also promote making a kid wonder which “mother” is really his “mother”? When they separate, imagine how now one will lie and claim to be the biological mother. He’ll just check his birth certificate to find out the truth. Oh wait, he was legally lied to as well – so now he has no way of knowing. And then he now wonders to what degree he’s been lied to about his father.

            Perversion activists hate kids and just use them to promote their perversion agenda on the rest of society.

          • james blue

            You didn’t answer the question

      • Jason Todd

        That’s EXACTLY the point!

        In order to create life, sperm and ovum MUST be present! And there’s NOTHING that can change that, not even someone wearing a black robe!

        • Michael C

          In order to create life, sperm and ovum MUST be present!

          No-one’s arguing that fact.

          Also, these men are choosing to take responsibility for these children. So with that point, who cares?

          Are you saying that a person who is not the biological parent of a child should have their name on the child’s birth certificate if they’re willing to “take responsibility” for the child?

          Yeah, ’cause Arkansas apparently allows that. And now they’re not permitted to discriminate against gay couples in that respect. Who cares?

          • Jason Todd

            1) YOU are arguing that.

            2) Children are better off in households where a married mother and father are present.

            Period.

          • Michael C

            1) hehehe, what?

            2) It’s nice that you feel that way but we don’t give our government the power to only allow married heterosexual couples to have children.

          • Jason Todd

            1) The joke is on you.

            2) The government shouldn’t be allowing same-sex couples onto birth certificates either.

          • Reason2012

            Two women cannot have biological children -they must commit adultery 100% of the time by design to do so – then they try to lie to the kids to make them believe that’s even possible, make it hard to figure out who their real mother even is. Perversion activists hate kids and just use them as tools to promote their agenda.

          • Jason Todd

            When they’re not abusing kids to increase their numbers.

          • Enrico Yourfault

            That doesn’t happen.

          • Johndoe

            IVF isn’t adultry

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “Also, these men are choosing to take responsibility for these children. So with that point, who cares?”

          Yes, exactly like the lesbian partner of the birth mother, which is why the Supreme Court will allow her to place her name on the birth certificate.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    truth in government takes another hit ………..

  • Reason2012

    It’s a birth certificate, as in who are the biological parents, which means a man and a woman – not instead some fantasy propaganda nonsense.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “It’s a birth certificate, as in who are the biological parents,”

      No. Arkansas birth certificates list the people who will be the lifelong caregivers of the child, not the person who gave the genetic material to create him or her. They don’t list sperm donors to heterosexual couples, so why should they list it for same sex couples?

      • Reason2012

        No. Arkansas birth certificates list the people who will be the lifelong caregivers of the child, not the person who gave the genetic material to create him or her.

        If that’s true it would be called the “caregivers certificate”. Yes, of course perversion activists decided it’s ok to lie to kids and put on the birth certificate lies about who birthed them and call it “caregiver” instead. At least they should have the decency to not make the person have no idea who their mother or father is, as two mothers being listed also keeps them in the dark as to who their actual mother is, and they’ll have to take the word of a person who denies biological facts, who was willing to lie to them that they have no father, who was willing to lie to them that two women can “birth” a child.. Perversion activists hate kids and use them and abuse them to promote their agenda, and this is just more proof.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “If that’s true it would be called the ‘caregivers certificate.'”

          No, because it is true, and the document is still called a “birth certificate.” If you don’t believe me, read the article.

          • Reason2012

            Precisely the point. It’s a birth certificate, not a care-giver certificate. What does “birth” mean to you? If a person believes they gave birth to someone that makes it true? Is this another trans-type of agenda where belief overrides biological fact on yet another frontier of reality denial?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “What does “birth” mean to you?”

            In this context, it’s a legal document that sets the predicate for the rights and responsibilities of the child by stating the facts of his/her legal situation at the time of birth.

            If you absolutely need to know the child’s biological situation, there are plenty of other documents for that.

          • Reason2012

            No, birth means a man and a woman conceive a child and the child is then born.

            If you want to create a separate “legal situation” certificate, have at it. But words have meaning, including birth. Unfortunately, activists try to pervert anything they can, including basic meanings of word, to promote their anti-kid child abuse perverted agenda.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then your argument is with the Arkansas Department of Health, which has long accepted whichever couple intends to hold themselves out as parents as the “parents” on the birth certificate. A practice which, I might add, was controversial to literally no one until gay couples wanted to be a part of it too.

            I wonder why that is.

          • Enrico Yourfault

            Just thought you might like to know you’re overusing that word “agenda” to the point where you’re starting to look like a conspiracy theorist.

        • Michael C

          It sounds like your issue is less with this court ruling and more with how Arkansas (and many other states) handle record keeping.

          Were you fine with non-biological parents being listed on birth certificates before? Because it’s been going on for a while now.

          …or are you just upset because gay couples are now being treated the same as straight couples?

          • Reason2012

            It sounds like your issue is less with this court ruling and more with how Arkansas (and many other states) handle record keeping.

            Were you fine with non-biological parents being listed on birth certificates before? Because it’s been going on for a while now.

            So your issue is, since kids were already being lied to, that makes it ok to tell them perverse lies as well.

            It doesn’t.

            …or are you just upset because gay couples are now being treated the same as straight couples?

            It’s about how they’re treating kids – figures you turn not being able to mentally abuse / lie to kids into some sort of “equality” issue.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you going to answer the question?

          • Jason Todd

            Which is really what it is all about, isn’t it? The politics. Not the child.

          • Michael C

            Which is really what it is all about, isn’t it? The politics. Not the child.

            The married parents involved with this lawsuit were forced to jump through all sorts of hoops that are not required of other married parents just to legally protect their children and provide them with basic things like health insurance.

            No, this is about the children.

            Did you even read this article?

          • Jason Todd

            No. It’s not. If it was, they wouldn’t be wanting to raise a child in a morally vacant environment.

        • james blue

          Hypothetical.
          A married woman whose husband is serving overseas is alone in their apartment and a man breaks in and violently rapes her. She is impregnated by this violent rape.

          I’m assuming you believe abortion is murder and the baby wasn’t the rapist and shouldn’t be killed because of the forced manner of the conception, but in this hypothetical the woman and her husband are pro life, so 9 months after the brutal rape a baby is born which the husband wishes to be a father to as if it was his own biological child..

          Should it be required to have the forced rapist’s name listed on the birth certificate as the father?

          • Reason2012

            Hypothetical: would you deserve to die if you found out you were actually conceived by rape? No. Does anyone else have the right to_kill you just because you were conceived by_rape? No.

            Activists like you are already operating on a twisted worldview.

            baby is born which the husband wishes to be a father to as if it was his own biological child..

            He’s not the biological father. The child has a right to know and won’t look at his birth certificate probably until he’s an adult. You seem to think if a child is created by rape, we have the right to_kill him or at least to lie to him.

          • james blue

            Are you simply not able to answer any question actually asked or are you unable to understand the questions to begin with?

            However You appear to have undercut your previous argument

          • Cathy Adams

            When a women is married and become pregnant, the husband is listed as the father whether he actually is, or if the mother had an affair, or if she was raped. There may be a few states that are exceptions, but this is the way it is.

          • Reason2012

            Wonder why there are exceptions? Used to be the norm. But the perversion activists are hard at work to change that, too. Never mind that the birth certificate is for the kid, not for the parents – to perversion activists, the kids are just tools to help promote their perversion agenda, to be used or abused whoever they see fit to advance their cause.

          • Jason Todd

            The problem with hypotheticals is they move far away from the facts regarding the actual topic. In short, they are attempts to change the subject. That’s why I ignore them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Should it be required to have the forced rapist’s name listed on the birth certificate as the father?”

            ummmm ….. YES …… and that is actually a scriptural position …….

          • james blue

            What if the mother is not a Christian? I’m assuming you think the rapist is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            what difference does that make to the woman and the child ….. those are the ones to be concerned about ………..

          • james blue

            You are the one who want’s to put a rapist’s name on a birth certificate. You even said it’s the Christian thing to do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i said it was a christian position to do so …. and the reason is to make the person responsible both biologically and financially for the child ……… and for the woman and her needs going forward ………

          • james blue

            It’s Christian to force a married woman and her husband to have a rapist who broke into their home and brutally raped the woman to have the rapist in their life and involved with the child they chose to not abort and the husband raise as his own?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i think you left a few hyperbolas out of all that ….. you might try to sneak a few more in just to satisfy your SJW outrage ……………………………………….. but yes ……………………. why should he not be held COMPLETELY responsible for what he did ………………… and putting him on the BC …… MAKES HIM FULLY RESPONSIBLE …………..

        • Jason Todd

          Ambulance Chaser strikes again with more lies.

          Why haven’t you blocked that godless, amoral pedo defender yet?

          • Reason2012

            He doesn’t bother me – it helps others to see how easily their arguments can be exposed as deception, on the occasion where it seems useful.

          • Enrico Yourfault

            When has he defended pedophiles? Like, ever?

  • Skittles

    Never argue with DNA.
    It is what it is.
    “Heather Has Two Mommies” is the name of a book. It’s not real.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      So you believe adoptive parents are not real parents?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        that has nothing to do with the biological truth ………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          It has nothing to do with biology at all. I didn’t ask a question about biology.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            but it is about biology …….

      • Skittles

        You don’t seem to be able to grasp this simple thing:
        sperm + egg = baby
        male + female = baby

        Google “human reproduction for children,” there’s lots of real simple videos that will explain to you how children are created.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I grasp it just fine. I just don’t see how it’s relevant.

  • Blake Paine

    t noted that when a married heterosexual couple has a baby via in vitro fertilization, the husband—who is not the biological father in such instances—is allowed to be listed on the birth certificate. Therefore, the court ruled that the same must be permitted for lesbian relationships.

    Game. Set. Match. Until they stop listing non-biological husbands they can’t refuse to list non-biological mothers.

    • Jason Todd

      False, false, false. There is a biological connection to the woman who gives birth, and ONLY the woman who gives birth.

      • SFBruce

        You just insulted every single woman, most of whom are heterosexual, who have chosen to adopt a child. I’m always amazed to hear someone denigrate adoptive parents, since in every single case, they are the most wanted and the most planned children on the planet. I challenge you to tell such a mother, who I can assure you is very real in every sense of the word, that to her face. I promise it won’t go well. And are you aware that a fairly small minority of mothers severely abuse their biological children, sometimes to the point of death? Remember Andrea Yates?

        • Jason Todd

          And what does adoption have to do with this? It is absolutely not relevant to what’s being discussed here.

          Oy vey!

          • SFBruce

            Blake Paine observed that since Arkansas allows the husband of a woman who has a baby via IVF to be listed as a parent, it should do the same for the wife of a woman who undergoes the same procedure. You made the nonsensical counter argument that since only the woman giving birth has a biological connection, her wife can’t be listed, suggesting that biology constitutes a bond no other person can have. If you think my inference is wrong, exactly what were you trying to say?

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, drop it. This has nothing to do with adoption or IVF. The question is should same sex couples be listed as birth parents on a birth certificate. The answer is no, for reasons already discussed by myself and others.

            There’s nothing more to say about it.

      • Blake Paine

        False yourself. If someone without a biological connection they can be listed then they can regardless of their gender since doesn’t make any difference – they aren’t the biological parent. The was a case about a biological mother and her spouse who is not biologically related to the child. Either a non-biological spouse can be listed or they can’t.

        • Jason Todd

          The problem with your argument is it ignores the need of a child to have an actual father figure in their life, something that will not occur in a household with two women. As someone else has already said, the birth certificate is for the benefit of the child, not for those who wish to redefine “parent” for the sake of politics.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The biological father in this case is an uninterested sperm donor. I’m not sure what you think listing his name on the birth certificate, when literally no one involved wants it there, is supposed to accomplish.

          • Blake Paine

            So the birth certificate is for social engineering? The state would have to decide that.

    • Carolyn

      The resolution is to change the birth certificates to have two places for the parents’ names. One place should be for the biological mother and father (which there should be a law requiring the sperm donator’s name to be put on the birth certificate so the child will know his/her medical history, etc.), and a place for the LEGAL mother and father. I’m sure the same problem arises for adoptive parents who adopt a baby at birth. So having both these spaces printed on the birth certificates would solve everyone’s problems, and every one would be happy.

      • Blake Paine

        And when the legislature does that it would be a great solution. But that isn’t the current situation.

  • FoJC

    Children only have two parents, regardless of what a law states. They have a mother and father. The only exception is the blasphemous practice of introducing DNA from more than the two parents. Science has completely lost perspective and is dabbling in the wrong things.

  • Trilemma

    A birth certificate is a form of identification. It is not based on biology. The birth certificate of my adopted son does not list either of his biological parents.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      then your son should be upset ….. as he is being denied his right to that biological information …… and it could have profound health consequences in the future ……. heredity is a big factor in medical treatment ……….

      • Ambulance Chaser

        No he isn’t. It’s just not on his birth certificate, because that’s not what birth certificates are for. If he wants to know who his parents were, he can ask, at which point it will be between Trilemma and his son, not the state.

        And what useful medical information do you think having your father and mother’s names on your birth certificate will convey anyway? (Assuming that birth certificates are for conveying medical information, which they’re not.)

      • Trilemma

        When he turned 18 he was given the names of his birth parents and all the information I had on them including medical history. I was able to do that because his birth parents had signed the forms allowing me to give him that information.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          good … so the BC you were given means nothing ……. it is full of incorrect information ……

          • Trilemma

            It certifies when and where he was born and that he is a US citizen.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    NPR highlights importance of fathers for children’s well-being—are they listening to their own report?

  • Carolyn

    I feel so sorry for these babies who have to grow up in the tedious nightmare of confusion about their biological background. With laws like this in place, these poor should will grow up knowing nothing about their biological background. It’s bad enough that they have to grow up in an environment of homosexual conditions, not knowing what it’s like to have both a mother and a father figure, but now they won’t be able to trace their family tree or know what their family’s medical history is. The poor babies have to pay for all the sins of this stupid society that we have in place to day, and it just isn’t fair to them. What happened to the rights of the innocent babies and children? Who is taking care of their rights???? And I won’t even start on the numerous stories I have read about teenagers and young adults who have written about their experiences and what they were put through growing up in a home with gay parents (both lesbians and homosexuals (male couples). I do know one thing for sure, God is watching all of this and HE will remember everyone who is involved from the beginning until doomsday in putting these poor innocent children through such horrid environments and they will pay dearly!!! And I don’t care who they are, from the simple pro-abortionist protestor to the highest ranking judge and attorney, God will punish then ALL!!! But in the meantime these poor innocent babies have to suffer!

  • Skittles

    I hope that at some point this innocent child grows up and says it identifies as the child of a man and woman. Maybe it will even go public with the kind of abuse it suffered at being raised by lesbians.

  • calduncan

    Suppose I want my birth certificate to say “Delivered by stork”?

    It’s wrong to discriminate against people who believe babies were brought by storks.

    Yeah, I know – storks don’t deliver babies. But then, two women don’t make babies together either.

    There is something about an official government document LYING that is very disturbing.