DM -Italy erases names of gay mothers from birth certs

In the case of egg or sperms donor both of those could be registered on a birth certificate and if we put the child first should be. In the specific case of egg donor to wife then that can be recorded on the adoption certificate. All of these center the child not the adult. We should be campaigning for all this to become law. And Italy is instigating a homophobic attack masquerading as a child welfare issue but that doesn't alter the basic facts that a birth certificate is and should be a factual record.

Men should not be registered as mothers neither should women who did not give birth.
@OneMorePlant They aren’t. For married lesbians in the UK who used a clinic to conceive the partner who didn’t give birth is listed as ‘parent’ not ‘mother’.

Also it’s more complex than that isn’t it. If one of the women used the other’s egg, who should be listed as ‘mother’ in your opinion?

If a heterosexual couple used an egg donor or a sperm donor, who should be listed?

What I am saying is outside of IVF you can't name someone you know not to be the actual biological father on a birth certificate. You might mistakenly name the wrong man but if you do it on purpose you are breaking the law.

In the UK you can’t put any random name on a birth certificate, even if you are married to another man if you are not married to the person who you want to name as father then they would have to accompany you to the registration,

My friend (female) is married to a woman. They have a baby together. It's friend's egg, but wife carried. Raising baby together. Should she really be left out of birth certificate and thus give up the rights to her biological child she is raising? I don't think that's fair...

I’d like to strip it back to the question of, why is it of any benefit to the children born by donor conception to married lesbian couples, for the Italian government to take away their other mother from being recorded on that child’s birth certificate?

The only benefit is that the BC states biological reality. You could argue that that is more to benefit the state than the individual child maybe. This being the sex and gender board, I think we're all keenly aware of the potential consequences of allowing feelings to replace biology on legal documents.

Please someone explain to me why you think their other mother should not be on their BC? This the other mother who is also picking the child up from school, making medical decisions about them etc etc and who will continue to always be the child’s other mother even if they were to divorce from the mum in future?

But you can say that about a step father who does all those things, has raised the child as his own from birth and would always be thier dad if he and the mum divorced. That step father isn't and shouldn't be on the BC, but should and is able in the UK to adopt the DC and take on parental rights and responsibilities. If Italy allowed same sex couples to do the same, I think that would be better than knowingly putting non birth parents on a BC.

Posters who are wanting BCs with full genetic disclosure- a very risky to children and women position to be advocating for- please bear in mind that the mum who did not give birth, whom some of you are arguing has no right to be on the BC, may be the child’s genetic mother, if the lesbian couple used her egg in IVF with the donor sperm.

Donors of gametes arenotparents in the eyes of the law which is why they are not identified on the BC. That’s a different question.

I agree BCs are not for laying out genetic information, they are a legal record of birth.

I feel as though I might need to state for the avoidance of anyone’s doubt that parents who give each other gametes to have a baby together arenotdonors, they are parents, before anyone tries to suggest that normal egg donation rules should be applied to lesbian couples transferring eggs between themselves.

Emotionally no, but legally yes they are. A birth mother is the birth mother regardless of who the egg donor is, I can't see a way of changing that legally or practically, no matter how much people might want it in their own circumstances. It's not that different to the transman who wanted to be named as father on the child's BC on that score. Donors aren't parents and I can't see how we can have an exception to that.

I can’t see any non-lesbophobic reason why any of this explicit discrimination by the Italian government benefits the children of lesbian couples or lesbian couples themselves, or indeed would benefit wider society. So it’s a shock to see so many posts thinking this is a good move.

The Italian government's ideology behind this absolutely is lesbophobic, no argument from me there. They let same sex couples go into parenting on the basis that they'd both be on the BC, then took that away with no other option to replace it eg adoption, parental rights order etc. That was cruel and unfair on the families affected by a decision made for political point scoring. But I think that campaigning for same sex adoption is a better solution overall than campaigning for the right to lie on a legal document.

Yes- and men have been able to do this for as long as BCs have existed. A man who is married to a mother who gives birth can put his name on the BC in any circumstance, even if for example the mother used a sperm donor in a clinic with absolutely everyone in their lives including multiple medical professionals very well aware that he has no genetic link whatsoever to that child. The Italian government is saying a married lesbian can’t do that.

But outside of sperm donation via IVF, you can't just pick who you want the father to be can you? If you know that the man you are married to isn't the biological father of your child and you put his name on the birth certificate regardless that would be falsifying a legal document.

X post with you ElsieBear and I agree.

can anyone other than the biooligcal mother and father put their name on the birth certificate?

Yes- and men have been able to do this for as long as BCs have existed. A man who is married to a mother who gives birth can put his name on the BC in any circumstance, even if for example the mother used a sperm donor in a clinic with absolutely everyone in their lives including multiple medical professionals very well aware that he has no genetic link whatsoever to that child. The Italian government is saying a married lesbian can’t do that.

clearly the birth certificate is for biological parents, and biology determines the need for 1 male and 1 female

BCs are not about biology with the one exception of the biology of the woman who gestates and gives birth. BCs are social documents, they have never been genetic DNA-based documents.

Plus if BCs were about biology, given that men only contribute DNA and nothing else to the child since men can’t gestate children, then the lesbian mothers should both be on the BC when the baby is genetically from one mum’s egg, and the other mum carried the baby and gave birth. Plus the sperm donor named on BC too because of their biological link? Even though they will have no dealings whatsoever with the child?

I’d say that a BC like that isn’t practical or respectful of children or parents and it is also not what the Italian government are doing. They don’t care about biology, just about homophobically trying to replace the mother who hasn’t given birth with a man’s name (or I guess possibly no name?) regardless of that man’s lack of any parent relationship with the child. Regardless of the wife/other mum’s daily relationship with their child. Because the government want to punish same-sex couples and their kids.

It’s an awful thing to do and really I hope that lesbian couples in Italy campaign against this and successfully sue the Italian government in the European Court.

In the case of heterosexual couples using a sperm donor they absolutely can put the husband/partner on the birth certificate as the father. If a woman uses a donated egg she is put on the birth certificate as the mother, so what you’ve written is incorrect. In lesbian couples the woman who hasn’t given birth, even if her egg is used is listed as the parent not the mother. It is not possible to have two mothers on a birth certificate, there is one mother (the one who gives birth) and the other woman is listed as a parent, so not really sure what people are objecting to unless they disagree with a woman being registered as a legal parent of a child she parents.

The rise of the right (a perfectly normal reaction to mass migration and govt after govt failing to control it) just doing what the right do.

could another woman, a friend of the mothers put her name on the birth certificate also? - no.

could a man who is not the father put his name on the birth certificate? - not legally, no.

can anyone other than the biooligcal mother and father out their name on the birth certificate? - no.

clearly the birth certificate is for biological parents, and biology determines the need for 1 male and 1 female.

So it isn't lesbophobic because it isn't excluding lesbian partner/parents whilst including others.

what IS lesbophobic is allowing another man to adopt the child, but not another woman.

Out of interest Onlytherain do you still get a short birth certificate reissued (don’t think they are meant to be used as id but mine seems to have been generally accepted) or has that stopped as the stigma of adoption has (hopefully) been lost?

Parental responsibility in the UK

https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities

We clearly need to rethink what the purpose of a birth certificate is.

Is it provide the child, society and the state with adults who are legally responsible for the child’s upkeep and wellbeing?

The legal mother is the woman who gave birth to the baby. Anyone she is married to should be named as a legal co-parent because there is an existing legal relationship between the two adults.

Perhaps if mothers are unmarried only the genetic father should be listed because he made the choice to part with his gametes in the direction of the mother and therefore bears some legal responsibility for the child, financially and otherwise.

If the mother chooses not to name a father or a father chooses not to acknowledge paternity then the child of an unmarried mother has only one legal parent until another adult adopts the child as some step fathers have done, so a comother who isn’t married to the legal mother could then adopt the child and become a legal comother.

I’d like to strip it back to the question of, why is it of any benefit to the children born by donor conception to married lesbian couples, for the Italian government to take away their other mother from being recorded on that child’s birth certificate?

Please someone explain to me why you think their other mother should not be on their BC? This the other mother who is also picking the child up from school, making medical decisions about them etc etc and who will continue to always be the child’s other mother even if they were to divorce from the mum in future?

Posters who are wanting BCs with full genetic disclosure- a very risky to children and women position to be advocating for- please bear in mind that the mum who did not give birth, whom some of you are arguing has no right to be on the BC, may be the child’s genetic mother, if the lesbian couple used her egg in IVF with the donor sperm.

Donors of gametes are not parents in the eyes of the law which is why they are not identified on the BC. That’s a different question.

I feel as though I might need to state for the avoidance of anyone’s doubt that parents who give each other gametes to have a baby together are not donors, they are parents, before anyone tries to suggest that normal egg donation rules should be applied to lesbian couples transferring eggs between themselves.

I can’t see any non-lesbophobic reason why any of this explicit discrimination by the Italian government benefits the children of lesbian couples or lesbian couples themselves, or indeed would benefit wider society. So it’s a shock to see so many posts thinking this is a good move.

I think the birth certificate should only have the biological parents on it. It should be a factual record of the birth.

As other have said an additional adoption certificate can be issued.

I am an adoptive parent. Adoptees don't get a new birth certificate; they get an (additional) adoption certificate and use this for all legal purposes.

The birth certificate should state the biological parents. Children have a right to know this information. It is important for their sense of identity and for medical reasons. Many donor conceived children struggle with their sense of identity. I know children who are in therapy because of this.

I don't see the difference to gay parents, sperm/egg donation etc. At the same time, it needs to be guaranteed that gay parents have equal rights. I would introduce a certificate stating the legal parents which would be used for all legal purposes.

You've expressed what I've been thinking.

I would agree with this, if Italy allowed gay adoption. But they don't. That's the issue here really, if they did then the birth certificate could name the birth mother and adoption certificate name the two mothers and job done.

But now we've got two competing needs - the need for birth records to be accurate, both for the child and the state; and the need for the actual parents of the child, in this case the two mums, to have full legal rights and responsibilities for the child. Which is pretty urgent if that means the non birth mum can't consent eg for medical treatment for the child, or would have no rights to raise the child if the birth mum died. IMO Italy needs to legalise same sex adoption, that's the problem here.

The birth certificate is only for data surrounding the child's birth. Who the legal guardian is can change any time and has no effect on the circumstances of the child's birth.

Adoption papers and the likes can be added to the child's file to prove who the legal guardians are. There is no reason what so ever to mess with the birth certificate.

It needs to stick with the data.

A birth certificate should be factually accurate. The Adoption certificate can state the actual adults doing the parenting. The child's rights to a factually accurate record of its origins supercede the potential mother/father/nongenderspecific individuals wishes regardless of the race, religion or sexual orientation of saud parents. This is a black and white issue and the child's rights must come first.

If you aren't being rude there's no real need to state it is there?

I was thinking more in terms of where arrangements have been made for a donor to provide sperm to a Lesbian couple outside of a medical IVF situation.

Why don't we strip this back to the questions:

'what is the purpose of a birth certificate?'
'who is it for?'

Families have changed so much in how they are structured and function (gay couples, lesbian couples, egg donors, sperm donors, out of 'wedlock') I don't think we can look at how things historically have worked, but look at what is needed now.

Thinking of those question, birth certificates are clearly for the child, the parents, and the state.

The parents - to prove legal parentship

The state - accurate/factual record keeping

The child - to know who parents are, and also to know genetics..

Knowing one's genetics is much more important these days, now we know how many diseases are hereditory. To be able to know if you are pre-dispositioned for certain cancers is quite important.

I think that there is an innate curiosity in us to want to know who our ancestors are. This is clear with how popular DNA testing for ethnicity/geneaology is. Similiarly the high use it of ancestory websites.

So maybe updating birth certificates so that they show:

Parental (legal) mother at time of birth:
Birthing mother:

Genetic mother:

Parental (legal) father at time of birth:
Genetic father:

This way it covers all situations... if you were legal, and birthing and genetic mother then your name would appear three times. If another egg was used, then the egg donors name would appear. If a surrogate was used, her name would appear.

If you were in a lesbian couple, both names would appear as legal mother, but only one as birthing and genetic.

It could be that only parents listed as parental/legal have any parental rights. The names listed as genetic and birthing are only their for the child to be able to know their history.

It might also mean that three parents could be listed as having parental rights: maybe a lesbian couple used a friend who is a sperm donor and they also want him to have parental rights. His name could be under legal father, whilst both theirs also under legal mother.

I think what is important is not to allow emotions to get in the way, its obviously an important document for all of us, and in the end it is our own birth certificates which we use throughout our own lives, so what does the child need, not 'how is does this make me feel'.

A birth certificate belongs to the child not the parents. It should contain factual information not the wishes or delusions of adults.

Men should not be registered as mothers neither should women who did not give birth.

This is part of the slippery slope thing we are all now feeling the consequences of. Data needs to remain actual data.