The northern Italian city of Padua has started removing the names of non-biological gay mothers from their children’s birth certificates under new legislation passed by the “traditional family-first” government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
I know that the international ultra conservative movement wants to erase LBGTQ rights, but this is one I hadn’t considered. Chiseling away the rights of gay parents in order to jealously guard the “traditional” family is mean and stupid.
There’s a reason one of the five things prohibited under the UNs 1948 convention against genocide is the forcible transfer of children. This is a step down that same path.
As someone whose had a lesbian non-biological parent and a birther go to the court over our custody in Texas, I’m thankful the judge recognized my mom’s legitimacy as our parent and gave her full custody. But it could have easily turned out differently simply because of the non-biological parent part, but at least her name was on our birth certificates and we had her last name from birth. Can’t imagine it would have turned out the same otherwise despite the other person clearly being totally unfit to raise children.
The politicians acting like this isn’t discrimination that acts against the interests of children are lying or ignorant of the downstream consequences.
Exactly. This is going to lead to taking children out of loving homes.
And that’s by design.
So your argument is completely unqualified conjecture about what a judge might have done differently, given your presumed total lack of legal qualifications?
deleted by creator
Having a non-biological parents recorded on a birth certificate is just about the farthest thing from a right. Quit the bullshit alarmism.
deleted by creator
I guess Italy needs a reminder of what the rest of the world did to them the last time they chose Fascism.
Not like the rest of the world is that much better off
Your point?
Really unfortunate to see from Italy.
Isn’t the whole point of a birth certificate that it records the birth parents?
Honestly I’m surprised it was ever allowed. A birth certificate should serve as a historical genealogical record and might be useful for tracking, for example, hereditary diseases like Huntington’s. It’s not much use if it’s got an unrelated adoptive parent on it. Maybe there should be an additional field for legal caregiver when there’s a difference.
What about if the father is an anonymous sperm donor? Why wouldn’t you write the other mom’s name in the birth certificate?
I would say it should still function as a genealogical record for a number of reasons, particularly as a useful medical record. If unknown, that should be specified - or include a reference to their anonymous medical records.
There could be another field for adoptive second parent at birth, if this is necessary. Otherwise I can see how it might cause problems for the adoptive parent in the event of a divorce. Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.
Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.
You’d be entirely correct in that understanding. Unfortunately the actual facts of the situation don’t make for a convincing piece of propaganda about just how victimized people are.
At least to the extent of my knowledge, it’s entirely acceptable to leave the spot empty if the father isn’t known, or at least not made known to whoever is tasked with pushing the paperwork through.
What is it that makes you people consider having adoptive parents being able to be listed on birth certificates a massive problem to fight for?
You are frankly being disingenuous if you imply that the way law treats a birth certificate is as a genealogical record. That is simply not true, and so long as it is not true, arguments that that should be the criteria of being listed on the document are fallicious.
I never said it did. Doesn’t justify your retarded position of just putting whoever on it.
The birth certificate is certifying the birth of a child, not their lineage of their parents. You are indeed attempting to use the document for something outside its scope.
Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.
Also, the point of the birth certificate is to record the existence of the child. This person exists, now they can be tracked (age, citizenship, etc), go to school, be taxed…
Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.
OK? What does that merit consideration for? Put down the parents, and fill out the usual slew of adoption paperwork.
The “birth mother” is adoptive to you in that situation? Or the egg donor?
Maybe as a benchmark. How is it handled with adoption? Is that also not registered?
Giorgia Meloni dico solo questo
Good for Italy, they are stepping on the right direction.
From the article “Surrogacy is illegal in Italy, and gay marriage has not been legalized. Because same-sex relationships aren’t recognized in law, the non-biological parent has to make a special case for legally adopting their child.”
Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.
y’all ever consider changing the law instead of enforcing something monstrous?
Having the birth-parents on the birth certificate is ‘monstrous’? Come now.
As someone who probably would have had to deal with a decade of abuse and neglect as a child if such a change had happened in Texas 20 years ago, I can prefer confidently say yes, it is monstrous.
Who would be abusing you for your birth parents being on your birth certificate? The only people who see that document are the people raising you and the DMV/Passport office.
…do you not understand how an abusive parent being on the birth certificate would have legal and custody implications?
That’s not something that only the DMV/passport office sees, family judges see and may use that to determine custody arrangements, which can lead to abuse. I’m not sure how you managed to ignore the biggest and most obvious implications of changing parentage on the birth certificate.
…do you not understand how an abusive parent being on the birth certificate would have legal and custody implications?
One’s adoptive parents have full custody, that is the point of adoption.
It’s unfortunate that this community just mass downvotes anyone percieved as going against the approved narrative, even if it’s literally just stating facts.
Who would be abusing you for your birth parents being on your birth certificate
Nobody because he’s just making up random conjecture out of his ass so he can pretend he’s persecuted
That’s not what it said. It said it only allows biological parents and that adoption by same sex parents requires special permission. Please don’t change the argument until something else.
You realize most atrocities in history were done “just following the law”, right?
Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.
… is what a fascist sympathizer would say in this situation.
Hey buddy, fascism isn’t just whenever you don’t actually have the ability to defend your position
I’m Italian and I’m ashamed.
You know how many outmoded and idiotic laws are still on the books, but are simply ignored because it’s embarrassing to even acknowledge them? Law is not absolute.
Absolutely. So they should be able to ignore the above quoted law.
Traditional family-first is good approach, I only wonder why care so much about non traditionals, they probably won’t make traditional family anyway lol.
How is this “good approach”?
Traditional family-first is good approach
Oh, so a man, his 12 children, and his third wife after the first two died in childbirth?
