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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.