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.

  • CuriousLibrarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • MomoTimeToDie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having a non-biological parents recorded on a birth certificate is just about the farthest thing from a right. Quit the bullshit alarmism.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess Italy needs a reminder of what the rest of the world did to them the last time they chose Fascism.

  • MomoTimeToDie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t the whole point of a birth certificate that it records the birth parents?

    • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • agissilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

  • Amilo159@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    58
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Beto@lemmy.studio
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You realize most atrocities in history were done “just following the law”, right?

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Unaware7013@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              …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.

              • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                …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.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.

      … is what a fascist sympathizer would say in this situation.

      • MomoTimeToDie
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey buddy, fascism isn’t just whenever you don’t actually have the ability to defend your position

  • LemurOnRails@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.