Government announce major policy contradiction just to please LGBT

Batty Boy

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-lgbt-4877603-Nov2019/ From official government website https://www.birthsdeathsmarriages.ie/faqs/

Children need to know as much as possible about both their parents, so that they will have a good sense of their own identity and personal history. Having the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate helps to establish the child’s sense of identity as s/he grows up.

Apiarist

Oh, something new, probably outrageous, and about LGBT. Let me get the popcorn. What is this this time about anyway?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Where does pleasing LGBT come in to it?

BDI

Can we not have a few hours rest from the gays to bury gay Byrne?

Bob Harris

I'm gay and so is my wife!

Ten of Swords

Better stock up on canned goods and fresh water op, this sounds like proper end of the world stuff

Quantum Erasure

Josie Fancy Someone wrote: »

Where does pleasing LGBT come in to it?

"Regulations to allow same sex parents register both their names on their child's birth cert to be signed today"

is the headline from the first link in the OP

Batty Boy

It's only five years ago that Joan Burton made it mandatory for father's to be named on the birth certificate

Quantum Erasure

whatever about the mother and same sex partner being on the birth cert, how does it work with two fathers? presumably neither of them have to actually be the biological father...?

beejee

All this stuff, in general, is going to age like milk.

All the backlash about the church will be replaced in the future with backlash about state-sanctioned buffoonery.

Not to the same severity, but this kind of no-brain nonsense is a class action waiting to happen in years to come. And sure why not, it's not like anyone cares about reality anymore anyway

riffmongous

Batty Boy wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-lgbt-4877603-Nov2019/ From official government website https://www.birthsdeathsmarriages.ie/faqs/ Children need to know as much as possible about both their parents, so that they will have a good sense of their own identity and personal history. Having the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate helps to establish the child’s sense of identity as s/he grows up.

Faulty premise since that doesn't seem to be the point of a birth cert. First a fathers name doesn't have to be on it in any case (afaik) and then up until a few years ago adopted children didn't even have the right to access their original birth cert and even now I think they can only get it with consent of the birth mother

Edgware

If there are two fathers names on the birth cert who decides whether or not the child can wear a Poppy

Ten of Swords

Batty Boy you have started a discussion about this exact issue in 3 fora (AH, CA and Legal) so I know you're just dying to blow your outrage load but please do some (extremely basic) research into the topic.

This applies only when both parents are female and the child is conceived through IVF in a clinic in Ireland - those are the ONLY circumstances this policy permits

corsav6

Edgware wrote: »

If there are two fathers names on the birth cert who decides whether or not the child can wear a Poppy

Asking the real questions here

RiseToMe

A birth cert has never been a record of genetics and never will be. In order to claim this they would require genetic testing prior to issuing a birth cert.

Proof of this is the current legislation whereby if the mother is married to a man at the time of birth, he may be put on the birthcert as the father even if there is no biological relationship to the child. This is written in our legislation.

Again, this is the current legislation as it stands. Birthcerts in this country are nothing to do with biology and never have been based on the legislation in place.

Balf

RiseToMe wrote: »

A birth cert has never been a record of genetics and never will be. In order to claim this they would require genetic testing prior to issuing a birth cert.

Proof of this is the current legislation whereby if the mother is married to a man at the time of birth, he may be put on the birthcert as the father even if there is no biological relationship to the child. This is written in our legislation.

Again, this is the current legislation as it stands. Birthcerts in this country are nothing to do with biology and never have been based on the legislation in place.

Sorry, this just isn't correct.

There isn't a genetic check, because it would be mad to ask every married woman and her husband for a blood sample every time they have a child. But the law is that the biological father is the person to be registered.

In the case of a married woman, it is assumed that the biological father is her husband, unless this is contested.

Other than that, the person named as father must consent to being named.

If there's a dispute, the Courts may order who is named as father - if necessary, seeking a genetic assessment.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/presumption_of_paternity.html

If the alleged father disputes paternity, he may agree to a medical paternity test. If he doesn't agree to this, it is up to the court (usually the District Court) to decide on paternity.

Where someone refuses to give a sample, the court can draw whatever conclusions it thinks proper from the refusal. For example, if the alleged father refused to give a sample, the court may take the view that he was afraid the tests would indicate he was the father. If the mother refused to give a sample, the court may take the view she was afraid the test may prove the named man was not the father.

You'll appreciate, the context is one where you'd normally be protecting the rights of children faced with fathers trying to avoid their responsibilities.

But its nonsense to say that birth certs have nothing to do biology. They are, absolutely, to do with biology.

At least, up to this recent change allowing for someone in a same sex relationship, unconnected to the child by biology, to be named as a parent.

hatrickpatrick

A birth certificate should only record the biological parents in the sense of whose DNA the child is comprised of. Every child should have the right to know this, and any other situations (adoption, surrogacy, etc) should be provided for by means other than the actual birth certificate.

RiseToMe

Balf wrote: »

Sorry, this just isn't correct.

There isn't a genetic check, because it would be mad to ask every married woman and her husband for a blood sample every time they have a child. But the law is that the biological father is the person to be registered.

In the case of a married woman, it is assumed that the biological father is her husband, unless this is contested.

Other than that, the person named as father must consent to being named.

If there's a dispute, the Courts may order who is named as father - if necessary, seeking a genetic assessment. You'll appreciate, the context is one where you'd normally be protecting the rights of children faced with fathers trying to avoid their responsibilities.

But its nonsense to say that birth certs have nothing to do biology. They are, absolutely, to do with biology.

At least, up to this recent change allowing for someone in a same sex relationship, unconnected to the child by biology, to be named as a parent.

To quote the current situation with regards to heterosexual couples in donor assisted reproduction:

"At present, there is a legal presumption that the mothers husband is the father of a donor-conceived child even if the husband has no biological connection to the child"

So no, the law is not infact that the biological father is to be named. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

blueshade

I've no problem with same sex couples or same sex couples adopting, somewhere along the line here it seems like the child has stopped being the main concern and the feelings of the parents are taking priority. Frankly, all parents should have equal rights, regardless of their sexuality. This business though of women who transition to men wanting to be identified on the birth cert as the father or people wanting 2 daddies or 2 mothers listed as birth parents feels like taking the piss.

BalcombeSt4

Fair play, I support equal rights for LGBT people

Balf

RiseToMe wrote: »

To quote the current situation with regards to heterosexual couples in donor assisted reproduction: by

"At present, there is a legal presumption that the mothers husband is the father of a donor-conceived child even if the husband has no biological connection to the child"

So no, the law is not infact that the biological father is to be named. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

There is a presumption of paternity in the case of marriage, which can be rebutted.

Bear in mind also that children are generally naturally conceived, and that's what the law is chiefly regulating. And the law certainly does mean biological parents are named.

That's why this was wrong

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gp-who-ran-illegal-adoptions-was-a-heroine-says-daughter-28955095.html

"Her adoptive parents – who both died last year – were wrongly recorded as being her birth parents on her birth certificate."

Balf

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Fair play, I support equal rights for LGBT people

We all support equal rights.

We may disagree on what that means.

andala

I don't really see a problem here, just amend the birth certificate to reflect both legal and biological circumstances of birth, i.e

Paddy O'Reilly
biological mother Tara O'Reilly
biological father donor number 1234567
legal guardians Tara O'Reilly and John Smith

also, keep egg/sperm donors anonymous but have a database with numbers. The database can have donors' info about illnesses, education, hair colour etc as well as their consent (or lack of thereof) to be contacted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

We all support equal rights.

We may disagree on what that means.

How so? We all know what equality means, we all know what rights are.

Unless you're suggesting we disagree on who actually has them?

Balf

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How so? We all know what equality means, we all know what rights are.

Unless you're suggesting we disagree on who actually has them?

I suspect you know the problem starts once you move beyond vague generalities.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

I suspect you know the problem starts once you move beyond vague generalities.

I suggest you actually try answering questions asked if you're going to hit the reply button.

Balf

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I suggest you actually try answering questions asked if you're going to hit the reply button.

Already done.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

"Regulations to allow same sex parents register both their names on their child's birth cert to be signed today"

is the headline from the first link in the OP

Is there a loophole here in that the child will not actually be ‘their’ child in one of the ‘parents’ case?

hatrickpatrick

andala wrote: »

also, keep egg/sperm donors anonymous but have a database with numbers. The database can have donors' info about illnesses, education, hair colour etc as well as their consent (or lack of thereof) to be contacted.

Have to say I personally disapprove of this as well, but that's just me. The idea of denying a child the right to know who they truly are and where their blood comes from just feels wrong on every level to me, and in my view that concern should take absolute priority over all others. Genetic heritage is fairly fundamental to the whole concept of being a living thing, and since humans are capable of contemplating the significance of that, it feels utterly cruel to mislead or deny anybody over what their own genetic heritage is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

Already done.

Grand, so you don't believe in equal rights then. Conversation over.

blueshade

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Grand, so you don't believe in equal rights then. Conversation over.

Where are the rights of the child in this? A birth cert should list the names of birth parents, in the case of a donor then a different arrangement should be made. All parents should have equal rights with their children but makey uppey nonsense on birth certs is not in the interests of the child, it's nothing more than pandering to ''feelz''. The child is getting lost in this while the couples make it all about themselves.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blueshade wrote: »

Where are the rights of the child in this? A birth cert should list the names of birth parents, in the case of a donor then a different arrangement should be made. All parents should have equal rights with their children but makey uppey nonsense on birth certs is not in the interests of the child, it's nothing more than pandering to ''feelz''. The child is getting lost in this while the couples make it all about themselves.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

blueshade

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

I think you know exactly what I mean by makey uppey nonsense. A baby comes out of only one vagina, if one of the parents gave birth then she is the mother and the partner, if they have no biological contribution to the child, is not the birth parent. Legally both partners in any parenting arrangement should have equal legal rights, regardless of gender or marital status. That's fairly self evident, anything else is nothing but pandering. The child is being lost in all this PC nonsense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blueshade wrote: »

I think you know exactly what I mean by makey uppey nonsense. A baby comes out of only one vagina, if one of the parents gave birth then she is the mother and the partner, if they have no biological contribution to the child, is not the birth parent. Legally both partners in any parenting arrangement should have equal legal rights, regardless of gender or marital status. That's fairly self evident, anything else is nothing but pandering. The child is being lost in all this PC nonsense.

I asked you to "elaborate" not "explain".

The bit in bold is appearently not happening and rights are being denied to one "parent" because they aren't on the birth cert. Specifically, the right to bequeath.

Honestly don't see that the fuss is: nothing is being withheld from the child (as long as the birth mother's name is recorded and will be accessable to the child at some point of its life, of course), nothing is being withheld from society. People are just whinging because someone else now has the same right they have and spouting "PC nonsense" to cover the fact.

hatrickpatrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

Recording anyone other than the people from whose genetic material a child was created as biological parents is "makey uppey nonsense". Kids should have a right to know where they came from genetically speaking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Recording anyone other than the people from whose genetic material a child was created as biological parents is "makey uppey nonsense". Kids should have a right to know where they came from genetically speaking.

Again:

I asked the poster to "elaborate" not "explain". (I know what "makep-uppey" actually means)

Honestly don't see that the fuss is: nothing is being withheld from the child (as long as the birth mother's name is recorded and will be accessable to the child at some point of its life, of course), nothing is being withheld from society. People are just whinging because someone else now has the same right they have and spouting "PC nonsense" to cover the fact.
(Kid still has said right)

----

You've basically said exactly what the poster I was replying to said, and as such, I've replied saying exactly what I said before.

Feisar

Right, what does it mean to be a person on a child's birth cert? Define that and then lets have a discussion.

Bobblehats

I honestly don’t know where I stand amidst all of this. One one hand it is often better a child doesn’t know who their parents really are particularly when the question becomes a more of a ‘quest’ further on into their teens yet on the other I still think LGBT is some form of BLT with garnish on so who knows.

Rodin

Rule book got thrown out of the window a long time ago.
Just one big mess remains.

donaghs

RiseToMe wrote: »

A birth cert has never been a record of genetics and never will be. In order to claim this they would require genetic testing prior to issuing a birth cert.

Proof of this is the current legislation whereby if the mother is married to a man at the time of birth, he may be put on the birthcert as the father even if there is no biological relationship to the child. This is written in our legislation.

Again, this is the current legislation as it stands. Birthcerts in this country are nothing to do with biology and never have been based on the legislation in place.

Disingenuous. Birth certs pre-date genetics. But they still wanted to know who gave birth to the child, and the assumption was that it was the “mother”.

donaghs

I theory there’s no big issue here, but the devils in the detail. Every child should still have a right to know who their biological parents are. Does anyone know what happens in all the potential scenarios with surrogate mothers, two fathers, etc?

Iodine1

Bobblehats wrote: »

I honestly don’t know where I stand amidst all of this. One one hand it is often better a child doesn’t know who their parents really are particularly when the question becomes a more of a ‘quest’ further on into their teens yet on the other I still think LGBT is some form of BLT with garnish on so who knows.

When, in what circumstances is it better for the child not to know?

Ten of Swords

donaghs wrote: »

Does anyone know what happens in all the potential scenarios with surrogate mothers, two fathers, etc?

Doesn't apply here. The policy described in the op is relevant only to birth mother (which automatically rules out two male parents) and spouse, where the child was conceived through DAHR (donor assisted human reproduction) in an Irish clinic, where the donor is known, and the child is born in Ireland.

Any variation of the above criteria and these new rules don't apply (overseas clinic, born outside Ireland, anonymous donor etc)



Here is the act. Parts 2 and 3 come into effect on May 5th 2020

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/enacted/en/html

Section 5 deals with parentage
Section 35 deals with the right to information about the donor

Bobblehats

Iodine1 wrote: »

When, in what circumstances is it better for the child not to know?

When your father turns out to be an alcoholic paraplegic in a corpo flat with what appears to be a trophy cabinet full of piss jugs behind him. Stuff like that

Batty Boy

Batty Boy wrote: »

Having the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate helps to establish the child’s sense of identity as s/he grows up.

it does? I am not sure I ever even _saw_ my own birth cert growing up. With the possible exception of needing it to apply for my first passport. I know my kids have not seen theirs either - and the fact we live in a three person relationship their identify would not be represented on it anyway given they have three parents in their life and the cert only registers two.

I really struggle to think of anyone I personally know who has linked their identity growing up to their birth cert in any way at all in my life - let alone what names happen to be on it. In fact children generally seem to have no interest at all in the documents adults rule their world with as they grow up.

Whatever issues I can think of as to why it is a bad idea to mess with the contents of our nations certifications of birth - the sense of identity it gives a growing child is not something I would include on the list. That idea seems as ludicrous to me as the tripe nonsense a few people trot out around here that a kids parents need to be one man and one woman because kids need a male and female "role model". Guess what? They can not support that bull either.

Iodine1

Bobblehats wrote: »

When your father turns out to be an alcoholic paraplegic in a corpo flat with what appears to be a trophy cabinet full of piss jugs behind him. Stuff like that

So many people have alcoholic fathers and don't see it as a reason to deny them?
Likewise all those good people who live in corpo flats, don't deny it either?
Perhaps you could give me a civil and sensible answer to a reasonable question I asked you based on your post?

Huntergonzo

Have to be careful what I say here because I recently got a lifetime ban off the LGBT forum on boards for saying that I believed in only 2 genders (male & female) and that you couldn't change genders.

Anyway, I think this legislation is a bad idea if the birth cert does not also contain the names of the biological parents when known.

It panders to the feelings of grown adults rather then the best interests of the child. Now this is of course not to say that the biological parents are always the best for the child, far from it. Adoptive parents can be much better, and I have no issue with same sex couples or same sex marriage or anything like that, infact I support those things.

But a child should have the right to know who both their biological parents are for obvious reasons, not least for medical reasons and it seems very contrived and downright wrong to put 1 or 2 people down on a birthcert who had no involvement in creating the child.

But alas we live in crazy times folks.

Bobblehats

Iodine1 wrote: »

So many people have alcoholic fathers and don't see it as a reason to deny them?
Likewise all those good people who live in corpo flats, don't deny it either?
Perhaps you could give me a civil and sensible answer to a reasonable question I asked you based on your post?

It’s one thing if they were born into it, but the impact of discovering this and that it was all self inflicted due to alcoholism (and possibly womanising) can have a detrimental effect on a teenager’s esteem. Whilst their friends may have admiration for their parents, even going on to follow in their footsteps but then I do think knowledge of some dna history might well be beneficial. In case of any hereditary disease

TheValeyard

Child may need medical information down the road. Knowing your biological parents is essential to protect you and any potential children you may have.

Balf

TheValeyard wrote: »

Child may need medical information down the road. Knowing your biological parents is essential to protect you and any potential children you may have.

And its notable that this issue is being raised as a marriage equality issue, not a rights of the child issue. Despite the very clear understanding that the marriage equality referendum had nothing to do with children.

We've already voted to protect the rights of the child. And the rights of the child are not necessarily served by allowing men to arbitrarily deny their responsibilities as fathers, saying "I was just helping out a couple of lesbians".

And that's pretty much what's being looked for, with this pathetic argument that effectively anyone should be allowed to be included on the cert as a parent because we don't carry out a genetic test every time a married woman says her husband is the father of her child, or every time an unmarried man consents to being named as father.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

And its notable that this issue is being raised as a marriage equality issue, not a rights of the child issue. Despite the very clear understanding that the marriage equality referendum had nothing to do with children.

We've already voted to protect the rights of the child. And the rights of the child are not necessarily served by allowing men to arbitrarily deny their responsibilities as fathers, saying "I was just helping out a couple of lesbians".

And that's pretty much what's being looked for, with this pathetic argument that effectively anyone should be allowed to be included on the cert as a parent because we don't carry out a genetic test every time a married woman says her husband is the father of her child, or every time an unmarried man consents to being named as father.

A few people have harped on about the "rights of the child" but then shimmed off when asked a very simple question, perhaps you'll have better luck, so here goes:

Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?