Italy erases the names of gay mothers from their children's birth certificates

hollydolly

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England

.....in heartbreaking crackdown against same-sex parents and surrogacy​

Prime minister Giorgia Meloni's coalition disapproves of LGBT+ couples raising children together and says the country's laws do not allow children to have two mothers.

Michela and Viola's daughter was one of the first three children born to lesbian couples whose birth certificates are being altered to delete one mother. Scores more are being targeted across the country.
The letter from the state prosecutor informed them that the inclusion of the name of Michela (who is not the biological mother of their daughter, Giulia) on the birth certificate was 'contrary to public order'. This move means only the recognised biological mother has parenting rights, such as for schooling and healthcare, and if she was to die, her children can be handed to her relatives or taken away into the state's care.

The government – led by Italy's first female prime minister, who campaigned against 'the LGBT lobby' and 'gender ideology' when winning power last year – claims it is simply tidying up grey areas in the country's Byzantine legal system. But critics claim Meloni is provoking an ideological war by picking on same-sex parents to appease her most hardline supporters and divert attention from struggles on other fronts, such as tackling immigration or poverty.
Her party also wants to make so-called 'procreative tourism' a criminal offence, with possible prison sentences and €1million fines for Italians using foreign surrogacy – a practice deemed 'worse than paedophilia' by one of her MPs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-childrens-birth-certificates-crackdown.html
 

hollydolly said:
This move means only the recognised biological mother has parenting rights, such as for schooling and healthcare, and if she was to die, her children can be handed to her relatives or taken away into the state's care.
Click to expand...

That is so sad for the kids. I wonder if the parents could work around it by designating the second mother as a legal guardian and then if one mother were to die the second would be the guardian and could adopt their child?
 

OldFeller said:
I feel that they're conducting a sociological experiment and hoping it works out well for the child. Does a child need both a father and a mother? We'll find out in about 20 years.
Click to expand...
I grew up fine without a father (I think) who was away fighting Hitler's war! But what Italy is doing is despicable! And I always thought (see another thread of mine) that women would make better leaders because I thought of them as gentler and more compassionate! I am being corrected!
 
Old Salt said:
I grew up fine without a father (I think) who was away fighting Hitler's war! But what Italy is doing is despicable! And I always thought (see another thread of mine) that women would make better leaders because I thought of them as gentler and more compassionate! I am being corrected!
Click to expand...
errrrm... gentler and more compassionate.... have you forgotten Margaret Thatcher..?
 
I sort of understand the PM’s rationale and the need to name just 1 mother as the prevailing parent, but would it be possible to redesign the birth certificate to include a second parent of the same sex. IOW, the mother’s name would be on the first line as the biological mother and the line under her name would be the name of the non-biological mother? Doing that may appease both sides.
 
Am I reading the initial post correctly?

My understanding, on a birth certificate, there can currently be two mothers listed, but they want to restrict it to one mother?

If I'm correct in my understanding - OF COURSE there should only be one mother. Whoever gave birth is the mother. If they're a lesbian couple, then the other partner is not a mother. She's a partner. It's crazy they ever allowed there to be two mothers.

Perhaps I'm missing something.
 
VaughanJB said:
Am I reading the initial post correctly?

My understanding, on a birth certificate, there can currently be two mothers listed, but they want to restrict it to one mother?

If I'm correct in my understanding - OF COURSE there should only be one mother. Whoever gave birth is the mother. If they're a lesbian couple, then the other partner is not a mother. She's a partner. It's crazy they ever allowed there to be two mothers.

Perhaps I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
I assume that all birth certificates have mother and father on it, so in case something happens to one the other will have custody of the child. If you only list the mother in a lesbian marriage, what happens if the mother dies or becomes chronically ill? Her wife will have no legal say over the upbringing and custody of their child. Even in the case of a divorce, only the birthmother would have rights to the child That's just cruel!
 
Old Salt said:
I assume that all birth certificates have mother and father on it, so in case something happens to one the other will have custody of the child. If you only list the mother in a lesbian marriage, what happens if the mother dies or becomes chronically ill? Her wife will have no legal say over the upbringing and custody of their child. Even in the case of a divorce, only the birthmother would have rights to the child That's just cruel!
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being cruel, it's just a statement of fact. When we're born, one woman is responsible. We call her, the mother. There is a box for the father, but that's reserved for the male half of the pregnancy. As in - it takes two to tango.

Those are just facts. The father could be "Unknown", but what it could never be is another woman. The same as, two women can't be the mother - in this context - to one child.

I'm confused why this is a question or issue.
 
VaughanJB said:
It's not a matter of being cruel, it's just a statement of fact. When we're born, one woman is responsible. We call her, the mother. There is a box for the father, but that's reserved for the male half of the pregnancy. As in - it takes two to tango.

Those are just facts. The father could be "Unknown", but what it could never be is another woman. The same as, two women can't be the mother - in this context - to one child.

I'm confused why this is a question or issue.
Click to expand...
You are being too literal and you didn't read my argument in favour of having both listed. In any case, if an infertile woman adopts a child is she not the mother even though another woman was responible? What exactly is your problem (unless it's a religious one) with having two women listed as "mother?" To the child, both are Mom!!! Just making sure the law thinks so as well!
 
Just a thought, but doesn't the child have a right to know who their biological father, or in other cases, who their biological mother is?

The birth certificate identifies the biological parents of a child. This is that child's blood heritage. I think they have a right to know where they came from.

Just because the non-biological spouse isn't on the birth certificate, that doesn't mean they can't be responsible for raising the child or be called mom or dad or have custody if the biological parent dies.

If they are worried about what happens if a biological parent dies, then designate through legal documents who gets custody after the death. Also, why can't the non-biological parent adopt that child so its all legal?
 
Lilac said:
Just a thought, but doesn't the child have a right to know who their biological father, or in other cases, who their biological mother is?

The birth certificate identifies the biological parents of a child. This is that child's blood heritage. I think they have a right to know where they came from.

Just because the non-biological spouse isn't on the birth certificate, that doesn't mean they can't be responsible for raising the child or be called mom or dad or have custody if the biological parent dies.

If they are worried about what happens if a biological parent dies, then designate through legal documents who gets custody after the death. Also, why can't the non-biological parent adopt that child so its all legal?
Click to expand...
...very often tho' Lesbian mothers use sperm banks... so the 'fathers' name might go on the birth certificate as Testube N357689xy
 
Lilac said:
Just a thought, but doesn't the child have a right to know who their biological father, or in other cases, who their biological mother is?

The birth certificate identifies the biological parents of a child. This is that child's blood heritage. I think they have a right to know where they came from.

Just because the non-biological spouse isn't on the birth certificate, that doesn't mean they can't be responsible for raising the child or be called mom or dad or have custody if the biological parent dies.

If they are worried about what happens if a biological parent dies, then designate through legal documents who gets custody after the death. Also, why can't the non-biological parent adopt that child so its all legal?
Click to expand...
Some valid points that could only be answered by a lawyer, Lilac, when it comes to the rights of a survivor. But wouldn't that demean the other partner, that, even though she was legally married there had to be a document confirming her rights to the child? Since I am not in their situation I am going by what my heart tells me! And to respond to another of your points: I assume since one of the mothers was listed in the case mentioned that she was the birthmother by artificial insemination!
 
Old Salt said:
You are being too literal and you didn't read my argument in favour of having both listed. In any case, if an infertile woman adopts a child is she not the mother even though another woman was responible? What exactly is your problem (unless it's a religious one) with having two women listed as "mother?" To the child, both are Mom!!! Just making sure the law thinks so as well!
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm being too literal, I think I'm simply following normal definitions in context. I think, perhaps, you're not being literal enough.

So, an adoptive woman can be a mother to an adopted child. What she can never be, and what is listed on a birth certificate as "Mother", is the BIRTH MOTHER. The birth certificate isn't asking who will nurture the child, it is asking who gave birth; from whose womb did the child come? As such, there is one, and only one "Mother". That mother may, or may not be, the person who nurtures that child.

We live in times where groups of people want to redefine terms in common usage. Even to the extent that we can choose to identify as whatever sex we want. For example, is a Trans Woman a woman? For me, no. No, they are not women. They are men living as a woman. I have zero problem or issue with men who want to live as women. I do not feel they should be discriminated against. At the same time, I don't consider them women, because they were born, and have genetics, or a male (man).

Same thing here, it seems. What is the definition of the term "Mother"? I say, the term can be used interchangeably, but in the context of the birth certificate, it's the name of the person who gave birth to the child. The woman from whom's womb the child came. It is clearly not the woman (or man) who nurtures the child from birth (although, of course, they can be one and the same). You simply cannot have two mothers listed on a Birth Certificate. That makes no sense.

I hope that makes helps.
 
hollydolly said:
...very often tho' Lesbian mothers use sperm banks... so the 'fathers' name might go on the birth certificate as Testube N357689xy
Click to expand...

In that case there is no named father (which is a shame, because as we move forward with genetic science this could become very important). There is still a named mother.
 
VaughanJB said:
I don't think I'm being too literal, I think I'm simply following normal definitions in context. I think, perhaps, you're not being literal enough.

So, an adoptive woman can be a mother to an adopted child. What she can never be, and what is listed on a birth certificate as "Mother", is the BIRTH MOTHER. The birth certificate isn't asking who will nurture the child, it is asking who gave birth; from whose womb did the child come? As such, there is one, and only one "Mother". That mother may, or may not be, the person who nurtures that child.

We live in times where groups of people want to redefine terms in common usage. Even to the extent that we can choose to identify as whatever sex we want. For example, is a Trans Woman a woman? For me, no. No, they are not women. They are men living as a woman. I have zero problem or issue with men who want to live as women. I do not feel they should be discriminated against. At the same time, I don't consider them women, because they were born, and have genetics, or a male (man).

Same thing here, it seems. What is the definition of the term "Mother"? I say, the term can be used interchangeably, but in the context of the birth certificate, it's the name of the person who gave birth to the child. The woman from whom's womb the child came. It is clearly not the woman (or man) who nurtures the child from birth (although, of course, they can be one and the same). You simply cannot have two mothers listed on a Birth Certificate. That makes no sense.

I hope that makes helps.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, I agree with most of what you are writing, JB. I was just thinking what's the harm in listing both partners in a legal marriage on the certificate as mothers! If the marriage certificate is enough to guarantee custody of a child to the surviving partner, then okay! Let it be the birthmother only! I just thought that the whole thing was much ado about nothing! Why object? To me it was petty, but I suppose we have to have rules! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top