La. must list gay dads on birth record

This is a horrible abuse by an activist judiciary. States have the right to make their own laws governing adoptions. This activist has overturned that right to further a radical agenda, contrary to the laws and values of Louisiana.

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others. Stop gay apartheid.

. Here, as is so often the case, it’s all about the wants and whims of adults, at the expense of a child’s needs. As this tendency continues, so does the decline of our nation and of our civilization. .

This is a great ending to the story!

What a lucky boy, to have two parents who are willing to do so much in order to guarantee the happiness of their son, who is obviously a very wanted and loved child. It's no surprise that the "folk" in Louisiana failed to follow the constitution and had to be ordered by a Federal Court to follow the law. How disgusting that that backward, corrupt state was willing to victimize a child in order to assert their prejudice and bigotry against two gay men. Thankfully, in America, there is justice for ALL.

No jeager, the activists are the ones who want to add language into the stature that isn't there. The judge simply applied the law as written. I guess the real meaning of a judicial activist is one who makes a decision seen as liberal.

This is judicial overreach. The boy was born in Louisiana; therefore, Louisiana should have handled the birth certificate and the adoption of this child. Another state's ruling on such a matter is null and void if it runs counter to Louisiana's established laws. For the federal judge to ignore this, he had to overlook the Tenth Amendment. Because the federal government is usurping a state matter, Louisiana should nullify this ruling by asserting its constitutional prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment and not recognize this. There is definite grounds to appeal this decision.

It's not "judicial overreach". It's how adoptions typically work. Children born in states where there are lots of kids without parents (like Louisiana) are adopted by parents in states with lots of parents who want them (like California). The adoptions take place in the parents’ home state because that is where the child is living at the time. It would be silly to have Louisiana regulating adoptions taking place in California just because the child was born in Louisiana. Moving the child to the new state requires permission from the birth parents, the state where the child was born, or both. This is hardly radical stuff. The issue here was whether or not Louisiana could treat the child like an orphan by ignoring the final, legal California adoption AFTER the adoption had already taken place. Anybody who thinks respecting a valid adoption decree is “judicial overreach” needs some better legal training, and possibly a new heart.

I support gay marriage; people should have the legal right to marry the person of their choice. Love is love. Marriage should happen before legal adoption. As for adoptees: a person is conceived and born only once. Therefore, one, and only one, birth certificate ought to be issued, naming the mother and father who conceived and gave birth. After that, if an adoption takes place, an adoption certificate ought to be issued for the adoptee, naming the parents by adoption and giving the date of adoption. Issuing an amended birth certificate is immoral and ought to be illegal. While same-sex couples fight for their rights, they stomp on the rights of others – by insisting their names go on a fake birth certificate, they take away the birthrights of the child they are adopting. Think of the fraud committed by false representation of two fathers on a birth certificate. Then think: lies beget mistrust. You cannot have a parent-child relationship based upon lies. Once an amended birth certificate is created for an adoptee, the true birth certificate is sealed. The adoptee is banned, for life, from ever obtaining a certified copy of her or his true birth certificate because, according to adoption law, the adopting parents replace the parents of birth. In reality, adoptees have two sets of real parents. Adoptive parents are parents by legal decree, not by conception and birth. Adoptees bear the burden of living with this duality. How utterly ridiculous and ignorant of the facts of life for any adoptive parents (gay or straight) to be named on a falsified birth certificate! Shame on you! Shame on the court for allowing it! Stand up and be counted as parents by adoption and demand an end to amended - falsified birth certificates for adoptees. Joan Wheeler, who born as, Doris Sippel Reunited adoptee since 1974 adoption activist PS -- I have my original (true) birth certificate and my amended (false) birth certificate.