(Anderson) Herald Bulletin
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court wrongly arguing that it should reverse a federal appeals court’s ruling that allowed both members of same-sex couples in Indiana to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their children.
Hill argues someone is losing out on their biological parent rights when same-sex couples can both be listed on the birth certificate, but the current ruling places priority on the welfare of the child.
Hill argues a birth mother’s wife cannot be the biological father of the child and granting such a person presumptive parental status is to undermine the rights and obligations of the biological father.
While there is a valid concern for the rights and obligations of biological parents, no such concerns are expressed in the case of opposite-sex married couples.
When a child is born to a husband and wife, the child is said to be born in wedlock and both spouses are assumed to be the parents of the child. No paternity test is required.
If anyone outside the marriage is claiming parental rights, it is that person’s burden to make their case in court.
To deny this privilege to same-sex spouses is discriminatory to same-sex married couples. It is also detrimental to the welfare of the child to place legal obstacles in the way of each of the child’s married parents fulfilling every bit of their parental rights and duties.
If Hill is concerned for family values, he should respect the ties that bind families together that go beyond simple biology.
Send comments to [email protected].