Gay parents shouldn’t both be on child’s birth certificate, Indiana AG argues

The state’s attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that found Indiana laws limiting who can be called a parent were unconstitutional.


Image: Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill

Indiana’s attorney general submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court 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.

The petition from Attorney General Curtis Hill follows a January decision by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a decision by judges in Indiana’s federal southern district court who found that Indiana laws limiting who can be called the parent of a child were unconstitutional.


Hill filed also filed a request in June asking the court to review the appellate court’s decision.

The original case involved Ashlee and Ruby Henderson, a gay married couple from Lafayette who filed a federal lawsuit in 2015 challenging Indiana’s birth records law. They sued the state health commissioner and Tippecanoe County officials because county officials would not list both of them as parents on the birth certificate of their son, who Ruby conceived through artificial insemination.

The case is among the first dealing with same-sex marriage for the Supreme Court since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Journal & Courier and The Indianapolis Star reported.

Karen Celestino-Horseman, the Hendersons’ Indianapolis-based attorney, said Wednesday that she expects Hill’s brief will be discussed during a Dec. 11 conference the high court has set on the matter.

“We are hopeful the court will follow the precedent in ‘Pavan,’” Celestino-Horseman said, referring to the high court’s 2017 ruling in the Pavan v. Smith case, which involved Arkansas married couples who conceive through artificial insemination. In that case, the court ruled that the “constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage” extended to having the names of same-sex parents on a birth certificate.

In their federal suit, the Hendersons contended that leaving one mother’s name off the birth certificate presented legal issues when it came to health insurance coverage, who could speak for a child at a doctor’s appointment and enrolling in school. They argued that it was unfair to force one mother from a same-sex marriage to spend $4,000 to $5,000 to legally adopt the couple’s child.

The Hendersons won their initial case in 2016. Seven additional couples joined the suit as plaintiffs after Indiana appealed up to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, which ruled in January that under Indiana law, “a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father, so that both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock.”

“There’s no similar presumption with respect to an all-female married couple — or for that matter an all-male married couple,” the judges wrote, adding that requiring both women in a same-sex marriage to be listed as parents would prevent any discrimination.

In his petition to the court, Hill argues that upholding that decision would violate common sense and throw into jeopardy parental rights based on biology.

“A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive ‘parentage’ status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication,” Hill wrote.

Again bigotry on display.  Why does this man so desperately want to take a parent from a child?  He clearly has a ax to grind, as this affects him personally  in no way.  Could he be someone with deeply held religious beliefs that to people of the same gender on a child’s birth certificate makes his god sad.  Makes his god cry?  Is he on a religious crusade to earn his place in his gods afterlife by making the icky gays lives harder?    Please read the next story on this he has an issue with consent also.   Hugs

Indiana AG Asks SCOTUS To Reverse Ruling Allowing Same-Sex Parents To Be Listed On Birth Certificates

Read the full article. Curtis Hill last appeared on JMG earlier this year when he temporarily lost his law license over allegations that he had drunkenly groped several women at a party. Since then Hill has fought against COVID-related restrictions in his state.


4 thoughts on “Gay parents shouldn’t both be on child’s birth certificate, Indiana AG argues

  • I think you summed it up pretty well, Scottie. But their actions have a more sinister goal than inflicting pain on others. They do enjoy that very much but undermining democracy and creating a theocracy is their stated intention. This Christian religion is the same one that promoted slavery. This black man would not find himself in their favor if ever they were successful in creating a world-dominating theocracy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Cagjr. I agree. I realized recently that most people to do not realize that democracy is not a biblical principle. A theocracy is a top down authoritarian type of government, and that is what the government of churches and religions are also. These people who claim the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles don’t realize that those principles are an authoritarian top down government where the leaders are obeyed and the masses do not question.

      Also this is why the religions fight with each other instead of co-existing, they are fighting for world dominance and of course the greatest sources of money. Hugs


  • I don’t know what the problem is here. How are gay people having children? Doesn’t this assume a third party (someone who is not gay) so that the baby can be born? Yes, of course, I know this happens but the thing is … a birth certificate is a legal document that records the birth mother & the birth father of a child … a birth certificate is a recording of this biological fact. If the father is unknown, then that’s recorded. If the child is adopted, these facts don’t change.

    I know that gay couples adopt children & lesbians couples become pregnant by various means but that doesn’t mean that both parents belong on the birth certificate, since it’s biologically impossible for both parents to have been biologically part of the pregnancy. I’m not talking feelings here. I’m very sure that both parents felt a part of the pregnancy & the birth & all that. But that’s not what a birth certificate is about … it’s a legal document. Only the facts matter.

    It’s not always about promoting theocracy. Sometimes it’s just about maintaining factual records.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Polly. You are incorrect about adoption. I am adopted and my adoptive parents are on my birth certificate. In fact this issue goes to more than just the feelings of the people.
      It is about the legal status of the parents and the child. Look at the fight over the two twins that the state department has been trying to deny citizenship to only one of them, and keeps losing in court. That legal standing is very important. Again for both parents and the child, each has legal issues that need that birth certificate and the power it brings. Also one last point. These requirements that this AG is pushing do not apply to straight couples, only same sex couples. Now do you see why it is a big deal? Hugs


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.