Considering the millions of anonymous donors out there who have hundreds of kids, typically a birth certificate that says the other parent is unknown, even when a married couple uses such donations, do THEY have to be treated this way?
Does the donor in fact, NOW have to be named on a certificate as the THIRD parent?

And adoptive parents, aren’t the bio ones, so do THEY have to be named along with the adoptive parents as well? Fourth parent set, so to speak.

Here in CA, it’s pretty much whoever shows up and SAYS they are the other parent that gets put on the certificate. Whether married or not.
We have laws that say, if a father finds out that a child his wife has, turns out not to be his biologically, he’s STILL obligated to pay child support, leaving the bio off the hook for it.

THAT’S why it’s not the biological connection or marital status that MUST make the person the parent, but the obligations they’ve signed on to have.

The anti haven’t gotten tired yet of moving the goal posts and raising the bar on gay people, literally to high heaven.
Which makes their actions motivated not by any concern for the children, but for their perception of a divine right to screw with ONLY gay people.

You said: “The HHS recommendation would not apply to same sex couples that were not married. Try reading my entire comment instead of desperately and obsessively looking for a word or two to criticize.” Well, you mention two different scenarios so it’s difficult to discern which one you were speaking of. But it’s hilarious that you will defend almost anything.

Your kid’s birth certificate should be no one else’s business to “approve” anything on, period.

Technically they are only supposed to baptize dead relatives, so if none of your family ever converts to Mormonism, you will probably be able to escape. And they insist that the person being proxy-baptized has the opportunity to refuse. Since there are no reports coming back from the other side, we have no way of knowing if this is accurate or not. The real insult is to the living descendents who are not Mormon and who object strenuously to the whole idea.

I don’t know, but I doubt it would be effective, anyway, because the Mormon church can change anything, including contents of their sacred founding documents, via revelation. While they don’t actually change the document, the revelation enables them to assert that a given passage is no longer applicable.

One of the best examples was when the Mormons ended their exclusion of black people in the late 1970s . . . via revelation. The documents are quite explicit in articulating inferiority of black people, and how they must be excluded from their church. Recently, Andrew Sullivan has written a lot about this:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/religion-race-and-double-standards.html

I’m sure his anti-marriage views are based in his church’s, ummm, unique views about marriage.

btw… is there somewhere that you can register that you do not want to be converted after death?

The HHS recommendation would not apply to same sex couples that were not married. Try reading my entire comment instead of desperately and obsessively looking for a word or two to criticize.

You take the cake for hypocrisy. You will defend even the most indefensible of things.