February 9th, 2010
 

365 Gay: News

Judge orders La. to issue birth certificate showing 2 dads


(New Orleans, Louisiana) A federal judge has given the state of Louisiana 15 days to put both names of a gay couple on the birth certificate of their adopted son.

Oren Adar and Mickey Smith adopted their Louisiana-born son in 2006 in a New York court, where a judge issued an adoption decree. When Smith attempted to get a new birth certificate for their child, in part so he could add his son to his health insurance, the office of Louisiana State Registrar Darlene Smith told him that Louisiana does not recognize adoption by unmarried parents and so could not issue it.

Lambda Legal filed suit on behalf of Adar and Smith in October 2007, saying that the registrar was violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to recognize the New York adoption. The Constitution holds that judgments and orders issued by a court in one state are legally binding in other states as well. 

In December, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey in New Orleans ordered the state Office of Vital Records to put the names of both fathers on the amended birth certificate.

In his ruling Zainey said failing to amend the birth certificate violated the U.S. Constitution. Zainey issued the ruling without holding a trial.

This week, Louisiana attorney general’s office asked Zainey to reconsider the ruling or order a full trial.

On Thursday, Zainey rejected the motion by Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and ordered the state to comply with his original order within 15 days.

Caldwell said he will appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He wants the court to issue an immediate stay on Zainey’s order until the appeal is heard.

Meanwhile, a bill has been hastily filed in the state legislature that would make it illegal to revise birth certificates for people who would not qualify as adoptive parents in Louisiana. That would include gay couples.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • TigerTzu Said: March 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
    • Yet another law designed to maneuver around the fundamental rights & freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. What good is the Constitution if it is not the SUPREME law of the land? It is worthless.

  • Mark Said: March 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
    • That’s fine let the legislature file the bill, my guess it would be struck down as unconstitutional for violating the same Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution that was ruled on in this case

  • MarkinFla Said: March 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
    • Just remember ‘what’ legislature is attempting it.. dumb hick fundies in the south….

  • TigerTzu Said: March 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
    • Mark Said: “That’s fine let the legislature file the bill, my guess it would be struck down as unconstitutional for violating the same Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution that was ruled on in this case.”

      It didn’t stop DOMA and that hasn’t been struck down even tho it is a clear violation concerning marriage rights.

  • drewski Said: March 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
    • This is insane. It’s primarily Republicans endorsing this kind of crap, though there are plenty of Dems doing it. Who does it matters less than what they’re doing–they’re subverting the authority of the US Constitution by doing everything possible to deny admitting that gays exist outside a freak show. Here are two men who have adopted a child who had no parents. Isn’t family supposed to be the conservative ideal? Isn’t personal responsibility supposed to be the conservative ideal? Nothing matters to these people as much as perpetuating their own bigotry and making other people live it too.

      I don’t think I’ve seen one post here–ever–which would advocate banning str8 marriages, or taking kids from str8 couples, or stop str8s from sending their kids to parochial school. The Louisiana case is one of many which shows that anti-gay activity is an assault on the American legal system. Twisting the law to enable and enforce discrimination against US citizens is an unacceptable attack on our country. It matters because the US exists because of the Constitution. All these anti-gay efforts are a quantifiable attack on the very basis of this country, and it’s more dangerous than any foreign attack. It usually works that way (Germany, Cambodia, Somalia, Burundi).

  • Ryo Said: March 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
    • “Meanwhile, a bill has been hastily filed in the state legislature that would make it illegal to revise birth certificates for people who would not qualify as adoptive parents in Louisiana. That would include gay couples.”

      So…apparently we can make anything into a law that is used to specifically hinder ONE motion. And by the way, so much for the whole checks and balances system. I never would have thought the way to get around the judicial system is to go through the legislative system, that seems to be their biggest weapon on all this, and it just gets under my skin in the worst way.

      “It didn’t stop DOMA and that hasn’t been struck down even tho it is a clear violation concerning marriage rights.”

      Well, to be fair, marriage rights aren’t really spelled out in the constitution, it’s just assumed they’re there with the whole “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” thing, however, the full faith clause is there. I wouldn’t expect it to effect this particular case, though, since this one mainly happened in New York.

  • TigerTzu Said: March 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
    • Ryo Said: “Well, to be fair, marriage rights aren’t really spelled out in the constitution, it’s just assumed they’re there with the whole “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” thing, however, the full faith clause is there. I wouldn’t expect it to effect this particular case, though, since this one mainly happened in New York.”

      The Full Faith and Credit clause requires that a legal marriage in one state be recognized in all other states. That was my point. DOMA was passed to circumvent the intent of the Constitution.

  • Aquariun244 Said: March 21st, 2009 at 2:48 am
    • Not surprisingly, this aboration didn’t make the news here in Louisiana — they were too busy telling us about a corrupt cop in New Orleans, who invaded homes and made women strip so he could fondle them, and tallying all the days killings on the evening news.

      This adoption bill must have been slipped under the table so no one would notice.

      But what would you expect from a state where you can’t hardly tell a Democrat from a Republican, and has Alfred E. Newman for a governor.

      Looks like the way to go is through the Federal Court system.

  • Disgusted Said: March 21st, 2009 at 6:00 am
    • Louisiana is the rectum of the country and for you Republican right wings that would support someone like PAYUSH “Bobby” JINDAL (Weasle in sheep clothing) you are just as crazy as the straights that don’t want you to exist moreless have rights!

      The only way the south is going to accept anything and even then they wont totally accept it is to be FORCED by the federal government!

      What’s sad is the same tool, called religion (the Bible) is the same tool that southerners OF ALL RACES are using to oppress LGBT community!

  • Larry Said: March 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am
    • ok I dont get it,

      isnt the whole purpose of the law suit to allow Smith to put the child on his insurance? seems to me that the point is being lost here.If Lousianna puts a constitutional ban on such things who is being hurt? THE CHILD!!!! so much for gays being out to corrupt and hurt children i guess now states are out to do what the religious right has accused us of for yrs now this child need protected and these backward states need to realize it isnt all about them there are too many states supporting love at this point and they need to protect families of all types

  • Sarrellec Said: March 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
    • The full faith clause has been routinely abrogated with all the state constitutional amendments which deny the legal marriages in Massachusettes.
      These state constitutional amendments are clearly unconstitutional on a federal level because of the full faith clause.
      What’s legal in one state must be recognized as legal in another.
      The 14th Amendment also guarantees equal treatment under the law, so DOMA is also unconstitutional.
      So what?
      You mean you haven’t noticed that laws don’t REALLY apply equally in this country?
      Union contracts can be ignored while retainer contracts for the super rich can not be ignored.
      This is not a surprise any more. It just isn’t.

  • Frank Said: March 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
    • Louisiana is a typical, priest-ridden, red state hell hole. I’m glad I got out before Katrina.

  • English Teacher Said: March 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
    • Please correct the title. It’s, LA, not La

  • Daymon The Basketeere Said: March 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 am
    • Excellent ruling and I hope it’s a vision of things to come.

  • Stoker Said: March 24th, 2009 at 2:18 am
 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook