In an amazing display of inappropriate use of public office, the Attorney General for the state of Indiana has petitioned the United States Supreme Court seeking a reversal of a lower court decision in Indiana, which allowed same-sex couples to both be listed as parents on the birth certificate for their child. The US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Indiana affirmed the decision by the lower court Justice in Indiana's Federal Southern District Court. The Lower Court stated that Indiana laws that limited who could be called a parent of a child were unconstitutional.
It is worrisome why some state officials continue to fight against families headed by same-sex spouses. This case was originally commenced by petition by the lesbian couple in 2015. They sued Indiana's health commission and various county officials because the county officials would not list both of them as parents on the birth certificate of their son, who was conceived through artificial insemination. The lame excuse given by the health officials was that they were not able to list both parents because the software used by the state to produce birth certificates would not allow two women to be listed as parents on one certificate. I guess Indiana is unique; unlike any other state in the union they apparently do not have any computer experts to deal with such a crisis of software incompatibility.
Furthermore, Indiana’s Attorney General made the inspiring argument in his petition that: upholding the lower court's decision would violate common sense and throw into jeopardy parental rights based on biology. Well, this goes against common sense especially when rights are given up through artificial insemination like in the use of a sperm bank! The Attorney General went on to argue that a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication. If that was the case, then in every circumstance of artificial insemination across the country, including millions by heterosexual couples, would be undermined nationally to that of a biological sperm donor. It is clear that Indiana’s Attorney General has not thought through the implications of his argument nationwide or the peril for actual sperm donors. Under his argument maybe sperm donors now have to worry about child support obligations.
Selected excerpt(s) and/or linked article courtesy of Dave Bangert & Johnny Magdaleno, Indianapolis Star
Photo Provided by Article Subjects Ruby & Ashlee Henderson