The northern Italian city of Padua has started removing the names of non-biological gay mothers from their children’s birth certificates under new legislation passed by the “traditional family-first” government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

  • I know that the international ultra conservative movement wants to erase LBGTQ rights, but this is one I hadn’t considered. Chiseling away the rights of gay parents in order to jealously guard the “traditional” family is mean and stupid.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        As someone whose had a lesbian non-biological parent and a birther go to the court over our custody in Texas, I’m thankful the judge recognized my mom’s legitimacy as our parent and gave her full custody. But it could have easily turned out differently simply because of the non-biological parent part, but at least her name was on our birth certificates and we had her last name from birth. Can’t imagine it would have turned out the same otherwise despite the other person clearly being totally unfit to raise children.

        The politicians acting like this isn’t discrimination that acts against the interests of children are lying or ignorant of the downstream consequences.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Exactly. This is going to lead to taking children out of loving homes.

          And that’s by design.

        • So your argument is completely unqualified conjecture about what a judge might have done differently, given your presumed total lack of legal qualifications?

    • @EhList@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Not just that but it complicates things as the non-birth parent loses legal right so if the birth mom dies and dad was a donor the kid has no parent.

  • Jaysyn
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    I guess Italy needs a reminder of what the rest of the world did to them the last time they chose Fascism.

    • @feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly I’m surprised it was ever allowed. A birth certificate should serve as a historical genealogical record and might be useful for tracking, for example, hereditary diseases like Huntington’s. It’s not much use if it’s got an unrelated adoptive parent on it. Maybe there should be an additional field for legal caregiver when there’s a difference.

      • thisisbutaname
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        What about if the father is an anonymous sperm donor? Why wouldn’t you write the other mom’s name in the birth certificate?

        • @feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I would say it should still function as a genealogical record for a number of reasons, particularly as a useful medical record. If unknown, that should be specified - or include a reference to their anonymous medical records.

          There could be another field for adoptive second parent at birth, if this is necessary. Otherwise I can see how it might cause problems for the adoptive parent in the event of a divorce. Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.

          • Although my understanding is this is already a formalised process, just different paperwork.

            You’d be entirely correct in that understanding. Unfortunately the actual facts of the situation don’t make for a convincing piece of propaganda about just how victimized people are.

        • At least to the extent of my knowledge, it’s entirely acceptable to leave the spot empty if the father isn’t known, or at least not made known to whoever is tasked with pushing the paperwork through.

          What is it that makes you people consider having adoptive parents being able to be listed on birth certificates a massive problem to fight for?

          • You are frankly being disingenuous if you imply that the way law treats a birth certificate is as a genealogical record. That is simply not true, and so long as it is not true, arguments that that should be the criteria of being listed on the document are fallicious.

    • @agissilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.

      Also, the point of the birth certificate is to record the existence of the child. This person exists, now they can be tracked (age, citizenship, etc), go to school, be taxed…

      • Consider this: One from the couple is an egg donor, one is the surrogate.

        OK? What does that merit consideration for? Put down the parents, and fill out the usual slew of adoption paperwork.

  • Amilo159
    link
    fedilink
    -561 year ago

    From the article “Surrogacy is illegal in Italy, and gay marriage has not been legalized. Because same-sex relationships aren’t recognized in law, the non-biological parent has to make a special case for legally adopting their child.”

    Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.

    • BetoA
      link
      461 year ago

      You realize most atrocities in history were done “just following the law”, right?

      • BombOmOm
        link
        fedilink
        -271 year ago

        Having the birth-parents on the birth certificate is ‘monstrous’? Come now.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike
          link
          fedilink
          19
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As someone who probably would have had to deal with a decade of abuse and neglect as a child if such a change had happened in Texas 20 years ago, I can prefer confidently say yes, it is monstrous.

          • BombOmOm
            link
            fedilink
            -211 year ago

            Who would be abusing you for your birth parents being on your birth certificate? The only people who see that document are the people raising you and the DMV/Passport office.

            • Unaware7013
              link
              fedilink
              141 year ago

              …do you not understand how an abusive parent being on the birth certificate would have legal and custody implications?

              That’s not something that only the DMV/passport office sees, family judges see and may use that to determine custody arrangements, which can lead to abuse. I’m not sure how you managed to ignore the biggest and most obvious implications of changing parentage on the birth certificate.

              • BombOmOm
                link
                fedilink
                -12
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                …do you not understand how an abusive parent being on the birth certificate would have legal and custody implications?

                One’s adoptive parents have full custody, that is the point of adoption.

                • It’s unfortunate that this community just mass downvotes anyone percieved as going against the approved narrative, even if it’s literally just stating facts.

            • Who would be abusing you for your birth parents being on your birth certificate

              Nobody because he’s just making up random conjecture out of his ass so he can pretend he’s persecuted

        • That’s not what it said. It said it only allows biological parents and that adoption by same sex parents requires special permission. Please don’t change the argument until something else.

    • Jaysyn
      link
      fedilink
      171 year ago

      Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.

      … is what a fascist sympathizer would say in this situation.

  • LemurOnRails
    link
    fedilink
    -601 year ago

    Traditional family-first is good approach, I only wonder why care so much about non traditionals, they probably won’t make traditional family anyway lol.