In a shocking development, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled a birth certificate is supposed to have the names of the child’s biological mother and father.

In an era in which Americans suddenly require a law to state the millennia-long obvious about marriage — that it is supposed to be between a man and a woman — and a law to state the other obvious fact that the little boys room is supposed to be for little boys, it shouldn’t be a surprise a state’s highest court had to tell people Mom and Dad are supposed to be on little Johnny’s birth certificate:

Identifying biological parents is an “important governmental objective,” wrote Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart in the majority opinion, explaining that knowing who parents are allows the state to track public health trends and give children genetic information that they might need for medical reasons later on.

The article accurately concedes there’s no law requiring heterosexuals to prove they are the biological parents of the child — but again, just like marriage and bathrooms, that’s supposed to be a statement of the obvious. Child is birthed by Mom, who is married and faithful to her faithful husband, Dad. There are certainly cases where that isn’t the case (with regard to the father’s parentage and in the absence of surrogacy, at least), and there are also cases in which birth certificates have been legally changed for reasons other than error — but failures do not undermine the legitimacy of the system as a whole.

The Family Research Council explained it this way [formatting original]:

In other words, [homosexual advocates] would have the law go from presuming something that is almost always factually true to presuming something that cannot possibly be factually true—namely, that two women are both the biological mother of a newborn child.

The FRC also noted this wasn’t white male misogyny in action: The opinion was authored by one of the four-woman majority on the Arkansas Supreme Court, Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart, who, by the way, is also an Army veteran.

Homosexual activists apparently decried the “issues” that not being on a birth certificate created:

Without this legitimization, parents may struggle to put children on their health insurance or even pick them up from school.

That’s asinine. To wit, any legal guardian can pick a child up from school — schools don’t check birth certificates at the door. It would seem the issue to which homosexuals really object is the idea they need a second document to identify their legal guardianship because their name isn’t on the birth certificate.

But that makes homosexuals equal with heterosexuals — because any heterosexual who does not appear on a child’s birth certificate requires that same additional documentation. The status quo is “equal treatment” — and homosexuals are now demanding special treatment.

One of the dissenting judges tried to say that having one’s name on a birth certificate was a “benefit” of marriage.

That construct — in which a minor’s birth certificate could (or should) be changed with every divorce, remarriage, or other marital change — is ridiculous.

Birth certificates were originally intended to serve one purpose: To identify the two people who created the child. Regardless of the drama of life’s changes — adoption, death, marriage, or what have you — one constant in a person’s life was supposed to be a sheet of paper that said this is where I was born, this is when I was born, and these are the man and woman to whom I was born — those responsible for my creation.

A birth certificate is supposed to represent truth and evidentiary facts.

Like marriage and the bathroom, however, it would seem the birth certificate, too, has become a playground for those who seek special sexual “rights”.

Truth, however, continues to expose the error of the homosexual movement.  And when truth convicts, rather than acknowledge their error, these activists will try to silence — or even change — truth itself.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---