Cruel Texas Judge Refuses To Allow Names Of Gay Dads To Appear On Their Own Biological Children’s Birth Certificates

Well, this is sad, heartbreaking, upsetting, and infuriating.

Just days before Father’s Day, a family court judge in Texas ruled that a legally married gay couple who each biologically fathered one of two twin boys, cannot have their names added to their own children’s birth certificates.

Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs met four years ago. They were legally married last year in Washington, D.C. In April, they had twins, Lucas and Ethan, with the help of an egg donor and a surrogate mother. Each of the men is the biological father to one of the babies, who are technically biological half-brothers.

And here’s where it gets tricky.

Only the surrogate mother — who has no biological ties to the children, since the embryos were transferred to her — is on the boys’ birth certificates. The fathers are not legally defined as the parents of their own children. And when they petitioned to have this corrected, the judge, who had full authority to fix the error, said no.

“In order to grant a second-parent adoption [automatically under current law], it has to be between two married people,” Hanna explained to Michelangelo Signorile on SiriusXM Progress. “And so, considering we’re not legally married in the eyes of Texas, they don’t have to grant that second-parent adoption because they don’t recognize our marriage…It’s up to the judge’s discretion on whether or not to grant it.”

“Ultimately the judge was saying that with the information she had in front of her, under Texas law she couldn’t grant it,” Riggs added. “I was shocked. We had a ton of questions as we walked away from that courtroom.”

What makes the situation even more frustrating is that other gay couples, including friends of Hanna and Riggs, have successfully completed this same exact process. The couple’s lawyer is now working with them on bringing the petition back to the court, changing some of the paperwork. But the process will take time. (And cost money.)

As they wait to take the next step, Hanna and Riggs say they are worried about being in a dangerous legal limbo.

“Without [co-adoption], if something happened to either me or Joe we don’t have any legal recourse to keep the other’s biological child,” Hanna said. “The state could come in and separate these two brothers.”

He added: “We want to reiterate how important it is for a state to recognize each family, whether it’s same-sex or opposite-sex, and really to ensure everyone has equal protection from the state.”

More Gay Dads on Queerty:

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #adoption #gayparents #jasonhanna stories and more


  • twospirit

    This is so sad, for anyone to have to deal with this discrimination and unfairness; and with one’s own biological children! Get with the times, Texas!!

  • Throbert McGee

    I think the headline may have been slanderous towards the judge — the cruelty and/or irrationality of the underlying law isn’t the fault of the judge who has to make a ruling based on the existing legislation.

    P.S. Some might argue that using a woman as a hired brood-mare who must sign away rights to the child she carries in her womb is itself a cruelty, particularly when there are ALREADY-BORN children in need of adoptive parents.

  • Throbert McGee

    (Just because the two guys are very photogenic doesn’t exclude the possibility that they are self-absorbed yuppie scum.)

  • scotshot

    @Throbert McGee: It appears other parents “have successfully completed this same exact process” that this judge chose to interpret the law according to her own prejudices. It’s also odd that the egg donor’s name is not on the birth certificates as she’s the biological mother. The surrogate entered into a legal agreement to carry the twins to term, there was no force involved. Her reasons to do so may be altruistic, or she may also enjoy pregnancy. Who knows? To refer to her as abroad mare is sexist and denigrating. The fathers may have tried to adopt and not been able to according state law. If you’re so worried about un adopted children you should adopt one or two.
    To call the fathers “self absorbed yuppie scum” is hitting at a pretty low level. The only thing I took from the article is that they are concerned parents with the best interests of their children involved. Maybe you’re jealous of their looks or just a total piece of Troll shit. We’re waiting for your answer.

  • cflekken

    OK, so I’m confused. I can understand if the non-biological-father-but-husband wasn’t allowed to be on the birth certificate as a second adoptive parent, based on the law, but why isn’t the biological father’s name on the birth certificate, only the surrogate mother’s?

  • Andrew Yang

    @Throbert McGee: Did you reread your post before posting? I am not into insulting people or even responding to pedestrian comments here, but I must say your comment hit me to the core, as I assume you are too a gay man. Shame on you!!!!!!

  • tjr101

    This couple needs to leave Tex-ass and move to a more enlightened state.

  • jwrappaport

    @Throbert McGee: If that bit about the parents isn’t slanderous, I’m not sure what is. Good grief.

  • Lvng1tor

    @Throbert McGee: Cause self absorbed yuppie scum are the types to go thru all of this crap. They adopt casue it’s faster and all a matter of cash. Dude not every white guy is a brainwashed dick! That was written just to piss off people. Dude you’re so smart and that’s the bear you poked?

    I often like to read your “devils advocate” posts posts but you’re stretching on this one with the whole “some would argue…brood mare…” post. Come on man stick to the stuff you’re good at…this one was beneath you.

    Also,@scotshot: is right about the legal aspect. The judge used her “discretion” to not to allow. It’s uncommon even in Texas. Texas doesn’t allow pre birth parental recognition rights on surrogate children but it normally only takes a week or two max for the bio father to be recognized after the paternity test. It reads like this is personal on the judges side who used her power to deny not based on prior rulings but prejudice.

    The second parent adoption may be tougher with no marriage recognition and a ruling party that thinks reparative therapy works.

  • Skooter McGoo

    @Throbert McGee: Just because your an asshole doesn’t mean I want to see it.

  • Skooter McGoo

    @Throbert McGee: After checking out your blog I now understand, you are a self loathing gay. You hate yourself so you want other gay people to hate themselves the way you do. Typical of anyone who feels the need to berate others to make themselves valid.

  • Ringo

    @Throbert McGee: Here you go, this is what you wanted right? Some attention.

  • moonman157

    Remember the users who posted in Trans-rights articles saying “Well, the law is the law, so just deal with it”? I’m interested to hear them argue why this couple should be denied the full custody rights of this child, since the law is clear-cut in Texas.

  • litper

    That’s why any gay republican who supports this anti-gay terror is a scum!

  • AnitaMann

    @Throbert McGee: The people who’d argue that are idiots. There is never any obligation to adopt rather than have your own biological offspring and to suggest people shouldn’t be allowed to have biological offspring is really big government at its worst.

  • Bryguyf69

    @Throbert McGee: Er, you seem to have missed the multiple mentions in this article that the judge had full discretion to grant the adoption. So no, she was not constrained by the law to reject their petition. She chose to do so because unlike states with marriage equality, she isn’t forced to treat gay couples equally. So yes, that’s cruel. The article even mentions that other gay couples, presumably also in Texas (otherwise, the sentence is irrelevant), were successful in their petitions. If Texas law forbade their adoption, do you think they would waste the time and money to submit another petition?

    So no, the headline was not “slanderous.” Indeed, you need to look up its definition if you think an adjective like “cruel” is legally slanderous. Slander deals with facts, not a writer’s personal opinions.

    As for the cruelty of surrogacy, where do you see any implication that the woman was forced to do anything? Do you see anything that implied she was against this adoption? For all you know, she could have been a personal friend who wanted to participate. Seriously, just discuss the facts and don’t color them based on your disapproval of surrogacy or photogenic gay couples.

  • nanduyv

    @ Throbert McGee: Laws are dynamic. There will always be a new circumstance to evolve and develope the existing ones. So, if these guys are married, they should be able to register the kids with both names.

    There’s a point where I partially agree with you, but it’s my very own POV. Personally, since I come from a country with a lot of abandoned or bad life conditioned children, I’d rather adopt a kid than have my own one from a surrogate.

  • Bryguyf69

    @Throbert McGee: And your point is…? Why are you arguing a point that no one made? Who said anything about whether they are self-absorbed or even photogenic? Sounds like you’re projecting a lot of personal unresolved issues.

    Read the last sentence of the article, “… equal protection from the state.” Would you have posted a similarly pointless comment had they been Jewish, fat, bald, etc — i.e. “Just because the two guys are very fat doesn’t exclude the possibility that they are self-absorbed yuppie scum.” Apparently, you don’t think “very photogenic” guys deserve equal consideration.

    As for adoption, in the interest of EQUALITY, I assume you apply the same criticism to ANYONE who chooses to procreate rather than adopt. Or is your disapproval reserved for “very photogenic” gay couples? Heck, stop wasting your time on Queerty and go protest maternity wards for their “cruelty.”

  • Bryguyf69

    @Throbert McGee: You really need to do your research. If you think Texas law forbids a gay couple from adopting, read the following. That judge discriminated because they’re gay, period.

    As for adopting the already-born children, think it through before posting. In a conservative state like Texas, do you seriously think that adoption agencies look kindly on gay couples? Many Texans see exposure to same-sex relations as immoral and a form of child abuse. In fact, I bet many Texans even believe than gays, especially gay men, are sexual predators. As such, do you think that this couple could have easily adopted a child with whom they had no biological connection? Think about it.

  • randalaw

    Someone has to keep the C-word alive. In Texas, it’s this heartless witch who is an embarrassment to the bench.

  • TheRonster

    @Throbert McGee: The problem is that a president has already been set by allowing other gay fathers to be on the birth cert. AS for them maybe being yuppie scum….. that has nothing to law. How self absorbed can the be by bringing 2 babies into the world.. one from each of them. That speaks volumes. Perhaps the judge in typical Texas Republican Scum. Just a thought

  • RSun

    @Throbert McGee: Oh Mary…how contrary

  • James Hart

    The judge isn’t being “cruel.” Biology is biology. Nature is nature. No judge can change this fact. Paternity tests should be run on the two guys and the babies, and whichever guy is the biological father of whichever child, if not both children, should be put on the birth certificate. In reality, a child can have only one biological father and one biological mother. The other gentleman would be his stepfather. And the stepfather should be allowed to adopt his spouse’s biological child.

  • inbama

    Just another reason to hate Texas – the state that killed Kennedy and gave us Bush.

  • jckfmsincty

    Texas: The New MIssissippi

  • cutemikey

    @Throbert McGee: You criticize them for not adopting. Many conservatives consider sex without marriage a sin. That’s why even unmarried hetero couples don’t often get to adopt. Now look at this gay couple. Not only are they unmarried in Texas and having sex, but they’re also gay — that’s doubly sinful. Do you really think conservative social workers would want to expose children to what they consider an immoral situation? So you think it’s all that easy to adopt as a gay couple in Texas?????????

  • Bryguyf69

    @cflekken: I haven’t researched this but it sounds like there was an error made, and fathers were left off the birth certificates. Rather than do a direct correction, which would simply add ONE dad to their respective biological child, they decided to do secondary adoptions, which would add both dads to both certificates. They went to the judge to do this and she refused because Texas doesn’t recognize them as a married couple. Texas law does NOT forbid gay couples from adopting but this judge still refused.

  • DarkZephyr

    @Throbert McGee: Wow, one of the more vile and disgraceful comments I have seen from you. I had actually started to respect you too. Oops, my bad.

  • cflekken

    @Bryguyf69: Thanks. So I did a bit more reading on this. I can certainly “understand” the rejection of the second-parent adoption since Hanna and Riggs’ marriage is not recognized in TX. But I’m still not understanding, at the very least, why each biological father is not on each of their own child’s birth certificate. Would they leave off the child’s father’s name if a woman gave birth as a single mother?

  • michael mellor

    The biological mother and father should appear on each birth certificate.

  • DarkZephyr

    @michael mellor: I have four adopted siblings and I can tell you right now that MY parents, who are the adoptive parents, are the ones who’s names are on the birth certificates and NOT the biological parents’ names. In this case for each boy one of the parents IS the biological parent but the other parent *is* raising that child and it is the will of the custodial parent that the child is adopted by their significant other who is helping to raise the child AS THEIR OWN.

    Your statement that the “biological mother and father should appear on each birth certificate” is maybe not one of your dumbest statements ever but its still pretty clueless. That’s like saying that when a child is born to a woman who was artificially inseminated by sperm from a sperm bank, the sperm donor should appear as the father on the birth certificate. These boys were born from DONATED eggs. There is no reason the egg donor’s name needs to be or SHOULD be on the birth certificate. Get a clue.

  • AnitaMann

    @michael mellor: Ah, no, because they’re not the parents.

  • AnitaMann

    @cflekken: Most likely they petitioned to have the surrogate’s name removed and the biological father’s name added because of the gestational surrogacy agreement. However, in TX there’s some confusion as to whether or not the intended parents must be married. If the judge believed TX law requires the intended parents to be married (and these guys aren’t under TX law) then she’d have to rule that the surrogacy agreement is invalid, meaning she couldn’t grant their request. Some TX judges believe marriage is not a requirement for the intended parents and will rule the surrogacy agreement is a valid document which means the judge can rule that the surrogate’s name comes off the birth certificate and the bio dad’s name goes on.

  • GeriHew

    @michael mellor: Some egg donors wish to remain anonymous, as do some sperm donors. If you don’t allow donors the right to anonymity there will be fewer donors for people who need IVF treatment in order to have children. It may be that the egg donor in this case wishes to be anonymous.

  • jonjct

    I would like to broaden this discussion just a bit to deal with an issue that gay men haven’t had to seriously consider until now. Abortion. Today we have more options as gay men than we have ever had in this society including marriage and paternity. But men, not just gay men, have NO reproductive rights since Roe v Wade. If the surrogate decided to abort both babies, even late term, the men would have no way to stop it from happening. Most straight men realize this, gay men probably not, because we haven’t had to deal with it until recently. The woman approves or denies the man’s right to paternity, simple as that.

    I raise this issue because gay men typically are democrats and democrats are extremist pro-choice. Consider this when you vote for Hillary. Are you going to let women determine when you are going to be a dad? That should be YOUR choice. So, what about YOUR reproductive rights gentlemen?

    • GeriHew

      I’m not a gay gentleman. I find your comments offensive.

      For a start women don’t have abortions just for the hell of it. Abortions aren’t generally good for a woman’s physical health and many women suffer depression, feelings of guilt and loss and other psychological problems after having an abortion. Women seldom have an abortion without feelings of deep regret.

      The most common reasons women have pregnancy terminations are:

      1 The pregnancy is unplanned and will have a negative impact on the mother’s life i.e. her career, job prospects, education etc.

      2. Financial problems – can’t afford to have a child or another child.

      3. Relationship problems, break-up, with father. Doesn’t want to be a single parent.

      None of the above are at all likely to apply in the case of surrogacy.

      Any reasons for a surrogate mother to have an abortion are most likely to be due to serious medical complications – i.e. the mother’s health, or even life, is seriously under threat if she tries to complete the pregnancy and give birth. It would be completely outrageous to expect a woman to continue with a pregnancy which could kill her.

      There was a horrific case in Ireland a couple of years ago where a Hindu woman who new she was miscarrying died after being refused an abortion after repeatedly pleading for one. Her name was Savita Halappanavar.

      Another medical reason could be that ultrasounds showed that the baby has seriously medical problems. In such a case the parents might actually want an abortion but the mother might not agree to it.

  • DarkZephyr

    @jonjct: I’m liberal but also very pro-life and I really hate how queerty always throws mention of abortion into the issue of gay rights even when it’s completely unrelated to what’s being reported on, (they seem to have a powerful desire to conflate the two issues for some reason) but perhaps the issue you raise is one where it is pertinent. Personally however I see very little chance of fruitful polite discussion occurring where this subject is concerned and I doubt I will take part even if I’m personally lambasted for being pro-life after posting this though to be fair I HAVE mentioned this several times over the years here at and have never been attacked for it, for which I’m grateful.

    • Bryguyf69

      @cflekken: Apparently, the men were treated as mere sperm donors — or, if you’re cynical, no better than rapists. Since they have DNA evidence, each man can easily prove their parental rights to their respective biological child. What worried the couple was the possibility that one man might become incapacitated or die, and without legal adoption, would have no legal rights to the other child. Since the ultimate goal is for both men to be the parents of both children, they decided to not simply prove individual fatherhood through DNA, but instead, go one step further and adopt both children as a couple. That would have written both their names on both certificates as the adoptive parents — fulfilling their ultimate goal.

      Texas law does not explicitly state that the couple must be straight or married, and they’ve seen other gay couples, including friends, do it successfully (see hrc link below). Because the law has no explicit guidance regarding gay or unmarried couples, the judge has wide discretion, based on what I’d guess is the best interest of the child. Had they been a married straight couple, the adoption would have automatically been signed. Instead, the judge rejected the adoption petitions on the grounds that they are not legally married in Texas, thus each man is no more than a friend of the child that is not an biological offspring. And as a mere friend, you have no right to adoption.

      At least that’s how I read this case.

  • DCFarmboi

    I might express it differently but I at least partially agree with McGee. Using a woman as a hired brood-mare who must sign away rights to the child she carries in her womb is exploitation of her as well as explotation of the woman made to sell her eggs.

    For a gay couple to take into their home a child in need of adoption or whose mother is in a crisis pregnancy is a wonderful and beautiful thing. The State should do all it can to help in such a kind action.

    But the renting out of wombs and the sale of eggs is a commodification of children and is very troubling. What the civil law should be in this matter is a topic for another discussion and some well intentioned people might engage in this practice, but it is still disturbing.

  • alterego1980

    @jonjct: While you could not technically stop a surrogate from aborting a yet-to-be-born child, 99.9% of surrogacy births come with well detailed contracts. My assumption is that part of the contract could, if it doesn’t already, include suing for money and damages, emotional and otherwise, from the termination of the pregnancy. This would be a built-in buffer to that risk. Hopefully this situation never comes to pass.

  • Lvng1tor

    @jonjct: @DarkZephyr:
    How many gay men are getting women pregnant by accident? Where the woman just goes and gets an abortion cause the father is gay or not in the picture. If you got a girl pregnant and she didn’t tell you she was pregnant you are right she could get the abortion with out your consent. But, why are you having unprotected sex with a woman you don’t know well enough that could happen. If she told you she was pregnant you could file an injunction to stop the abortion. Not saying it would always work but you would have an opportunity to try.

    The surrogate contact normally does include not being able to abort with out consent. Or the life of the surrogate is in immediate jeopardy. It’s in there because I’m sure there are unscrupulous surrogates who would take the cash and run. They are very thorough. I’m very happy to debate abortion rights with pro-life as long as they too stay adult and don’t get labelled Pro-Abortion or personally insulted. Then it’s off!

    I do think it’s an interesting topic for debate in the gay community. I’m sure it doesn’t happen as much as you think….but probably more than I think it does. With marriage, adoption and surrogates (or “made” families with out contract…ie: my lesbian best friend wants a baby….etc) becoming more common it may come into play a lot more.

    In the mean time let’s just all agree that the very least the bio fathers should be listed on the birth certificates. It certainly seems that their sexuality is the reason they are not. Too much case law to assume anything other.

  • Vegas Tearoom

    Are these guys fucking headless? They knew their marriage would not be recognized in Texas, in order to surrogate you have to have a boat load of legal documents and they are SURPRISED that Texas has problems with all of this? If they have all this cash for all this legal womb renting, then why didn’t they have her deliver in a state that would have no problem with this? A California birth cert would have been issued with both names and Texas would have abided by it. End of story. This is idiocy masquerading as injustice. Obviously, someone should have told them it was TEXAS, like their lawyer.

  • JameyInHouTX

    Stories like this make me ashamed to live in Texas. We aren’t all behind the times people!

  • Merv

    These guys need a new lawyer. Didn’t he check out the judge before filing the papers?

    As for adoption, nobody should feel guilty for wanting his own biological children, even if there were lots of healthy newborns available, which there probably aren’t. The ones available for adoption are teens with behavioral problems. Very few people can handle that.

  • Bryguyf69

    @jonjct wrote “democrats are extremist pro-choice. Consider this when you vote for Hillary. Are you going to let women determine when you are going to be a dad? That should be YOUR choice. So, what about YOUR reproductive rights gentlemen?”
    What a stupid comment. Until women are no longer necessary for eggs and gestation, they will ALWAYS determine when men can become biological fathers. It has nothing to do with Hillary, Democrats or “extremist pro-choice.” Furthermore, you illogically assume that giving a woman choice denies the man all “reproductive rights.” Do you live in a world where men can’t wear condoms or refrain from sex? How does Roe v Wade affect your right to do either?

    To answer your moronic question, yes I will allow my girlfriend to determine when I can use her eggs and womb. And she will allow me control over when she’d have access to my sperm.

    You seem to favor laws that force women to become breeders, giving men full reproductive control. Perhaps you’d be happier living among the Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS? Why don’t you buy a one way ticket to Iraq?

  • Bryguyf69

    @Merv: I’m not sure how they could have checked out the judge since gay couple adoptions are probably very rare in Texas. There is no indication that this judge has ever ruled on a similar case.

  • kvitka

    Surrogacy for gay couples is basic prioritet for GLBT movement!

  • Bryguyf69

    @DCFarmboi: Sorry, but neither an unfertilized egg nor the womb are “children,” so to use them for money is hardly the “commodification of children.” Both are those are cells belonging SOLELY to the woman so she can use them as she pleases. And neither has external viability, which is a main factor in SCOTUS’ decision on abortion. I suppose you also feel that a man shouldn’t be paid for his sperm, which is the male equivalence of an egg. Will you also take it further and support the Biblical ban on Onanism, or spilling of “one’s seed” (aka masturbation)? After all, you seem disturbed by a person’s full right to control his or her body.

  • Pitou

    @DCFarmboi: OMG.. stop eating the cow pies on your farm and pay some attention or at the very least do a little research.

    Have you ever even studied the process of surrogacy/egg/sperm donation prior to agreeing with douche-McFuckStick up top?
    The egg donors are not “made to sell her eggs”, and that surrogates are “exploited” is incredibly ridiculous! Women are not forced to do anything. It’s not like they are duped into entering a building with a false façade and once inside their trapped until right before their next period where the Easter Bunny shoves his paw up her c*nt to rip out her basket of colorful goodies for all the gays. Are you kidding me? They do it voluntarily, and sometimes (probably many times) because they need the cash if there is a program willing to pay for it. It’s no different then men donating to a sperm bank and making a quick $50 for whacking off into a plastic cup.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe a person alive would ever argue the necessity and incredible importance of adoption. Ever.
    For you to cast such a dark cloud over those who actually ‘WANT’ their biological children, and would go through such great lengths to have them and the people who actually find the kindness in their heart to assist is unfair and just asinine. But since it seems so important to you, please share for the room exactly how many children you have so kindly adopted lately? I’m sure there’s no shortage, wherever you reside in this country, of unwanted children of all ages ready to go to a kind and loving home.

  • Cam

    @Throbert McGee: said…

    “”I think the headline may have been slanderous towards the judge — the cruelty and/or irrationality of the underlying law isn’t the fault of the judge who has to make a ruling based on the existing legislation.
    P.S. Some might argue that using a woman as a hired brood-mare who must sign away rights to the child she carries in her womb is itself a cruelty, particularly when there are ALREADY-BORN children in need of adoptive parents.””

    So let us look at exactly what your comment did. Even though this has been done multiple times by other judges in Texas, to say nothing of the fact that unmarried father’s names go on birth certificates routinely in Texas, you claim that the judge is the victim here.

    Then you try to turn on the gay couple by attacking them for using surrogacy.

    You say you don’t like it when people accuse you of continually taking the side of anti-gay bigots, or that you attack gays, but look at what your first instinct on this issue was. You defended the judge and then attacked the gay couple.

  • Bryguyf69

    @DarkZephyr: First off, you’re not “pro-life.” A more accurate term is that you’re “anti-abortion.” If you’re “pro-life,” are pro-choice people then “anti-life”? Try telling that to abortion providers, many of whom have delivered more babies than aborted fetuses. Second, do you really s not see how abortion rights is linked to LGBT rights? It’s all about the control of one’s OWN body. You may want to argue the the fetus is a human life, but unless you can prove it or get near-universal consensus, don’t impose it on others. Ultimately, it’s irrelevant whether you see the connection because abortion is cited several times by SCOTUS in gay cases. So by the very fact that abortion is used by SCOTUS to adjudicate gay rights, it would be irresponsible for gays to not include it in the debate.

    If you REALLY want to argue that the few cells of a fertilized egg is human life, I have an excellent argument against you. I presented it during Medical Ethics rounds a few years ago, and have yet to hear a refute. If you want to hear it, present your proof and I’ll respond.

  • jar

    To clear up the legal issue, the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution compels each state to recognize the contracts of other states. Marriage and driver’s licenses are the most common expressions of this obligation. DOMA unconstitutionally authorizes states not to adhere to the FFACC. This is the only remaining section of DOMA that stands. It will fall as soon as it is challenged. So, this judge’s hands were not tied in this matter, as the cases of other gay couples taking similar steps in Texas demonstrates. More importantly, notwithstanding DOMA, the judge has an obligation to uphold the constitution, the supreme law of the land.

    As for surrogacy, one cannot barter in human life. Surrogacy contracts can provide surrogate compensation for carrying the fetus to term, but cannot include compensation for the hand-off of the baby. This is why surrogates can change their mind at any time. They can be compelled in court to reimburse the parents for their breach (ie, pay back moneys provided under the contract). The 13th amendment to the US constitution prohibits the sale of human beings. I would have thought this was known to all adults.

  • Bryguyf69

    Here is an excellent news report on the case. Texas’ FOX affiliate is surprisingly sympathetic toward the gay couple. Along those lines, I also have to say that NYC’s FOX news is also extremely gay-friendly. In fact, being an hour long, it often features more gay stories than competing half hour shows.

    Go here to hear one of the men explain the case to Michelangelo Signorile.

  • Shannon1981

    I don’t get how biological parents can’t be recognized on a birth certificate. that’s insane. When it is two same-sex parents and one is the bio parent and the other isn’t, okay, I get not putting the non bio parent down in states that do not yet have gay marriage and/or adoption. I don’t agree with it, but I get it from a legal standpoint. But this? I don’t get it at all.

  • Bryguyf69

    @jar: The dilemma is that a pre-viable fetus is not recognized as a human being by many, including myself. That’s why abortion is legal in the first two semesters. And not being human, the 13th Amendment may not apply. And while organs may not be sold, replenishable human tissue is sellable, i.e. blood, semen, eggs, marrow. Of course, conservative Texas tries to define the fetus as human. We saw that in the recent case of Marlise Munoz, where the brain dead women was forced to be a mechanical incubator for a non-viable fetus.

    As an aside, a judge recently found Texas’ DOMA unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it comes too late to affect this case.

  • Bryguyf69

    The most interesting twist is that everything may hinge on the wording of the petition. The couple’s attorney implies as much, which is why he’s resubmitting it with edits. The judge’s terse public statement is also suggestive, “I always follow the law.” Does that mean that her objections were technical, and not ideological or even legal, per se? For example, was one sentence too vague, rendering the the request too broad?

  • edwardnvirginia

    WHY call the judge ‘cruel’? What about the law-schooled queer bitches on Wall Street, raking in gaga-millions of dollars with their law degrees? Aren’t they cruel? Why aren’t they out among the states, particularly Southern States, like Texas, being lawyers and getting elected or appointed as judges? If the thousands of selfish queer lawyers would get off Wall Street, and out of Corporate Law offices, they’d have a great opportunity to make sure sad stories like this won’t keep happening. Aren’t selfish Wall Street and Corporate lawyer-queens also ‘cruel’?

    Ya think?

    • Bryguyf69

      @edwardnvirginia: Er, you do realize realize that this a case of Family Law (and possibly Civil Rights Law), right? As you yourself pointed out, Wall Street attorneys practice Corporate Law. Do you really want a Corporate Attorney appointed a Family Law judge? And how exactly can a Corporate Attorney “make sure sad stories like this won’t keep happening”? The only way I can think of is to make lots of money and donate it to the cause. How do you know this isn’t already happening?

  • jar

    @Bryguyf69: Bryguy, the right to abortion falls under a woman’s right to privacy. You are correct that the 13th amendment does not apply in this context because (a) a fetus is not a person for 13th a. purposes and (b) abortion does not implicate servitude. It does, however, apply in the surrogacy context because what is being sought is a baby, not a fetus. This is why one may compensate the surrogate for her efforts, but cannot pay a fee for the baby.

  • Cam


    You seem to be foaming at the mouth and going off track. Care to try again?

  • vive

    The case for or against surrogacy would seem to be similar to the case for or against legalizing sex work. Those in the “for” camp (on the progressive side) would argue that a woman should have the freedom to decide to sell services provided by her reproductive organs. The “against” argument (also on the progressive side) usually points out that these women don’t have true freedom in a society as unequal as ours where those in the lower strata are essentially forced to sell their bodies to survive due to lack of other options.

    Of course you can basically predict which side of the argument most of the upper middle class white gay intelligentsia will take. But both arguments have merit even among liberals, so let’s not pretend that surrogacy is morally clear cut.

    • Bryguyf69

      @vive: As someone who has worked with Prostitutes of NY (PONY), and has sex workers as patients, I do find it “morally” clear cut. Indeed, I don’t see it as a moral issue at all. To say that surrogates don’t have “true freedom” ignores the fact that EVERYONE who doesn’t love his/her job is doing it out of necessity. That includes migrant workers, teachers, secretaries, interns, taxi drivers, etc. What makes surrogates so special? In fact, the few surrogates I’ve met loved the fact that they were bringing happiness to someone else. As for selling their bodies, how is that different from modeling or athletics?

      Essentially, your argument is that providing these women one extra financial choice is a bad thing. No one is forcing them to choose it. And it’s one of the few financial choices that won’t interfere with their primary jobs until the last month of pregnancy. Furthermore, it allows them to be stay-at-home moms if they have other children. Those are bad things? In this case, the surrogate had already done three surrogacies before helping this gay couple.

      Until you give me evidence that American surrogates generally feel “forced” to do surrogacy (as opposed to working at McDonald’s, etc), your argument is questionable at best. In fact, one study found that “Although many surrogate mothers admit to feeling sorrow and distress when relinquishing the child, they also felt a sense of happiness and satisfaction for the new parents of the baby.” And it found no psychopathological differences between the adoptive and surrogate mothers. Finally, studies in the UK, US and Canada found that most of the problems come from societal moral disapproval. IN other words, when you claim that there are moral issues, YOU’ve become part of the problem.

  • jockboy1986

    @Bryguyf69: Hah. This reminds me of people who claim that gays have more mental problems so homosexuality is bad. What they don’t understand is that it’s society beating down on them that cause most of the problems like low self-esteem. And suicides. It’s similar to being overweight, poor, unattractive, etc.

  • DarkZephyr

    @Lvng1tor: Definitely something that I can agree with!

    @Bryguyf69: I’m not exactly sure what it is that you hope to prove to me, but I have no desire to take part in a debate about abortion. I made that clear in the comment you are responding to. Please respect that. The exchange would be bound to deteriorate into an impolite argument and I’m not interested in one of those. I can already sense your annoyance with me as it is, based on your initial words denying that I am pro-life and instead am “anti-abortion”. If that makes you happy, call me that as its not inaccurate but I don’t agree that the term “pro-life” means that pro-choice people are “anti-life” anymore than the term “pro-choice” means that pro-life people are always against people making choices in life or that calling myself “pro-blue” because i love the color blue means that i am ” anti-red”. I love red too. Anyway, have a good night.

    • jockboy1986

      @DarkZephyr: LOL. If don’t want a debate, then you shouldn’t have posted. And then you shouldn’t have replied. As far as I know, there are no rules on Queerty saying what posts can’t be replied to, and what topic shouldn’t be debated. If you don’t like people debating your posts, contact the owners and have them deleted. What’s ridiculous is that you asked why gays mention abortion and when @bryguyf69 replied, you say you don’t want to discuss it. Advice: if you don’t want your question answered, don’t ask it. In fact, don’t post. And don’t reply.

  • jonjct

    @GeriHew: Offensive. I understand, because I find your comments offensive as well. The rest of what you said I have just dismissed because I cannot get through your anger to your argument. Thank you for playing.

  • jockboy1986

    @jonjct: If you don’t have the intelligence or will to read through @gerihew’s post, don’t blame her. I found it informative and well=argued, which is a far cry from your Democrats-are-abortion-extremist post. Your post had so many logical and factual flaws that @gerihew was generous to have taken it seriously. Aside from complaining about her anger, I noticed that you didnt address any of the issues others have raised.

  • DarkZephyr

    @jockboy1986: I didn’t ask any question. I’m not sure what you are talking about honestly. I was responding to something jonjct said as is my right and I asked no question in that reply. And I have made no imperious commands or demands, I have ridiculed no one or “LOLed” at them. I have only politely made a respectful request of Bryguy and I replied because I saw no reason to rudely ignore him. It’s completely up to him how he responds to that request. I leave it to his discretion. I remain grateful to those who choose to refrain from attacking me over this position of mine. Probably the one position I hold that deviates from most of the positions of queerty staff and many fellow queerty members. Please have a nice night.

  • DarkZephyr

    @jockboy1986: I didn’t ask any questions or make any demands. Feel free to read that post again. And In my follwup post that was a response to Bryguy I made a polite request and not a demand. Bryguy is free to respond to that request as he sees fit. Please have a nice night.

  • GeriHew

    @jonjct: Not sure if you are referring just to my comments in response to your comment in this thread or my comments in general on Queerty. Whatever, I can find things people say offensive without getting angry about them. And I was not, and am still not, angry at you.

    I really can’t see why anything I said in my reply to you should cause offense, other than possibly my pointing out that I am not a gay gentleman. I was merely trying to point out some facts to you about why most women (most women in America that is) who choose to have abortions make that choice. It is a difficult choice. Not something women do at all lightly in the vast majority of cases.

  • Tackle

    @Throbert McGee: Dude I find you to be the biggest joke. You have no problem in writing your long rambling syllabus, often in error and off topic: Trying to be a moral voice of reason, but many times making no sense at all. And having no problem dispensing advice, and having no problem voicing your opinion.

    Yet when 15 or so posters speak out against you, you run and hide like a little rat. All of a sudden Mr brave, bold and opinionated is no where to be seen or heard. From all your talk and writings, I thought you would be the type to “stand by your convictions, ” if that’s what you believed. Reiterate, or clarify your point. Or if the posters should you that maybe you were to harsh and judgmental toward that couple, that you would simply man-up and apologize, ( to them.) But what do you do? Take the cowards way out. Coward!

  • amyonthemta

    @Throbert McGee: Surrogacy is not at all cruel. Whatever her reasons were for doing it, it was her choice to be a surrogate mother.

  • RockinGranny

    @Vegas Tearoom:

    They moved to Texas on purpose, with an agenda…to change law. By doing this they force the legislature to look at gay marriage and possibly change Texas law against the will of the people. The same thing is going in in Mississippi..a lesbian couple married on the east coast moved to Mississippi and filed for divorce. Mississippi won’t grant a divorce to a marriage that it does not recognize. Along with their lawyers are working to change Mississippi law. This is how the the progressive liberal agenda is spread…forcing states, kicking and screaming to change laws their citizens don’t want changed. Instead of live and let live…it’s “recognize me and my views as right and lawful or we will sue and force you.” Just makes you want to jump right in and join their cause. I don’t care either way. Forcing laws on people that don’t want them won’t make the respect you or respect your lifestyle, it just makes them bitter and hateful. Is that what you want? Sounds like bullying to me.

  • Scorpion

    I’m not getting why its a second adoptive parent. They’re not adopting. These are their biological sons. I mean its the same if a straight couple couldn’t have kids because the woman had what they call an inhospitalable envoirnment. Meaning she could get pregnant, but couldn’t carry it. So if they use a surrogate, but their own sperm and egg, they are still the biological parents. Same here. These guys are the fathers of these babies. They should be on the birth certificate.

  • JustaThought

    To those that are responding to the asshat that mentions brood-mare/yuppie scum… Pathetic worm only wants attention. Don’t give it to him.

    As for the judge in question, I can only shake my head in disgust.

  • RockinGranny

    @Vegas Tearoom: They moved to Texas on change the law. This action and subsequent law suits will for the Texas legislature to look at gay marriage. This is what progressives and liberals do they force states, most times against the wish of the people, Calif Prop 8 for example…the people voted against it and liberal judges and legislators are forcing gay marriage on them. Ridiculous. Another example: Two lesbians got married on the East Coast then moved to Mississippi. After a few years they filed for divorce in Miss. Mississippi would not grant a divorce to a marriage that the state does not recognize. Now a flurry of legal action and lawsuits is tying up the legislature and possibly forcing this state to recognize a gay marriage. What a way to earn sympathy for your cause. Forcing people to see things your way. If a person thinks being gay is deviant behavior do you really think forcing them to recognize your union is gonna change their mind? No.

  • Jron7667

    Slanderous against the judge? Wait, wait, wait…when you act like a bitch and get called one, its not slander, it’s fact. It states clearly “It’s up to the judge’s discretion on whether or not to grant it” and she didn’t. let me reiterate… She had full power to grant the petition, and didn’t,when dozens of other couples had done the same thing, successfully… and in in my eyes, that’s being bitchy, and that is nowhere near slandering her.

    “@Throbert McGee:

  • Kaylee6

    @cflekken: I’m also confused–why can the biological parent of each boy *not* be on the birth certificate? There are non-married heterosexual dads in Texas, I’m sure, who are on their sons’ birth certificates.

    Now, if the court were to say “We need definitive paternity about which boy shares DNA with which dad before we can amend the certificates,” okay, I get that. Or maybe they already have that, and the judge still said no. Which puts us back at the making no sense part.

  • LazerusShade

    @Throbert McGee: She was hired to do work. she did not even supply the egg so is not genetically related to these kids.

    These two man live in Texas and so could not have adopted as you suggest they should. They are biologically the fathers so at the very least should have been listed as the father of their own kid. Even if the judge does not want to grant each childs adoption to the other father each child should at least have his own father on the BC. Lastly this is not an issue with the law so much as this judges interpretation of it. The law was written in such a way as to allow some wiggle room in special cases. The judge however made the call to tighten up on the law based on prejudice. Despite other couples in the area who have been able to do the same thing without issues like this.

    @James Hart:
    I am not sure you are understanding what happened here. Your argument is that biology is biology actualy supports at leas one of these men being listed on the birth certificate. So i am going to break this down into baby steps to ensure you understand what happend.

    #1 Woman1 Donates eggs to fertility clinic.
    #2 Man1 in above article donates sperm
    #3 Man2 in the above article donates sperm.
    #4 Doctor takes sperm from man1 and fertalizes eggs from woman1
    #5 Doctor takes sperm from man2 and fertalizes aeggs from woman1
    #6 both fertalized eggs from woman1 are then put into woman2
    #7 woman2 carry’s both eggs through pregnancy giving birth to the two children.

    As a result the woman who carried the kids is NOT the mother. So at the very least. The birth certificate should indicate that each man is listed as the father of the child they are genetically related to.

    The article even states that paternity tests were done in front of the judge, and that these tests prove. That 1 of them men is the father of 1 child, and the other man is the father of the other child. In fact the only part of the procedure that is not clear. Is if the same woman donated both eggs or if each egg came from a different woman.

  • Captain_Draco

    aaaaaaaactually, the reason for the parents names being on the birth certificate isn’t to show who’s raising the kid, it’s to show who the biological parents are for medical family history purposes, both fathers AND the egg donor should be listed

  • kewill

    These types of articles are SO misleading and do nothing but stir the pot!! First of all…it is the MOTHER of the baby that gives the name of the father to put on the birth certificate. It does not matter if the baby is being adopted…the birth mother is still the one that supplies the name of the father!! I’m questioning why the birth mother did not do that in this matter…?? Secondly….even though the state of Texas doesn’t recognize same sex marriage, any family law case puts the welfare of the children FIRST. A judge can’t simply “do whatever she wants” and must abide by the rule of law for the particular case brought before her. I get so tired of people with no legal experience whatsoever thinking they know what can be done in a courtroom!! I can guarantee you that the judge probably wanted to do want these two men were wanting but if you read the judges response it stated that “with the paperwork she had before her she couldn’t” and that the attorney would be “filing new paperwork which would cost more in fees”….the judge can only make a decision on what’s pled…meaning based on the paperwork the attorney filed in this case. This would tell me the attorney didn’t file the correct paperwork – and in the attorney’s defense this case is a new type of case and most times the attorneys are misguided by court employees on what to file and which court to even file in with new types of cases. But the attorney should not charge more if he/she filed the wrong type of document to begin with. So stop getting your panties in a wad over this case. It’s not a situation of civil rights or prejudice as this article so completely tries to mislead you into believing to further a political agenda!!

  • jackmackenna

    @Throbert McGee: “Some might argue that using a woman as a hired brood-mare who must sign away rights to the child she carries in her womb is itself a cruelty” please stop trying to be a feminist. It’s really embarrassing. Obviously this would have been done with the full consent and understanding of the mother.

  • anonymousguy

    @Throbert McGee

    I am not sure why I am going out of my way to write to you regarding this, but I was hurt by your comments on the article I read today and I just wanted to reach out to you.

    I am a straight man who is married. My wife and I are supporters of equal rights, and I found the story in this article to be incredibly sad. While I do agree with the first half of your comment that the headline may be skewed, it is the ‘P.S.’ part of your comment that really got to me.

    I’ll just dive into it – my wife and I have had to give up on having a child after trying for five years. We spent thousands of dollars and went into debt. It took a year of tests on both of us before we found out that I don’t make sperm. After that revelation, we took some time to decide what our next plan would be. For me personally, it was a difficult mental decision to move from having my own child to being okay with what in my mind was a ‘lesser’ situation.

    After much deliberation, and despite some reservations, I asked my brother to be an anonymous donor (since we have the same parents and similar DNA), but he wasn’t comfortable with it and couldn’t bring himself to help us in that way (understandable). We then decided on an outside donor and looked through the sperm bank until we found a donor we liked. We tried several times, costing $1500 each time for the sperm and procedure, and it never worked. Each month that it didn’t work was heartbreaking. We would try to heal and then each month our hearts would be broken again. We then tried a different donor for a couple more tries. It still didn’t work. At that point, we had maxed out credit cards from sperm and procedures. To add insult to injury, I then lost my job.

    With all the pain we went through, we made the difficult decision to stop trying. And despite stopping, we still hurt every day. Even seeing a pregnant woman breaks our hearts all over again. Along the way, we have had people tell us all kind of unhelpful things, like “just stop worrying, it will happen as soon as you stop trying” and “why don’t you just adopt, there are plenty of babies out there already born,”

    The thing is, adoption is a really hard decision. It is not for everyone and it wasn’t for us. I really wanted to make a baby with my wife, and when I couldn’t do that, I still really wanted to have my wife’s children (with a donor). When we couldn’t do that, I couldn’t bring myself to adopt. We both agonized over the decision, and couldn’t do it. In the end, it truly isn’t something that fits everyone’s situation.

    Further, adoption is just as expensive as these fertility treatments, and is sometimes more costly. There are more hoops you have to jump through, there is an entire process that you have to go through to qualify and many times it can take nearly a decade to finally adopt a child. I have some family and friends that have adopted and I can’t even imagine all the pain they endured through the process.

    I’m sure you are a nice guy and I have no resentment toward you. I know that it is easy to say “just adopt” but it truly is an individual decision and there are a lot of very personal thoughts and lots of heartbreak involved in a couples actions. I just wanted to share an alternative point of view with you and ask that you keep this in mind the next time a similar situation arises.

  • JoshGW

    @Throbert McGee: Wow, what an arsehole. Keep your bigoted views to yourself.

    I love that you’ve been slammed here yet have not once attempted to respond…. coward? or just a troll?

  • jakiam83

    @Throbert McGee: @Throbert McGee: @Throbert McGee I am a product of surrogacy, and very much appreciate your view point. It is not right that our birth parents are not listed on our birth certificates. Like the adoptee community many of us feel that it is a right to know our true histories. I am grateful for this judge! The drugs that they have gestational surrogates and egg donors use to go through this process has not been studied, it is very dangerous.

  • jakiam83

    @scotshot: Force need not be applied for their to be coercion. The coercion is in the language used by the industry to get women of a lower socio-economic status to go through these procedures. In fact law makers who try to push to legalize surrogacy will make statements that the birth mother is nothing more then an incubator. Or a vessel. Did you know that after the fact many women can feel manipulated by this process? In this country you cannot donate an organ for profit because it’s felt that the financial incentive mitigates informed consent when there is a large sum of money. Did you know that there have been no long term studies to ensure that the drugs they have to pump egg donors full of and gestational surrogates full of are safe? Rather then looking at this issue just from the adults perspective, I wonder if you change that lens to the best interest of the child you’ll actually see that surrogacy is not a good thing for women or children.

    • scotshot

      @jakiam83: There were a couple of points I wasn’t aware of. Thanks for google. I see some of your points but feel you’re using too broad a brush stating all surrogacy is bad.

  • jakiam83

    For those of you who are being so hard on the judge, and pro – surrogacy you might want to take a look at “Breeders: A subclass of women?”

    Surrogacy is not in the best interest of women or children. I say this from the point of view that I am a product of surrogacy and a woman.

  • bbaum

    A “Family Court Judge”? Come one; this judge must have been absent from class or failed the part of the Bar which identifies the following amendment:

    “Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.”

  • KStone99

    Okay, wow…. I realize that replying to the stupidity I have read is pointless, but since over half of you read this article and based your replies off anger of Texas’ Law prohibiting equality for same-sex couples, but “forgot” that is NOT the opinion of EVERYONE in Texas, so I have to reply. Plenty of Texas’ residents, members of Congress, Senators, House Reps AND Judges are all fighting for equality for ALL peoples, but again, most of you either don’t want to admit that or you didn’t check your facts first. Please realize that a lot of you are NO BETTER than the ones that keep refusing to lift the ban and change the State Law on who you can marry. Nothing better than hypocrisy!!! Seriously people…..

    The mass majority of the posters here that are bashing “Texas” and talking nothing but crap about it, like, “Of course they were treated unfair, it’s TEXAS!”…
    First of all, just because someone is from Texas, that does not in any way, “automatically” make them against equality for same sex couples. In fact, over 50% of the state’s residents are pro-LGBT gaining the rights they deserve, which they stated when the poll took place last year.

    As for the ban in Texas still being in effect, you can blame CERTAIN Texas Supreme Court Reps… not ALL of them as half of them, both Democrats AND Republicans both fought for equality on behalf of all people that are being treated unfairly.

    Here is ONE of many judges that have been trying to change the law:
    Feb 2014 – Judge Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, declared Texas’ ban on marriage equality unconstitutional. Among other things, Judge Nellermoe explained that marriage discrimination imposes unconstitutional burdens on the children of same-sex couples — “[i]mmutable protections for the children born of same-sex marriages require the same protections as those born from other marital and intimate relationships, e.g., education, child support, hereditary rights, tax benefits.”

    ^ Does that mean that she can do whatever she wants in court? NO. There is STILL A LAW! So, if she does override the law, she along with the other Judges that have done this, will have their decision brought to the attention of the higher ups that could over turn their rulings. That would be SO difficult for the victors that have started their lives, who could easily end up losing it all. We don’t want that to happen and so until the ban is lifted, if you are gay, DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN IN TEXAS TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!

    A couple that is fighting for their freedom in this State:
    In November 2013, two same-sex couples challenged the state’s same-sex marriage ban in U.S. District Court, which ruled in their favor on February 26, 2014, while staying enforcement of its ruling pending appeal.
    *NOTE that the ban is STILL IN EFFECT, so once again, not all judges are going to break the law and put anyone at risk of having to be subpoenaed 10 years from now when their case is re-opened and it will be, even if the law changes, the couples granted certain rights while it was illegal, will have to go back to court to fight ALL OVER AGAIN. Look up how many Texas cases have been re-opened against the victors and the Judges who granted in their favor, despite laws being changed to where whatever it was is now legal or just if a higher up in the State didn’t agree with the decision.

    I live in Texas and YES, the state does have A LOT of corruption when it comes to the Law, plus most of the police are incredibly dirty and send innocent people to prison, whereas the real, serious criminal offenders are left to do whatever they want. This is an issue too, which is unfair and is usually based on your race and/or who you know, but guess what? NO ONE IS FIGHTING FOR THAT TO END!!!!! Why certain groups of people feel they are MORE entitled to others pisses me off.

    Most of the time in Texas, the corruption of Govt Officials’ unfair treatment is towards other issues, not just Marriage Rights. A LOT of the other states are the same way… They all have “something” that they will screw you over about. I know people in Texas prisons because they were out past a certain hour and some cops that were protecting their friends, have set up the innocent person to take the fall.
    Is that any less important than a gay couple not being able to have their marriage recognized in Texas? NO! The person that was set up did not have a choice, whereas any couple that KNOWS their marriage will NOT be recognized in Texas Law, yet move here anyway and throw a fit about it as if it’s “new news”, DID HAVE A CHOICE!

    Don’t go ranting and raving that it’s the “Republicans” or “the people of Texas”, because I can assure you, the majority of people want EQUALITY and believe that you should be able to date, live with, marry, or have children with whomever you wish to love no matter what race, sexual preference or religion.
    As for the several judges that broke the law and made their decisions based on what they believe in, it seems great, but they did in fact break the law and if you bother to research things, you would see that most of the judges in Texas that have done so for equal rights in marriages, are now having their decisions appealed and both parties will have to go back to court. That is going to cause a lot of stress, money and serious problems for the couples that won their cases in court previously. They could lose everything, which is horrible to even think! So, the judges that are being more conservative and won’t break the law unless they have paperwork that they will be able to use in their defense when they are sued, SOON, doesn’t make them evil, they are basically telling the MORON lawyer to go back to his office and file the paperwork properly by making sure to file statements that the Judge will be able to use to defend their decision. That’s all the lawyer needs to do or they can request to see a Judge in a county that is not conservative. There are many, San Antonio is one of the largest cities that is known for Judges in favor of the Marriage Law being changed. I went to court once for something that the Judge in my county did not agree with and my lawyers requested that I was not treated fair and got my trial moved to a different city where the Judge was not conservative in the matter and I won. LAWYERS NEED TO DO THE WORK or you lose.

    One last thing, under Texas law, a child born to a man and woman who are not married has no legal father. When the child’s parents complete an Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) to establish legal fatherhood, this helps to secure the legal rights of the child. This right here shows how strict Texas is on marriage/children, even if it’s between a straight couple, so the problem that these two men made is that neither of them would sign the Birth Certificate if they didn’t get their way of having BOTH their names on it “at the time.” Sorry, they know the law, they know it’s not easy to win a case like this and one of them NEEDED to have signed the BC. End of story. After that, THEN they could have taken it to court and had a better chance because the father that signed would have legal rights to allow his husband to adopt both children. They would still not be recognized as “Married”, but at least they would have custody of both children. The surrogate mother’s name will NOT be removed from the BC because they serve as medical records and if the children ever get sick, God forbid, they need to know both family histories. The twins are NOT the surrogate’s children in any way as the men are biologically the father’s and married, but on a BC, you have to leave her name there and in states that allow same sex marriage, both father’s would be listed, but no matter what, her name has to stay there for medical reasons. I know this to be 100% true for Texas only, but most State Laws I have researched say the same thing.
    I think it was a bad move that neither father signed the BC though because if one of them had, like I said, whichever father signed could have had his husband and the other child’s father, added on. No it’s not the same, I know, but is it worse than neither of their names being on it at all, rather than to see “Father”, “Mother”, and “Adoptive Father”? I know it’s not ideal, but as of right know, that’s just how it is… Your children WILL find out that there has to be a woman to make a child, so it’s not like it’s something you are trying to protect your children from finding out when they see their birth certificate…

    Just to be clear, I am all for EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE LGBT, I support their community, I hope that the laws in ALL States that are against it will change, and I honestly hope that this married couple find peace. The only reason I have this strong opinion above is because I KNOW that they both want to be listed as the parents, without the surrogate’s name on their children’s BC, but it can’t be done, they allowed her to give birth in a state where they KNEW their marriage wouldn’t even be recognized, instead of maybe IDK, taking a vacation close to when she was due so that their children could be born where it’s legal for them to be married… they need to focus on raising their babies and stop complaining because again, they made the choice to have the babies born in Texas.

    My main problem however, someone else stated above; I don’t believe for a second that these guys are fighting for both their names to be on the BC…. They are trying to change the laws by making a huge scene and that is stupid. If they want to change the law, GREAT, I applaud that, but do it the right way.

  • KStone99

    @bbaum: READ !!!!!!!!!!!! OMG…… some of you people I swear……….
    “A “Family Court Judge”? Come one; this judge must have been absent from class or failed the part of the Bar which identifies the following amendment:
    “Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.””

    The Judge wasn’t trying to “get rid of” or “steal away” their marriage! IN TEXAS THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AS BEING MARRIED!!!!!!!! They were in court complaining that they want BOTH of their names on their children’s Birth Certificates and wanted to REMOVE the surrogate mother’s name! BCs are medical records and the kids are their biological kids yes, but there HAS TO BE a donor correct? Yes. Her name needs to be on there because again, MEDICAL RECORD! Stop acting so dumb and research. The men are STILL married and always will be, in the states that recognize it. No one debated that. If ONE father will sign the BC, the other CAN be listed as the adoptive father and that’s all that matters is that if anything happens to one of them, (their concern), their boys will not be separated and will stay with the partner left behind. Texas does allow that. End of story.

  • jonjct

    @GeriHew: it’s just that you are all about death. you are about killing. abortion. and you represent those political systems which have gone ahead of us, some recently, which advocate that someone else, someone inferior to ourselves, can die and it doesn’t matter. you get my reference.

    your politics are offensive. nobody should die because of your perceived constitutional right. it just makes me think you are mentally ill. who in a civilized society advances death as a constitutional right. only crazy ppl you know their names.

    it’s human, it’s alive. case closed. you are an abuser if you disturb the baby in it’s place. why would you think it is okay to bother an unborn child? any argument to the contrary tells me something about your heart. it’s cold. except when it comes to matters concerning you. it’s all about you. even up to the point of killing your child. this is an illness. who else believes killing children is okay except mad men? yeah, honey, it’s a child. it’s also someone else’s child not just yours. the father. what kind of respect do you have for the father? none. you are sad.

  • mr.mindor

    ‘who are technically biological half-brothers.’
    That would indicate the eggs came from the same mother.

    • GeriHew

      @jonjct: Excuse me, I have not shared with you any of my personal opinions or feelings on the subject of abortion.

      Fact: many women in the USA choose to have abortions. I have just tried to explain to you the main reasons why the majority of these women have abortions.

  • scotshot

    @jonjct: Against abortion? Want to make a difference. Start mandatory Sex Ed. in the 4th or 5th grade and continue through HS graduation. Parenting / Family planning classes – again start early. Make contraceptives readily available – FREE – at any time, anywhere, to whoever requests them (this includes schools).
    Instead of calling people names and going on emotional rants which solve nothing work for realistic change.
    Did I mention the above steps reduce abortion rates by 80% (see NYC)?

  • jonjct

    @scotshot: didn’t you miss the point miss scotshot. next time pay attention, and realize nobody hears you when your on an emo rant. it’ not about ^ THAT (what you posted), it’s about your heart.

  • jonjct

    @GeriHew: you’re suddenly coy. i get it. :)

  • inbama

    Sorry, but you are way behind.

    My brother and his wife adopted a kid 24 years ago.

    Ties to the biological mother (a repeat criminal and drug user) were severed and their names were put on the birth certificate retroactively.

    If you haven’t noticed trans people are also changing the sex on their birth certificates (although they believe it isn’t sex on the certificate but what a doctor “assigning gender” got wrong, and they were always another gender, which they “presented” I presume as infants, so they’re not really changing anything after all, oh screw it.)

    Whatever, birth certificates haven’t been as rigid as you think and for quite some time.

  • scotshot

    @jonjct: I got your point perfectly. It appears your answer is to do nothing instead of actually taking any action to drastically reduce the amount of abortions, and then attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Enjoy your rants, we find them humorous.

    • GeriHew

      @jonjct: Coy?

      OK, so you want to know how I personally feel about abortion?

      I don’t want to ever have to go through with one. I’d have to be in an absolutely desperate situation to even consider it.

      I regard abortion as a necessary evil. If you are genuinely trying to do “the right thing” and be as humane and just as possible it is always going to be a matter of choosing between the lesser of two or more evils.

      I absolutely do believe it is the woman’s right to choose. I absolutely do not believe it is the man’s right to choose.

      There is a very simple reason why you, or any so-called “pro-lifer”, should not support the man’s right to choose. If he has the right to choose, then in reality, he is quite likely to choose an abortion. It is often the case that the man doesn’t want the responsibility of a child and wants an abortion and the woman doesn’t really want one. She would much rather have the support of the man for herself and the child. Other times the man couldn’t care less either way, which again leaves the woman lacking the support she needs.

      What happens when the woman’s right to choose is taken away and abortion is forbidden by law?

      1. Some children that wouldn’t have been born otherwise get born – often into very difficult and miserable circumstances.

      2. Many women will still get an abortion. An illegal abortion. Which is usually an unsafe abortion. Thousands of women die as a consequence, millions more suffer serious injuries which can permanently effect their health.

      3. Some women will die in childbirth who otherwise would have lived if abortion was legal.

      4. Some unborn children will still die because miscarriages are a tragic fact of life.

      What happens in countries and cultures where abortion is legal and where the general populace values male children over female children?

      1. Millions of female fetuses are aborted.

      2. Women go through multiple abortions while trying to have a boy child.

      3. The country ends up with a shortage of women.

      That’s what actually happens when a man’s right to choose (in the guise of patriarchy) takes control of women’s reproductive rights.

    • scotshot

      Poor use of the Alinsky Rules. It seems the only way you can respond is by calling people names, denigrating them, and flat out lying. No response from you on ways to actually reduce abortions by 89% prove you’re only out to rant or, more likely you’re a Troll. You need to do a better job – even at $10.00/hour.

  • foxbarking

    @Throbert McGee: Calling someone “cruel” is not slanderous, it is stating an opinion. Slander would be saying she did it because she hates gays without us knowing whether or not that is true. Slander has to be a statement that is provable as either factual or not. And furthermore, if a slanderous comment was made in print, it would be libel, not slander.

    Now, since you don’t seem to understand such a simple legal concept, I think that says a lot about the opinion you have expressed about this ruling.

  • foxbarking

    @edwardnvirginia: No, if the writer of the article sees the judge as cruel, then that is the writer’s opinion of which they are free to express. All of us do not see the same actions as cruel. Obviously the writer did see that and that is why she was called “cruel.”

  • foxbarking

    @DCFarmboi: The surrogate mother wasn’t forced to carry the child, so the accusation of exploitation is invalid. Surrogate mothers are not taken advantage. More often than not, they rent their womb out of their own choice and more often than not are well compensated for it. The gay men who hired her are not guilty of exploiting her because you can’t exploit someone for something they were hired to do. Asinine.

  • foxbarking

    @KStone99: I think the problem is more that you seem to be identifying with the comments. Regardless of how many Texans are fighting for equal rights, that does not spare the government of Texas, which has done some recent deplorable things, from criticism. When referring to the government and the decisions, comments are put towards the whole of the government because it is the government majority that represents the laws in the book. Since the government is elected by the majority, it is completely valid to direct criticism as a whole to the state of Texas.

    You want people to stop doing that? Elect a better state government. But as long as the majority in Texas put the people in office that do these dreadful things, Texas as a whole is completely deserving of those comments.

  • foxbarking

    @foxbarking: I should clarify what I meant to KStone99 with the identification remark. I didn’t mean that you are not supportive of gay rights. What I meant is, assuming you are from Texas, when people criticize Texas as a whole, you are taking that as a direct accusation that you don’t support gay rights. However, since the accusations are directed at the government of Texas, it wouldn’t be economical to say “The Texas government is homophobic, except for that percentage that isn’t but is unfortunately not represented in the government.”

    As long as someone resides under a government that they elected, they are subject to group criticism. If you don’t like it, work to change the law.

  • jonjct

    @scotshot: scotty, the rants are from the choice side, and instead of finding them humorous, we are instead embarrassed for you. i’m cringing a 10 out of ten right now.

  • jonjct

    @scotshot: clearly, you’re desperate, and as Andy Warhol said, “nobody wants anything to do with anyone who is desperate”. keep it scotty, nobody’s listening.

  • jonjct

    @scotshot: in your last post you said to me: “It seems the only way you can respond is by calling people names… ”

    …later in the same post, dint you go ahead and call me a “troll”? so, get your shi&t together boy. you be acting like somebody who needs protection from himself.

  • Selwyn2502

    Just really sad to read a story like this. I hope things work out eventually!

Comments are closed.