Women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment. Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered. The law change applies to female couples in England and Wales who were having fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009.
WTF?
I want the names, now, of all who conspired to get this mentally deficient piece of tosh in to law, those names to be put up in a public place to warn people whom to avoid dealing with in any future context.
It's Loretta all over again.
I'd like to examine the minds of people so into PC that they can ignore basic biological realities and try to create a destructive and dangerous society where Great Lies are able to be enshrined in the fabric of a nation and used to achieve who knows what, to the ultimate perversion of children no longer able to recognize fact from fantasy, truth from distortion.
This law is so wrong, so based on evil that it absolutely boggles the mind. It is, quite simply a lie for one partner to have her name on a birth certificate if she was not the parent. The state is acting here to condone an untruth on an official document, a document which requires, of the signees, that it is the truth to the best of their knowledge.
Here is how low society has now sunk.
Remember James... a birth certificate is the document that passes ownership of your child to the corporate state. So, in reality, they really couldn't give a toss who signs it.
ReplyDeleteIt's really no different than the "lie" (if you wish to call it so) when an adoptive parent is registered. I don't understand your excitement about it. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act replaces the truth with an official lie in certain circumstances. Our government uses us as slaves (in truth) for half the year and calls it our free contribution under a "social contract." That seems like a bigger lie to me. And how about the Ponzi scheme of social security, unfunded by so-called "National Insurance", which is not insurance at all? Or the PM's lawyer actually arguing on his behalf in court that no-one should expect manifesto promises to be honoured? Honestly, it's harder to find a truth in the British system.
ReplyDeleteApparently Hawaiian short form birth certificates may tell lies too, Hob.
ReplyDeleteAs Ted's brother once said, 'Ask not what parents can do for their children; ask what children can do for their parents'.
ReplyDeleteHarry and Dearieme - yes.
ReplyDeleteAs Tom is an honoured guest, I'll refrain from commenting about why it's wrong. I think the post says that.
Xlbrl - seem to recall a quote a trifle different to that. :)
Really Higham!
ReplyDeleteYou complain of the depths to which society has sunk yet you defend convicted murderers.
If a cold blooded killer is worthy of your tolerance, and perhaps friendship, why not two female parents for a child?
I wrote something on the subject of lesbian families a year ago, or more, at Project Whacky Br*tain. and I'm delighted that one of the consequences of this ruling is that no semen donor need ever again fear having to pay maintenance to two lesbians for children he has no right to contact.
There are always unforeseen consequences and men are generally better at spotting them than Harriet Harman and Cherie Blair, which is why none but societies in decline pay any attention to women's opinions.
Your point read and noted, William.
ReplyDeleteHow can a female be the father? Does father not mean the sperm donor? Of course a woman can't donate sperm therefore technically she is not the father. It's as stupid as posting two men in a gay relationship on the birth certificate as mother and father. Each to their own in sexual preferences but the birth certificate business is crap.
ReplyDeleteNunyaa, there were things you and I always agreed on and this was one of them.
ReplyDelete