Iowa high court rules both same-sex parents must be listed on birth certificates

[JURIST] The Iowa Supreme Court [official website] unanimously ruled [text, PDF] on Friday that the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) [official website] must list both spouses of a same-sex couple on their children's birth certificates. Melissa and Heather Gartner sued the IDPH after officials refused to include the name of their child's non-biological parent on the child's birth certificate unless the non-biological parent adopted the child. The Gartners are legally married in Iowa, a state that legalized gay marriage [JURIST report] in 2009. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the agency did not have the authority to interpret Iowa's Parentage Statute [Iowa Code 144.13, PDF]. After a detailed analysis, the court held that "with respect to the government's purpose of identifying a child as part of their family and providing a basis for verifying the birth of a child, married lesbian couples are similarly situated to spouses and parents in an opposite-sex marriage." This case reached the state's Supreme Court after the IDPH appealed from a District Court [official website] decision [JURIST report] ordering the agency to include both names of married same-sex parents on children's birth certificates. Upon this decision, JURIST Guest Columnist Mary Ziegler [academic profile] of Saint Louis University School of Law warned [JURIST op-ed] that while that court decision may be a victory for the rights of same-sex parents, the arguments made in the public debate surrounding the case demonstrate a break from the goals of the early gay rights movement and could be used to justify discrimination against other forms of non-traditional families.

The rights of same-sex couples [JURIST news archive] remain a controversial issue in the US. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 10 states, as well as the District of Columbia. In March the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two same-sex marriage cases. The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry [JURIST report], examines the validity of Proposition 8 [JURIST news archive], a California referendum that revoked same-sex marriage rights. In the second case, United States v. Windsor [JURIST report], the court will examine the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the two cases in December.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.