LA must continue to resist use of child as political pawn

The reprehensible saga continues where a small child is being used by its guardians for political purposes, thrusting Louisiana into the middle of the controversy.

As noted previously, the state was ordered by a federal judge to put the names of two males on a birth certificate for a child adopted by two male New Yorkers. Louisiana state law clearly states that only a married couple, defined by the Constitution as a man and woman, or a single individual may have their names listed on a birth certificate of an adopted child, as the law permits for public records purposes that the parent or parents of an adopted child by their discretion may be placed on the certificate. The judge ruled because same-sex couple adoptions could occur in New York and because of the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution both males’ names had to be placed on the document, using judicial fiat to overrule both the state Constitution and law.

The state has argued that the matter needs to be reheard, either with a full trial involving this judge (whose ruling was not in a trial setting) or passed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Naturally, the New Yorkers, who comprise a homosexual relationship, with their advocacy groups supporting them, resist this. A full trial might pressure the federal judge to revise his order, and the state Supreme Court taking up the matter surely would bring a ruling against them, citing the Louisiana Constitution.


Somewhat lost in the controversy is the point the state brought out in its request, that there is no legal reason why state law cannot be followed to list just one of the males as the child’s parent. Any controversy involving the child’s parentage could be solved simply this way, including those the pair claimed happened regarding air transport and health benefits. (The claim that airport personnel thought the child was being kidnapped without production of a birth certificate with both names is especially suspect – how many people carry their children’s birth certificates around when they travel and how many security guards actually ask for them?)

But we must understand that the whole argument from the pair and their supporters is not what is best for the child, but what is convenient to advance a political agenda. The purpose behind this whole effort is to get the state of Louisiana, which constitutionally refuses to accept that a pair of the same sex has any of the same rights as a married couple, to grant in this area rights that only a married male-female couple enjoy to a same sex couple, a subversive attack on a moral principle the attack of which enjoys no justifiable moral or legal standing.

It is shameful that these individuals would use a child to advance this agenda, and the state is to be applauded for defending the integrity of its laws and Constitution, especially as philosophically and morally it is correct. Should this request be refused, the state should have no hesitation in asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the matter to ensure that justice is done and, ultimately, to protect the child from the political uses from which he is being put.