Little Liam Buntemeyer can't help but be a momma's boy. At 7 months old, Liam has no idea what his mothers, Jess and Jenny, have been through. His birth certificate, which means so much to them, is nothing to Liam but a piece of paper to try to snatch from their hands and stick in his mouth. Teething, after all, makes a baby single-minded.

And that's fine with the Buntemeyers.

The way they see it, their battle ended Tuesday when Liam's birth certificate, bearing both of their names, finally showed up in the mailbox of their Davenport home.

"Now we're like any other family," Jess Buntemeyer said.

"I can now share my benefits," Jenny Buntemeyer added. "Until now, I couldn't claim them as dependents, even though I've been their provider."

Between the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act and victories in court over same-sex rights in Iowa, Jenny Buntemeyer now can provide for her family the way any other married breadwinner does it: legally.

"I feel bad for people in other states," she said. "I'm a federal employee (with the U.S. Marshals Service), and I'm the provider for my family, whether people like it or not."

It has been clear to the Buntemeyers for almost two years that some people, including those in decision-making positions in the state, do not accept their status as a family. It became painfully clear during their darkest days, which followed the death of their infant son, Brayden. In October 2011, at 30 weeks, their first child died in utero. His grieving parents sent his death certificate to the Iowa Department of Public Health and were dealt a second blow weeks later when the agency returned Brayden's death certificate with Jenny's name whited out.

A lawsuit ensued, and the Buntemeyers won their case, which argued the Iowa Department of Public Health violated the state constitution's equal-protection clause. In Iowa, parentage is a spousal presumption, not a medical one. In other words, as a legally married couple, the Buntemeyers should have been presumed to be Brayden's parents all along.

In February, they received an amended copy of the death certificate, bearing both of their names.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in another lesbian couple's favor, saying they were illegally deprived of the right to have both of their names on their child's birth certificate.

Though Liam was born in January, his parents, who were married in 2010, waited to add Jenny's name to his birth certificate until the supreme court's ruling in May. They did not wish to go through the state's rejection again. But it wasn't merely a matter of placing Jenny's name on the birth certificate and sending it off to Des Moines, which is the protocol for non-gay couples.

"We had to send the original birth certificate back, along with a sworn affidavit from both of us and a certified copy of our marriage license," Jess explained. "Things are still different for us, but at least we have both certificates."

The Buntemeyers are no different from any other Iowa couple that has lost a child. Though enamored of Liam, they miss Brayden every day.

"At first, it hurt," Jenny said of becoming a mom. "With every milestone, we felt like we were missing out on Brayden."

Jess said she thinks Liam is aware of his big brother's absence and, at times, presence.

"I sometimes feel like he's making up for two little boys," she said. "He'll be following something with his eyes that I can't see and start laughing out of nowhere, and I'll say, 'Hi, Brayden!'"

Having met in the U.S. Army during deployments to Iraq, the women are not unfamiliar with rules requiring them to hide their relationship. As the rules change, they become more liberated in ways they didn't know were important — until Liam.

"It's still a little surreal," Jenny said of their new state-recognized status as parents.

"It's weird, being able to be married like regular people," added Jess.

But their life is regular, with Jess staying home with Liam, and Jenny going to work at the federal courthouse in Davenport. Every Sunday is family day at Jenny's parents' house, and their best friends couldn't be more supportive.

Sitting on the backyard deck of their home, the Buntemeyers laughed at the curls that appeared suddenly in Liam's hair — the product of August heat.

"I absolutely love this kid," Jenny announced, smiling at her son. "We're going to start trying again in the spring."

Added Jess: "We just want to reiterate how relieved and happy we are that both of our boys now have proper documents with both of their mothers."

(72) comments

finch

Give me Liberty, I think you have known for your whole life that fathers' names go onto birth certificates without a DNA test proving the child shares his genetics. You have always been aware that some people are not the biological children of their fathers. Suddenly it's a problem now because the same rights are afforded to gay people as straight people. You should just say it out loud and write it here: you are not in favor of equal rights. It's as simple as that.

Give me Liberty

This argument has run it's course. These two ladies have all the same opportunities as any one else. If they want legal rights for the mother who is NOT a parent biologically they can get full legal rights through adoption.
"I think you have known for your whole life that fathers' names go onto birth certificates without a DNA test proving the child shares his genetics" - The fathers name SHOULD go on the birth certificate. If there is any debate as to the legitimacy of who the father is a paternity should be done for many reasons including being technically correct.
"You have always been aware that some people are not the biological children of their fathers" - What a pointless statement. Legally speaking people adopt children all the time for a multitude of reasons, obviously. Biologically speaking, children at the current time are ALWAYS BIRTHED from the procreation of a mother's egg and a father's seed.
So, in response to your baselss statement that I'm opposed to equal rights, I challenge you to tell me at what point I stated or implied as much? These women have the legal right to take responsibility for this child. They can NOT honestly say they were both involved in in the birth (as a result of procreation) of this child. I'm done arguing this point. You don't get it.

finch

The technical correct statement on a birth certificate is: These are the legally recognized parents of this baby. That is all a birth certificate says. It's a legal entity, created by law, and the law says who a parent is. The issue in this case was only whether or not the law is the same for two legally married women as it is for a legally married man and woman.

That is all this case is about. The Court decided (and I can't even think of an argument against it) that legally married couples are all the same. Black, white, mixed, straight, gay.... all legally married couples. That's what the case was.

If you a law that says nobody gets to be on a birth certificate except the egg supplier and sperm supplier, regardless of who carried the baby and gave birth, and to whose family the baby was born, then you really have to get the law changed. You seem to think you have a strong argument for that, so start a movement. If you don't, then you live under the law, the same law that has worked very well for centuries.

Give me Liberty

I guess I would only ask if this couple could have all the legal responsibillties of this child, even if one parent who had nothing to do with creation of this child, through adoption? I just wish the judge would have denied their case, because that couple has other legal means of joint custody without having to change the birth certificate to include a person who had nothing to do with the procreation. You beleive (as did the judge) that the birth certificate is NOT a physical record of the child's parent. Because to be a parent by definition you have to be part of the process that made that child, or you will have to be an ADOPTIVE parent.

finch

So, if a couple is infertile and gets an anonymously donated egg and an anonymously donated sperm, the mom carries the child to term and has the baby, can the government come into the hospital room and snatch the baby from them for no reason, because they don't have parental rights?

Give me Liberty

So, if a couple is infertile and gets an anonymously donated egg and an anonymously donated sperm, the mom carries the child to term and has the baby, can the government come into the hospital room and snatch the baby from them for no reason, because they don't have parental rights?
That's an interesting scenario. I would like to think the government wouldn't "snatch" anyone's baby. I think the woman carrying the child and the other person would have to sign up to adopt the child for legal custody. On the other hand, since a parent doesn't have to have biological ties to a child anymore, what if two strangers come and sign the birth certificate of a child that isn't theirs? I guess legally that would make it the signers baby, because they signed for legal rights. What if the "baby snatcher" government uses donor eggs and donor sperm to create babies without people knowledge and signs a birth certificate for the baby as legal guardians!?

finch

First of all, it's not a hypothetical scenario. It actually happens, and the law covers it. Under "your law," the government wouldn't be "snatching anyone's baby," because the baby isn't anyone's. It would be snatching an orphan, a newborn baby who has no family at all.

Under the law as it stands today, strangers can't come in and snatch a baby because the baby has legal parents, regardless of the DNA. The woman who gave birth to the baby is legally the parent. If she is married, her spouse is the parent. If she is unmarried and a man had sex with her to make the baby, he is the father. If she is unmarried and an anonymous donor provided the DNA, she is the only parent. But, a child is not nobody's child -- a child with no family -- like she could be under your theory of how the law should be.

I don't think it's legal to create babies using donated sperm and eggs unless they are created to be someone's children, so we don't have to worry about the government growing orphans on its own.

Give me Liberty

Seriously please let this go. You are not going to persuade me about the biological aspect of the parents being irrelevent to a birth certificate. We disagree about it so let's just move on. You keep stating that the parents in this case and in other examples of people who can't procreate that they are entitled to "legal rights." I agree with that and people in taht position have an avenue in that event called adoption. I respectfully disagree with yours and the judges stance

Give me Liberty

finch, I would just like to say thank you for having a respectful dialogue about this. You bring up good points and from them I respect your position. The fact that we are in disagreement about this and can still have an open debate is a testiment to your character. I know I got heated, but I hope I didn't offend you in the process. I apologize to the Times editor if people have complained about this at all. It wasn't my intention to carry on to this degree, but it happened. Thank you to the Times staff for allowing this type of communication to take place here.

finch

You didn't offend me. At all. :)

finch

With heterosexual couples, it has always been true that when a married woman has a child with a sperm donor, her husband is the legal parent. This case only re-states the law and applies it to all legal marriages. It's simply a legal presumption -- the spouse of the mother is the child's parent. If someone is married to a mother when a child is born, he/she is the parent in all legal ways -- on the birth certificate, for purposes of all child responsibilities and rights.

Give me Liberty

From wikipedia:
A parent (from Latin: parēns = parent) is a caretaker of the offspring in their own species. In humans, a parent is of a child (where "child" refers to offspring, not necessarily age). Biological parents consist of the male who sired the child and the female who gave birth to the child. In all human societies, the biological mother and father are both responsible for raising their young. However, some parents may not be biologically related to their children. An adoptive parent is one who nurtures and raises the offspring of the biological parents but is not actually biologically related to the child. Children without adoptive parents can be raised by their grandparents or other family members.

The law in it's current form is broken. Under this definition and using common sense, if a person isn't the biological parent through procreation then that person should have to file a legal claim for taking responsibility. It shouldn't just be presumed. You have an agenda and the court is clearly wrong on this matter.

finch

Like I keep saying, if you want to change the law, go try to change the law. But the law is the law -- for gay people as well as straight people. I have no agenda, other than having the law followed, which it now is.

I really doubt that the majority is going to want people to have to get a court's permission to adopt the child their wives just had by their joint decision for in vetro fertilization, or that they'll want some guy who deposited sperm into a cup for fifty dollars to have parental control over his thirty offspring around the country. But hey, if that's what you want, for all families, not just gay families, make it your mission in life. Everyone needs goals....

Give me Liberty

this is just running in circles. you are satisfied with a law that let's nonbiological parents to put their name on a "birth" certificate. I feel like the courts failed, and you don't. I don't care enough to challenge the ruling.

"make it your mission in life. Everyone needs goals...." - What a busch league statement. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Give me Liberty

" If someone is married to a mother when a child is born, he/she is the parent in all legal ways -- on the birth certificate, for purposes of all child responsibilities and rights."
You sure about that? what if the child is provably not the other person's? If a wife ends up pregnant and the husband (partner) has child take a paternity test and it comes back not his? Oh yeah, under your definition he is now responsible for this child. The women simply says the man was sperm donor and nothing more to her.

finch

I believe that only the legal parents can ask the court to un-do legal fatherhood / parenthood. It's called disestablishment of paternity. If the legal parents are happy with the legal parenthood, nobody gets to take it away.

Give me Liberty

Under the new interpretation of the law the disestablishment of paternity has already occured.

finch

GML, there is no other interpretation of the law. The law is really clear and has been interpreted. If you want something else to happen you have to have a new law.

When you make it your life mission to get rid of this law, are you going to set aside tax money for every baby and her mother's husband to have a paternity test? Because, seriously, there is no way to know for sure it's his child even if she has his chin. Without a paternity test, under your theory every child would be fatherless. Being a woman, I suppose I can get behind this blanket removal of men's rights, unless the mother decides the State can take DNA from HER (and hers alone) baby, but it sounds a bit problematic. Plus, all that genealogy you were so concerned about would be gone, because all babies would only be the children of their mothers at the time of their births.

Give me Liberty

It's also important to know who both biological parents are because half of what makes up the child are the man's set of genes. This might make no difference to some, but it is considered important in some cultures and religions and it's also important for national statisitics.

finch

If it makes a difference to you in your culture or religion, I suggest you don't adopt any kids, have in vitro fertilization, or have sex with a stranger. No one would force you to do any of those things.

Give me Liberty

This isn't about me, it's about the child and that child's geneaology. The judge erred on this decision im my opinion. I already posted the definition of what parents are from wikipedia (which I concur with). The birth certificate is meant to be a national record of the child's birth and is archived. In part to keep track of nationao demographics and in part for future reference for the family. A birth certificate that doesn't include the biological record of the true parents serves neither of these functions. These ladies could attain all the same legal rights for this boy through adoption. Which by definition is what happened here.

finch

Yes, well you are free to agree with Wikipedia about what constitutes parenthood, but Wikipedia isn't really what the courts follow in resolving legal issues.

The origins of the law were for the benefit of the children. Way back when they made the law, it was to avoid "bastardization" of children and to and have the family breadwinner be responsible for the financial support of the child. Plus, the inheritance issues, blah blah blah. The law was put into place in the best interests of children.

You are free to disagree with the law, and yet another time I say, go do something about it if you want a different law. But, no, these women did not adopt this child. The child was born unto their marriage and became their daughter exactly like I became the daughter of my mom and dad, legally speaking.

senor citizen

Many judges should not be entrusted with the law, just as many parents should never have been entrusted with children. This is a prime example of liberalism gone wrong.

Devin H
Devin H

You stupid, stupid old man. (go ahead and report me, but its true)

LaurelG

Finally! <3

Give me Liberty

I don't identify with any religious group. I would just like to know who two human's of the same sex birthed a child together? I believe nature works with a perfect balance and that man attempts to bend nature to his (or in this case her) own will. I don't care if two women want to live together and be intimate or whatever, but they most certainly didn't birth a child together.... because under normal circustances that is impossible.

Give me Liberty

I would just like to know *how* two human's of the same sex birthed a child together?
I don't mind if two people of the same sex get a certificate acknowledging them as a couple as far as state documentation is concerned. My only problem is with the birth certificate being accurate. Maybe the physician's or the sperm donor's could be in parenthesis? I wonder what their little boy is going to think when he finds out where he came from? Little Boy: " So you mixed part of my mommies in a dish and threw in some other stuff and then I was put back in one of my mommy's belly? What was the other stuff and how come one my mommy's didn't have it?"

Buntmp

You are ignorant. The birth certificate has nothing to do with conception. It's a legal document, did you not read the article? Since both their names are on it now, they can receive benefits from the non-birth mother. Just like adopted children, the actual people who are raising the child need to have this document read their names, not who created the child.

Give me Liberty

If they wanted the legal right to be considered the boys guardians they should have had the NONBIRTHING mother apply for adoption. That is unless the mothers created this little boy with one woman's egg and the other woman's sperm? Then it would technically be correct. Otherwise if they want to claim the child legally, that isn't both of theirs biologically, then they can through a process called adoption. The courts really erred on this one.

LilAZN3
LilAZN3

You do realize that technically they could have genetically combined the chromosomes of their two eggs and produced a child right. No sperm needed! beyond that the only thing that matters here is that Liam has two loving mothers that would fight for him no matter what the cost or what negativity that people like you throw at them. Who are you to judge?

Give me Liberty

Oh really? They have done tests on using DNA from two female mice, but the fetus dies in a matter of weeks. No technology currently exists that allows two women to have offspring that is totally their own. I'm not being negative. I just think the courts need to be as accurate as possible. Listing both women on the birth certificate is wrong.

trip21

How about you don't worry about what these mothers choose to tell their son! It doesn't matter, it's nobody's business! LOTS of people don't know who their biological parents are. All that matters is that this child knows that he was wanted, that he is loved, and that he has two loving parents!

Give me Liberty

You are right. I should have kept my musings to myself. I shoudn't disrespect the parents of the boy, I jus find it really interesting how that conversation would take place. There is no doubt these two have struggled for this child's sake. I wish them the best. It's just too bad the courts got the paperwork incorrect.

Herky
Herky

Definte normal ways? Do you know how many hetero couples have to go through IVF in order to conceive? Based off your shallow comments, you should just disconnect from the internet and go back to your caveman ways. Any couple in Iowa that has a child through a gestational surrogate (mom's egg, dad's sperm) the child's own mother has to adopt her own child which is BS. The surrogate is just the "oven" It's about time the laws in Iowa get with the times and they need to keep going to those that are going through IVF and/or gestational surrogacy.

Give me Liberty

They should have applied for adoption just like you had to. It's a matter being correct and in this case the court was wrong. This little boy is the offspring of one of the mother's and not the other. It's really sad that some couples really want children and can't do it naturally. I'm not opposed to surrogates, but the documentation of the lineage of the parents is important and needs to be correct. Both of these women did not create this little boy PERIOD

finch

When a married woman has a child with a sperm donor, her husband does not have to adopt the child to be the legal parent. It's simply a legal presumption -- the spouse of the mother is the child's parent. If someone is married to a mother when a child is born, he/she is the parent in all legal ways -- on the birth certificate, for purposes of all child responsibilities and rights. These people are married, so legally they are both parents when one has a child. It's not a difficult concept.

Give me Liberty

Well it's matter of being factual correct. You can presume what ever you like, but the fact is the law should take into account the facts. The fact is the birth of the child is from someone's sperm and the mother's egg. Judges who rule any other way are not correct. You can feel how you like about it, but it just isn't correct. If this is about legal custody then they had the choice to have the non biological mother adopt for that purpose. Instead they are trying to make a statement and have laws changed to accomodate their lifestyle.

finch

No, actually it's a matter of law. If a man is impotent, they go to a fertility clinic and have a child through a sperm donor, do you believe the sperm donor should be on the birth certificate rather than the husband? Or do you think the child should just be fatherless, the husband should have no responsibility to support the child and the child should grow up only having a mother?

Do you think the father should have to adopt the child? What if he doesn't? Then he doesn't have a support obligation if they get a divorce? He can't make any legal decisions on behalf of the child? He can't pick up the child from school or visit her in the hospital without his wife's written permission?

Maybe you do believe that. But it's not the law. Because that would be stupid.

finch

And, it's not a change in the law. It's the application of the law as it has always been.

Give me Liberty

" If a man is impotent, they go to a fertility clinic and have a child through a sperm donor, do you believe the sperm donor should be on the birth certificate rather than the husband?" Yes, Yes I do. You can call it stupid if you like, but I call it FACTUALLY correct finch. The "father" can adopt his wife's and sperm donor's offspring if he chooses. People who donate sperm and procreate should have to sign a release of responsibility form towards the future possible offspring. It's too bad some people can't conceive on their own, but to have historical documention that isn't based on factual information is wrong. The child call the people who raise him whatever he likes, the family dynamic can be loving and functiional and all that, but the birth certificate should represent the biological record of the parties involved with procreation.

Give me Liberty

"Do you think the father should have to adopt the child? What if he doesn't?" I think I answered this in part already. If a man and woman who can't concieve on their own decided to use an outside source for conception they need to talk it over and decide for themselves how they want to handle the legalities of it. If one of them has a problem signing on for adoption (whether they use a sperm donor or surrogate), that is their choice.
I can use one example why it's important to get the paperwork correct. Say a person (Steve) is tracing his lineage. Steve traces it until he sees his great-great uncle Jim. Jim's birth certificate states his parents are Lucy Williams and Jenny Roth. Steve nows faces a real dilemma. This genealogical path now has been severed because all of Jim's relatives are deceased and Steve will never know the biological father of Jim.

finch

You don't seem to understand what a birth certificate is. A birth certificate is a legal document created by the government, stating the legal parents of a child at the time of the chid's birth. It is not a DNA certificate. It states legal information, not biological information. If a woman is unmarried at the time of childbirth, the guy who had sex with her and made a baby is the legal parent. If the woman is married, the spouse is the legal parent. That's the law.

It has been this way for hundreds of years. Your birth certificate does not guarantee your DNA; it only states who your legal parents were at the time of your birth. The State has determined the legal definition of parents. If you don't like it, work to change the law for everybody, including both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. But don't argue that this case does not follow the law because it does.

finch

The factual information is that these are the legal parents of the child.

finch

The State has decided it is more important that a child born into a marriage has two married legal parents than it is for the great great great grandchildren of that child to know whose sperm was used to make him. When the technology of sperm donation came into being, the State did not decide that all the children born with Bob's sperm should know that Bob is their biological father. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If you want the State to change all of this, there is a process available for you to try to change the law.

Herky
Herky

And granted, this couple used donor sperm, but they should be afforded the same rights and I'm glad they won!

Devin H
Devin H

So what. With cloning now, anyone in the near future will be able to have a baby using their own DNA. Even two men. In this case, I think it was just one person, but in a short time it will be two person's DNA.

Give me Liberty

You know what the future holds do you? How about next weeks powerball numbers Devin H.? Scienists have made progress in cloning, but there aren't any certainties about the future. It's also possible in futue to mix and match animal DNA with human DNA, and that would be interesting. "June 8th, 2067. Breaking News: Dogwoman and Dogwoman fight for custody of their Catboy! All the Sheeple are angry."

NormM
NormM

First, I'm going to put a caveat; I am Jess's step-father. I've raised Jess to be a responsible self-reliant person. I could go into the whole background on how I took her as my own and raised her, all the trials and troubles that she incurred...but that's not Jess. Jess joined the Army (against my LOUD objections being former Army myself lol), and has become a model citizen. She's gone to school full-time; she's fought discrimination with her relationship to Jenny, and has fought legal battles concerning her children. She is a fantastic person. Jenny is a fantastic person in her own right, and I'm proud to have her as my step-daughter's spouse.

Now, with that said, I will admit that I was troubled by Jess's news several years ago that she was in a relationship with a girl." I'm not a regular church-goer, but I strongly believe in God and I have faith in him. As a former police officer for 20 years, I've seen a lot of injustice. I'm mostly conservative; so I was torn with the news about my step-daughter's lifestyle.

But really, what does It matter?? Does her love of Jenny affect YOU? No. Do they believe in God? Sure. But THEIR relationship does NOTHING against you. When you wake up in the morning, does Jess and Jenny's marriage affect your life in one bit? No? But does prejudice and contempt affect theirs? Absolutely! Do I agree with the sanctity of marriage? Yes. I believe marriage should be between two loving people. I tend to lean towards man/women. But why should two loving people be prevented from having the same rights as straight people?

Atlasshrugged; are you in law enforcement at all? Have you personally seen domestic disturbances? Have you seen a mother kill her 6 month old because it was "being loud"? No? I have. Sadly in America, there are many single-parent families. Jess's mom and I divorced when she entered high school. Luckily, I was able to eventually remain in her life. I consider her my own daughter. But straight couples do bad things, make poor decisions, etc. in regards to their child raising. Why does two women as a couple automatically make it a bad thing? It doesn't, period. We as a nation have become so polarized and segmented; I think we are missing the bigger problems that we as a nation are facing.

Perhaps we should cast stones in our own backyards first, and figure out our NATION's problems like MASSIVE DEBT, UNEMPLOYMENT, etc. than to be worrying that two loving people are raising a great little boy. Because in reality, this doesn't affect YOUR life and liberty one bit; be more worried about who's running the country and the chaos that we are in as a nation.

momss
momss

Norm, just "LIKE" :)

Clover80
Clover80

Well said, sir.

anony_mous

You sir, have my upmost respect! Very well said. This needs to stop being news. Everyone has the right to love who they love and have children with that person and marry that person. We need to concentrate on the real things that are atrocious that are happening in our country.

Guy from Aledo

I know these TWO MOMS personally, and to think or say that either one is doing anything other that what is best for their son, is insane. It is their responsability to protect Liam's future and tht is exactaly what they are doing. So to critisixe them for being good parents is just plain ignorant.

Guy from Aledo

I know these TWO MOMS personally. They are wonderful women and only have the best intrest of Liam in mind. His future has to be protected and that is exactly what they are doing. It's not about making a statement, it is about doing what is right for their son and family. For someone to critisize them without knowing them is just plain ignorant.

DP2010

Simply another way to demand people accept abnormal as equal and good to normal. Face it folks, this child may have two caring adults but no father...that is dysfunction that simply can't be compensated for. Stop lying to yourselves about this fact. Its easy to support a loving circumstance, but you are doing so here to the detriment of this child in a big way. Am I glad the child will have to caring adults? Yes, but lets face it, there is only one mother, then another adult. They made this choice in their lifestyle and now demand everyone call it the same...its not, it never will be. Whats wrong with this kind of honesty?

VEGAS

That is your opinion and it is wrong, dead wrong. You need to get a life and let God do the judging, you are not god. Period.

Buntmp

1 in 3 children are raised without a father in the U.S. So all these children are being raised poorly? This child will be raised to tolerate those who are not like him. He will respect differences and embrace diversity. People need to learn not everyone will be just like you or how you think it should be. It's not about acceptance it's about tolerance. Live and let live. Same-sex couples have to plan and pay big money to raise a child. Think about how those children will be raised when they are so wanted. Nobody gets upset at that mother at Wal-Mart who screams profanities at her six kids, but are outraged at two women raising a child? Some studies show that children raised in same-sex households are less violent and have better grades. So let's face it, there are two moms and they will raise an amazing man.

LilAZN3
LilAZN3

The ignorance here is that you think their lifestyle is a choice.

atlasshrugged

The fabric of the family unit in our country is broken. Kids having kids, bad parenting and a decaying society with no morals are mostly to blame just to name a few. If these two do a good job of parenting and keep their child off the welfare rolls, out of jail and this child becomes a productive member of society, I am all for it. As a taxpayer, I am tired of paying for other people's mistakes and poor choices. Hopefully, these two will love and nurture the child.

Devin H
Devin H

"IF" ? "HOPEFULLY" ?

Devin H
Devin H

How about "WHEN"

GalGal
GalGal

How about when what? How about making complete sentences, so people know what in the works you're trying to say.

Devin H
Devin H

Read both the comments together there GalGal.

momss
momss

This makes my heart smile. What a beautiful family, we should all be so fortunate.

concernedmomof2

I am so excited to hear this! I have been following the case as best as I can. good for the both of you! continue to enjoy your precious family!

athenamonster

Well said, mommakelly! This child has two parents that love him and want to show that they are responsible for him and take care of him - as a family unit. It seems he has a loving home and a happy childhood. Isn't that what all children are entitled to?

QCAresident33

Some people may be upset with this comment so I'd like to first say that in no way do I mean disrespect to these two ladies. I don't understand why this needed to happen. It seems these days that "equality" means everyone saying to doing exactly what others want them to. This seams to undermine some of the purpose of the birth certificate. I guess I could sue to have my dog's name put on my kids' birth certificates now because it just wouldn't be equal if they didn't let me list my dog as a parent.

mommakelly
mommakelly

Your comment shows ignorance. Having both PARENTS on the birth certificate shows that they are responsible for the child and in any legal proceedings, they have equal protection. If you want your dog to take care of you when you become feeble (which by the tone of your comment, shouldn't be too long now), then, by all means, go ahead and look like an idiot in the eyes of not only your friends and family, but in the eyes of the law and society as well.

finch

Great comment. :)

Clover80
Clover80

I agree that you clearly missed the point of this. Your comment IS disrespectful because it devalues the content of the birth certificate for this family. Spousal presumption puts a man's name on the birth certificate if he's married to the mother, regardless of whether or not he's the biological father (or even could be). The offensive comment that your dog should be put on the birth certificate demonstrates even more ignorance, as you're likening the committed, legally recognized relationship that these moms have, to ownership of a pet. When the state of Iowa affirmed equal protection for all committed couples in marriage, the same rights of the institution should apply. In the future, if you really don't want to offend someone with a comment, but you find yourself starting with the phrase "I don't mean to offend..." then maybe rethink posting, because clearly, whatever follows that caveat is going to be offensive.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but own them as beliefs and don't try to make false equations.

Congratulations, Jess and Jenny!

Give me Liberty

I don't know, I think dogs should have equal rights too. People who want to marry animals need their rights!!!! Science will make it possible someday to combine human and animal DNA. When that happens when that dog will need it's name on the birth certificate? Clover80 you need to get with times and stop your ancient way of thinking. The day of the dog will be here shortly! ....... LOL, what an insane world

VEGAS

You know what you just posted was an exaggeration and you need to stop it.

VEGAS

I was raised in Iowa, a Christian and I could not be more proud of Iowans and their stance on gay marriage and issues like this none. May this family have the health and prosperity. May the hate and fear mongers as well as the extremist bible thumpers who think they are God please understand it is God who does the judging and not them or your well funded hate and fear campaigns. Now have seat and be quiet the world goes on.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.