The Family Research Council has caught up with the Ruth Institute. I shouldn’t gloat, but the big DC-Beltway Think Tank has just discovered the Presumption of Paternity. Out here in San Diego, as far from the Beltway as you can get and still be in the Continental US, we have been saying this stuff, literally, for years:
Same-sex “marriage” is not just an attack on a traditional social institution–it’s an attack on the order of nature itself. That was made clear again this week when an Iowa court ruled that a child whose mother was a lesbian “married” to a woman and whose father was an anonymous sperm donor should have both female “spouses” listed on the child’s birth certificate. The ruling was based on a legal principle called “the presumption of paternity,” which historically has stated that when a child is born to a married woman, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. In other words, the law “presumed” what was almost always true. But in the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2009, Judge Eliza Ovrom has twisted the “presumption of paternity” into a “presumption of parentage.” So what was once a presumption of something that was nearly always biologically true has now become a “presumption” of something that is biologically impossible (since a child cannot have two genetic mothers). Ironically, homosexual activists are reporting that the court ordered that an “accurate” birth certificate be issued–when in fact they ordered issuance of a certificate that is inaccurate since it fails to list both the mother and father.
Tell the truth Regular Ruth Readers: did you here about the Presumption of Paternity morphing into the Presumption of Parentage here first? I’ve been talking about this since 2008, when we produced Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone, the 4 part lecture series! Oh well, FRC, welcome on board! Better late than never.
Support the Ruth Institute. You never know when the Beltway will finally catch up with us.