Same-sex couples argue in court to be on children’s birth certificates – USA TODAY

Stephanie Wang, The Indianapolis Star Published 1:26 p.m. ET May 23, 2017 | Updated 3:45 p.m. ET May 23, 2017

LGBT people have gained more legal recognition in recent years, but LGBT rights remain a central issue in Indiana politics. Stephanie Wang/IndyStar

Jackie and Lisa Phillips-Stackman hold their daughter, Lola, on Dec. 4, 2015, at their Indianapolis home, The couple joined a lawsuit against Indiana to try to get the state to recognize both same-sex parents on their children's birth certificates.(Photo: Michelle Pemberton, The Indianapolis Star)

A panel of three appeals-court judges are examiningwhether Indiana discriminates by not recognizing two married women both as parents on their children's birth certificates.

Judge Diane S. Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago drew distinctions Monday between biological parentage and parental rightsand which of the two should be represented on birth certificates.

"You can't overcome biology," Sykes said. "If the state defines parenthood by virtue of biology, no argument under the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause or the substantive due process clause can overcome that."

"Your Honor, with all due respect, we maintain that parenthood is no longer defined by biology," said Karen Celestino-Horseman, the lawyer for eight same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit against the state for allowing only a biological mother and a father to be named on birth certificates.

May: Judge's ouster sought after he refuses to hear gay adoption cases April: Should the definition of infertility be more inclusive? April: 'We dont have a uterus; we need to find friends who do'

One Indianapolis couple who are a part of the lawsuit, Jackie and Lisa Phillips-Stackman,had a baby in 2015 born from Jackie's embryo, fertilized from a sperm donor with no parental rights, that Lisa carried.

"That's a policy argument to take to the legislature," Sykes responded.

We maintain that parenthood is no longer defined by biology.

The state of Indiana is appealing a ruling from a federal District Court judge, who sided with the same-sex couples and ordered the state to recognize both women as parents on birth certificates of children who are conceived through a sperm donor.

"In our view, that order creates an inequality that did not exist before and undermines the rights of biological fathers and their children," Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said.

In their lawsuit, the eight couples argued that the state allows opposite-sex couples to say the husband is the father of a child who is conceived with a sperm donor. But it doesn't extend the same presumption of parenthood to a wife who isn't the birth mother.

Indiana officials countered that opposite-sex couples aren't supposed to do that.

The mother is supposed to state when her husband is not the father. But that's not what often happens in real life.

April: The psychology of infertility, what couples face January: Indiana appeals ruling on parental rights for same-sex couples

"That led me to think that your argument is that a state law becomes unconstitutional because people subject to the state law don't follow it, which would be a very difficult position to take,"Judge Frank H. Easterbrook said.

The debate is then about how state law is supposed to operate not whether it discriminates, he said.

That order (from a U.S. District Court) creates an inequality that did not exist before and undermines the rights of biological fathers and their children.

The couples also argued that parental recognition should be a benefit conferred by the U.S. Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling in 2015, known as Obergefell v. Hodges. Even if one woman is not the birth mother, she should be recognized because of her wedded status similar to the way opposite-sex couples often are treated, the lawsuit said.

"The statute creates a paternity presumption that just is impossible in a same-sex marriage situation," Sykes said, referring to Indiana's statute on birth certificates that the couples are challenging.

"Your Honor, that's if one still presumes that parenthood is still defined "Celestino-Horseman said.

But Sykes interrupted.

"It's not a parenthood statute. It's a paternity statute. Paternity presumption is impossible in a same-sex marriage situation," the judge said. "So we just don't have any kind of discrimination going on here at all."

Later, Sykes said what the couples actually may be seeking is a redefinition of parenthood.

"Your Honor, parenthood "Celestino-Horseman said.

October: Massachusetts court gives parental rights to unmarried gay partner June: Judge orders Indiana to list both same-sex parents on birth certificate

Sykes interrupted again.

" is biological or adopted," the judge said. "You want this third category."

As Celestino-Horseman cited relevant cases, Sykes delineated between marriage cases and parenthood cases.

May 2016: Gay couple wins international fight for their baby girl April 2016: Same-sex spouses fight for parental rights

Easterbrook asked how the couples' case would apply to two married men who have a child through artificial insemination.

Celestino-Horseman indicated the situation was more complicated because it would involve surrogacy.

"I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but Obergefell says there can't be any sex discrimination, and now you're saying there must be sex discrimination," Easterbrook said. "In a female-female marriage, the right answer is mother No. 1 and mother No. 2.

March 2016: High court reverses Alabama, whichdenied lesbian woman's adoption December 2015: Indiana same-sex couples sue state over birth certificates

"In a male-male marriage, the right answer is surrogate mother, sperm donor, followed by adoption," the judge said. "In your view, doesn't there have to be identical treatment of the male-male marriage and the female-female marriage?"

Celestino-Horseman responded that wasn't part of her case.

"We can't ignore the logical implications of your arguments. And you seem to want to," Easterbrook said.

November 2015: Mormons struggle with same-sex policy changes June 2015: Same-sex marriage ruling will trigger next round of fights

He added that the case aimed to require "a misrecording of who the father is."

"Your view seems to be that it is unconstitutional for Indiana to correctly record the parent," he said.

The 7th Circuit which takes appeals of federal cases in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin is taking this case under advisement and may rule at a later date.

FollowStephanie Wang on Twitter:@stephaniewang

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2rN5eSX

Read this article:
Same-sex couples argue in court to be on children's birth certificates - USA TODAY