Connect with us

National

Iowa court issues pro-gay parenting decision

Ruling requires names of both parents to appear on child’s birth certificate

Published

on

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the names of married same-sex parents must appear on their children's birth certificates.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the names of married same-sex parents must appear on their children’s birth certificates.

The Iowa State Supreme Court on Friday issued a pro-gay adoption ruling that requires the names of both same-sex parents to appear on the birth certificates of their children — provided the couple is married.

In a unanimous 29-page decision, the seven justices ruled that the names of married lesbian parents — the birthing mother and non-birthing mother — must be shown on their child’s birth certificate.

Justice David Wiggins, who wrote the decision, based the ruling on the same reasoning the led to the court’s 2009 decision to establish same-sex marriage in the Hawkeye State.

“By naming the non-birthing spouse on the birth certificate of a married lesbian couple’s child, the child is ensured support from that parent and the parent establishes fundamental legal rights at the moment of birth,” Wiggins wrote. “Therefore, the only explanation for not listing the non-birthing lesbian spouse on the birth certificate is stereotype or prejudice.”

In the wake of the ruling, Iowa now has policy that accords with every other state that has marriage equality or allows some kind of legal relationship recognition for same-sex couples. According to Lambda Legal, all those states require that birth certificates for same-sex parents in a legal relationship be the same as they are for married opposite-sex parents.

The case, Gartner v. Newton, was filed in 2010 by Lambda Legal on behalf of Mackenzie Gartner, who was born in September 2009 to Heather and Melissa Gartner, a lesbian couple who legally wed in Iowa. After receiving a birth certificate that listed Heather, the birth mother, as the only parent, the couple requested a corrected birth certificate listing both of them as Mackenzie’s parents. However, Iowa’s Department of Public Health denied the request on the ground that Melissa isn’t Mackenzie’s genetic parent.

In January 2012, the Iowa District Court for Polk County determined that state law required the department to issue a birth certificate with both lesbian parents’ names to Mackenzie. The department did so while appealing the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court didn’t interpret state law in the same way as the lower court did, but ruled that the equal protection under the Iowa State Constitution invalidates that law and requires both names of same-sex parents to appear on their child’s birth certificate.

Camilla Taylor, a marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said the Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces what it earlier determined in the 2009 ruling for marriage equality: same-sex couples must be treated equally under the law.

“Same-sex couples and their children do not get marriage-lite,” Taylor said. “Marriage is marriage and equal is equal. We take for granted that a husband is the father of a child born to his wife through reproductive technology — regardless of whether he is his child’s genetic parent. The same marital protection for both parents’ relationships to their child holds true for same-sex couples and their children.”

Nancy Politkoff, a lesbian and law professor at American University Washington College of Law, acknowledged the ruling will be helpful for same-sex parents in Iowa, but expressed frustration over its limitations, including fact that it won’t help unmarried lesbian couples in Iowa.

“The law we have in the District of Columbia is that when a lesbian couple has a child through donor insemination, they are both parents, they get their names on the birth certificates — and they don’t have to be married, and that’s very clear,” Politkoff said. “So our law helps all lesbian couples having children in D.C. and what has been obtained in Iowa helps only married lesbian couples. Our approach is a better approach because heterosexual couples don’t have to be married to have both people recognized as parents, and same-sex couples shouldn’t have to either.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular