Articles Tagged with “same sex marriage”

blog_rainbowflag1-300x199While surrogacy is not legal in many parts of the world, there are also countries, like Israel, that allow some, but not all citizens, to become parents through surrogacy.  Under current Israeli law, only heterosexual partners can enter surrogacy agreements, with an amendment in the works that would allow single woman to legally use surrogacy. This means that in Israel, same-sex couples and single men cannot become parents using a surrogate.

In 2015, two activist groups filed a petition to get rid of the ban on surrogacy for same-sex couples. The hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2017, but has been pushed back to September 19, 2017. The Israeli Welfare and Social Affairs Ministry has said they “will take the position that the prohibition on same-sex surrogacy is not about discrimination, and it is more complicated.” They are suggesting a complete redo of the current foster care system, and argue that “only after the reform should lawmakers be asked to change the laws in favor of additional groups.” Udi Ledergor, Chairman of the Associates of Israeli Gay Fathers, said “We will continue to fight until we have removed the darkness and discrimination.” Check back on our blog in the coming months for more information on the Ministry’s decision, as it becomes available.


Rainbow_flag_and_blue_skies-300x199In May 2017, Taiwan’s highest court system ruled in favor of gay marriage, holding that Taiwan’s current laws violated the rights of same-sex couples. The Parliament, also known as the Legislative Yuan, has two years to amend the existing laws or pass new legislation. While it is unclear as to how far the parliament will go, hopes are that the parliament will amend the existing laws to include same-sex marriage. This will give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, including adoption, parenting, and inheritance. This spur was brought about when President Tsai Ing-wen came into power, whose key campaign issues included marriage equality.

Many Taiwanese opposition groups are willing to lobby against the parliament to keep the laws from being passed, arguing that the decision should be left to the people and not a few grand justices. As previously stated, the parliament has two years to change its marriage laws. If the two years pass with no change, then same-sex couples will be able to register for marriage. The bill is presently making its way through the parliament, but the process has slowed due to backlash from the opposition. Check back for updates on this legislation and other similar happenings throughout the world.


T5662029278_ea66e0d9bf_qhe Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last week after the State of Indiana appealed a federal judge’s ruling that permitted same-sex couples to list both names on their child’s birth certificate. In June 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued a decision allowing the placement of both females in a same-sex marriage on their child’s birth certificate. Prior to this ruling, the State of Indiana permitted only the listing of a mother and a father on a birth certificate. As a result, in the case of female married same-sex couples, only the woman who carried the child could be listed as the child’s parent on the birth certificate. The child was considered born out of wedlock, and the spouse needed to adopt the child to become a legal parent.  The Court held that Indiana’s refusal to recognize two mothers on a birth certificate violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, because the State did not extend equal rights to married same-sex couples. After the decision was issued, the State of Indiana began placing both married same-sex parents’ names on their children’s birth certificates, which was a very progressive step that continues to provide a great benefit to our married same-sex clients.  Click here to read our blog post about the 2016 district court ruling for more information.

During the oral arguments, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued that Indiana law only provides parental rights through biology or adoption, and contended that the district court’s decision created a third category that “creates inequality and undermines the rights of the biological fathers.”  Meanwhile, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, Karen Celestino-Horseman, responded that Indiana law does not treat married same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples equally. For example, the law treats female spouses of women who underwent artificial insemination differently than male spouses of women in the same scenario, as the male spouse would be the presumed legal father of the child under Indiana law.  The Seventh Circuit frequently alluded to biology during the oral arguments, with Judge Diane S. Skyes stating, “You can’t overcome biology and if the state defines parenthood by biology, no argument under Equal Protection Clause of the substantive due process clause can overcome that.”  Celestino-Horseman countered that parenthood is no longer defined by biology.

The Seventh Circuit is taking the case under advisement and will make a ruling at a later date. We are hopeful that the Seventh Circuit makes a decision that accords equal rights to married-same sex couples, and continues to allow both parents to be listed on their children’s birth certificates in the State of Indiana.  Stay tuned to our blog for more updates on this case.




ME_23_00_sm-150x150Earlier this year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Rockland District Court’s decision that found a de facto parentage relationship between Jessica Lisio’s two biological children and her transgender domestic partner, Tammy Thorndike. Lisio and Thorndike, who identifies as male, began a relationship and decided to have a child together. In 2009, Lisio and Thorndike registered as domestic partners and later Lisio gave birth to their daughter. Their relationship began to fall apart a few months later, but Thorndike and Lisio maintained their existing parental roles. Thorndike finally moved out and two years later, filed a complaint for a determination of paternity and parental rights and responsibilities, which Lisio opposed, arguing that Thorndike had no parental rights. The Court found that “Thorndike undertook a permanent and responsible parental role in the children’s lives”, and that the children would be negatively affected if Thorndike was removed from their lives.

This case is a prime example of how the laws and court system are delayed and could have been avoided had the two parties taken proactive steps to establish their parental rights and responsibilities. In this case, a second-parent adoption lets the non-biological parent adopt a child without the biological parents losing their rights. Also, if the relationship ends, it still allows the adoptive parent to have custody and visitation rights. It’s important to keep in mind that Indiana has become one of a handful of states that now puts both biological and non-biological married same-sex parents on the birth certificate. Therefore, a second-parent adoption is not always necessary in this scenario. Meet with an experienced adoption and reproductive law attorney to learn more about when a second-parent adoption may be required.

In the many states that don’t recognize second-parent adoption, there is the option of a co-parenting agreement which lays out the intentions of the parents regarding the care of the children. This will help protect the intent of the non-biological parent toward the care of the child in the event that the relationship ends. This decision also strengthens the case for establishment of parentage in non-biological parents that use donor egg, which can sometimes arise in a gestational surrogacy. Many states don’t have clear laws on whether parentage can be established using donor egg, so taking intent into consideration fortifies the argument for establishment of legal parentage in non-biological parents.

5662029278_ea66e0d9bf_qIn 2015, eight female same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit claiming that Indiana violated their constitutional rights regarding the information on their children’s birth certificates. Until recently, Indiana did not include the non-birth mother or father’s name on the birth certificates of children born into same-sex marriages, and classified these births as “out of wedlock”.  In the 2016 decision, Judge Tanya Walter Pratt of the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana determined that Indiana law regulating birth certificate documentation violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge also ruled that the state cannot classify children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse as born out of wedlock.

Weeks after the judgment, the state of Indiana sought to amend the order, raising questions of jurisdiction and asking whether the judgment applies to all wives of all birth mothers, or only to wives of birth mothers who conceived through artificial insemination. The judge refused to amend the decision and said, “The order means what it says and says what it means and the law intends to give wives of birth mothers comparable rights to husbands of birth mothers.” With the Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal in the U.S. just over a year ago, this is another great leap in giving same-sex couples equal rights in parenting. Indiana must now name both same sex-parents on their child’s birth certificate if the parents are married, not just the birth mother.




1392509_rainbow_flag.jpgColombia’s highest court issued a ruling yesterday granting same-sex couples the right to marry. This holding follows the court’s landmark decision in 2015 to extend adoption rights to same-sex couples. The South American country has long been engaged in the fight for marriage equality. Although same-sex couples were permitted to enter into civil unions and receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples (such as health insurance, social security, and inheritance), they were denied the right to wed. In 2011, the same court held that same-sex couples could register their relationship if lawmakers failed to pass a bill in two years creating a marriage designation for same-sex unions. Colombia’s congress thwarted this order, and the deadline passed in 2013. As a result of the lawmakers’ failure to act, some courts and public notaries began to register the civil unions as marriages, while others did not. A dispute ensued, giving rise to yesterday’s decision.

Colombia now joins Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay in legalizing same-sex marriage. Chile is also paving the way for marriage rights in Latin America. The nation instituted a law permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions in October 2015. Stay tuned to our blog for exciting developments in this area of the law!


marriageequality.jpg On June 26th, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued an historic ruling that invalidated state bans on same-sex marriage and held that same-sex marriage is a Fourteenth Amendment right. The decision results in the United States becoming the twenty-first country in the world to nationally legalize same-sex marriage. What does this landmark decision mean for Indiana, where same-sex marriage has been legal since the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state’s same-sex marriage ban in the fall of 2014?

The Indianapolis Star recently published an article that answers the above question. The article notes that although same-sex marriage is already legal in Indiana, the Court’s ruling will impact our state through the nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Previously, marriages granted in states such as Indiana, where same-sex marriage was legal before the ruling, were not recognized by states that banned same-sex marriage. The article cites the following quote by Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor, Steve Sanders, to illustrate this concept:

“If you’re married in one state, you’re married everywhere. That rule has long applied to virtually all heterosexual marriages. What this ruling means is same-sex couples cannot be excluded from the protection of that rule.”

same sex couple babies.jpgWhen a gay couple in Texas was denied the ability to place their names on their newborn children’s birth certificates, the news story went viral. Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs, whose twin boys were born through a gestational surrogate, are each the biological father of one of the babies. However, neither of their names is listed on the boys’ birth certificates, nor were they allowed to proceed with their second-parent adoption. Their petition to remove the surrogate’s name from the birth certificate, place their names on the birth certificates, and adopt each other’s biological child was denied. The surrogate, who has no biological ties to the children as the couple used an egg donor, is the only name on each birth certificate. Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage was cited as the reason for the decision. Although ruled unconstitutional last February, the decision was stayed pending appeal and judges can use their discretion in these cases. Texas law requires a second-parent adoption to be between two legally married people. Although Hanna and Riggs were legally married in Washington D.C., the state of Texas does not recognize their marriage and denied their petition for a second-parent adoption. According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Texas and 17 other states have “unclear” laws regarding LGBT adoption and allow judges to have discretion to decide if LGBT parents can adopt. Regardless of Texas’ stance on same-sex marriage, it is unclear as to why the judge denied the petitions for each father to be listed on his biological child’s birth certificate.

Indiana is one of the few states that explicitly authorize same sex couples to petition for second-parent adoptions. Along with California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, Indiana recognizes second-parent adoptions for same-sex couples through precedent-setting rulings at the state court level. Connecticut, Colorado, and Vermont allow second-parent adoptions by statute. Indiana law also does not prohibit individuals from adoption based on their sexual orientation. Therefore, LGBT individuals may petition to adopt, and same-sex couples may jointly petition to adopt.

The attorneys at Harden Jackson have a great deal of experience helping couples in their family building journey, in addition to assisting clients in all areas of family law, adoption, and reproductive law matters. For more information, please contact our office at 317.569.0770 or