reducing things to the absurd or flying spagetti monster logic.
Suppose As a parent I have an adult child who gets themselves into trouble with the law and I decide that I am embarrassed and need to be saved from the public view. So I decide I am going to petition the court to have my name removed from the birth certificate of my child and legally disown or divorce this now adult person. It would save me the embarrassment and finally protect my privacy from their stupidity. Save me public scrutiny for not being a good enough parent and not have my name associated with this adult.
The way I see if it, if a judge rules in my favor it sets president for the birth certificate to be the legal document of the parent not the person who was born and therefore means that other things where you need to list your parents, such as a marriage certificate, need to be amended so that they can reflect no parentage. Or hey, we could just list any two names, after all we already have president for legally falsifying documents and calling that okay and normal.
Or the courts rule that this is absurd and not going to happen ( which is really what you want to happen) and that makes the birth certificate the person who was born his/her document and that there is no legal reason to protect someone from public embarrassment or entitle them to privacy.No good legal reason to falsify a record and you loose in court the right to legally disown your stupid adult child.
Either way the court ruled sets a president and basically in my mind speaks to the rights of adoptees, what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Forget taking it as a civil rights issue, we can take the flying spaghetti monster tactic, reduce it to the absurd and say that people are not entitled to privacy regardless of some made up promise and that it's just too darn bad if your embarrassed.
Think that's absurd? Look at closed records adoption states and then come talk to me about absurd.
The way I see if it, if a judge rules in my favor it sets president for the birth certificate to be the legal document of the parent not the person who was born and therefore means that other things where you need to list your parents, such as a marriage certificate, need to be amended so that they can reflect no parentage. Or hey, we could just list any two names, after all we already have president for legally falsifying documents and calling that okay and normal.
Or the courts rule that this is absurd and not going to happen ( which is really what you want to happen) and that makes the birth certificate the person who was born his/her document and that there is no legal reason to protect someone from public embarrassment or entitle them to privacy.No good legal reason to falsify a record and you loose in court the right to legally disown your stupid adult child.
Either way the court ruled sets a president and basically in my mind speaks to the rights of adoptees, what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander. Forget taking it as a civil rights issue, we can take the flying spaghetti monster tactic, reduce it to the absurd and say that people are not entitled to privacy regardless of some made up promise and that it's just too darn bad if your embarrassed.
Think that's absurd? Look at closed records adoption states and then come talk to me about absurd.