Here We Go Again (With apologies to the sensible among us.)

 Abraham Lincoln was once asked how many legs a dog would have if you call the tail a leg. He responded, "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

It seems the six liberal justices on the SCOTUS have not learned that basic physiological dictum. "Calling something, something else, does not make it something else." In Pavan v. Smith, the court, with three dissensions, arbitrarily ruled, without hearings or briefs, that Arkansas had to list two "mothers" on the birth certificate of a child born to a same sex couple. (Female, obviously.)

Aside from the logistical problems should this hapless child ever face if he or she (is that defined by the court as well?) if he or she should ever attempt to trace a biological heritage, it is senseless to proclaim an impossibility as fact. In case the Justices in question slept through Biology 101, it is humanly (emphasis applied) humanly impossible for a baby to have two mothers.

It might make sense, culturally, for the two women to declare that they would jointly act as a mother figure to the child, but both cannot be the biological birth parent. What happens if two males "produce" a child (by surrogate, obviously) and wish to be listed as joint-fathers? Will the Court sanction that nonsense?

What if a heterosexual couple produce a child and the male claims the "mother" designation on the birth certificate and the female claims the father slot? Essentially the court action has rendered the birth certificate null and void. It is a "participation" trophy for whoever wishes to be involved in the charade marriage has been rendered.

Hey! What about adoptive parents? Will they demand to be listed on the birth certificate, as they are now "Mother and Father?" And will any self-respecting doctor sign a certificate that lists two mothers and no fathers?

Seems a basic tenant of legal definition has been overlooked. A "birth certificate" is a record of a live birth and the two parents who produced this child. It is not a social construct by which activists of any stripe may placard any divergent or aberrant belief or comment. What if someone determined to decry the concept of race for this new life? Could the baby be whimsically labeled as a Native American or of African descent or any other ethnic or cultural heritage? Maybe he will be a Klingon. Will the political affiliations and inclinations of both parents be listed as well? Such folderol.

Honestly, Abe, we need a fresher course in reality. If we call a Supreme Court Justice an honored and wise jurist, does that make it so? 

I know! Label one the "mother" and the other the "attending care giver." (Present at birth, but not participating in conception. Any other details you want? Let's not go there.)

Altogether now, let's count legs.