Most of the codes you are citing here are in reference to cases in which a marriage has been "voided" (divorced) at birth, but the couple was still married at the time of conception. This is just further attempts at accuracy, not to be taken as overruling when it is known that the real father is someone else.
In fact, the reason they keep bringing up whether the husband was "sterile or impotent" is because it isn't a matter of simply being the mother’s husband, as you claim, but it is a matter of accuracy. If the husband is sterile, he can not be the father, therefore his name does not go on the BC. Again it is about an accurate account of the NATURAL parents, not simply being married to the mother. Otherwise, it wouldn't be important that he impotent.
Are you getting this yet?
You: "WTF…what “gender bias”!?! It takes one hell of a man to willingly assume the “burden” of another man’s child and YOU want to criminalize his selfless act!!!"
It is a SELFISH act, and it is a disservice to the child and yes, it is a criminal act to knowingly falsify a legal document. How can you possibly argue that it is ok to do this? Do you think you just write down whatever you wish on a birth certificate? If you wished the child was a different gender, can you change that too?
If a person who is not a parent wants to raise another person's child, they can adopt, IF the true parent is willing to give up their child for adoption or in some cases where it can be proven that the natural parent simply is not taking responsibility. But you don't just LIE on the birth certificate! Are you serious?
"Uh huh. Considering that I know of several other states (would you like a complete listing) in which the BC is completed AT the hospital, I would have to say that that IS 'standard'."
Yes, could you give me a complete listing please? lol. I didn't say it isn't done AT the hospital. I said it isn't done BY the hospital. There may some places where the hospital takes that role, but they aren't the government and they aren't the parents. There may be a government agent at the hospital who handles that, but not all children are born in hospitals. In some cases, actual hospital staff may facilitate that, but it is not their job to dictate that. It all depends on where the child is born and the rules in place.
"First of all Frank, if I had been talking about the TYD, I would have said so. What I am talking about (again) is 'custodial' rights."
You are talking about TYD and you don't even know it. TYD is ABOUT custodial rights, or what USED to be custodial rights. You are saying that a mother automatically HAS legal custody of a newborn baby and the unmarried father DOESN'T. You are wrong. That doesn't exist anymore (from a legal standpoint).
"Again Frank, if the unmarried father has the same “rights” as the unmarried mother, why does he have to petition the court for custody and parenting time?"
I already answered this one extensively. The main reason is possession. In any case in which one parent has possession of the child and the other one doesn't, it is the one who doesn't who is in the position of having to file to get it. If the father has possession of the baby, and won't share him/her with the mother, the mother is the one who has to file for custodial rights.
You responding to the point I just re-stated: "'Technically' she does NOT…and it has nothing to do with 'possession'."
Gecko, I assure you, from a LEGAL standpoint, the gender is IRRELEVENT in all custody laws. Yes, there have been some laws on occasion that have been passed that are gender-based, but they are quickly thrown out in the courts as unconstitutional. Any mother listening to your advice will be unpleasantly surprised when they find out the father does not legally have to return his child because neither parent has custody.
"Remember Frank, we’re talking about unmarried parents, not married parents."
And THAT is irrelevent as well. It doesn't mean ANYTHING in the world of custody.
Gecko, you have some serious misunderstandings about custody. There is no automatic custody to EITHER parent; there is no gender preference in any existing custody laws and it doesn't matter a whit if the parents have ever been married.
Further, it doesn't give a man custody to be married to a natural mother, as you claim. If it did, why would it matter if he has had a vasectomy? Hmmm?