The Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that if a married gay couple gives birth, the non-procreative parent should be listed as the second parent on the child’s birth certificate. The Iowa high court ruled in favor of marriage equality in 2009. The new ruling states:
The situation is slightly different when it comes to two men, of course, since neither of them would give birth. But in a case of adoption or surrogacy, both parents should be presumed to have equal parental rights and responsibilities. And let’s hear the wingnuts argue against this position, which is clearly in the best interests of the children. That will put the lie to all that “pro-family” nonsense.
It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children. By naming the nonbirthing 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. Therefore, the only explanation for not listing the nonbirthing lesbian spouse on the birth certificate is stereotype or prejudice. The exclusion of the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a child born to a married lesbian couple is not substantially related to the objective of establishing parentage.
Thus, section 144.13(2) fails to comport with the guarantees of equal protection under article 1, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. The Department has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for refusing to list on a child’s birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage, when the child was conceived using an anonymous sperm donor and was born to the other spouse during the marriage. Thus, the language in section 144.13(2) limiting the requirement to “the name of the husband” on the birth certificate is unconstitutional as applied to married lesbian couples who have a child born to them during marriage.
You can read the full ruling here.