A reader writes:
It’s quite misleading to label the birth certificate for Arnold’s out-of-wedlock son “faked.” In California, as in many states, the husband of a mother is legally presumed to be her child’s father. In many states that presumption is so strong that a man outside the marriage who claims to be the child’s biological father has no standing to challenge the paternity of the mother’s husband. Certainly there is no legal requirement for mom to name the biological father on the birth certificate.
Whether the husband was deceived into thinking the child was his own, or knew everything and was willing to accept the child as his own, is left by the law as a private question between the couple. This strong presumption of legitimacy within marriage is thought to lend stability to families and ensure child-support for children, even though – perhaps especially because – everyone knows that many children born within marriage have fathers from outside the marriage.
So, while the birth certificate might not have been honest about biology, it wasn’t required to be. Listing mom’s husband as father was totally legal, and nothing was “faked.” (Why her husband used a different last name is another question.)
Another writes:
The birth certificate you linked to is neither a fake nor a crime. Under California law, there is a presumption that the husband of the birth mother, when neither impotent nor sterile, is the father. (Cal. Family Code Sec. 7540). While I do not know the specifics in California, New York has a similar presumption which exists to preserve the legally established family unit, not because anyone believes that legal marriage necessarily implies genetic parentage.
In fact, several years ago, the New York State Department of Health began applying this presumption to lesbian couples legally married out of state, where one was the birth mother, listing both as "parents." This rule was applied whether or not the other spouse was a genetic parent: it simply reflected the appropriate operation of the legal presumption, and did not somehow render the resulting certificates "fake."
Also, I have no idea what is meant by your mocking comments regarding a faked birth certificate being "beneath presss inquiry." If I understand correctly, this is apparently based on the (misguided) notion that because the birth certificate of Arnold's son is faked (as noted above – it is not), someone else's could be too. Perhaps this is a reference to Trig, but it could just as well be cited by the folks at World Net Daily, who produce article after article on a daily basis alleging that the valid Hawaiian birth certificate of our president must be falsified whenever a jit or jot thereof appears to them imperfect.
I don't know how comfortable you are to be in this company; I, for one, would not be. Good press inquiry does not mean endlessly raising questions about the validity of clear evidence, even when there is no basis to do so.
I take the point. But it implies that all birth certificates are not necessarily proof of biological paternity, or of anything much but what the mother decides. Another reader points to a recent NYT Magazine piece on the topic of paternity. Another:
A meandering, side thought to the whole Arnold deception: Doesn't this put a deeply, deeply ironic backdrop on the landmark case-to-be now known as Perry v. Schwarzeneggar? Yes, of course, he was being sued in his official capacity, and he didn't really oppose the cause. But still: he's the Defendant in name, representing the side purportedly committed to protecting the institution of marriage. Amazing.
The Dish 