Outrageous outrage: State Department removes “mother/father” designations from passports
posted at 9:11 pm on January 7, 2011 by Allahpundit
The downfall of America, part 8,173?
“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”…
Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.
“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said…
“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio. “This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Isn’t this just federalism at work? Most states either expressly allow same-sex adoptions or have no explicit provision prohibiting them, in which case State’s hands are tied. They could retain the “mother/father” framework, I guess, but in that case you’re going to end up with some male names on the “mother” line and some female names on the “father” line. It makes more sense to go to a “parent/parent” framework. Or, I suppose, we could do the anti-federalist thing and push for a federal law banning gay adoptions, although (a) it wouldn’t pass and (b) it would reduce the pool of parents who are waiting to adopt, which would in turn make this problem that much worse. If you’re going to tolerate gay adoption — and I think most (but not all) conservatives do, if only because they find it preferable to abortion — then why not make the paperwork reflect that?
On a somewhat but not entirely unrelated note, via Breitbart.tv, here’s Andrew Breitbart talking about the “big ol’ gay party” he’s planning to throw for gay conservatives at CPAC.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The list is endless. Kids mocking other kids with 2 “moms” will be charged with a hate crime and civil suits brought against the traditional parents. As will priests, pastors, rabbis who won’t perform gay marriages. The words mother and father will disappear from the English language lest we offend any gay. Just like the American flag has now become offensive to a certain protected minority. You bet DADT was their lynchpin.
TxAnn56 on January 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Unfortunately for Breitbart, he actually thinks that’s him being clever. Unfortunately, no, it isn’t.
It’s sort of the last-ditch spoilage from or about an organization that smells more like garbage of late than it does of “Conservatives.”
It’s just the prolonged and insulting behavior of people who can’t admit they’ve followed the Pitiful Piper.
Lourdes on January 7, 2011 at 10:39 PM
I find myself thinking of it so much, these days. That and But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? I feel trepidation when I read the comments on most websites. I really should be praying more and reading less. ;)
pannw on January 7, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Baby has two fathers. Baby has two mothers. Baby has one father and one mother. All doable with the current wording.
The new wording is not forward thinking. It should be “guardian 1″, “guardian 2″, … “guardian N”, since we all know that there may come a time when a child needs an abortion the parents won’t provide, and the child needs to go overseas to get it.
unclesmrgol on January 7, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Yes, myself, also.
Lourdes on January 7, 2011 at 10:58 PM
If they were going to change, at least go with parent and parent.
Think of the catfights with Bruce and Biff step up to the window to get a passport for their adopted son or daughter. I hope the have the decency not to be crude in line as the discuss who should be Parent 1 and who should be Parent 2.
BuckeyeSam on January 7, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Nearly two hours later and no Jenfidel.
Your a useless hater.
BuckeyeSam on January 7, 2011 at 11:15 PM
I don’t have a problem with this for passports but instead of parent it should use the words “legal guardian”.
Birth certificates are another thing entirely. There should be entries for biological parents and legal guardians. The idea that a non biological parents name appears as mother or father on a birth certificate is just flat out wrong and that includes non same sex adoptive parents. If the biological parents are unknown then they should be left blank but a person’s name who has no biological connection to the child should never be entered for parent on a birth certificate.
Rocks on January 7, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Pathetic Political Correctness. So many things are changing in modern times, from technology to standard of living to awareness of the world around us, but they look at the one thing that hasn’t changed — human beings and human nature — and act like “mother” and “father” are outmoded ideas.
News flash: If you’re alive, you had a father and mother at some point.
didymus on January 7, 2011 at 11:18 PM
The name of the biological father and the name of the biological mother.
As far as I know, we’ve yet to create humans via osmosis or play-doh.
It still requires sperm and an egg. As much as liberals that, it’s how it is.
ButterflyDragon on January 7, 2011 at 11:21 PM
I think the implication that there are more abortions due to a lack of adoptive parents is ludicrous.
Rocks on January 7, 2011 at 11:30 PM
I would like to say thanks though for not saying this was “inevitable” or quote some stupid poll showing the youth are all for it.
Rocks on January 7, 2011 at 11:32 PM
Really?
ninjapirate on January 7, 2011 at 11:46 PM
IVF really is the most insidious technology… Soylent Green has nothing on it…
Which brings me to embryonic stem research… there are a lot of “conservatives” that support that too(with government money)… “hey come on, these are unused frozen embryos”
ninjapirate on January 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM
Nation of freaks. No more clear cut lines, just a blur.
At least retain the Mother/Father designation for the rest of us, the MAJORITY, that want it. there is something heart warming about seeing “mother” and “father” listed for me, not this parent 1/2 crap.
Daemonocracy on January 8, 2011 at 12:06 AM
This post is gay.
Professor Blather on January 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM
-approximately 53,000,000 American children murdered through abortion since abortion was legalized several decades ago
-a couple of thousand adults murdered in New York city on 9/11/2001
-American borders so unprotected that there are now millions and millions of illegal aliens as part of the population of the United States
-Crime, corruption and deception so prevalent by elected American Politicians over the last couple of decades that many financial experts are warning that the economic collapse of the United States is a distinct possibility shortly.
-Men marrying men, women marring women, two men as the two parents of children–parent one and parent two, two women as the two parents of children– parent one and parent two:
(2Timothy 3:1 [KJV])
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come…
(2Timothy 3:13 [KJV])
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Basil Fawlty on January 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM
Passports in 2100:
Child Number: 8271339310363
Guardian Unit #1: 9532810349281
Guardian Unit #2: 2370420021877
Guardian Unit #3: 7239221203945
Place of Birth: Hospital 2818293 City 721923
Address: Housing Unit 89929172, City 291823
DNA Sequence: …
crosspatch on January 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM
Q:is the info biological or legal?
Bio:
Sperm source of passport holder : x
Egg source of passport holder : y
peski on January 8, 2011 at 2:15 AM
Information above that is referenced by crosspatch will be:
Executive Order: 8993549671439
From President: 666
Basil Fawlty on January 8, 2011 at 2:23 AM
Okay, that’s it; finally I have reached my limit on Allah P’s leftist homosexual agenda bullshit. Not coming to HA any more…
fabrexe on January 8, 2011 at 3:29 AM
We’re going to soon live in a world where nothing is normal. Yes, I’m a hate filled bigoted monster for saying so, but two men cannot have a baby together, nor can two women, and the idea that two men would get together and have a child by using the sperm from one and a random/friend female to carry the baby…it’s just weird. It’s not normal, it’s probably not healthy for society, we’re going to have a nation full of kids with 3 “parents,” to hell with your biological mother or father, random women and men having kids they’ll never know or even seen perhaps, or worse- random men and women who become the third wheel parent- they donate the sperm or egg then stay in the life of the couple (as long as they stay together), then kid grows up with mommy and mommy and daddy…maybe toss in a 4th “parent” as the first donor who just didn’t fit the criteria.
The world’s going crazy. All sorts of things exist, all sorts of things are impossible, but in today’s world, you’re not allowed to call it what it is- weird and almost definitely a terrible idea.
Let’s just forget it all and tell all kids they have no parents, simply an X donor and a X (or) Y donor to make them complete.
TheBlueSite on January 8, 2011 at 3:52 AM
Don’t know any homosexual couples who’ve ‘adopted’, but I do know a pair who have gotten custody of one of their sons (from his earlier “experimentation” with heterosexuality, no doubt).
The boy is a nice kid, but I’m telling you he is so screwed up in the head. He was once a really good student, now he’s failing (and not by a little). I suppose lefties will call him a “hater” since he’s apparently not happy with his predicament.
I pray for the boy, and I really hope he makes it. But it doesn’t look good from where I sit. The well-adjusted son in the movie ‘The Birdcage’ is complete fiction.
Squiggy on January 8, 2011 at 7:25 AM
I would not go for that. Our kids were removed from a terrible, abusive environment, put into foster care, and then later adopted by us.
Rod on January 8, 2011 at 7:44 AM
Once again the Godless left corrupts science in the name of their “anti-everything good” agenda. Passports are a social item – not a scientific item. These self-proclaimed messianic idiots really believe they can replace mothers and fathers -It is straight from Hades and Satanic in nature to destroy what God has made.
Don L on January 8, 2011 at 7:59 AM
Some years back, Josh McDowell had a list of about 70 nations stretching back four millennia. I’ve looked, but I can’t find it on-line. The interesting and singular thread that tied all of them together was their attitude toward sodomy. No matter their politics, religious beliefs, or any other factor, once they accepted sodomy as “normal” and socially acceptable, all, ALL of them were gone in less than a generation.
oldleprechaun on January 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM
Wait! Should the male/female gender area of the application still exist? I thought I read somewhere that your gender is how you are currently identifying yourself. You choose what gender you want to be recognized/identified at that particular moment in time, therefore having to change the passport seems discriminatory for the “time gender challenged.”
If my pumps are hurting my feet, too windy/blustery for a skirt, and I dont’ feel like shaving—imma be a dude that day!
mossberg500 on January 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM
You know, Fabrexe, the thought has been in my mind for some time now that I am enjoying HA less and less, and don’t enjoy Allah’s P’s atheist take on things. There are other sites that do a better job of summing up the news of the day, and the Quote of Day is just weak. When a site can’t even figure out the proper stance to take on listing a person’s father and mother on a passport, it’s time to go. Too bad– I’ve been a follower from way back. See ya- I’m outta here.
gajaw999 on January 8, 2011 at 8:16 AM
Meghan Mac! Meghan Mac! Attica! Attica!
mossberg500 on January 8, 2011 at 8:21 AM
This is always the case, as evidenced by the current thread’s topic. 2% of the population is bending the other 98% to approve of its evil proclivities.
What is worse than those proclivities is the continuing acceptance of them by the general population, and even worse, by so-called conservatives.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM
This was me.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM
“Parent 1 and Parent 2″ make me think of Thing 1 and Thing 2 from The Cat in the Hat.
vcferlita on January 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM
Hey Akzed;
(2 Timothy 3:2-7 ESV)
Hey Christians! Vote Democrat! After all, they’re in the Bible. And could that be Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey getting honorable(?) mention in verse 6?
oldleprechaun on January 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Once more, the silence from “conservatives” is deafening. All of this for 2-3% of the population.
TxAnn56 on January 8, 2011 at 9:07 AM
Yes. Obviously. The traditional family unit is the backbone of Judeo-Christian values and Western culture. Marxists deconstruct the family to take down the culture. As Linda Kimball wrote in American Thinker:
(PC sucks.)
petefrt on January 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM
A fellow Seussphile?
Dr. Seuss rules!
petefrt on January 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM
St. Paul was warning the people he was writing to, who lived in the last days.
What do you do with Mt. 23:36; 24:34?
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:17 AM
So now that birth certificates are passe I suppose that father and mother information is not relevant. This PC crap is just that – crap. Isn’t the reason for requiring the parentage to be able to associate it to the Birth Certificate? Cannot produce a human without a lineage. Some PC Liberal jerks we pay $200,000 a year plus $100,000 in benefits came up with this. Boehner should have told Brian Williams that the cuts will be broad and deep into the entire bureaucracy.
Gandalf on January 8, 2011 at 9:18 AM
1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
Read everything between Mt. 23:36 & 24:34. Then read Acts.
Oh, and check this out.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:20 AM
Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Romans 1:8, “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”
Col. 1:5-6, “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.”
Again,
Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
The end being spoken of was the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So although we both see the ascendancy of the sodomy lobby’s agenda as a sign of cultural decline, it has nothing to do with biblical prophecy.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM
Sorry to be picky, but this always irks me. The Immaculate Conception is not the conception of Jesus Christ. Rather it is the conception of Mary, the mother of Christ. Her conception was immaculate as she was born without sin.
Trafalgar on January 8, 2011 at 9:29 AM
Luke 1:47, “…my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.”
If she was without sin, why did she need a Savior?
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Phooey. Children still get made the old fashioned way: One male and one female. Now you can duplicate this in a lab or a test tube, but male and female parts are still involved.
The politically correct strike again to placate the homosexuals.
abcurtis on January 8, 2011 at 9:37 AM
Rev. 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”
Rev. 22:10, “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”
Rev. 22:12, “And, behold, I come quickly [soon].”
Rev. 22:20, “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly [soon]. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
So you’re gonna have to rethink this whole thing.
It doesn’t mean that today’s sodomy lobby agenda isn’t evil, it just means that it has nothing to do with biblical prophecy.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:39 AM
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.
49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me,
And holy is His name.
50 And His mercy is on those who fear Him
From generation to generation.
The full quote explains it. My point was not debating whether or not Mary was born without sin (she was), it was to point out that the Immaculate Conception is frequently mischaracterized in debate as the conception of Jesus Christ, which it is not.
Trafalgar on January 8, 2011 at 9:42 AM
In states that allow sex perverts to adopt children, then two men are the legal parents of them. This is an abomination, but I don’t see why writing both names e.g. on the father line wouldn’t solve the problem.
Well actually, it doesn’t solve the problem for the sodomy lobby unless normal people are made to kowtow. Changing the passport is kowtowing, so problem solved.
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:42 AM
How? I mean, how?
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
Akzed on January 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM
According to Mike Bloomberg we are a bunch of hicks, that have never been out of the United States so why would any of us need a passport anyway SARC.
Dr Evil on January 8, 2011 at 9:49 AM
First, you need to understand the concept of original sin, with which, as Catholics believe, we are all born. Mary was born without original sin, hence it is known as the Immaculate Conception. Does this mean that Mary never sinned in her life? No, we all do, and therefore should rejoice in a Savior who forgives our sins. That having been said, I don’t really think this is the thread for theological discussions and will merely reiterate my original point that people should not confuse the Immaculate Conception with the conception of Jesus Christ.
Trafalgar on January 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM
Considering this doesn’t even show up on your actual passport, let’s conclude that this is a big lot of nothing.
Seixon on January 8, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Yes it is.
That made zero sense. What new reproductive technology has come about that eliminates father and mother? Are we producing pod people now? Human batteries like in the Matrix or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers scenario? I really want to know about this recent reproductive technology.
mizflame98 on January 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Omit the names of the parents and add the name of the village. We all know it takes one to raise a child
mizflame98 on January 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM
High intelligent carbon-based life form #1
High intelligent carbon-based life form #2
Problem solved.
mizflame98 on January 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Bull!
My daughter was married recently. The state marriage license listed PARTNER 1 and PARTNER 2. My son-in-law crossed those terms out and wrote in HUSBAND and WIFE.
Screw the government bureaucrats!
GarandFan on January 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM
An absolute truth that can’t be denied.
So, when is Andrew Breitbart going to shoot his NOH8T poster?
RedRobin145 on January 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Oh, no, no, no…of course not. Never…
Dopenstrange on January 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Homosexuals are anomolies
They are parasitic too in that they would have zero chance of continuing their existence without heterosexuals having children
I guess that’s why they try so hard to impress the gay agenda on youngsters outside of parental consent
basically they are trying to recruit new members ata young age
they are actively trying to coopt peoples kids
that’s pretty sick
Sonosam on January 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM
They oughtta keep the current framework. For people who wish to live outside the norm you provide them with a modified passport with a distinct Father A and Father B line and the opposite for lesbians.
Rattl3r on January 8, 2011 at 12:17 PM
I am far from a biblical scholar, having only just started really reading and studying a very short few years ago, but in my study, I have really come to believe that the Bible is both specific to a set time and civilization and general to all time and humanity. Does that make any sense? I believe those verses you quote were about the destruction of Jerusalem, but also about the ultimate ‘consummation of the world’. This ‘generation’ was the literal generation as we know a generation to be, but also, the generation of humanity. I was recently reading something somewhere, (surfing through links gets confusing and I can never find things again) about the ‘contradiction’ of the timeline in the Bible from the creation of Adam and the obvious evidence that prehistoric ‘man’ lived much longer than that. I think that Adam must be the beginning of ‘this generation’. I think he must be the beginning of the generation that was created knowing God, the one He created in His image, with the capacity to know the Father. *hopes she isn’t entertaining apostasy or heresy or anything*
And where Paul speaks of ‘the whole world’, we know for a fact that what he thought was the whole world, was not. It was the whole world to him and so he thought the time was surely at hand, and it was, for him. It was specific to his world and his time, but the ultimate general ‘consummation’ will not come until it has truly been preached throughout the whole world. I wonder if there is a corner of the planet that has not yet been reached. Surely we are near to meeting that requirement.
But again, I’m no Bible scholar, obviously, but I believe the warnings in it are as relevant to us today as when first written. It is the word of God, who is timeless, and so it would be as well. At any rate, the things Paul wrote to the Romans, specifically, are the same as we are experiencing today, and that befell so many former civilizations. Specific and general…I wish I could express it better. I guess this is why I’m no blogger. ;)
And as to Mary needing a savior, she did, as all mankind does. However God saved her prior to her conception, freeing her from the taint of original sin. Also, since she did not have the taint of original sin, she was not tempted to sin as we all are, and remained in a state of sanctifying grace for all her life, ie, she did not sin. This is a good explanation of the Church’s doctrine on Mary, Ever Virgin, Mother of God.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
pannw on January 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Yes.
Connie on January 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM
Equal time
Parent one ………………….
Parent two ………………….
Queer one ………………….
Queer two ………………….
Wade on January 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM
As a simple matter of diplomacy, driven by the desire to avoid potential bad feelings as to which one is Parent One and which is Parent Two (designations which inherently connote hierarchy of importance), I plan on crossing out Parent One and replacing it with “Mother,” and crossing out Parent Two and replacing it with “Father.”
PoodleSkirt on January 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM
As far as being worried about the pool of willing parents who will adopt, there are plenty.
Conservative Voice on January 8, 2011 at 3:11 PM
After giving this all due consideration, I’ve decided I’m not offended in the least by it and, in fact, would find it difficult to actually care less. Gay couples wishing to adopt must take a back seat to traditional couples (and often singles) and rightfully so. But because of that, they often will take special needs children who otherwise would have little hope of being raised in loving homes. And for that I am profoundly grateful.
SukieTawdry on January 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Hotair has CINO element: Conservative in
name only….
Sherman1864 on January 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM
How about…
Deviant #1:
Deviant #2:
That should be about right.
godhelpus on January 9, 2011 at 9:55 AM
You have to have a mother to be born and you have to have a father. Homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption have nothing to do with birth, which is exclusively heterosexual as human beings reproduce sexually, not asexually.
federale86 on January 9, 2011 at 1:51 PM
Waiting for Jenfidel to show up and talk about how unacceptable gay adoption is.
Bring on your hate, Jen.
Vyce on January 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM
While I’m not Jen I also don’t support ‘gay’ adoption.
I also don’t believe that someone that is single and straight should be allowed to adopt. My spinster-in-law just became an adoptive baby momma and I don’t approve.
So what?
annoyinglittletwerp on January 9, 2011 at 3:04 PM
I’m confused. We can’t move an inch on the legislation describing relationships other than heterosexual. You want, need and demand to have your unions called marriage. But, on the other side of the coin, you find it offensive that our passports describe a persons parents as Mother or Father?
Are you just f*cking with our heads now because you know you can get away with it?
hawkdriver on January 9, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Isn’t calling one’s child son or daughter sexist? Or any-sodomist? Or something?
Akzed on January 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM
you guys be hating on baby jesus, he only had one parent…
@hawkdriver yes clearly all gay people are part of a secret cabal that takes offense at noticing anything that isn’t gender neutral. We work day and night changing forms through out the world.
Or maybe it was just some people in the state department that made the change because they had some issues with it last year and felt the new forms would make their life easier.
Zekecorlain on January 10, 2011 at 10:54 AM
This is hogwash–they should keep the “father” and “mother” designations. When a baby is born, it is eminently clear that his/her mother is the woman who gave birth. The father can be determined by DNA tests, if no man claims paternity.
The question of which names to use for an adoption comes down to what is the purpose of the parent/guardian names on a passport? Is the purpose to track genealogy or to name a responsible party for a child traveling with parents or legal guardians?
There’s no problem with using the name of a stepfather or stepmother if one parent is divorced or widowed and remarries, or both legal guardians if the birth parents willingly give up a child for adoption. A single parent who has not remarried may choose to leave the “other” parent name blank on a child’s passport.
If the purpose of the “parents’” names on a passport is to determine legal responsibility for a child traveler (and not to track genealogy), the blanks should be labeled “Father/Guardian” and “Mother/Guardian”, in order to allow for the possibility of stepfathers and stepmothers, and if this causes embarrassment to gay adoptive “couples”, so be it.
When a person reaches adulthood, passport renewals could be made without mention of any parents or guardians, as the traveler is responsible for him/herself, and parents or guardians may be deceased.
Steve Z on January 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Briebart is immensly moral.
proconstitution on January 11, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2