The political landscape for LGBTQ+ families continues to shift, in part, because of a renewed wave of ideologically driven commentary claiming, without evidence, that LGBTQ+ families harm children. Recent opinion pieces, including a January 2026 article featured on the Federalist website, asserting that Obergefell v. Hodges has “harmed children,” recycle long-discredited arguments that conflate family diversity with instability. Organized efforts such as the “Greater Than” coalition, spearheaded by the nonprofit Them Before Us, are openly working to overturn Obergefell by framing marriage equality as contrary to children’s interests. Assertions that Obergefell destabilized families ignore both decades of social-science research and the lived reality of millions of children raised by married same-sex parents. Children do not lose security because their parents’ marriage is recognized; they gain it.
Despite this hostile climate, marriage equality remains firmly protected nationwide. The Respect for Marriage Act repealed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and requires the federal government and every state to recognize marriages between two individuals that are valid under state law, regardless of the spouses’ sex or race.
The Respect for Marriage Act effectively codifies prior Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Loving v. Virginia, and ensures that states must give full faith and credit to out-of-state marriages. Even in the seemingly unlikely event the Supreme Court revisited marriage equality, same-sex couples would still be able to marry in some states and have those marriages recognized nationwide under federal law pursuant to the Respect for Marriage Act.
While the likelihood of Obergefell being overturned remains slim, families should not overlook a parallel strategy: efforts by organizations such as Greater Than to “defend” laws and policies that elevate genetic connection above all other forms of parentage. These initiatives seek to re-center biology as the primary basis for legal recognition. Such efforts would attempt to undermine long-settled principles that protect children who are donor-conceived and LGBTQ+ families, in particular.
Why Marriage Alone is Not Enough
Marriage is an important legal protection, but it does not, by itself, do all the work of securing a parent–child relationship, particularly for a nonbiological parent. Nonbiological parents should not rely solely on a marriage certificate or even on being listed on a child’s birth certificate to establish secure legal parentage. A birth certificate is an administrative record, not a court judgment. In disputes involving custody, relocation, death, or interstate recognition, a birth certificate does not carry the same legal weight as a court order.
For LGBTQ+ parents, the most reliable way to secure parentage is through a court-issued judgment, such as a confirmatory or second-parent adoption or another form of judgment of parentage. This is true even if the parents are married and even if both parents are named on the birth certificate. Because parentage laws vary significantly from state to state, a court order provides the strongest protection and ensures that parental rights will be recognized and honored nationwide.
In Pennsylvania, there is no comprehensive statutory definition of “parent,” and courts instead rely on legal doctrines established in case law, including parentage by contract and parentage by intent. The doctrine of intent-based parentage was established just last year in Glover v. Junior, a landmark decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that recognized legal parentage based on the couple’s mutual intent to conceive through assistive reproductive technology (ART).
Intended parents who build their families through ART should take proactive legal steps to protect their rights. This includes using clear written agreements such as donor agreements and surrogacy contracts and then following through with court processes to obtain a judgment confirming legal parentage.
While these individual legal protections are essential, they exist within an incomplete statutory landscape in Pennsylvania. Families are often required to rely on case law, inconsistent practices, and costly court proceedings to secure rights that should be clear and predictable from the outset. This lack of a comprehensive parentage statute leaves families vulnerable to uncertainty and uneven treatment. It is against this backdrop that House Bill 350 takes on critical importance.
Why House Bill 350 Matters
House Bill 350, based on the Uniform Parentage Act, would create a clear, comprehensive framework for establishing legal parentage that centers children’s stability and security rather than elevating genetic connection above all else. At its core, the UPA is an effort to ensure that children are legally protected in the families that are raising them, regardless of how those families were formed.
HB 350 builds on Pennsylvania’s existing case law, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Glover v. Junior, by codifying intent-based parentage into statute. Among its key goals, HB 350 would protect children’s relationships with the people who have been parenting them and clarify that gamete donors do not acquire parental rights or responsibilities. By doing so, this bill affirms a simple but critical principle: children deserve legal ties to the adults who planned for them, care for them, and take responsibility for raising them, regardless of biology.
Supporting legislative efforts like HB 350 is essential to ensuring that these child-protective principles are firmly enshrined in Pennsylvania law. You can support these efforts through the Pennsylvania Parentage Coalition. In the meantime, families do not have to wait to protect themselves. Consulting with experienced counsel about adoption, parentage, and family-building options can provide meaningful security.
