Two men adopt a child in New York. They ask Louisiana to issue a birth certificate with both their names on it. Louisiana's birth certificate law does not permit this, in part because Louisiana does not permit joint adoption by unmarried individuals.

The LA Times is denouncing Louisiana, and the appellate court decision upholding Louisiana's right to decide how it issues birth certificates (the validity of the adoption is not contested in this case).

I often have questions in cases like these that lie outside the main narrative the mainstream media is covering.

I have two questions about this case. Here's the big one I've never seen any story cover. If they adopted the child in New York, why didn't they ask New York for a birth certificate? New York does provide them to same-sex couples who jointly adopt.

Here's another question: Why do we keep calling this a birth certificate, when clearly it's not?

If anyone actually knows the answer to the first question (and there may be a simple explanation), I'd love to know. Why didn't they get a New York birth certificate?

That strategy, if it worked, would have saved a lot of litigation fees that might be useful for the kid's college education.

"Legal parent certificate." Okay, I'd understand this. But obviously these two men did not birth the child. Why issue a certificate that's clearly a lie?