This suggestion by Baroness Hale of Richmond does not feel right and space is too short to go into full details why. The lesbian partner of a woman who gives birth by artificial inception might be better dealt with under the adoption laws as a co-parent. Further, I cannot see that within the present framework of family law that the lesbian partner could feature on a birth certificate. For those who may be thinking of inheritance rights the lesbian partner can still make a will in favour of her partner’s child if she so wishes. There is of course the added complication that arises from this suggestion of Baroness Hale that if the couple should split-up there could be difficulties over rights of domicile and access.

Alan , Llanerchymedd, Anglesey

I do not agree with this view, there should alway be a different between a man and a woman with a child from same sex couple with a child for fundamental reasons. Yes they should have rights which is why the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was introduced. If the judge reckon same-sex couples who have children by artificial insemination to be legally recognised as the parents. Where does that leave Gay men with a child who can not have children by artificial insemination? Now who is now being discriminatory?

Sam, Rochester, United Kingdom

Once again, Baroness Hale has proved to be a beacon of hope and should be truly commended for her commitment to equality for all. The reluctance to extend the same respect afforded to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples is no longer tenable - Baroness Hale's speech unmasks this difference for what it is - discrimination.

Jennifer, trainee barrister, London, UK

I agree 100%

Emelita Robbins, London ,

A clear case for parity of treatment. It could bring a whole new and positive meaning to 'Section 28'. This Government has been insightful and courageous in regard to equality issues. A suitable amendment needs to be made as soon as possible.

moira macdonald, Exeter,