SCOTUS, in a decision by William O. Douglas (therefore nearly 40 years ago) struck down bastardy as a relevant legal classification. I never cared for Douglas but that decision made sense in that the child has no say-so in the fornication or adultery giving rise to his/her birth. Given the rising tide of out of wedlock births, bastardy is problematical at best.
“Marriage of the parents was never part of the NBC requirements of the Constitution.
“SCOTUS, in a decision by William O. Douglas (therefore nearly 40 years ago) struck down bastardy as a relevant legal classification.”
One could argue from the timeline that marriage actually WAS a requirement up until the day that SCOTUS removed the disabilities of bastardy.
In the same way citizenship of the wife was unitary with the husband and not an issue...until it wasn’t circa 1920 when women gained their own citizenship rights shortly after they got the right to vote.
Then there is the new question of adopted children, test-tube children and children of homosexual “marriages” all of which could involve foreign birth and foreign citizenship of one or both “parents” or sperm donors.
Didn’t I read that in one state they are allowing three “parents” on a birth certificate? Holy Fleep Batman! We are in uncharted NBC territory! No wonder SCOTUS is “evading” this issue.