Posted on 06/26/2017 9:10:28 AM PDT by reaganaut1
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, ruling that states may not treat married same-sex couples differently from others in issuing birth certificates.
The decision was unsigned. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.
The case concerns an Arkansas law about birth certificates that treats married opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex ones. A husband of a married woman is automatically listed as the father even if he is not the genetic parent. Same-sex spouses are not.
The case, Pavan v. Smith, No. 16-992, was brought by two married lesbian couples who had jointly planned their child’s conception by means of an anonymous sperm donor. State officials listed the biological mother on the children’s birth certificates and refused to list their partners, saying they were not entitled to a husband’s presumption of paternity.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against the women, saying that “it does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Kennedy and Ginsburg, because Roberts can’t be relied on either.
"...what is the purpose of a birth certificate? Whose is it? The “Parents” or the baby? Is it a document to make the parents happy about the circumstances of the birth of a child,
or is it for the future use of the child to document the reality of his “being”? I think we’ve got a mess happening here.
Fine but, the certificate must say “Amended” on the appropriate line of the BC
Only positive with this ruling is Trump picked a good one.
its a BIRTH Certificate, not a family group sheet.
I’m glad Kennedy is retiring if the rumors are correct. He’s an idiot.
Too bad the kids will not be able to live in this “let’s pretend” world our elites have fashioned for us. Everybody else will know they have no daddy, and they will suffer for it as long as they live.
Just wait until three parents start arguing over who gets to be listed first.
This is why we need to get Kennedy and the other liberal kooks off the court.
What happens when the kid gets to be 12=18 and runs his DNA? Gays get divorced at a higher rate than straights. He’s going to find out the big lie. How’s it going to mess with his head, especially if, as most do, he grows up straight and the child wants to change his birth certificate to single mother parent, which he may not now be able to do now?
And what if a woman decides to be un-gay and decides to marry a man instead? That child is set up for having a gay influence ‘ex’ in his life for 18 years, compliments of a court who designated the ‘ex’ as ‘parent’. How’s that going to go over?
We need Roberts to retire!
So Roberts once again sided with the lunatic left on the court. Didn’t we used to hear how conservative he was/is?
It is not right to name a man as a father to a child that is not his. Not unless he wants to adopt it. Otherwise the state and woman are treating him as an atm and forcing him into financial slavery for something he is not responsible for.
We can always count on Roberts to do the wrong thing.
We can always count on Roberts to do the wrong thing.
He should have stepped down when his health issues began. Perhaps the medication he takes affects his thinking process.
Even more egregious, he shouldn't have accepted a seat on the Supreme Court. Roberts knew he was involved in illegal activity when he adopted his children.
.
What illegal activity? I didn’t know he adopted kids? Info on it. I need to be informed.
Absolutely but he knew he was *too important* to ever be held accountable. Some animals really are more equal than others.
This link should get you started.
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
