Supreme Court Orders States to List Same-Sex Parents on Birth Certificates; Gorsuch Dissents

Source: slate
Published: Jun 26, 2017
Author: Mark Joseph Stern
Post Date: 2017-06-26 14:23:26 by cranky
Views: 4536

Supreme Court Orders States to List Same-Sex Parents on Birth Certificates; Gorsuch Dissents

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires states to list married same-sex couples on their children’s birth certificate. The per curiam decision marks a landmark victory for gay rights, confirming that the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges protects all rights relating to marriage, not simply the recognition of marriage itself.

In Obergefell, the court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment require states to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Arkansas began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples—but when these couples had children, the state refused to list both parents on the birth certificate. The Arkansas Department of Health insisted that its rule was simply a recognition of biology.

As the court noted on Monday, however, there was a huge problem with this claim: Arkansas already lists nonbiological parents on birth certificates. When a woman conceives via artificial insemination, for example, her child’s birth certificate lists her husband as the father. Indeed, when a woman gives birth in Arkansas, state law states that her husband be named as the father—even if he is known not to be a biological parent. These laws are quite sensible, as birth certificates are used for vital transactions in child-rearing, such as school enrollment and medical treatment. And yet, Arkansas refused to extend its birth certificate rules to cover same-sex parents.

Because Arkansas law already “makes birth certificates about more than just genetics,” the court held, the state may not inflict such “disparate treatment” on same-sex couples. In Obergefell, the court explained that the Constitution grants these couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage.” It also “expressly identified” birth and death certificates as two of those rights. Therefore, states cannot deny same-sex couples any rights related to birth certificates that are granted to opposite-sex couples. And so, the court ruled, Arkansas must begin listing same-sex parents on birth certificate.

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch wrote that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology” runs afoul of the 14th Amendment. His dissent should be deeply alarming to LGBTQ advocates; it indicates an eagerness to read Obergefell with implausible narrowness, and a hostility to the extension of civil rights to same-sex couples.

The court also announced on Monday that, next term, it will hear arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Civil Rights Commission. That case centers around the question of whether states may compel businesses to serve same-sex couples if the business owner opposes same-sex marriage. It isn’t hard to guess where Gorsuch will fall.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: BorisY    To: cranky (#0)

“disparate treatment” on same-sex couples

apples - oranges - weeds

poTaTo - Turnips are vegeTables

TomaToes are fruiTs

love
boris

BorisY posted on 2017-06-26 14:43:05   Reply   Private Reply

#2: Tooconservative    To: cranky (#0)

Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito seem to have a lot in common in these final rulings of the current Court session.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-06-26 15:04:33   Reply   Private Reply

#3: A K A Stone    To: cranky (#0)

Try the case again after the cunt ginsburg croaks. I hope Kagan and sotocunt die soon too.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-06-26 15:28:43   Reply   Private Reply

#4: BorisY    To: All (#1)

“disparate treatment” on same-sex couples

forced

pariTy of opposiTes with sickos - losers

love
boris

BorisY posted on 2017-06-26 15:34:05   Reply   Private Reply

#5: Pinguinite    To: cranky (#0)

Because Arkansas law already “makes birth certificates about more than just genetics,” the court held, the state may not inflict such “disparate treatment” on same-sex couples.

Arkansas argument about it being just genetics does fall apart when they allow substitutions for fathers. If they were not in that practice, they may well have won.

If there are any states that don't allow father substitutions, they may still be permitted to list only biological parents on BC's.

But I'd say the rights of the baby should to be considered. Shouldn't babies be entitled to a BC they will need for life to list their real bio parents? Did the USSC consider the rights of the babies with this decision? While the names of the parents on the BC will only impact the parents for about 18 years, the baby has to deal with it for life.

Pinguinite posted on 2017-06-26 15:45:15   Reply   Private Reply

#6: cranky    To: Pinguinite (#5)

Shouldn't babies be entitled to a BC they will need for life to list their real bio parents?

Absolutely, imho.

Genetics control so much it seems patently unfair to deny a human being access to his/her/its complete (as medically possible) genetic history.

That information is essential to making informed life choices, it seems to me.

cranky posted on 2017-06-26 16:11:14   Reply   Private Reply

#7: Vicomte13    To: Pinguinite (#5)

Arkansas argument about it being just genetics does fall apart when they allow substitutions for fathers. If they were not in that practice, they may well have won.

Agree. That was the fatal flaw in the argument.

Vicomte13 posted on 2017-06-26 17:00:42   Reply   Private Reply

#8: Anthem    To: Pinguinite (#5)

You nailed it.

Why haven't they expanded BC's to list both the biological origin of the child and the legal parents? In this brave new world they are going to be compelled to do just that, IMO.

Of course, same sex parents as birth parents is a ridiculous concept. Just once I'd like to get in front of a judge and demonstrate that you can not get the juice to flow by trying to connect the extension cord male to male, or female to female.

Anthem posted on 2017-06-26 17:58:38   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Pinguinite    To: Anthem (#8)

Why haven't they expanded BC's to list both the biological origin of the child and the legal parents? In this brave new world they are going to be compelled to do just that, IMO.

That sounds like the best legal solution to make everyone as happy as possible.

Pinguinite posted on 2017-06-26 18:29:25   Reply   Private Reply

#10: nolu chan    To: cranky (#0)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. 16–992.
Decided June 26, 2017

PER CURIAM. [excerpt]

“For the purposes of birth registration,” that statute says, “the mother is deemed to be the woman who gives birth to the child.” §20–18–401(e). And “[i]f the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth,” the statute instructs that “the name of [her]husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child.” §20–18–401(f)(1). There are some limited exceptions to the latter rule—for example, another manmay appear on the birth certificate if the “mother” and “husband” and “putative father” all file affidavits vouching for the putative father’s paternity. Ibid. But as all parties agree, the requirement that a married woman’s husband appear on her child’s birth certificate applies in cases where the couple conceived by means of artificial insemination with the help of an anonymous sperm donor. See Pet. for Cert. 4; Brief in Opposition 3–4; see also Ark. Code §9–10–201(a) (2015) (“Any child born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination shall be deemed the legitimate natural child of the woman and the woman’s husband if the husband consents in writing to the artificial insemination”).

nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 05:02:09   Reply   Private Reply

#11: cranky    To: nolu chan (#10)

For the purposes of birth registration

That really does say it all.

cranky posted on 2017-06-27 07:49:42   Reply   Private Reply