I thought liberals thought Supreme Court justices were gods and that no one was allowed to question them.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the case, so the OP is obviously incorrect and just has to learn to deal with reality.
I thought liberals thought Supreme Court justices were gods and that no one was allowed to question them.
Well, you think a lot of stupid things.
Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest Logic
Is Neil Gorsuch just another conservative whose brain cant accept reality when it conflicts with his narrative or does he know he’s lying?
“To understand why Gorsuch’s dissent is so misleading, consider the facts of the case itself. Terrah Pavan conceived a child via artificial insemination and gave birth in Arkansas. Her wife, Marisa, was by her side when she gave birth. Under Arkansas law, a birth mother’s husband is listed as her child’s father—that’s the case even if the mother conceived using a sperm donor, and her husband is known not to be the biological father. “
Gorsuch’s first anti-gay dissent has a huge factual error.
so if Arkansas lists the husband as the father even if he is not the biological father then its not about biology, its about marriage. All rights of a heterosexual marriage are supposed to be extended to gay couples Seems neil had another doozy.
“Second, Gorsuch wrote that the plaintiffs’ challenge was incorrect: He insisted they should have challenged the “artificial insemination statute,” not the state policy refusing to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. This reasoning makes no sense. The plaintiffs cited the artificial insemination statute only to prove that Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates. They had no desire to overturn it; they merely used it as evidence that Arkansas was not extending a key marital benefit to same-sex couples. Did Gorsuch simply not understand this extremely basic aspect of the case?”
the second one is a real puzzler but nothing we haven't seen at the forum from literally every conservative poster.
One thing to consider is that a ruling from the SCOTUS isn't just about Arkansas it would have an effect on every state and not every state has Arkansas' law about the birth certificate.
The Arkansas supreme court ruling was certainly inconsistent given how it is.
If it were up to me it would be the genetic father that is on the birth certificate only. because I consider a birth certificate to have a medical relevance. but its not up to me.
I thought liberals thought Supreme Court justices were gods and that no one was allowed to question them.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the case, so the OP is obviously incorrect and just has to learn to deal with reality.
Anyway, I'm against the whole system of sperm donation and I consider the idea that children should be left in the dark to who their father is as immoral and harmful to children. There is in fact studies that back me up on the bit about being harmful to children too. The idea that you would make it even harder for these children to find their dad by pretending that a woman is their dad only makes it worse.
Henrin, I have to ask. Have you ever responded to a post? I know you hit the reply button but your deflecting and dishonest babble has nothing to do with my post. It just seems to me that every post you post is of that sort. this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile.
How are things handled when a woman doesn't know who the biological father is?
Suppose she's had sex with multiple guys and doesn't know who the "father" is? Is the space left blank?
Is there a law that says somebody's name must be on the certificate?
Is there ever an instance where the biological father's name isn't on the birth certificate?
Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest Logic
Is Neil Gorsuch just another conservative whose brain cant accept reality when it conflicts with his narrative or does he know he’s lying?
“To understand why Gorsuch’s dissent is so misleading, consider the facts of the case itself. Terrah Pavan conceived a child via artificial insemination and gave birth in Arkansas. Her wife, Marisa, was by her side when she gave birth. Under Arkansas law, a birth mother’s husband is listed as her child’s father—that’s the case even if the mother conceived using a sperm donor, and her husband is known not to be the biological father. “
Gorsuch’s first anti-gay dissent has a huge factual error.
so if Arkansas lists the husband as the father even if he is not the biological father then its not about biology, its about marriage. All rights of a heterosexual marriage are supposed to be extended to gay couples Seems neil had another doozy.
“Second, Gorsuch wrote that the plaintiffs’ challenge was incorrect: He insisted they should have challenged the “artificial insemination statute,” not the state policy refusing to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. This reasoning makes no sense. The plaintiffs cited the artificial insemination statute only to prove that Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates. They had no desire to overturn it; they merely used it as evidence that Arkansas was not extending a key marital benefit to same-sex couples. Did Gorsuch simply not understand this extremely basic aspect of the case?”
the second one is a real puzzler but nothing we haven't seen at the forum from literally every conservative poster.
One thing to consider is that a ruling from the SCOTUS isn't just about Arkansas it would have an effect on every state and not every state has Arkansas' law about the birth certificate.
The Arkansas supreme court ruling was certainly inconsistent given how it is.
If it were up to me it would be the genetic father that is on the birth certificate only. because I consider a birth certificate to have a medical relevance. but its not up to me.
But if liberals believe justices are always right then your premise is wrong. In that case he couldn't be lying or an imbecile because justices are always right.
again, this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile. I just have to wonder why you are at a debate forum.
How are things handled when a woman doesn't know who the biological father is?
Suppose she's had sex with multiple guys and doesn't know who the "father" is? Is the space left blank?
Is there a law that says somebody's name must be on the certificate?
Is there ever an instance where the biological father's name isn't on the birth certificate?
Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest Logic
Is Neil Gorsuch just another conservative whose brain cant accept reality when it conflicts with his narrative or does he know he’s lying?
“To understand why Gorsuch’s dissent is so misleading, consider the facts of the case itself. Terrah Pavan conceived a child via artificial insemination and gave birth in Arkansas. Her wife, Marisa, was by her side when she gave birth. Under Arkansas law, a birth mother’s husband is listed as her child’s father—that’s the case even if the mother conceived using a sperm donor, and her husband is known not to be the biological father. “
Gorsuch’s first anti-gay dissent has a huge factual error.
so if Arkansas lists the husband as the father even if he is not the biological father then its not about biology, its about marriage. All rights of a heterosexual marriage are supposed to be extended to gay couples Seems neil had another doozy.
“Second, Gorsuch wrote that the plaintiffs’ challenge was incorrect: He insisted they should have challenged the “artificial insemination statute,” not the state policy refusing to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. This reasoning makes no sense. The plaintiffs cited the artificial insemination statute only to prove that Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates. They had no desire to overturn it; they merely used it as evidence that Arkansas was not extending a key marital benefit to same-sex couples. Did Gorsuch simply not understand this extremely basic aspect of the case?”
the second one is a real puzzler but nothing we haven't seen at the forum from literally every conservative poster.
. This information is for government officials so they canestablishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the birth certificate
government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders.
Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest Logic
Is Neil Gorsuch just another conservative whose brain cant accept reality when it conflicts with his narrative or does he know he’s lying?
“To understand why Gorsuch’s dissent is so misleading, consider the facts of the case itself. Terrah Pavan conceived a child via artificial insemination and gave birth in Arkansas. Her wife, Marisa, was by her side when she gave birth. Under Arkansas law, a birth mother’s husband is listed as her child’s father—that’s the case even if the mother conceived using a sperm donor, and her husband is known not to be the biological father. “
Gorsuch’s first anti-gay dissent has a huge factual error.
so if Arkansas lists the husband as the father even if he is not the biological father then its not about biology, its about marriage. All rights of a heterosexual marriage are supposed to be extended to gay couples Seems neil had another doozy.
“Second, Gorsuch wrote that the plaintiffs’ challenge was incorrect: He insisted they should have challenged the “artificial insemination statute,” not the state policy refusing to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. This reasoning makes no sense. The plaintiffs cited the artificial insemination statute only to prove that Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates. They had no desire to overturn it; they merely used it as evidence that Arkansas was not extending a key marital benefit to same-sex couples. Did Gorsuch simply not understand this extremely basic aspect of the case?”
the second one is a real puzzler but nothing we haven't seen at the forum from literally every conservative poster.
SD, the ruling is about Arkansas and not every state. Obergefell v. Hodges was about every state. OvH says gay couples are supposed to be treated just like straight couples. Arkansas does not require the biological father on the BC. If it did require the biological father, they could exclude the wife of the birth mother. they don't. Now this thread is about Gorsuch either lying about it or being an imbecile.
There is one problem with your story (or the story you're telling). It is not factually correct. At the very least, the narrative from the author you are quoting is inserting his opinion and claiming it is fact. I agree with the author's interpretation of Gorsuch's dissent. This seems to be pretty clear from the reading. However, the author's interpretation of the Arkansas law is not as he presents it.
If you do not believe me, read the law:
§ 20-18-401 - Birth registration generally. :: 2010 Arkansas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
You did read the actual law before posting, right? You didn't just blindly believe some op-ed from a known liberal source, did you? In fact if you read sections e and f you'll see that the bill appears to aimed at supplying the biological parents on the birth record.
"For the purposes of birth registration, the mother is deemed to be the woman who gives birth to the child, unless otherwise provided by state law or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the filing of the birth certificate. The information about the father shall be entered as provided in subsection (f) of this section."
Of particular interest is the supposed designation of the father which the author cited in the OP claims isn't based on biology. However, reading the bill, this isn't the case at all.
"(f) (1) If the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth or between conception and birth the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child, unless:
(A) Paternity has been determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction; or"
Notice that the father is the person married to the mother UNLESS a paternity test shows otherwise. In other words, the bill supports Gorsuch's interpretation. At the very, very least, the black and white explanation of Gorsuch's dissent presented by the OP is simply missing nuance. It is fair to argue with his dissent on several grounds. Claiming he's anti-gay people because of his interpretation of the law is simply juvenile.
To be fair to the court, here is the decision - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf
I would also note that this decision was not that of Gorsuch alone. Alito and Thomas also concurred.
Both the per curium and the dissent are included at the link so that the interested parties can judge the validity of the Slate piece for themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?