Arkansas Supreme Court: It’s A “Basic Biological Truth” That Gay Spouses Can’t Be Listed On Birth Certificates

The Associated Press reports:

Arkansas’ highest court on Thursday threw out a judge’s ruling that could have allowed married same-sex couples to get the names of both spouses on their children’s birth certificates without a court order, saying it doesn’t violate equal protection “to acknowledge basic biological truths.”

The state Supreme Court also issued a rare admonishment to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox, saying he made “inappropriate remarks” in his ruling that struck down the birth certificate law.

Fox had cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage in his ruling last year that said married same-sex couples should have both names listed on their children’s birth certificates, just as heterosexual married couples do, without requiring a court order.

In the high court’s decision Thursday, justices sided with the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office saying Arkansas has a vested interest in listing biological parents on birth certificates.

“The question presented in this case does not concern either the right to same-sex marriage or the recognition of that marriage, or the right of a female same-sex spouse to be a parent to the child who was born to her spouse,” Justice Josephine Linker Hart wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

The attorney for the three plaintiff couples says she may appeal to the US Supreme Court.

  • Jamie_Johnson

    And off we go to the SCOTUS for clarification (once again).

    • bkmn

      Which is all the more reason Obama and the Democrats in the Senate should really consider confirming Garland on Jan. 3rd while they have a majority.
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/7/1608374/-Why-Obama-Biden-and-Senate-Democrats-should-be-plotting-a-January-3-Garland-SCOTUS-confirmation

      • mjcc1987

        Agree, but they won’t. Republican would do that in a nano second, but Democrats don’t have the stones to do it.

    • Todd20036

      Except now with SCOTUS only half full, they could bounce it back to the AK SCOTUS, and claim that only biological parents can be listed on birth certificates, or some such

      • Maybe not: given that, as Fred Dorner noted above, one of the cases consolidated with Obergefell was an adoption case (DeBoer?) and the Court held that same-sex couples have the same rights as opposite-sex couples, and since Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion) is still on the Court, they could very well grant cert and slap the Arkansas court down hard for ignoring binding precedent.

        • FredDorner

          The ARSC court even cited this section from Obergefell where the court lists just a few of the constellation of marital rights which must be equally conferred on same-sex couples:

          “Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.

          All the sections I bolded relate to the rights of legal parents, something which presumptive paternity provides. So the ARSC cited the relevant section, had it staring them in the face, and still missed the obvious.

          • The_Wretched

            They didn’t miss it. They flatly refused to follow the clear language.

  • SunsetGay

    And so it begins. The floodgates are open and the Christianists are coming for our lives.

    • bkmn

      In a worst case scenario we are about 4 hours away from Canada.

      • Todd20036

        And I, and any other Jew, can get instant citizenship in Israel.

        • zhera

          You have to get there, first. 🙁

          • Todd20036

            That’s why I’m using Muslims as my “canary in the coal mine”.

            Trump most likely won’t go after LBGT first, he’ll go after Muslims first.

            When he does, I’ll know it’s time to leave.

        • licuado de platano

          If the shit goes down, the last place I’d want to go is Israel. It’s a theocracy with nutjob Rabbis in charge of marriage, family law,etc.

          • Todd20036

            Guess you haven’t read the article on JMG stating quite the opposite.

            Israel is now allowing foreign gay spouses equal citizenship

          • licuado de platano

            In Israel itself, one cannot get married using a judge or even a reform Rabbi. Only the Orthodox Rabbinate can perform marriages in the country. If a couple wants a secular (or same sex) marriage, they have to leave the country and get it done somewhere else.

      • Paula

        I am in the other direction. It would take me about 30 minutes to get into Mexico.

        • OdieDenCO

          9.5 hours from Denver to the Mexican Border

          • FancyThat

            wanna carpool? get on the other side before the wall comes up?

          • TheJudgement

            Please stay and help us fight

          • fuow

            Some of us did fight.
            We fought as much with our own party (after the shit of the last few weeks, better mention, once again, yet again that I’m a yellow-dog.).
            We fought with the millennials who didn’t want to vote unless they could have their ‘perfect’ candidate.
            We fought with the A-List Fags who simply couldn’t be bothered to vote, they’re all the same, donchano.
            And we couldn’t even get 70,000 gay men and young women up off their asses to vote.
            I’ve restricted my statements of disgust to gay men here. I hope those who didn’t vote and those who voted for Trump bear the full brunt of the awfulness coming down the pike toward us.

          • TheJudgement

            Great answer
            Nothing you said is wrong

          • Kate

            The wall will have a door in it, for legal immigrants.

            It’s relatively easy to legally immigrate to Mexico. You /really/ don’t want to try to illegally immigrate. They don’t take kindly to illegal immigrants, and the punishments are pretty severe.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            The southern Mexico border has towers with armed people in them.
            Imagine if America did that!

          • Kate

            To paraphrase Hillary, “Can’t we just drone [them]?”

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Me too! And the Good Mexico, Baja California!

      • Lane

        Fuck. We left New England to move to San Francisco. We were about a 3-1/2 hour drive hour drive to Canadia (just the border) or about 5 hours to Montreal. Now we’re a 9 hour drive to Mexico and 15 hour (minimum) drive to Canada.

        • Timothy W.

          We’re pretty far from an escape route, but at least we’ve got that protective San Francisco bubble that we’re enjoying.

        • Hue-Man

          We do have airports in the frozen North. 2 1/4 hour flight from SFO to YVR.

      • djcoastermark

        Alas, the only place near me is 90 miles or so away, Cuba.

      • Mike_in_the_Tundra

        I use to be when I lived in Minneapolis. Now I have to aim for Mexico.

        • bkmn

          I miss Minneapolis, but not the winters. The food scene there has really exploded the last few years.

          • Mike_in_the_Tundra

            I even miss the winters.

      • Mike Solo

        I’m already in Scotland, and here I shall stay having escaped Texas.

        • David Walker

          Sure. Rub it in.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Trump has golf courses in Scotland.
          You may escape Texass, but ye shall not escape the influence of Il Douche, aka the Screaming Yam.

      • iain

        You guys who bleat about ‘moving to Canada’ and ‘leaving the country’ never do, though, do you? Speaking as someone who *did*, and who now has dual citizenship, I can assure you it is far from easy to up sticks and park yourselves in another country. So stop being glib. And put your money where your collective mouth is.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          I’d rather put it into Spanish lessons.

      • Bj Lincoln

        9 hours from Canada is our closest escape from Baltimore.

        • bkmn

          DC to Montreal is not a long flight Bj.

    • Jeffg166

      “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

      • Andy King

        Feels like that quote is more appropriate in the past tense these days.

        • Lesliemlareau

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj158d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !mj158d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash158MediaBigGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj158d:….,…….

      • Jerry

        Oh? I heard it will be wrapped in a fat cheeto-faced douche bag and broadcast on Twitter.

      • Richard

        It’s already here…..

      • JCF

        …and grabbing a pussy.

    • ChrisMorley

      Here’s the Arkansas Supreme Court’s judgment:

      http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/357954/Electronic.aspx

      • FredDorner

        Thanks – I skimmed that and it seems the court missed the fact that one of the underlying cases in Obergefell concerned adoption, and the court stated that same-sex couples must be provided all the familial rights of marriage. Presumptive paternity is one of those rights…..as the Arkansas law itself makes clear since it differentiates in presumptive paternity based on marital status.

        • FredDorner

          The other big error the court made was to start ranting about biological parentage in the context of AR’s presumptive paternity law.

          • The_Wretched

            “Thus, the statute centers on the relationship of the biological mother and the biological father to the child, not on the marital relationship of husband and wife”

            Right, that’s utter bull.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            I think they’ve confused bureaucracy with biology…
            “Marriage” is an artificial construct, as are birth certificates.
            Biology has nothing to do with it, they’re just being assholes because they can.

        • Kate

          Birth certificates are legal documents, not historical documents.

          My brother has a birth certificate that lists both of my parents. He’s adopted. “Biological Reality” is a separate matter from “legal reality”.

          The biological reality is that he has a biological mother and father, just like everyone else. The legal, moral, and practical reality is that his birth certificate documents his family, and his parents.

          • Steverino

            Exactly. This clearly is a “dig” at married gay parents who adopt children (the biological argument) while giving straight married parents who adopt children (who also are not necessarily biologically related) a pass.

            So much for marriage equality.

          • Kate

            It won’t pass equal protection. To do that, they would have to do something like require mandatory paternity tests in order to be listed as the biological father, and refuse to grant new birth certificates for adoptees.

            It could be done, but not without a lot of changes. It would also cause a lot of problems for straight couples – both in women having a difficult time getting support from fathers, and in fathers finding out that children weren’t theirs.

        • ChrisMorley

          In a dissenting judgment, Justice Paul Danielson argued that listing a parent’s name on a birth certificate is “a benefit associated with marriage” and noted that “the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell that states are not free to deny same-sex couples ‘the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.’ Importantly, the Court listed ‘birth and death certificates’ specifically as one of those benefits attached to marital status.”

          Based on Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox’s original ruling and Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Paul Danielson’s dissenting judgment referred to above regarding birth and death certificates being a benefit attached to marital status, the ground looks good for an appeal to SCOTUS.

          • DesertSun59

            Sounds to me like Lambda Legal will be representing this very clear cut egregious denial of rights.

          • Kate

            Presumption of parentage is protection under the law. Discriminating on the basis of sex (such as the sex of the spouse who is not the biological mother) is a violation of equal protection.

            If she marries a man, she has legal protection. If she marries a woman, she doesn’t. It’s not particularly difficult.

      • The_Wretched

        Thank you for the link.

    • WitlessProtection

      I read that one can’t immigrate to Canada if one is HIV+ so I will have to stay here and endure while the rest of you queers enjoy the balmy Great White North and I endure Hair Furor and his cronies.

      • Silver Badger

        We will have to stay. You are not alone.

      • Mike_in_the_Tundra

        My husband is positive. I won’t leave him.

        • Kate

          If you’re interested in moving to Canada, it might not be necessary to do so.

      • zhera

        Really? That’s pretty harsh!

        Do they test all immigrants on entry?

        • Todd20036

          They don’t have to. If you are on meds, they will know from that.
          Which is rather harsh considering if you are on meds you are not contagious.

          • zhera

            It seems rather backwards and as if it’s not meant to encourage people to take care of themselves.

          • David Walker

            We’ll make a ‘Murkan out of you yet. Backwards is what we strive for. Or so it seems.

          • Kate

            Canada also tests – whether you medicate or not doesn’t factor into it. They aren’t trying to encourage people one way or the other.

          • Kate

            In Canada, it’s not about being contagious (anymore – it was for a while). It’s about the cost, since it’s covered. If your cost for treatment is over $6,500 a year, you are not permitted to immigrate unless you are sponsored or a refugee.

        • Kate

          In Canada, they test all Permanent Residents. If you have a dangerous disease, you are not permitted entry. That’s basically TB.

          If you are HIV+, there is no direct ban – just a regulation that immigrants who are not sponsored (such as children and spouses) must not use more healthcare than the average per-capita. You’re permitted to appeal, and to take steps to minimize the cost.

      • JaniceInToronto

        That’s not entirely true. It can be more difficult, but it depends on the case. It’s not a black and white thing.

      • Bad_Dog

        Actually, pretty much any country that you or I would consider, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, all of the EU, do deny entry for HIV+ immigration. Believe me, I have been working with an attorney to consider all plausible options. And there are some countries that you could immigrate to, but they won’t allow you to participate in their healthcare plan. If you have insurance that will provide, or if you have the cash – you could make it work.

        The best option right now looks like that for some (cash) “specialty law firms” can get you into Costa Rica, but I am waiting to see if it can be done or if it is a scam.

        But the truth is, if the Repug-Thugs get their way, anyone with pre-existing conditions will be denied health insurance here anyway.

        And the stupid fucking seniors who voted for Drumpf – we’ll see how the feel when they get vouchers and are told, “now go buy your own health insurance.”

        America #1 my ass. It has become as corrupt as some third world nations – but at least with them, they’re up front about it.

        • Kate

          Canada does not categorically deny entry for HIV+ immigration. They don’t make it easy, and you have to work with them to avoid costing the socialized healthcare more than the average person (including seniors), but it’s doable.

          http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/-t124057.0.html

          “But the truth is, if the Repug-Thugs get their way, anyone with pre-existing conditions will be denied health insurance here anyway.”

          First off, even when pre-existing conditions were a thing, as long as you kept continuous coverage, you were ok. You took the certificate of coverage to the new insurance company. It won’t help people who let theirs lapse (or who don’t have parents to put them on their insurance), but even if ObamaCare is completely repealed tomorrow, the people who had their existing conditions covered will still be.

          Second, Trump’s not going to let them get rid of the pre-existing coverage ban, or the 26 year old limit. It’s going to cause a lot of problems for the insurance market, but he’s been very clear on that.

      • Kate

        Sort-of. The rule is that you can’t place excessive demand upon the healthcare system. They look forward five years, and if you exceed $32,250 CAD in that time, you are denied.

        Some provinces have more coverage than others. While it is bad not to be covered, it helps with immigration, and moving is an option later. If the disease is under control, and the doctor indicates that the ongoing care is likely to be minimal for the next 5 years (depending on viral load).

        If you did decide to go that route, you can also dispute the treatment plan with the medical examiner, and appeal that way. By sticking to generic drugs, the cost can be much cheaper, meaning that excessive demand might not apply. In addition, you can take steps to mitigate costs (health savings accounts, NGOs, etc.)

        I’m moving back to the states now that “The Donald” has been elected, and Obama’s on the way out. With any luck, the witchhunt against Americans daring to live outside the US will stop now that Obama’s on the way out.

        If you want to flee, I’m willing to help. Seriously.

    • Paula

      The idea is to make the other guy give his life for his cause.

    • JellyDonut

      it was only a matter of time. Next comes a flood of anti LBGT laws to undo decades of progress

      • fuow

        Yup. But will the asswipes who didn’t bother to vote learn from it?
        We’ll know in 2018. I’m not holding my breath.

        • DesertSun59

          They aren’t the ones we need to be concerned with. It’s the 2nd Amendment Solutioners who are now emboldened.

    • fuow

      Yup. All you gay men who didn’t bother to vote, the few who voted Trump – I hope you are the ones they go after first. You deserve to suffer for what you’ve unleashed on us.
      Asswipes.

      • uhhuhh

        You spewing your self-hatred again. We have among theh highest voter turnouts.

    • Kate

      This would have happened had Hillary won, too. It’s been going on a long, long time. My wife and I have been through this time, after time, after time. AZ, CA, NJ, DOMA.

      • You are a fool and show it once again if you think this and others like it will continue to go our way after trump packs SCOTUS with the wingnuts the republicans have lined up.

        • Kate

          There is no way to reconcile equal protection and refusing to permit gay couples to be on birth certificates, as long as straight parents get presumption of parentage, and updated birth certificates on adoption.

          Marriage equality isn’t going anywhere – it would cause too much chaos. It would be like overturning Loving. We might see religious carveouts – that’s easy enough to make a first amendment case for. Since marriage equality is here to stay, even conservative justices are going to find their options limited.

          • You are talking about people who believe snakes can talk and god spent a couple of days making other stuff before getting around to making the sun. “This is a ‘Christian’ nation and God’s will is all that matters”.
            Like I said a fool.

    • FAEN

      They won’t get our lives without a giant mother fucking fight!

  • Mike C

    Can a non-biological father put his name on a birth certificate? If so this should be swiftly overturned.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Yes, my “non-bio” daughter now has my name as the father on her birth certificate, along with my ex-wife as the mother. This is California though, we’re essentially, hopefully, a different country.

      Edit: the birth certificate is actually from Miami-Dade county in Florida, where she was born.

    • The_Wretched

      Sure, happens all the time.

    • Stev84

      It’s basically standard for the husband to be put on the birth certificate, even if it’s absolutely impossible for him to be the biologically father.

    • Ray Taylor

      My mother divorced in 1945 and married again in 1948. My birth certificate was re-issued with my step fathers name when he adopted me, I am sorry to say. Washington state.

    • uhhuhh

      Yes. The husband of the mother often gets put on the birth certificate. It’s a certificate that the child was born, not that the parents are its biological parents. Hell, adoption often substitutes a mother who didn’t deliver the child. As usual, this redneck bigot is stupid.

  • Stev84

    Except that birth certificates have nothing whatsoever to do with biology. They are really certificates of legal parentage.

    • Todd20036

      Oh, you and your facts.

    • Ernest Endevor

      Did not know that. No matter how old the child is at adoption?

    • Paula

      Not true! Not true!! ……becuz jeebus!!

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        What did it the birth cert say when Mary pretended it was someone else’s baby ?

        • Jerry

          Father: Unknown

          • David Walker

            Father: Deceased.

        • perversatile

          “there’s a stranger in the manger”

        • Andymac3

          It was God’s will(y)

    • Patrick Parker-Sperry

      as i read down the posts i saw yours thanks…judge’s decision is wide open for a lawsuit..just based on this alone

    • Chris Baker

      That was my assumption. If Anne gets knocked up by Bob, but says Charles is the father (and Charles agrees), then Charles’ name is put on the certificate. There is no DNA test, unless Paul argues about it.

      And, if, subsequently, a court order can change the birth certificate, it seems silly to now allow it originally. It’s like saying “you can’t order a cheeseburger here, but after ordering a hamburger you can ask the cook to put a slice of cheese on it.”

      • David Walker

        I’m still not sure about something: If two married straight people adopt, do their names appear on the child’s birth certificate?

        • Stev84

          The original certificate is sealed away in some archive and still can be accessed when needed. The rules for that can very from place to place, but the biological links aren’t entirely obscured. But for everyday use a new birth certificate is issued to the adopting parents.

          • David Walker

            Thank you for the clarification.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Yep. My adoptive parents’ names are on my birth certificate.
          Also there, bio mother’s name.
          I’m a Davidson, but I ride a BMW…go figure.

          • David Walker

            Thanks for this information. I’m OK with the BMW instead of the H-Davidson, as long as you don’t use a Yamahauler to cart it around.

          • (((dagobarbz)))

            Bikes are for riding, not towing! If you’re towing, your doin it rong!

  • melllt

    What? So when my straight sister gets her husband’s name put on the birth certificate, because he was shooting blanks and they used an anonymous sperm donor, that’s OK. But when my lesbian wife uses an anonymous sperm donor because I was shooting blanks, I need to get a court order. Got it.

    • Reality.Bites

      Maybe you and your brother-in-law should find a new ammo store. 😉

    • Andy King

      The gist is that queers aren’t people.

      • David Walker

        I can’t even begin to tell your how tired I am of that pig shit.

  • Michael R

    Do her brain is working ?

  • JTC

    They have a vested interest, alright. It’s to put us gays “in our place.”

  • John Ruff

    They MAY appeal. No, you should appeal!!!!! This is discrimination. What about the mother putting her latest boyfriend down as the father because she doesn’t really know knocked her up before she met her current boyfriend threes months before the baby was born? How the fuck is that any different in this case?

    • zhera

      Now now, let’s not bring Barstool Palin into this. She’s busy finding a new sperm donor.

      • Silver Badger

        She is married now. There is a presumptive parent.

    • Xuuths

      Enough about kim davis!

  • Michael R
    • John Ruff

      Thank fucking God he’s dead. I bet he died scared and alone

      • Kelly Lape

        That’s a very nice and comforting thought, but it came too late. He should have been aborted in 1936.

    • The_Wretched

      Yep, I’m pretty contemptuous of Scalia.

    • CM Harris

      “…because if you don’t, the god virus will die off and I’ll be irrelevant.”

    • McSwagg

      And THIS is why we need another Wise Latina on the Supreme Court.

  • Blake J Butler

    Why couldn’t i have been born and raised in New Mexico, then all i would have to deal with is that bitch Martinez, instead of all these christian-fascists i have as representatives.

    My representatives took time out the other day to debate with other state legislators from Texas to debate the cheese dip vs. queso test on what it should be called.

    I hate this state, Fayetteville and Little Rock and the gay Eureka Springs is a blue dot in a sea of red, but damn there is just too much stupid wrapped up in one state with so many damn things wrong with it.

    Glad once i get my social workers license all i have to do is take a test and skip across state lines and start anew. But i still don’t get my BSW for another 2 years, and looking at 1.5 years for my MSW, any opportunity i get i’ll get up and move.

    Heard Santa fe is quite progressive and gay.

    • Mike in Texas

      And, BTW, Cornyn got it wrong. It’s “chile con queso” And Cruz is Cuban, so what would he know anyway?

    • Crow on a Top Hat

      *waves* Yeah it’s jarring when you remember the rest of the state isn’t diverse (and blueish) as NWA has gotten.

      • Blake J Butler

        That’s what attracts me to the area, for economic and a more diverse climate overall.

        Also my requirements for social work require that I learn Spanish, so I would like to be more likely to use that for the time I’m still in Arkansas until time I can move to where i want to.

  • Brian G

    For children of adoption, their parents listed on their Birth Certificate are not Biologically related. This must be some sort of odd Arkansas logic that makes no sense outside their bubble.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      You misspelled bible

    • David Walker

      Maybe it helps protect Rufus from having to admit that he’s the father of his first cousin’s child. You know, on the outside chance that ever came up.

  • ByronK

    Here’s what our provincial government did about this issue last week. I know the two women and the children their bill is named after.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/30/all-families-are-equal-act-bill-28-wynne_n_13326140.html

  • ChrisInKansas

    I’m more than a little surprised that there wasn’t something in there along the lines of “Trump won, you lost, we can do this now”.

  • Duh-David

    How much does it cost the state of Arkansas to do genetic testing on opposite-sex parents and their babies before issuing all of those birth certificates?

    • boatboy_srq

      Enough to reinforce their conviction that neonatal care is one of those Excessive Entitlements© they can’t afford.

  • Kelly Lape

    Okay, so with that reasoning we should be doing DNA testing on every newborn and bastard children identified so that ONLY verified biological fathers are listed on birth certificates.

    • FredDorner

      And since most states have a “presumptive paternity” law (which concerns legal parenthood), there’s a pretty clear equal protection violation if same-sex couples are denied the same presumption. It’s also a clear violation of the child’s rights.

  • RealityBass

    Well Justice Josephine, it’s a basic biological truth that you are beyond you’re child-bearing years. Marriage is all about raising children, biblically speaking right? So I guess your marriage in invalid, if you’re already married. And you can forget about getting married or remarrying at your age. Biology is a bitch, huh?

    • jsmukg

      No, “Judge” Josephine is the bitch—and a rotting, decayed, ignorant one at that.

  • Mark

    and it is a basic biological truth that there must be TWO participants….

  • Bill T.

    All the creatures are emerging from the shallow end of the gene pool.

  • Reality.Bites

    And just last week Ontario unanimously passed legislation to do just that.

    (Right-wing Conservatives were forced to stay away from the vote by their party leader)

    • Hue-Man

      It’s worse than that; the gentle Judge would be shocked at the law’s provisions:

      Under Bill 28, same-sex parents no longer have to adopt their own children.

      In cases where a child is conceived through assisted reproduction,
      Bill 28 recognizes the parents as being the birth parent and the birth
      parent’s partner at the time of the child’s conception — without
      requiring a court order.

      It also allows for up to four people to be recognized as a child’s parents without a court order, if all the parties sign on to a written
      agreement before conception.

      https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/29/ontario-passes-law-giving-equal-parenting-rights-to-same-sex-couples/

  • EdmondWherever

    Just because paper comes from trees, that doesn’t make paperwork “biological”. You can write anything you want on there.

  • Gigi

    What about the “biological truth” of two married, infertile heterosexuals? Can they not be listed on the birth certificate because they’re biologically incapable of having children?

    • agcons

      Don’t ask the poor thing such tough questions. She’ll have to have her hair varnished all over again.

  • BillyMac

    By working with a health department and birth certificates, I know that a Spouse (father) is listed as the biological parent, by default, or as well as, any father the biological mother states. The listed father must take further action to contest his “biological” connection if he disagrees. Some men don’t even know they were listed as the biological father.

    • RoFaWh

      I think there’s an old legal principle that any pregnancy started during marriage is a child of the husband.

      May be wrong.

      • BillyMac

        yes, that’s the premise used. So the truth of the biological father is never really proved, just assumed if it occurs within a married couple. So the document is really not a proof of a substantiated biological connection as stated by the judge.

  • zhera

    Here’s a question for the Justice:

    When a straight, married couple have a baby via sperm donor, does the husband get his name on the birth certificate?

    (I don’t know the rules for this but I’m willing to bet that nowhere on the birth certificate is there any mention of sperm donation.)

    • Mike in Texas

      Zing …………

  • Secure

    And adoptions by straight parents? They are not the biological parents.

  • greenmanTN

    So what do they do if the identity of the father is…unsure, take it to the Jerry Springer show?

    • OdieDenCO

      reality TV: the new court system!

    • Furface

      Maury Povich?

  • Mark

    and she didn’t pass basic math either…..nor that biology thing with the peas…

  • Michael R

    Off topic but it’s the anniversary of this
    I remember the feeling I had for quite a while that year .

    https://s17.postimg.org/3y89ca1sf/yoko.jpg

  • PrideFamilies

    I just amended our daughter’s birth certificate to include both my name and my husband’s name. I did everything by email and the new birth certificate arrived after only 3 weeks – IN TEXAS! That’s right. In Texas of all places!

  • FredDorner

    They must grow unusually dumb judges in the confederate states. There’s no way this ruling won’t be reversed on appeal to SCOTUS.

    • Tiger Quinn

      Unless it’s a deadlock, and then it reverts.

      • FredDorner

        The current SCOTUS would rule at least 5-3 to reverse this ruling.

  • Silver Badger

    Are the adoptive parents listed on the birth certificate?

  • The Milkman

    It is clear that every person in the world comes from a person who donated an egg, and a person who donated sperm. We get that. The issue isn’t to pretend that a male parent can donate an egg to the fertilization process. The issue is the legal responsibilities and protections that come with having your name on the certificate. And as a member of a state supreme court, I would presume that Aunt Bea knows this perfectly well. Of course what we know equally well is that that’s not what she means when she says those things.

    • Jerry

      “The Milkman”? Dad, is that you?

      • The Milkman

        HA! Unless you’re my 12 year old son, wrong milkman. If you ARE my 12 year old son, we need to have a little talk about why you’re on this site. 🙂

        • Jerry

          Many years ago at a party at college (we threw a lot of those), some friends mentioned that all the people I had introduced them to from my home town had blonde hair and blue eyes, like me…thus was born a perpetual joke about “The Milkman Named Sven.”

  • Blake

    And does a rapist’s name get used as the “father” once the right winger’s ban abortion?

    • Lawerence Collins

      That’s already happening in some areas.
      This country is in desperate need of true progressive leadership. Establishment Democrats need not apply!

      • JWC

        I am not saying we are better but I wish you people could adopt Canadian standards Here things like this are Federaly settled not provincially You people let States run their own laws and disavow National policies.Canada said Gay marriages was legal and bingo it was Where does the US stand on that today? you are still battling it

        • FredDorner

          Family law is controlled by the states but only to the extent that those laws don’t violate the US constitution, as this ruling does and the bans on mixed-race and same-sex marriage did. So those issues became national rulings, and the AR court in this case missed that fact.
          To put it another way, the lower court got it right when it cited Obergefell.

          • JWC

            it just appears that North Carolina Texas and Mississippi areUS what to do Up here its just “get on Board”

          • David Walker

            Perhaps it would be different if you were the United Provinces of Canada. Please kneel and thank something that you’re not. It is insane. There idea of independent, free, yet united states was a nice idea, one of many we’ve outgrown (cf, the electoral college) and for which you and all your family members would be killed were you to suggest there just might be a better, more efficient way. At my age, I will not see any step in the right direction, but I also wonder if a child born today will either in its lifetime.

          • Stev84

            The fact is still that’s it’s absolutely insane to have 50 different kinds of family law. Yeah, it’s what the constitution says thanks to some outdated mess written in the 18th century under very different circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

          • RoFaWh

            A complete overhaul of the USA is overdue. Take, for example, the sheer number of counties, many with only a vestigial population. Or the way important laws vary dramatically from state to state, even sometimes from county to county.

            The current use of gerrymandering to support a corrupt regime should be impossible. (Don’t ask me how!)

            Elected judges but also political hacks appointed as judges.

            The list is long.

          • Stev84

            >”The current use of gerrymandering to support a corrupt regime should be impossible. (Don’t ask me how)”

            Gerrymandering comes almost solely from the undemocratic first past the post election system (partisan election commissions are another issue). It can be largely eliminated by different systems that are successfully used in many other countries.

    • Stev84

      In most states rapists can already sue for custody

      • zhera

        Wow.

        OK, but can they also win in most states?

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          Lisa Ling had a recent story where the rape victim was forced to allow visitation to her toddler daughter UNSUPERVISED>

          Unbelievable.

          • Tiger Quinn

            We would vanish into the night before that would happen.

  • Mike in Texas

    The Plague of Insanity has descended upon us.

  • EweTaw

    Bad news, I guess, for couples who conceive children with a surrogate and are like NPH and his spouse who mixed their spooge then ended up with fraternal twins. Hmmmm . . . what would imaginary Jesus do?

  • MBear

    Courts always have been empowered to be as racist, homophobic, bigoted, xenophobic as their judges…and we know that judges are *not* impartial or even dedicated to truth, justice, or the constitution.

    It’s an imperfect system maintained by people who profit from the imperfection (read: white hetero supremecists maintaining their ill-gotten priviledge)

  • Dave Babler

    What were the “inappropriate remarks”?

    • Natty Enquirer

      I’m curious, too, but the slip opinion hasn’t yet been posted.

      • FredDorner
        • FredDorner

          I think Judge Fox correctly nailed the AR SC. This is what the SC was whining about:

          “This court also observed that the circuit court’s order contained “inappropriate remarks,” and we stated our intent to address the remarks following our receipt of the entire record on appeal. The gist of Judge Fox’s remarks was that if this court granted the stay, then it would deprive persons of their constitutional rights, and that this court previously had deprived people of their constitutional rights in a separate matter. We remind Judge Fox that, in accordance with the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, all courts take great care to “uphold and apply the law” and “perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” Ark. Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.2. All courts intend to faithfully apply both federal and state constitutional law in a manner that does not result in the deprivation of constitutional rights. We remind Judge Fox that this same code requires a judge to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Ark. Code Jud. Conduct R. 1.2. A remark made to gain the attention of the press and to create public clamor undermines “public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality,” not only of this court, but also of the entire judiciary. Judge Timothy Davis Fox is hereby admonished for his inappropriate comments made while performing the duties of his judicial office.”

    • BobSF_94117

      Quoting the Supreme Court.

  • JaniceInToronto

    Yep, the shit has officially started…

  • not being a lawyer, i’ll just have to guess: straight couples, married or otherwise, don’t have this problem? the child can be the product of an extramarital affair, sperm donation, leftover from a former marriage or bio-child of a now dead partner, but all man and woman have to do is tell the hospital nurse/clerk “i’m the mommy and he’s the daddy” and those are the names on the form?

    i trust i’ll read more and horrific details of inequality as i skim the comments; people here are always so well informed. once again we’re treated as second class citizens cause some backwater xtian in a robe has decided baby jeebus will cry if we’re not.

    fuck off and die of a painful lingering disease, judge. it won’t come soon enough.

    • Natty Enquirer

      Nice pricking of the Alabama court’s ridiculous bubble. The government has no demonstrated interest in documenting the biological parents in the situations you bring up.

    • The_Wretched

      Yep, when mommy says “this is the daddy” that’s what they write down.

  • Well, if Trump keeps his promise to fill the Supreme Court with more Scalias, I don’t want to think about it.

    • FredDorner

      There’d need to be two new Scalias for the court to err on this one.

      • The_Wretched

        He’ll get 3-4 justices. think about that a little when you want to feel terror

        • Stefan Heikel

          I doubt it, as I don’t expect him to get a second term. Populist regimes typically don’t last long, as soon as the candidate/party fails to make their promises.

  • Lazycrockett

    John Glenn died.

    • EweTaw

      We all do.

      • Silver Badger

        You all do what? Hope John Glenn rests in peace?

        • Tiger Quinn

          We all die. Grow up.

          • Silver Badger

            No need to be nasty. I didn’t quite understand the comment. Thanks for the clarification, I think.

          • BobSF_94117

            Not in that order.

  • bambinoitaliano

    I’m just amazed with so many brilliant minds in the country this dumb ass get to be a judge. And now you guys are going to throw Trump was elected to my face. I surrender.

    • Ore Carmi

      Hey, don’t ruin it for me! He hasn’t been elected yet!

      • RoFaWh

        Don’t confuse wishful thinking with reasonable prediction.

        • Ore Carmi

          I’m not. I just want to wallow in the non-Trump era as long as possible.

      • bambinoitaliano

        Spoiler alert! 😛

  • Lumpy Gaga

    O/T:

    This just in: Trump people think Ivanka’s okay for a WH position because it’s not nepotism because the WH isn’t a Federal Agency.

    Thanks, CNN!

    • Todd20036

      But hey, we sure dodged a bullet with Clinton’s email server, right?

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Pay-for-play! OMG, noes!

      • bobbyjoe

        Benghazi!!!!!!

    • not a federal agency… hmmm. so which states run the “agency of the WH?” i missed that in constitutional law class.

    • RoFaWh

      Who signs the paychecks of White House staff?

    • teeveedub

      Well, of course she should be in the WH. tRump needs someone to bang while that mail order bride holds down the gold-encrusted fort in NYC.

      • David Walker

        We’re calling it “hosting” now. Someone to HOST affairs at the WH. Or maybe not affairs, but… You’re right.

    • StraightGrandmother

      But her paycheck will read, “Issued by United States,” won’t it?

    • McSwagg

      I looked up “nepotism” in the dictionary just to be sure there wasn’t something I was missing. I said a lot about “family ties” and absolutely nothing about the WH or any other part of the government (Federal, State, or local).

  • KnownDonorDad

    As a donor, I’m not listed on my biological children’s birth certificates as far as I know, that’s not my role. I do think that as a general rule, kids should be able to contact their biological parents, but that’s a separate issue.

    • Friday

      It’s not as if listing donors as ‘the father’ etc is the *only way* to record biological parentage if that’s the real issue. Straight-up, this ‘biological truth’ is not a standard straight marriages are subjected to. So it’s *legal fiction.*

  • unclemike

    Does there need to be a court order for a child-by-surrogate to have both parents listed? How about an adopted child? If not, then fuck right the fuck off you fucking hypocrite.

  • The_Wretched

    When religionists tell you they have science or biology on their side, hide the silverware and fine china. As an actual science person, they are deeply offensive in how they misuse science and say it supports them. In pretty much every case, it does not.

  • JIM W

    Yet, heterosexual couples who must use a sperm or ova donor can have their names on the birth certificate. How is that conform to “biological truth”?

    • Ore Carmi

      Thanks for that. I wondered.

  • That’s a really stupid decision.

  • coram nobis

    The case is Smith v. Pavan. Slip opinion is here.

    http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/357954/Electronic.aspx

  • MonochromeMouse

    So I assume in Arkansas no adoptive parents are allowed to be listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate, after all it’s a basic biological truth.

  • edrex

    Give to the ACLU.

  • The_Wretched

    Looks like the admonished Judge actually cares about democracy and following the Obergefell decision. The Arkansas SCT admonishment is nothing less that slapping at a political thorn in their side who keeps ruling in line with law and decency.

  • Rocco

    It’s Arkansas: “The Land That Time Forgot.” I am grateful every day that I no longer live in a state like “The Natural State.” I worry that under President Trump (smh) that we will all be Arkansas. My family directory benefitted from President Obama and The SCOTUS. Hair Furor and his cabal are truly scary. I’m praying for some type of miracle before January 20th.

    • McSwagg

      Arkansas used to have the motto “The land of Opportunity” until someone sued them for false advertisement.

  • RoFaWh

    Birth certificates are legal documents, not biological ones.

    Parentage is a legal status (hence adoptions), not a biological status where the law is concerned.

    These people are so eaten up with lie-driven homophobia that their brains don’t work right.

  • TheJudgement

    I’m starting to think that getting stupid is a natural possession of long term human endeavors

  • ryan charisma

    Here’s another truth. You’re a bitch.

  • Canadian Observer

    Too bad they didn’t address the weighty question of whether a father’s name should automatically be added to a birth certificate. I believe the preponderance of evidence would show that while motherhood is an observable fact, paternity is just a matter of opinion pending real evidence.

  • coram nobis

    Slip opinion for Smith v. Pavan, the case name.

    http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/357954/Electronic.aspx

  • karen in kalifornia

    biological vs. legal parental significance obviously escapes the mind of an Arkansas supreme court justice. Oy. And by the time this gets to SCOTUS, they will be unable to make the distinction and agree.

    • coram nobis

      Reading the slip opinion starting at 10, their main authority seems to be Webster’s dictionary.

    • The_Wretched

      Birth certificates are legal, not biological, documents. Saying that the legal goal is to id the biological parents is a retcon and flies in the face of default legal rules that have been around forever in the US.

  • ByronK

    Where the hell did this woman study law? Trump University?

    • Joe in PA

      Liberty U. ;*(

  • countervail

    I’m probably going to be in the minority here, but I think for accuracy birth certificates should reflect the genetic history of the child. I am an active genealogist and I think it’s important to know your genetic history. If the child was conceived via surrogate, I think it seems fair to note where the genetic material came from. I feel it should be a child’s right to know their specific origins that way.

    That said, I think it’s also fair to be able to keep that confidential by issuing a secondary parentage certificate that would list both partners as parents. I would also change how adoption records are handle this was as well, not revising the original birth certificate record but offering a secondary parent record.

    • The_Wretched

      thats nice. Are you aware that the “non-paternity” rate is something like 10%?

      • countervail

        I think you’re talking about when people aren’t aware of genetic parentage. I’m suggesting we try to be accurate when possible. Adoptive or genetically unrelated parents are making the choice for a child to not know their genetic heritage. It reminds me of when parents decide the sex of a child who might be intersexed. It’s legal but is it ethical especially when the child reaches majority?

        • The_Wretched

          I’m out. You’re all over the map and you’re exploding issue density with lack of coherence and inclusion of nuance laded topics like intersex.

          For clarity, I reject your desire for the State to do genetics for you and think the legal document that is a birth certificate must stay as it is – a redecoration of legal parentage. Too many real world child care issues and responsibilities depend on it.

          • countervail

            I think I’m being as clear as possible. There should be an initial record that tries as accurately as possible to note genetic heritage for posterity, then there should be a second, but more important parentage document that notes legal guardianship.

          • Dolly

            Why is everyone assuming that “countervail” wants to change the system just to make it easier to do genealogic research? He/she said that doing genealogic research had taught him/her that “it’s important to know YOUR genetic history.” And it is. Of course it wouldn’t be practical to mandate genetic testing of putative parents, but countervail’s point that deliberately concealing a child’s parentage from the child is unethical is well taken.

            Adoptees’ original birth certificates are sealed in Arkansas and only through a cumbersome system in which both parties must file separate affidavits can an adopted person — after mandatory “counseling” — learn the facts of his or her parentage. “Nonidentifying information” ain’t shit, ask an adoptee.

            There’s no real reason a “birth certificate” should be the current weird hybrid of facts and legal fictions. A system should be developed where legal parentage is clearly established for parents of any combination of sexes, without requiring that genetic parentage be concealed from the individual it concerns the most.

            Climbing off my soapbox now.

          • countervail

            Thanks. 🙂

    • Joe in PA

      You can’t be serious. Think this through. I’m not trying to pick a fight, really. But first, your ease in genealogy research shouldn’t really be a factor here. And I presume you are advocating that all opposite sex couples that use surrogates do the same (good luck with that). And you bring up ‘genetics’…so there should be a DNA test for all those opposite sex couples? Again, good luck with that. Yikes, talk about a battle. Whew.

      • countervail

        I’m not saying it’s easy. But we’re only considering the parents in this discussion. If I were adopted, or conceived through some other means, I may NEED not just want that genetic information someday. Even if I only just wanted it, I would be so upset to know it was deliberately hidden from me.

    • coram nobis

      That would invent a whole new line of statutes, also to be litigated. The slip opinion seems to think procreation has nothing to do with marriage, or at least to the extent that one of the two married people is not on the child’s birth certificate, but an absent or unmarried surrogate or sperm donor is.

      It rather makes marriage meaningless if children born into the marriage are half-in, half-out. The majority is hinting that the right to marry seems to be white lace and promises — and nothing much more.

      • countervail

        Well that’s why I think a parentage certificate is as important, as much as recording the most accurate genetic information. It would actually give you more flexibility, perhaps listing a single parent if appropriate, or same sex parents without regard to gender roles.

        Genetics is important. I would want to know where my genes came from and I think it’s unfair to make a choice for a child regarding knowing his true genetic parentage if they choose.

        • coram nobis

          Genetics can be important, if, say, there’s a family history of Parkinson’s it’s good to know. Nonetheless, family law usually holds that adoption, say, does sever the child from inheritance in one family and makes him/her full fledged in the new one. It’s also why “bastardy” is no longer valid in our common law, FSM be praised.

          I just don’t like the idea that a sperm donor or surrogate would have a legal connection to a child where the married partner would not. That’s not what we fought for, and “marriage” is something more than a wedding ceremony.

          • countervail

            Its not what I’m suggesting though. The genetic registry would simply be like pedigree information, without legal implication. A reference for the future. The parentage document would act as the binding legal document.

            I think it’s presumptious that a child shouldn’t or wouldn’t want to know where they biologically came from. Its treating children as property, like a toy or a pet otherwise. Marriage between two consenting same-sex partners is very different than going to extraordinary means to create a child that has no consent in their extraordinary creation. Until two men or two women can truly create a child from their own genetic material, it is only fair.

          • coram nobis

            My own unscientific sense is that a lot of same-sex couples build a family through adoption. These are children who are already created and many times, cast off. At least there the birth certificate won’t matter if the adoption makes the family permanent.

          • countervail

            And that’s a wonderful thing. Children get a loving home with parents and the option of at least knowing their birth parents at some time if they choose. We’re considering something wholly different though. When a child is conceived through artificial means, are they entitled to know their creation story and the specific donors, or should same sex couple be allowed to keep that secret from a child if they choose?

          • Pedigree? Dude, we are all human beings. That’s all that matters.

          • McSwagg

            You have to understand that pedigree DOES matter when the “alt-white” “genetically obsessed” Mormons want to posthumously baptize you into their cult.
            /s

          • It still shocks and saddens me that the Mormons refuse to stop baptizing Jewish people who died in the Holocaust. Hmmm, I wonder if they are also baptizing gay men who died in the Holocaust too? Somehow I bet not.

    • BobSF_94117

      That’s all well and good, and once you’ve convinced the straight community to make life easier for you, check back with us.

      Seriously, you raise some important issues, but they’ve been resolved based on the needs of heterosexual to (sometimes) maintain a fiction. Might it change? Sure. But don’t count on it.

    • Bad Tom

      As soon as it’s the same way for straights.
      Not before.

      • countervail

        But it’s not the same at all. That’s the point.

        • Bad Tom

          Then we will never be in agreement, and I vehemently oppose your plan.

          • countervail

            Gosh someone disagrees with me on a theoretical proposition. What to do? What… to…. do…?

          • Bad Tom

            It’s not theoretical for the litigants in this case, is it?

          • countervail

            In a way, yes it is. They were attempting to overturn law without basis. I agree with the Arkansas Supreme Court. At the present moment in science, you can’t combine the genes of two men or two women to make a child. That’s fact. And Arkansas has a vested interest in ensuring birth record accuracy. They are protecting the rights of the child who may want or need to know the genetic reality of their heritage.

            That’s why I think a parentage document should be more important. Or to work in the current system, adoption records with stronger protections of adoptive parents’ rights.

          • Bad Tom

            And yet, straight couples are routinely allowed to amend a birth certificate to reflect legal parentage. That is current actual practice.

            If current practice is to be changed, it must be changed for everyone, not just gay people.

          • countervail

            I would agree. The birth certificate process should be changed for everyone for it to reflect the genetic heritage of the child for reference and then add a parentage document to reflect actual guardianship.

          • Bad Tom

            Then we are violently agreeing. 😉

          • countervail

            That can be sexy! 😉

    • Unless the child is in line to inherit a throne, I see no reason to care about genealogy. When the child grows up they can do a DNA test to show where their ancestors were from, if they care.

      • countervail

        And what if the child thinks differently?

        • The a DNA test of where the child’s family came from will suit the same purpose.

          • countervail

            That’s a personal opinion, correct?

  • DaveMiller135

    I kind of agree. People who look at birth certificates are searching for biology as well as social structure. I don’t see why the birth certificate can’t show who raised the child, as well as who she got her genes from.

    • sherman

      I kind of agree. The most important thing is to immediately establish legal parents, so the child is protected from day one. The biology part seems logical, but with surrogacy and blind adoptions and stuff, isn’t it already kind of “optional”?

    • Sal

      Huh?

      The birth certificate is issued shortly after birth. It cannot predict what will happen in the child’s future. Example: Hetero couple have a kid, the old-fashioned way. Bio mom and Bio dad’s names go in the designated spot on the birth certificate. Two years later, bio mom and dad die in car accident. Kid is raised by, pick your favorite: Grandparents, mom’s lesbian sister and her wife, dad’s gay brother and his husband. OK, tell me how this kid’s birth certificate shows anything about “social structure” or “who raised the kid”?

    • Friday

      Straight people aren’t subject to being left off a birth certificate if *they* for instance, use a sperm donor.

      • DaveMiller135

        Yes, and from the science end, it’s a gap not to include the sperm donor.

  • ericpayne

    It took 17 years for SCOTUS to determine Bowers v. Hardwick was “wrongly decided.” If this Arkansas case hits SCOTUS in the next couple of years, and DJT gets to appoint a second justice to SCOTUS, this could be a case a conservative SCOTUS uses to determine Obergegell v. Hodges was “wrongly decided.”

    • FredDorner

      It’s a different situation given that never in US history have civil rights been rescinded after SCOTUS has recognized them.

      Moreover this case can be immediately appealed to SCOTUS so it could be heard as early as the Spring session if cert is granted. I suspect it will be remanded without argument.

      • ericpayne

        I’m just pointing out the DJT dilemma we’re in for, and can only get worse as the 4 liberal Justices age — a conservative SCOTUS that will be in place for decades — and while this case may hit SCOTUS while there’s still a tie (which would mean, even if this decision isn’t accepted onto SCOTUS docket) this judge’s ruling remains in place. And you know this is only the first case that may be heard; if a conservative court can be seated, Staver and his ilk have no shortage of cases up their sleeve to attack/reverse Obergerfell.

  • coram nobis

    Justice Brill’s dissent spells out all the ludicrous outcomes for couples, of various types, arising from the ruling. See pp. 21-28.

    His use of “The Times They Are A’Changin'” as a metaphor is a bit silly. I would have used a different Dylan lyric, from “My Back Pages.”

    A self-ordained professor’s tongue too serious to fool
    Spouted out that liberty is just equality in school
    “Equality,” I spoke the word as if a wedding vow
    Ah, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now

    • coram nobis

      Justice Danielson’s dissent included this harpoon.

      Second, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell that states are not free to deny same-sex couples “the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.” ___ U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2601. Importantly, the Court listed “birth and death certificates” specifically as one of those benefits attached to marital status. Id. Thus,
      the majority is clearly wrong in holding that Obergefell has no application here. — at 34

      Translation: “Can’t you people read?”

      • People4Humanity

        💧😂💦

        “harpoon”

        💘

  • ericpayne

    No American citizen should have their rights, and the highlights of their lives, so hopelessly intertwined with court decisions and politicians’ names. The average citizen just has to pay their taxes, and cast their vote for senators and President. We have to pay our taxes, seriously look at every candidate for every elected office in every election, and legally protect ourselves, as much as possible, for every contingency. That’s crap.

  • Crow on a Top Hat

    I can say that Orlando Bloom knocked me up on a birth certificate and it won’t burst into flames and call me a liar…

  • Jacob

    Except that the list of precedents sighting a lack of full equality is a separate but equal interpretation of the word marriage which led to the SCOTUS ruling. Let’s all watch the snake eat it’s tail.

  • Richard B

    Would you expect anything less from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
    This ruling won’t hold up once its appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    • Joe

      I’d like to think you are correct there. But – with a new SCOTUS under our upcoming nightmare, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a whole lot of rights curtailed.

  • jsmukg

    This desiccated and antique white harridan has left herself and her fellow homophobes WIDE OPEN for a Supreme spanking, on more than one count.

    • I would imagine that she never thought about sperm donors. She was to busy shuddering over nasty lgbt sex.

  • Ninja0980

    Just another reason why electing judges is a really, really bad idea.

  • NancyP

    “It is a basic biological fact that adoptive parents can’t be listed on the birth certificate” – and yet they are listed, at least in the state of NY where I was born. Taken to Joisey at age 3 days.

  • Barry William Teske

    It’s basic human nature to fear that which doesn’t fit into the constrictive teachings that religion enforces. That is, after being taught such in Sunday school.

  • Robert Conner

    “Arkansas has a vested interest in listing biological parents on birth certificates.”

    Translation: Arkansas wants to know which of your brothers knocked yah up.

  • DesertSun59

    Oh, look. This isn’t about the children at all. It’s about vilifying adults that they hate.

  • Tom Ato

    Because being a parent is all about biology.

  • JohnInCA

    As far as I can see, the judge isn’t suggesting that the state would stop a second-parent adoption, so the judge isn’t protecting the “vested interest” of the state by stopping the birth certificate.

    She’s just making the couple work harder and spend more money to get what a straight couple would automatically be due.

  • Rick Zajac

    Thank God I got my dual citizenship a few years ago (my parents were Canadians) but I’ll stay in Michigan, at least for now.

    • The Return of Traxley

      It’s actually quite easy to cross over in a boat overnight.

      • Rick Zajac

        Which is probably why the Border Patrol is always around downtown Detroit, Belle Isle and Lake Erie Metro Park and I suspect Grosse Ile as well.

  • Joseph Miceli

    If the only purpose of the birth certificate was to indicate the “biological parents” then I’d say they were correct. How convenient for the court to ignore that birth certificates are legal documents used to base custody and parental rights. If the court were actually fair and unbiased, they’d have ordered a new entry on the form that listed custodial parents in addition to biological ones. But they WERE biased and bigoted. Now we know.

  • The Arkansas Supreme Court confuses legal status with biology.

    I think this could be a precedent for requiring ALL birth certificates to list the “actual biological parents as established by a battery of paternity tests” when a baby is born. Because of stark “bioological” reasoning like this, in Arkansas one can now never again assume that the husband in a married heterosexual relationship is the biological father of any child produced by his wife.

    The actual, factual, biological father of a child ostensibly produced in a married heterosexual relationship in Arkansas is possibly more likely to be the woman’s pastor, brother, cousin or some traveling salesman,than it would be her husband. So go ahead, judges, throw out the polite fiction of assuming that a child produced while a heterosexual couple is married to each other is “fathered” by the husband.

    After all, based on their inability to reason their way out of a paper bag, the judges on the Arkansas State Supreme Court seem to be exhibiting the “biological truth” of the sort of feeble-mindedness long thought to be associated with generations of inbreeding, notwithstanding whatever polite fictions about paternity one might find on their birth certificates.

  • Lesliemlareau

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj158d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !mj158d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash158MediaBigGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj158d:….,……

  • jonfromcalifornia

    I think the court meant to say “religious truths” instead but realized that wouldn’t fly.

  • disqus_H5vrtg6PtQ

    To the SCOTUS with this ruling. But, for adoptee rights orgs, now would be the time to push for open birth certificates. This, in essence, says there’s no biological truth/reasoning in listing adoptive parents on birth certificates.

  • Tim Donahue

    I’m an adopted child. Neither of the parents on my birth certificate, a man and a woman, are my natural parents. Get over it.

  • TallBearNC

    They are SO WRONG. in Europe, if you pay a lot of money a baby can be made with 2 fathers DNA. 0 DNA from a female. It can’t be done F/F yet

    They use 2 sperm from 2 fathers

    Father A: normal sperm, y or x to pick sex of child
    Father B: they pull the DNA out of a female egg and replace with DNA from an X chromosome sperm

    They put in surrogate , and you get a baby with 0 “mother” DNA

    They can’t do f/f yet because the sperm cell dies when they insert the F DNA. Expected time is 10-15 years to fix f/f

    It’s rare this would show up in AL, but still possible

    • TallBearNC

      This is not the “skin cell to stem cell..to…xx project”. I was watching it on discovery science channel a month ago