19 July 2017 at 7:39:52 AM
Several decisions came out yesterday from the Supreme Court of the US. One of them was about whether a state could treat same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples on children's birth certificates. The answer is NO.Case was from Arkansas
In a rare practice following the high court's 2015 decision striking down state bans on same-sex marriage, some states put the husbands of new mothers on birth certificates even if they are not the biological fathers, while making no provision for same-sex spouses.
The challenge was brought by two female couples in Arkansas, where health officials refused to list the non-biological spouse on a newborn's birth certificate — even though state law requires that husbands who are not the biological fathers receive that status.
Here's the PDF
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision, we conclude, denied married same-sex couples access to the “constellation of benefits that the Stat[e] ha[s] linked to marriage.” Obergefell , 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). As already explained, when a married woman in Arkansas conceives a child by means of artificial insemination, the State will—indeed, must —list the name of her male spouse on the child’s birth certificate. See §20–18–401(f )(1); see also §9–10–201; supra, at 2. And yet state law, as interpreted by the court below, allows Arkansas officials in those very same circumstances to omit a married woman’s female spouse from her child’s birth certificate. See 505 S. W. 3d, at 177–178. As a result, same-sex parents in Arkansas lack the same right as opposite-sex parents to be listed on a child’s birth certificate, a document often used for important transactions like making medical decisions for a child or enrolling a child in school. See Pet. for Cert. 5–7 (listing situations in which a parent might be required to present a child’s birth certificate).
Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment. As we explained there, a State may not “exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 23). Indeed, in listing those terms and conditions—the “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access—we expressly identified “birth and death certificates.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). That was no accident: Several of the plaintiffs in Obergefell challenged a State’s refusal to recognize their same-sex spouses on their children’s birth certificates. See DeBoer v. Snyder , 772 F. 3d 388, 398–399 (CA6 2014). In considering those challenges, we held the relevant state laws unconstitutional to the extent they treated same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. See 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 23). That holding applies with equal force to §20–18–401.
Latest Blog Post by salon -Ruminations of the Easily Amused for 1/12/2018-Trump is a Racist
You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot
Or you can login!
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be
patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You
want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest
comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or
govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting
Click Here for Main Page
Ruminations of the Easily Amused for 1/12/2018-Trump is a Racist
Here we go again with Feral Hog poison bait testing (Sodium Nitrate)
From Waco Trib- Have no illusions about the GOP Tax Law
Excellent Editorial from Waco Tribune- Leave Robert Mueller Alone To Finish Investigation
Ruminations of the Easily Amused for 1/11/2018
Turk v Ray Reynolds and Somervell County Hospital District Lawsuit Continues -On into 2018 Update
More Blog Headlines