www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/opinion/sunday/the-stolen-supreme-court-seat.html

The natural parents are the biological male and female, period. There should be special legal distinctions for every other case.

I'm not afraid of it being eliminated, it won't be. People will still marry. Unfortunately though, benefits for all married couples will likely disappear, which isn't fair to children.

Then you should be upset about non-bio hetero couples being put on birth certificates (being regarded as natural parents under the law). Is that right or did I misunderstand something?

OK. We should probably leave this tangent here or find/start another thread.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and
JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Summary reversal is usually reserved for cases where
“the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute,
and the decision below is clearly in error.” Schweiker v.
Hansen, 450 U. S. 785, 791 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Respectfully, I don’t believe this case meets that
standard.

In an opinion that did not in any way seek to
defy but rather earnestly engage Obergefell, the state
supreme court agreed.

The State has repeatedly conceded
that the benefits afforded nonbiological parents under §9–
10–201 must be afforded equally to both same-sex and
opposite-sex couples. So that in this particular case and
all others of its kind, the State agrees, the female spouse
of the birth mother must be listed on birth certificates too.

Third, further proof still of the state of the law in Arkansas
today is the fact that, when it comes to adoption (a
situation not present in this case but another one in which
Arkansas departs from biology based registration), the
State tells us that adopting parents are eligible for
placement on birth certificates without respect to sexual
orientation.

The Court does not
offer any remedial suggestion, and none leaps to mind.
Perhaps the state supreme court could memorialize the
State’s concession on §9–10–201, even though that law
wasn’t fairly challenged and such a chore is hardly the
usual reward for seeking faithfully to apply, not evade,
this Court’s mandates.

The definition of steal is to take without right.

What law was broken in having Gorsuch take that seat?

An opinion article is not a citation.

That's correct. I'm disagree with any false equivocation.

Quit trying to deflect by quoting definitions like some lefty elitist.

I take it you have a fact-based citation for your claim, since you're dismissing a NYT editorial board opinion piece. Let's see it please.

I suppose if I must indulge you...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008

I respect the honest answer. Welp, write your congresscritter I guess. Or just grow the **** up and live in the real world. up2u

I'm still waiting for your fact-based claim of theft.

Did you people really not see that DoorDonut was vying to throw down a adam-eve-not-adam-steve?

Shame.

Two parents isn't absurd. Prejudice that makes one obsessed about excluding folks from stuff like marriage, food, health, and care is absurd.

...


you're mom is even embarrassed

It's funny you say that. People did write their congresscritters, elected legislatures and passed propositions AGAINST gay marriage. And yet, 5 Supreme Court justices decided otherwise.

Can you name one state where the people passed a resolution or elected a legislature to enact Gay Marriage (unlike Slavery, unlike Civil Rights laws, unlike ADA)? Every gay marriage decision was decided by a court. But let's not rehash this.

That I waste my time with you...yeah, probably.

Grown up courts, not infantile prejudiced courts like Roy Moore's. Funny on merits prejudice and discrimination and the principles like dignity- the conservatives fall apart like cooked chicken.

I wasn't suggesting he write to them for the purpose of enacting discriminatory/unconstitutional laws. It was about HETERO couples being put on a birth certificate without being biological parents. My suggestion was not made to show support for his position. Only a friendly reminder of possible remedy.

As for the rest of your pathetic whining, that's how it works mr. big law expert.

So bad they took it to the immigration thread because the conservative immigration efforts is bunch of ugly people-grabbing for employment plus banning grandmas so hard a judge say stop. Babylon burning is apt metaphor.

You certainly do that, given your purpose here is to hurt "lefties". You ****ing failure LOL

Hahaha, "you clown", meanwhile you (ostensibly not a "clown"? and yet your posts contain so many more factual inaccuracies...) failed to notice that:
- the law I cited shreds your claim that artificial insemination couples need special permission (they don't)
- the law I cited does not contain the word "father"

Section b has to do with surrogate mothers. It has nothing to do with man and wife where the wife is the child's biological mother.

Section a is the only section relevant to this conversation.

(a) 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.

(b) A child born by means of artificial insemination to a woman who is married at the time of the birth of the child shall be presumed to be the child of the woman giving birth and the woman's husband except in the case of a surrogate mother, in which event the child shall be that of:

(1) The biological father and the woman intended to be the mother if the biological father is married;

(2) The biological father only if unmarried; or

(3) The woman intended to be the mother in cases of a surrogate mother when an anonymous donor's sperm was utilized for artificial insemination.

As an obvious authoritarian I can see how you would sympathize.

FYI - that's not how laws are supposed to work.

Sorry snowflake. Change 'em then. Few more govs and you can call a convention and do away with USC and SCOTUS. glgl

Well, we started with Gorsuch. Hopefully we'll get a few more (Ginsburg and Kennedy are up next). Not that I care much about gay marriage any more.