Conservative doesn't care been going around. Huh?

Why are you quoting the dissenting opinion at me? You do realize that this is the part that doesn't actually matter, because it is not actually the court's decision. Right? This is one of the strangest non-sequiturs I've ever seen. I quote the actual ruling. You quote the ineffectual dissent? OK? Why should I care? What you quoted has no legal force. What I quoted does.

So, right after going HAM at the Muslims about gayness, Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber over here went full Not Adam And Steve and are salivating at the thought of getting more Handmaid's Tale justices on the SC?

You can't make this **** up.

Why are you talking non-sense?

The dissent certainly matters. It points out the flaws in the majority opinion. As the dissent says - "Great, you remanded, but provided no remedy" "Not only that, but you ruled on the wrong law and you're going to reward the plaintiffs for it". Do you not understand how legal opinions are crafted?

Are you suggesting there was zero merit to the dissent in Dred Scott?

That's false, they both apply. Section b subsections 1-3 are the ones that only apply in the case of surrogate mothers.

Regardless of the morality or correctness of the Dred Scott decision, you can be damn sure that decision (and not the dissent) was the law until it was overturned.

We get that you want to cry about this Arkansas decision but nobody gives a ****, it's the law now.

The law you cited isn't the one in the SCOTUS ruling goofy. Law 20-18 is.

The reason the Arkansas court overruled this is because they read the law one way. The SCOTUS upheld the previous decision (the circuit courts) as unconstitutional because the langauge of the law did no specifically included parents that did not include a father but did include two parents. The language is everything in law, as in this case. It has nothing to do with discrimination. As I said before you can't hold the beliefs you do without thinking reality itself is discriminatory.

It'd be interesting to find out who was on the birth certificate for a gay male couple.

Same-sex couples already had the same remedy as hetero couples for artificial insemination under 9-10.

No, they don't. Obviously you don't know how to read a legal contract. Section b is read in it's entirety, including the clauses, providing for the surrogate exception. Otherwise it it is just a repeat of section a.


Always knew you didn't believe slaves and their descendants are citizens. Good on ya for coming clean.

And it's still not the law yet - not until the Arkansas Supreme Court remedies the case.

The pure, uncut, unadulterated irony is these people don't get that every Muslim country they denounce is the way it is due to the lunatics running the asylum, due to the DoorDonuts and JerkoffMags of the world having their say.

And you'd call me racist for not wanting to bring more of them in, so your point is lol.

Hey 5ive - I've turned off your posts. I don't know if you get more or less virtue signalling points in your echo chamber for it - but either way, good for you buddy.

Two things:

1. Then why, going back to this post, did you cite law 09-10-201 at the end of your quote if it had nothing to do with this? Or, in other words: who do you think you're fooling with this blatant goalpost shifting when you get owned?

2. Whether or not law 09-10-201 was being ruled on doesn't change the fact that it's a law on the books that clearly says the married husband is the birth certificate father in cases of artificial insemination. But if you want to use law 20-18, fine, we can shred your argument using that law too dip****. Here's the bonkers part that you omitted from your quote of it for SOME WEIRD REASON (who on earth knows why, wow, so weird you'd leave this off):

Neither of the conditions following the "unless" prevent artificial insemination couples from having the married husband on the BC.

You've repeatedly claimed heterosexual couples need special permission to both be on the birth certificate if the father isn't the biological father.

You. Are. Wrong.

Make words interchangeable so as to conform to a decision great again!

qft

If it's saying the same thing as a) then great, you agree with me, DODN is wrong!

snowflake retreating to safe space. good to fall back and regroup in the face of repeated pwnage.

Yes, and in exceptional cases (like lesbians where there is no father) they had to file a COURT ORDER to alter the birth certificate.



Yes, lol and like I've said 15 times the problem is with the use of the language of 'father' and 'husband' which is what the SCOTUS ruling ****ing says!

If I claimed that then I was wrong. I meant exceptional cases. Hetero couples do in fact have to submit a court order if they want the natural father to be on the birth certificate when the woman is married to the non-natural father.

Did you state somewhere that this case was dealing with surrogacy? Did I miss that?

What I said was - if you DON'T read the clauses, they say the same thing.

You have a bone to pick with JiggyMac then. He claims that since Obergefell, "husband" means "spouse" in the text of the law! Many of my arguments with him have been based on granting him this premise, but clearly Arkansas feels differently about how the wording of that law is meant to be applied since they didn't give these couples the birth certificates to which they were entitled under Obergefell.

Thank you. Even so, I'm not sure what would even constitute an "exceptional case" for a straight married couple - they both get on the birth certificate by default, even if there's artificial insemination or a surrogate mother!

The ****ing title of 9-10-201 is:

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 9 - Family Law
Subtitle 2 - Domestic Relations
Chapter 10 - Paternity
Subchapter 2 - Artificial Insemination
§ 9-10-201 - Child born to married or unmarried woman -- Presumptions -- Surrogate mothers.

It absolutely supersedes the presumptions of 20-18 for exactly that purpose. And states in cases of artificial insemination, that the husbands consent must be in writing.

This is getting to the point where I cannot even argue with both of you at the same time because you two disagree with each other, yet when I respond to each of your arguments, the other attacks me because of the premises of the person I'm responding to. Like, in this example:

Tell it to ****ing DODN, he's the one that told me only 20-18 matters!

Let's just spell this out in plain English, shall we?

Plaintiff: Hey, why are we not on the birth certificate?
Arkansas: Well, you're a minority case, so we have rules for that.
Plaintiff: Why isn't it automatic?
Akansas: Well, we try to use birth certificates to track biological lineage as a default, since that's the majority of the cases.
Plaintiff: Well, we want you to track the biology of our same sex union just the same.
Arkansas:
Plaintiff: Yes, just the same!
Arkansas: Well, we do have this statute here that addresses your case, but you should probably "call your congresscritter like Max Cut suggested - " to get that updated.
Plaintiff: JUST THE SAME!!!

Arkansas SC: Um, we are not a legislature and you're complaining about the wrong law.

Plaintiff: JUST THE SAME!!!

SCOTUS: Um...just the same, we guess. But we don't know how to do that, and we're not going to strike down any laws. Arkansas SC - fix this ****.

Arkansas SC: Well, we do have this statute here that addresses your case....

That's incorrect but good try

He said 20-18 is the one they were complaining about, not the only one that matters. Sigh.

I did not ****ing say that. I said the SCOTUS decision dealt with overturning the decision of the ASC to overrule a ruling by a lower circuit court regarding interpretation of 20-10.

You haven't demonstrated you grasp enough of the ruling to weigh in on my correctness. Try again.