This seems to be 100% the case. It is a subsection dealing with specifics, and so overrides generalities dealt with in previous sections.

Pretty much lol

You have to dig into context but that's what he was saying for the context of our argument. He claimed heterosexual couples need special permission to both be on the birth certificate for special cases that homosexual couples now get preferential treatment for, and I told him he was wrong, citing 09-10 as the reason. He then said "no, that's not the law in this case", even though (like you said!) it would clearly apply to those couples.

I've demonstrated significantly more than you, a certified moron that cites dissents in arguments of law.

Clearly, that's wrong, or else this lawsuit wouldn't have needed to exist because Arkansas would have given them the birth certificates they were entitled to.

That is not what I was saying. I said exceptional cases fall under 9-10 which lesbian couples are, but the ruling in question was over 20-10, in which the words 'husband' and 'father' were not inclusive of lesbians. They did not want to be an exceptional case, and so went to SCOTUS who ruled that the ASC ruling over the circuit courts previous ruling was unconstitutional. They didn't recommend anything, because the whole thing is a giant cluster**** of nonsense.

I don't believe it is wrong but I'll look harder. AFAIK they had the option to file a court order including them both on the birth certificate, but took section 20-10 to the SCOTUS instead.

lol these guys are seriously invested in this. the craving to hurt gays palpable

Jiggy has said "husband" = "spouse" in our post-Obergefell world. Additionally, you have been disingenuous in claiming that lesbian couples had access to the same remedies in 09-10 if you don't believe that, because the same remedies aren't available to them if the word "husband" excludes them.

Why do you guys keep lying about this? They reversed the ASC ruling and told them to find a resolution that's consistent with the SCOTUS ruling. Their recommendation is to be consistent with the ****ing opinion they wrote.

We're not bringing "them" in you pathetic idiot.

O wait...


AAAHHHHHHAAAHHHAAHAAAA





looooooooooooooooo

I haven't paid a ton of attention to your conversation, but I can't see that as being so because we would expect to see SCOTUS saying the interpretation of husband and father should apply to lesbians, however they don't say that. They say the language is not inclusive enough. You are correct that the word husband does not appear in 9-10, so this isn't the issue. The issue was that 20-10 did not include lesbians, it only spoke of husbands and fathers (which lesbians clearly cannot be). The other side argued that the 20-10 applies in general to the majority of situations (for good reasons, including genetic ones etc), and that other situations were covered by other sections of the law, which is also true. I'm still digging on if they had recourse under 9-10, but I believe they did but didn't want to, ie: they wanted the same general 'status' as heterosexual biological couples. It does appear that non-biological husbands were required to be on birth certificates according to section 20-10 and you had to file an affidavit to reverse this (via 9-10).

And the ASC ruling was over a circuit courts claim the law was unconstitutional. It was a reversal.

lel

Lame suppression attempt or lamest suppression attempt ever?

I probably shouldn't have reminded him that his mother cries herself to sleep.

JigglyPoop is probably a peeker though unlike wil.

I did start out with the husband = spouse line of reasoning, thinking that made logical sense. Then I dove into it more. Turns out the SCOTUS is still full of applesauce. The plaintiffs weren't even arguing that, they want to be biological parents it seems - to kids they're not biologically related to.

9-10 is the correct statute, 20-10 is not - which both you and I agree on. Goofy is obviously having trouble with the law.

Still trying to keep slaves in chains. Good argument bro.

Whether a dissent is right or wrong, one thing is consistent about all dissents: they lost, and thus aren't relevant to what the actual law is. I can't believe you're so ****ing stupid you think that's a winning argument for you.

It's hilarious that a dumbass like you thinks they know more about the law than the six SCOTUS judges that ruled here, but
- nope, SCOTUS is right
- your contention that the parents aren't biologically related is plainly false; the mother obviously is, and the spouse is just as related to their kids as the husband of a heterosexual couple is to their artificially inseminated kid if he's infertile, or their kid that's a product of an affair, or whatever, all of which give heterosexual (but not homosexual, until this ruling) spouses automatic placement on the birth certificate

I'll take Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito over Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg any day.

Once again, you're not understanding what it means to dissent.

Also, you apparently don't understand when dissents matter and when they don't.

Clearly the Justices were pointing out that "Hey, if you're going to rule this way, do something about it." And the other six were said "Nah, we good".

If there was nothing to dissent, then the justices wouldn't have written anything. You know that happens, right?

Hey Jiggy, Kevin Bacon was in Footloose.

Stubborn jackasses gonna stubbornly jackass.

It seems like you don't, the law doesn't get determined based on what dumbasses on the internet think about the intellectual capacity of each one

Look over there they are killing homosexuals we just dont want to serve them in our business or allow them marriage.

Remember when they "won"so hard they had to argue with the losing argument?

Just want to shed some light on the "no go zones" that exist in Sweden.

Yes many of them house muslim immigrants but thats not the main cause since there are some that house christian immigrants aswell. The main problem is cultural as in family and church/mosque trumps the state. This forms societies in the society that dont conform to Swedish laws and culture and therefor alienating themselves.

I live in a city that has two "no go zones" and work with youth from those areas. They are all christian 2nd or even 3rd gen immigrants. The issue here is that they dont call themselves Swedish. Its a bad thing to be Swedish in those circles. The church and family holds great power and decide pretty much anything in those areas. As a stereotypical Swedish looking fella you wouldnt get into to much trouble venturing into those areas at daytime but come night your best bet is to stay away since you would be considered a mark to rob or harass since there would be no retribution from family or church.

The main issue with the "no go zones " is that the residents usually harbor a strong resentment towards police, medics etc. Thats where the no go comes from. Its a big risk for those to venture into the areas. Police have to enter with two cars if they plan on leaving the vehicle. One leaves and the other patrol watches the car. Ambulance and firetrucks need escorts aswell.