- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS strikes down Arkansas attempt to treat same sex parents differently
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:44 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:44 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
However, if either of them presents facts to the contrary, the actual semen-donor ought to be on the paper.
So, sperm clinic donors and rapists should be on birth certificates?
1
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:45 am to Toddy
quote:
Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch wrote that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology” runs afoul of the 14th Amendment.
there are a million different ways to make sure that the world knows the child belongs to the couple rearing them. the birth certificate is the facts of the child's biology. putting something else there would be a disservice to the child's future genetics if something came up that needed that history.
why do you hate, science, facts, and children?
ETA: i am not saying there should be ANYTHING impeding the way of a same sex couple adopting, the more children that go to good homes, the better. It just doesn't seem that putting adoptive parents' names would be of any benefit other than helping somebody's feelings.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 10:50 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:46 am to skrayper
quote:
So, sperm clinic donors and rapists should be on birth certificates?
yes. we are talking about facts and documentation. just because they are unpleasant, doesn't make them any less true.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:47 am to DarthRebel
quote:
A person's name should not be on birth certificate if their DNA is not part of the person being born
BOOm. If a calf's mother dies during delivery and you have to find another cow to feed this calf, if there is registration of the calf for lineage purposes, the dead cow is the mother of record.
Same should apply to humans as well.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:52 am to LSUTigersVCURams
While I don't care how this was decided, this is a good sign from Gorsuch.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:53 am to Toddy
quote:
but when these couples had children
You baws still need a biology lesson.
I'm all for grown folks doing what they want behind closed doors, but for frick's sake...
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:55 am to Toddy
Party time tonight in eureka springs
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:56 am to LSUminati
i have 2 major thoughts on Obergefell
1. it's results-oriented. i agree with the ultimate outcome, but the argument to get there is terrible, scary, and creates an unstable system. results-oriented thinking is a very scary thing and this decision is that in bright, neon lights
2. any liberal/prog who criticizes Republicans or Trumpkins for "wanting to win" who celebrates this decision is a major hypocrite. this decision is nothing more than "forcing a win" and celebrating a bad decision that came out your way is the exact same support of "winning at all costs" that they hate in the GOP
1. it's results-oriented. i agree with the ultimate outcome, but the argument to get there is terrible, scary, and creates an unstable system. results-oriented thinking is a very scary thing and this decision is that in bright, neon lights
2. any liberal/prog who criticizes Republicans or Trumpkins for "wanting to win" who celebrates this decision is a major hypocrite. this decision is nothing more than "forcing a win" and celebrating a bad decision that came out your way is the exact same support of "winning at all costs" that they hate in the GOP
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:59 am to 3nOut
quote:
ETA: i am not saying there should be ANYTHING impeding the way of a same sex couple adopting, the more children that go to good homes, the better. It just doesn't seem that putting adoptive parents' names would be of any benefit other than helping somebody's feelings.
basically
this "we can't treat same sex parents differently" argument requires us to ignore the fact that they are different
we can only suspend disbelief so long as a society. if we're not past that point, then we're getting really close to it
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:59 am to jb4
quote:
Party time tonight in eureka springs
And there won't be one sperm cell passed between them concerning making a baby.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:04 am to 3nOut
quote:
yes. we are talking about facts and documentation. just because they are unpleasant, doesn't make them any less true.
Only problem with that thinking is that a lot of laws will have to be changed that grant privileges to parents listed on birth certificates. Lots of states have laws that allow for fathers to be granted parental rights to a child based on being on the birth certificate.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. it's results-oriented. i agree with the ultimate outcome, but the argument to get there is terrible, scary, and creates an unstable system. results-oriented thinking is a very scary thing and this decision is that in bright, neon lights
i can't remember who gave the dissent, but i liked their take. something along the lines of "those who are celebrating, you're celebrating for the wrong reason. "
going to look it up.
ETA CJ Roberts
quote:
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. ... Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept." "If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 11:09 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:12 am to 3nOut
Yeah I liked that excerpt from Roberts... ironic I believe he joined the majority today?
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 11:13 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:14 am to skrayper
quote:
Only problem with that thinking is that a lot of laws will have to be changed that grant privileges to parents listed on birth certificates. Lots of states have laws that allow for fathers to be granted parental rights to a child based on being on the birth certificate.
i would agree that it does possibly needs to be changed. again, i'm just saying that a birth certificate is a statement of fact and documentation.
i've never had any drama with any family adoptions i'm privy to, so i could be speaking in ignorance. Once the guardianship is fully granted to the third party, do the parents not lose all custody and parental permissions, unless otherwise stated? or does that just vary based on state law?
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:15 am to Toddy
quote:
OF COURSE Gorsuch dissents
You are implying that you expected such a decision from Gorsuch based on his past decisions. Care to post just one that backs up your implication?
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:15 am to Toddy
Did you read the article or just take the words from the headline instead of having any kind of original thought on the subject?
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:17 am to skrayper
quote:
Only problem with that thinking is that a lot of laws will have to be changed that grant privileges to parents listed on birth certificates. Lots of states have laws that allow for fathers to be granted parental rights to a child based on being on the birth certificate.
Surely you aren't arguing that a family court would grant visitation, or custody, to a rapist if he was listed on the birth certificate?
They certainly would go after him for child support though.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:18 am to LSUminati
quote:
Yeah I liked that excerpt from Roberts... ironic I believe he joined the majority today?
i don't know that i would say ironic as much as interesting. he ruled as he saw the constitution. i might disagree with it, but i'd rather rule based on law than feelings.
i mean this is the same dumbass (who's infinitely smarter than I) that said a fine is a tax.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:19 am to 3nOut
quote:
Once the guardianship is fully granted to the third party, do the parents not lose all custody and parental permissions, unless otherwise stated? or does that just vary based on state law?
Laws vary much state by state.
And I imagine that, unless parental rights are stripped by the state (in examples of gross negligence, for example), I imagine a parent could still sue and point to the birth certificate.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 11:19 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
state law generally requires the name of the mother’s male spouse to appear on the child’s birth certificate—regardless of his biological relationship to the child.
To get to the root of the issue, that's an odd requirement by the state. The birth certificate should simply list the identities of the mother and father, what's the point of listing the mother's spouse if there is no biological relationship to the child?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News