Supreme Court sides with same-sex couples in Arkansas suit

Adjust Comment Print

According to the court below, however, Arkansas need not extend that rule to similarly situated same-sex couples: The State need not, in other words, issue birth certificates including the female spouses of women who give birth in the State, "the Supreme Court ruling reads". Both couples received the birth certificates they wanted when they won in trial court.

"This decisive ruling is strong medicine for states and others that think they can resist the full equality due to same-sex couples and their children, mandated as the law of the land in the Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell decision issued exactly two years ago today", Susan Sommer, associate legal director and director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, said in a statement. The couple challenged an Arkansas birth-certificate policy that defined parents by gender.

Almost two-thirds of Americans say they support same-sex marriage, according to a Pew Research Center survey released Monday.

According to the Times, lawyers for the women who brought the lawsuit said the Supreme Court decision will be beneficial for same-sex parents in Arkansas.

"Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition", the court said.

The poll, which comes two years after the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, found that 62 percent support it now and 32 percent oppose it.

Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of collusion in latest Twitter meltdown
When asked about the allegations, Bernie declared, "This implication came from Donald Trump's campaign manager in Vermont". Two former Burlington College trustees said they were also contacted by attorneys representing Sanders, wife of U.S.


This is helpful to people in Arkansas because a birth certificate is often required to show parenthood in school enrollment and medical treatment, which is another reason that birth certificates are not just documents to name biological relationships.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the lower court decision should not have been reversed.

Wolf also spotlighted that "twenty-nine states have no such laws, so gays and lesbians freed to marry by the Supreme Court in 2015 still can face discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations".

She added that she "will continue to review today's decision to determine the appropriate next steps upon remand to the Arkansas Supreme Court to ensure that the law is followed properly". The short dissenting opinion does some hand-waving around how men who are not biological fathers are routinely named on babies' birth certificates, but doesn't address the point since it really is proof that the state does not have a "biology based registration regime".

We can not know for sure whether Gorsuch voted to take up this case - but it is notable that the Court decided not to consider this issue when Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive.

Comments