Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest Log

[ludin]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

SD, the ruling is about Arkansas and not every state. Obergefell v. Hodges was about every state. OvH says gay couples are supposed to be treated just like straight couples. Arkansas does not require the biological father on the BC. If it did require the biological father, they could exclude the wife of the birth mother. they don't. Now this thread is about Gorsuch either lying about it or being an imbecile.

or you just posting a liberal hack story. I think that is the case.
gorsuch is neither. he was correct in his ruling. nothing he said was anti-gay or anything.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

There is one problem with your story (or the story you're telling). It is not factually correct.

And yet, it seems to match the SCOTUS ruling. The justices pointed out that the relevant parts of Arkansas law are not based on biology, whereas Gorsuch et al insist it is.

If you do not believe me, read the law:
§ 20-18-401 - Birth registration generally. :: 2010 Arkansas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

You did read the actual law before posting, right? You didn't just blindly believe some op-ed from a known liberal source, did you? In fact if you read sections e and f you'll see that the bill appears to aimed at supplying the biological parents on the birth record.

Or, for those of us who looked at the actual ruling, you can read the relevant section of the Arkansas code:

§ 9-10-201 - Child born to married or unmarried woman -- Presumptions -- Surrogate mothers. :: 2010 Arkansas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

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.

The section also basically says that if it's a surrogacy situation, the child's legal parents are the married couple, not the biological individuals.

Basically, the language is slightly out of date. Instead of saying "spouse," it says "father." There is no justification for doing otherwise, since Obergefell already established that a refusal to treat same-sex marriages differently is a violation of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Gorsuch is probably correct about some of the legal specifics (e.g. the petitioners may not have specifically referred to §9–10–201). However, that isn't quite as important as Gorsuch ignoring the intent of a statute, even as it stares him in the face. I may be missing something, but it seems a bit... sloppy? Seems uncharacteristic for him; I'd assume that even if he makes a decision I don't agree with, he'd get the facts right.

Rookies! :mrgreen:

Here's the ruling, btw.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

 

[Visbek]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

I think you are misunderstanding his dissent. He isn't saying that same sex couples shouldn't have their names on the birth certificate; he is saying that the couple should have challenged 9-10-201 with their lawsuit.

Looks like he's saying both. He is suggesting that §20–18–401 should be based on biology; but even if that doesn't hold, the petitioners didn't challenge 9-10-201.

From what I can tell, the petitioners didn't challenge §9-10-201 because Arkansas didn't rely on it to reject the paperwork. Arkasas was trying to say that putting your name on the birth certificate was not a benefit of marriage -- even though other parts of the law act that way.

There is nothing anti-gay in his dissent. It's based on the law and how the law was challenged.

True, and he does seem to accept Obergefell. It's more that he might have made a factual slip-up in part of the dissent. At a minimum, it seems there is a clash of explanations between the ruling and dissent.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

And yet, it seems to match the SCOTUS ruling. The justices pointed out that the relevant parts of Arkansas law are not based on biology, whereas Gorsuch et al insist it is.



Or, for those of us who looked at the actual ruling, you can read the relevant section of the Arkansas code:

§ 9-10-201 - Child born to married or unmarried woman -- Presumptions -- Surrogate mothers. :: 2010 Arkansas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

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.

The section also basically says that if it's a surrogacy situation, the child's legal parents are the married couple, not the biological individuals.

Basically, the language is slightly out of date. Instead of saying "spouse," it says "father." There is no justification for doing otherwise, since Obergefell already established that a refusal to treat same-sex marriages differently is a violation of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Gorsuch is probably correct about some of the legal specifics (e.g. the petitioners may not have specifically referred to §9–10–201). However, that isn't quite as important as Gorsuch ignoring the intent of a statute, even as it stares him in the face. I may be missing something, but it seems a bit... sloppy? Seems uncharacteristic for him; I'd assume that even if he makes a decision I don't agree with, he'd get the facts right.

Rookies! :mrgreen:

Here's the ruling, btw.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

He clearly acknowledges that the intent of statute 9-10-201 is to cover married couples, whether same-sex or not.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Looks like he's saying both. He is suggesting that §20–18–401 should be based on biology; but even if that doesn't hold, the petitioners didn't challenge 9-10-201.

From what I can tell, the petitioners didn't challenge §9-10-201 because Arkansas didn't rely on it to reject the paperwork. Arkasas was trying to say that putting your name on the birth certificate was not a benefit of marriage -- even though other parts of the law act that way.



True, and he does seem to accept Obergefell. It's more that he might have made a factual slip-up in part of the dissent. At a minimum, it seems there is a clash of explanations between the ruling and dissent.

I think if the plaintiffs suit wasn't trying to seek a declaration that the State's birth certificate law violates the Constitution, then there wouldn't be any dissent. The fact that it is included in the suit is where the dissent comes from because Gorsuch doesn't believe that Obergefell deals with the biology aspect of the law.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Basically, the AR statutes attempt to accommodate both biological lineage and marital lineage. There is some conflict between the two. Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are all saying that it's those conflicts that need to be fixed and it's not a "fix" to just throw a blanket over the whole thing and say "put the couple's names on the BC just because they are married".

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

How are things handled when a woman doesn't know who the biological father is?
Suppose she's had sex with multiple guys and doesn't know who the "father" is? Is the space left blank?
Is there a law that says somebody's name must be on the certificate?

Is there ever an instance where the biological father's name isn't on the birth certificate?

I'm unclear why anyone would even care other than the parents themselves. If those people are going to raise the child, they may as well be listed on the certificate. It doesn't seem to have some sacrosanct genetic meaning.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

I think you are misunderstanding his dissent. He isn't saying that same sex couples shouldn't have their names on the birth certificate; he is saying that the couple should have challenged 9-10-201 with their lawsuit. What they challenged was statute 20-18-401 which . This information is for government officials so they can

Gorsuch is saying that nothing in Obergefell addresses the States usage of a biology-based birth certificate.

There is nothing anti-gay in his dissent. It's based on the law and how the law was challenged.

That's a really confused and misguided defense of Gorsuch.

Birth certificates aren't "biology"-based. They don't run a genetic test. They just put someone's name on a piece of paper.

And this piece of paper has no religious relevance for Christians in general. It's time for gay hating bigots to suck it up and let gays live their lives.

 

[ibelsd]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

So did a court establish paternity?

And what about a hetero couple with an infertile husband?

If they use a sperm donor, the husband doesn't get to be on the birth certificate?

Sounds mighty fishy to me.

I don't know all the particulars of the case. I read Gorsuch's dissent and then read the actual Arkansas law. The Slate author simply does not paint the entire picture nor accurately describe the law in question. With all that said, it is entirely reasonable to disagree with Gorsuch's dissent without resorting to ad hom and claiming he is anti-gay people.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

That's a really confused and misguided defense of Gorsuch.

Birth certificates aren't "biology"-based. They don't run a genetic test. They just put someone's name on a piece of paper.

And this piece of paper has no religious relevance for Christians in general. It's time for gay hating bigots to suck it up and let gays live their lives.

The State is claiming that their birth-certificates are biology-based, not Gorsuch.

I don't see anything within the dissent that leads me to believe that Gorsuch, or the other dissenting judges, are gay hating bigots. :shrug:

 

[ibelsd]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

And yet, it seems to match the SCOTUS ruling. The justices pointed out that the relevant parts of Arkansas law are not based on biology, whereas Gorsuch et al insist it is.



Or, for those of us who looked at the actual ruling, you can read the relevant section of the Arkansas code:

§ 9-10-201 - Child born to married or unmarried woman -- Presumptions -- Surrogate mothers. :: 2010 Arkansas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

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.

The section also basically says that if it's a surrogacy situation, the child's legal parents are the married couple, not the biological individuals.

Basically, the language is slightly out of date. Instead of saying "spouse," it says "father." There is no justification for doing otherwise, since Obergefell already established that a refusal to treat same-sex marriages differently is a violation of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Gorsuch is probably correct about some of the legal specifics (e.g. the petitioners may not have specifically referred to §9–10–201). However, that isn't quite as important as Gorsuch ignoring the intent of a statute, even as it stares him in the face. I may be missing something, but it seems a bit... sloppy? Seems uncharacteristic for him; I'd assume that even if he makes a decision I don't agree with, he'd get the facts right.

Rookies! :mrgreen:

Here's the ruling, btw.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

Thanks. This is good context to add. In the dissent, only § 9-10-201 was cited as far as I could tell. I think that Gorsuch was looking for the state's intent here and going to the orignal statute to figure out such intent. Again, my argument is not necessarily that Gorsuch was correct. My point is that one can dissent and not be labeled some sort of bigot.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

As usual, Gorsuch dissents solely on the ground of an improper law being used, and that the law is not entirely settled, and as such, he believes summary reversal is inappropriate -- entirely procedural, not substantive, grounds -- and those who do not understand the law or how it works, but sure as heck understand their own agendas, start slobbering that he's "anti-" something or other.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Thanks. This is good context to add. In the dissent, only § 9-10-201 was cited as far as I could tell. I think that Gorsuch was looking for the state's intent here and going to the orignal statute to figure out such intent. Again, my argument is not necessarily that Gorsuch was correct. My point is that one can dissent and not be labeled some sort of bigot.

I concur that nothing in the dissent indicates any sort of anti-gay bias, or criticism of Obergefell. His objection seems to be mostly about procedure.

 

[What if...?]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

I don't know all the particulars of the case. I read Gorsuch's dissent and then read the actual Arkansas law. The Slate author simply does not paint the entire picture nor accurately describe the law in question. With all that said, it is entirely reasonable to disagree with Gorsuch's dissent without resorting to ad hom and claiming he is anti-gay people.

Ima say he at the least failed to apply lenity.

Because I promise you a hetero couple in the same situation wouldn't have been denied.

"Used a sperm donor because you're infertile? Then you don't get to be on the birth certificate. **** you very much."

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

The State is claiming that their birth-certificates are biology-based, not Gorsuch.

No, they are not.

I don't see anything within the dissent that leads me to believe that Gorsuch, or the other dissenting judges, are gay hating bigots. :shrug:

It is the justices sole purpose to sort out cases where the constitution and the laws conflict with one another. In this case, it is trivially obvious that Gorsuch's dissent is incoherent and bizarre.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

No, they are not.

From the ruling:

Before the state supreme court, the State argued that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth registration regime

. Seems pretty clear to me.

It is the justices sole purpose to sort out cases where the constitution and the laws conflict with one another. In this case, it is trivially obvious that Gorsuch's dissent is incoherent and bizarre.

He clearly explains why he and other judges are dissenting. You just don't agree.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

From the ruling: . Seems pretty clear to me.




He clearly explains why he and other judges are dissenting. You just don't agree.

Gorsuch is blaming the plaintiff for the conflict inherent in the laws.

If they had simply recognized the fourteenth amendment while issuing birth certificates, this would never have been an issue. Gorsuch's incoherent defense is an exercise in cowardice at best.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Gorsuch is blaming the plaintiff for the conflict inherent in the laws.

If they had simply recognized the fourteenth amendment while issuing birth certificates, this would never have been an issue. Gorsuch's incoherent defense is an exercise in cowardice at best.

I get it. You don't like him. :shrug: I can't argue your feelings.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Gorsuch is blaming the plaintiff for the conflict inherent in the laws.

If they had simply recognized the fourteenth amendment while issuing birth certificates, this would never have been an issue. Gorsuch's incoherent defense is an exercise in cowardice at best.

The court isn't supposed to legislate. They are supposed to note discrepancies with the law and send it back to the state. That's what's happening here.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

I get it. You don't like him. :shrug: I can't argue your feelings.

That isn't what i said, whatsoever.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

The court isn't supposed to legislate. They are supposed to note discrepancies with the law and send it back to the state. That's what's happening here.

I understand that but when a law is deemed in violation of the constitution, that law can be declared unconstitutional. My contention is that Gorsuch failed to do that. It is solely my opinion, but that is my honest opinion.

I recognize that i could do a much better job of giving differing opinions, but that recognition does not necessarily change my honest opinion.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

I understand that but when a law is deemed in violation of the constitution, that law can be declared unconstitutional. My contention is that Gorsuch failed to do that. It is solely my opinion, but that is my honest opinion.

I recognize that i could do a much better job of giving differing opinions, but that recognition does not necessarily change my honest opinion.

Are you aware that this decision was only with regard to whether the court was going to take the case or not? The ruling on this issue won't come until after the case is heard.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

That isn't what i said, whatsoever.

You're right. My bad.

 

[Vern]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Of particular interest is the supposed designation of the father which the author cited in the OP claims isn't based on biology. However, reading the bill, this isn't the case at all.
"(f) (1) If the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth or between conception and birth the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child, unless:

(A) Paternity has been determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction; or"

Notice that the father is the person married to the mother UNLESS a paternity test shows otherwise. In other words, the bill supports Gorsuch's interpretation. At the very, very least, the black and white explanation of Gorsuch's dissent presented by the OP is simply missing nuance. It is fair to argue with his dissent on several grounds. Claiming he's anti-gay people because of his interpretation of the law is simply juvenile.

I understand your need to respond but your emotions seem to have clouded your judgement. See how you made up the part "UNLESS a paternity test shows otherwise." The fact is that the husband is listed as the father unless all parties agree, mother, husband and father. If they don't, the courts get involved. That's what the law you posted said but you couldn't see it because you were determined to see something else. You've done that before. Let the majority opinion explain it to you.

The department’s decision rested on a provision of Arkansas law, Ark. Code §20–18–401 (2014), that specifies which individuals will appear as parents on a child’s state issued birth certificate. “For the purposes of birth registration,” that statute says, “the mother is deemed to be the woman who gives birth to the child.” §20–18–401(e). And “f the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth,” the statute instructs that “the name of [her] husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child.” §20–18–401(f)(1). There are some limited exceptions to the latter rule—for example, another man may appear on the birth certificate if the “mother” and “husband” and “putative father” all file affidavits vouching for the putative father’s paternity

So again, Arkansas does not require the biological father (say spouse so its clearer to you) be on the BC for straight couples. OvH says gay couples have to be treated the same. Why is this hard for you and Neil to understand?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Are you aware that this decision was only with regard to whether the court was going to take the case or not? The ruling on this issue won't come until after the case is heard.

Uh oh, now this is really embarrassing for me. I was not.

Thank you for the clarification. Hopefully this time i will learn my lesson about doing more research before jumping to condemnation.