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

[Vern]

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

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.

par for the course (and similar to Gorsuch) your post is not based on the facts. Gorsuch didn't "rule" anything. He wrote the dissent and you're ignoring his inability to get the simple facts right. Gorsuch said

But nothing in Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question whether §20–18–401 of the Arkansas Code, or a state supreme court decision upholding it, must go. The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.

§20–18–401 literally establishes a set of rules to ensure the husband (think spouse) not the biological father is listed as the father. Unless everybody involved signs an affidavit, the husband (think spouse) is listed as the father. check ibelsd's post 13 if you want to read the statute.

 

[Absentglare]

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

You're right. My bad.

No problem, it happens.

I hope Gorsuch does not feel compelled to act as a Scalia surrogate and rules according to his conscience, the constitution, and the laws.

 

[ludin]

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

par for the course (and similar to Gorsuch) your post is not based on the facts. Gorsuch didn't "rule" anything. He wrote the dissent and you're ignoring his inability to get the simple facts right. Gorsuch said

But nothing in Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question whether §20–18–401 of the Arkansas Code, or a state supreme court decision upholding it, must go. The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.

§20–18–401 literally establishes a set of rules to ensure the husband (think spouse) not the biological father is listed as the father. Unless everybody involved signs an affidavit, the husband (think spouse) is listed as the father. check ibelsd's post 13 if you want to read the statute.

He didn't get anything wrong. He was right obergefell had nothing to do with biological parents.
They were in fact fighting the wrong law.

You are now if it does say biological parents then that is what it says.
You inserting words doesn't change the law.

We once again see judges re-writing law to say something it doesn't mean.

You don't seem to get the gorsuch knows way more about you than this. Your just mad because
He doesn't agree with your opinion well it wasn't just him. There were two other judges that agreed with him.

We can't count on at least four of the judges to uphold the constitution and rewrite it.

 

[ibelsd]

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

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?

Made up the part??? It was a direct quote from the statute. I read the statute quoted in Gorsuch's dissent (which I also read) and noted that the issue is not not as cut and dry as the opinion from the Slate author suggests. You do know what a paternity test is, right?

I love being chastised for seeing only what I want to see from the guy who held the contrary opinion despite all evidence to the contrary. You were the guy who claimed Obama didn't lie when he made politifact's lie of the year. So, tell me, which one of us is prone to being ultra-partisan and blinded by party/ideological affiliation? Never mind. I already know you are in a state of denial regarding your own biases. But, please, go on all and continue making an ass of yourself. All we have to do to confirm this is where you accuse me of making something up which was pulled directly from the law. Reality, meet Vern. Vern, reality.

 

[coldjoint]

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

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

Is Neil Gorsuch just another conservative whose brain cant accept reality when it conflicts with his narrative or does he know he’s lying?

“To understand why Gorsuch’s dissent is so misleading, consider the facts of the case itself. Terrah Pavan conceived a child via artificial insemination and gave birth in Arkansas. Her wife, Marisa, was by her side when she gave birth. Under Arkansas law, a birth mother’s husband is listed as her child’s father—that’s the case even if the mother conceived using a sperm donor, and her husband is known not to be the biological father. “

Gorsuch’s first anti-gay dissent has a huge factual error.

so if Arkansas lists the husband as the father even if he is not the biological father then its not about biology, its about marriage. All rights of a heterosexual marriage are supposed to be extended to gay couples Seems neil had another doozy.

“Second, Gorsuch wrote that the plaintiffs’ challenge was incorrect: He insisted they should have challenged the “artificial insemination statute,” not the state policy refusing to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. This reasoning makes no sense. The plaintiffs cited the artificial insemination statute only to prove that Arkansas already listed non-biological parents on birth certificates. They had no desire to overturn it; they merely used it as evidence that Arkansas was not extending a key marital benefit to same-sex couples. Did Gorsuch simply not understand this extremely basic aspect of the case?”

the second one is a real puzzler but nothing we haven't seen at the forum from literally every conservative poster.

Don't worry he will be gone in 30 or 40 years.:lamo

 

[Vern]

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

Made up the part??? It was a direct quote from the statute. I read the statute quoted in Gorsuch's dissent (which I also read) and noted that the issue is not not as cut and dry as the opinion from the Slate author suggests. You do know what a paternity test is, right?.

Gorsuch said
“The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.”

You said
“the bill appears to aimed at supplying the biological parents on the birth record.”

The law literally puts obstacles in the way of not naming the husband as the father. First, a court can has to say the husband is not the father (this is what you imagined as a paternity test)

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

or (see that “or” at the end of section A, you didn’t see it before because it didn’t help your narrative)

“(B) The mother executes an affidavit attesting that the husband is not the father and that the putative father is the father, and the putative father executes an affidavit attesting that he is the father and the husband executes an affidavit attesting that he is not the father. Affidavits may be joint or individual or a combination thereof, and each signature shall be individually notarized. In such event, the putative father shall be shown as the father on the certificate and the parents may give the child any surname they choose.”

So unless all three parties involved sign affidavits or there is a court decision, the husband is listed as the father. It’s literally designed to ensure the husband is listed as the father. So again, read this slowly, § 20-18-401 is perfectly fine with a husband listed as the father even if everybody knows he is not. Gorsuch and you have to ignore that fact to claim its about biology. He simply has no excuse for not seeing it.

 

[CriticalThought]

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

I thought liberals thought Supreme Court justices were gods and that no one was allowed to question them.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that is the case, so the OP is obviously incorrect and just has to learn to deal with reality.

Anyway, I'm against the whole system of sperm donation and I consider the idea that children should be left in the dark to who their father is as immoral and harmful to children. There is in fact studies that back me up on the bit about being harmful to children too. The idea that you would make it even harder for these children to find their dad by pretending that a woman is their dad only makes it worse.

Please post your studies. I work in the social sciences and I know of no study that specific. In fact, I imagine it would have a really tiny sample if such a study did exist.

 

[CriticalThought]

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

One thing to consider is that a ruling from the SCOTUS isn't just about Arkansas it would have an effect on every state and not every state has Arkansas' law about the birth certificate.
The Arkansas supreme court ruling was certainly inconsistent given how it is.
If it were up to me it would be the genetic father that is on the birth certificate only. because I consider a birth certificate to have a medical relevance. but its not up to me.

It is a legal document needed to enroll children in school among other things.

 

[jimbo]

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

Do you think sperm comes from an unknown source? You realize that a man had to actually donate the sperm, right? The problem with putting him on the certificate is that it would clue the kid in to who their father is, which is not allowed.

Sperm can also come from multiple sources known or unknown. So no, the name on the BC is not always the father. And never confirmed.

 

[CriticalThought]

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

Made up the part??? It was a direct quote from the statute. I read the statute quoted in Gorsuch's dissent (which I also read) and noted that the issue is not not as cut and dry as the opinion from the Slate author suggests. You do know what a paternity test is, right?

I love being chastised for seeing only what I want to see from the guy who held the contrary opinion despite all evidence to the contrary. You were the guy who claimed Obama didn't lie when he made politifact's lie of the year. So, tell me, which one of us is prone to being ultra-partisan and blinded by party/ideological affiliation? Never mind. I already know you are in a state of denial regarding your own biases. But, please, go on all and continue making an ass of yourself. All we have to do to confirm this is where you accuse me of making something up which was pulled directly from the law. Reality, meet Vern. Vern, reality.

Arkansas law requires that the husband of the mother be listed as the father on the birth certificate regardless of whether or not he is the father. Arkansas does not have a biology based registry, it is marriage based.

 

[Vern]

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

slate is a liberal rag not even a legit news source for anything. it is the breitbart of the liberal world.
same goes for motherjones, dailkos, etc ...

I'm glad you finally figured out that breitbart was nothing but dishonest sewage. but your " wah wah both sides do it " narrative is a fail (or flail to be exact). I don't read MJ but Slate is one of the reasons I'm so well informed. there just is no intention to deceive others to push an agenda.

Oh and you forgot to mention, fox news, daily caller, townhall, CnS or any other conservative source were also not legit news sources.

 

[Vern]

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

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.

That’s the thing. If he’s as smart as everybody claims how is it possible he could write such nonsense in dissent. Its not like he just read it at this forum and is obediently flailing like conservatives are. He's a "learned scholar" who listened to arguments and wrote something as if he was a conservative at this forum: defies logic and the facts, is easily disproven and he doesn't have to explain it. And unbeknownst to me before this ruling, the LBGT community was quite concerned about Gorsuch from the beginning. Unless you can think of a reason for him to blatantly “misparaphrase” (like conservatives do) whats going in the case in spite of having the "smarts", I’m just going to assume the LBGT community was correct.

 

[Henrin]

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

Sperm can also come from multiple sources known or unknown. So no, the name on the BC is not always the father. And never confirmed.

True.

 

[Henrin]

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

Please post your studies. I work in the social sciences and I know of no study that specific. In fact, I imagine it would have a really tiny sample if such a study did exist.

What sample size will you accept as valid? Oh and yes, there has been a few studies over the last couple years that showed it causes emotional harm.

 

[ludin]

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

I'm glad you finally figured out that breitbart was nothing but dishonest sewage. but your " wah wah both sides do it " narrative is a fail (or flail to be exact). I don't read MJ but Slate is one of the reasons I'm so well informed. there just is no intention to deceive others to push an agenda.

Oh and you forgot to mention, fox news, daily caller, townhall, CnS or any other conservative source were also not legit news sources.

no it isn't a fail. slate is a pos source for anything.
the fact that you used it tell us that you can't get a legit source for the argument, but one that pushes your bias narrative.

No slate is one of the reasons you are so misinformed it is no better than reading breitbart or anything else.

yes there is they are nothing more than a liberal spin machine on the same level as MJ and dailykos.

actually fox new is a legit new source.

daily caller, townhall etc are blogs.

 

[ludin]

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

That’s the thing. If he’s as smart as everybody claims how is it possible he could write such nonsense in dissent. Its not like he just read it at this forum and is obediently flailing like conservatives are. He's a "learned scholar" who listened to arguments and wrote something as if he was a conservative at this forum: defies logic and the facts, is easily disproven and he doesn't have to explain it. And unbeknownst to me before this ruling, the LBGT community was quite concerned about Gorsuch from the beginning. Unless you can think of a reason for him to blatantly “misparaphrase” (like conservatives do) whats going in the case in spite of having the "smarts", I’m just going to assume the LBGT community was correct.

I don't like his dissent so it is nonsense.

nope. he dissent was well reasoned.

the last part void your entire argument they are right because I say they are right or agree they are right is not a logical argument.

 

[Vern]

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

no it isn't a fail. slate is a pos source for anything.
the fact that you used it tell us that you can't get a legit source for the argument, but one that pushes your bias narrative.

I'm sure your conservative masters appreciate your obedience but how's this for a "legit source"?

"When a married woman gives birth in Arkansas, 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. "

Yea, that's the majority opinion. That's six judges since you're counting. So the majority opinion and Slate told me what I can see with my own eyes. so you can post "wah wah librul media" forever, it only makes you look foolish. Gorsuch could have used that in his dissent and he wouldn't have looked any more foolish.

No slate is one of the reasons you are so misinformed it is no better than reading breitbart or anything else.

Slate seems to be the only outlet that caught Gorsuch's blatant stupidity and/or dishonesty. You owe them an apology. And we haven't even gotten to Gorsuch's blatant stupidity and/or dishonesty in saying "they challenged the wrong law". § 20-18-401 is the law Arkansas cited when they denied the Pavan's BC request. and Gorsuch said

"But if the artificial insemination statute is the concern"

it wasn't the concern. Posters like Ludin can be excused for not understanding simple concepts but Gorsuch cant be. He's not paid to act like Ludin et al.

 

[Vern]

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.

Har, this is what § 9-10-201 says

(a) 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.

Obergefell v. Hodges says gay couples have to be treated the same as straight couples. Based on this statute and OvH, the birth mother's wife should have been put on the BC. Arkansas said " no no, § 20-18-401 says it has to be the biological father." Gorsuch said "that's right, there's a biological requirement". Not only is there no biological requirement in § 20-18-401, it literally puts roadblocks in the path to name anybody but the husband as the father. So Gorsuch, like almost every conservative poster at this forum, is either not very smart or lying. But a supreme court judge pushes your agenda so you don't care about integrity. As I always say, when it comes time to choose between narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.

 

[iguanaman]

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

You guys should stop telling me that the Supreme Court is always right if you don't want me to think that you believe it.

The Supreme Court was right in this decision but Gorsuch looked like a fool by not even understanding the question at hand. He could not even give a real reason for his dissent.

 

[ibelsd]

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

Gorsuch said
“The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.”

You said
“the bill appears to aimed at supplying the biological parents on the birth record.”

The law literally puts obstacles in the way of not naming the husband as the father. First, a court can has to say the husband is not the father (this is what you imagined as a paternity test)

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

or (see that “or” at the end of section A, you didn’t see it before because it didn’t help your narrative)

“(B) The mother executes an affidavit attesting that the husband is not the father and that the putative father is the father, and the putative father executes an affidavit attesting that he is the father and the husband executes an affidavit attesting that he is not the father. Affidavits may be joint or individual or a combination thereof, and each signature shall be individually notarized. In such event, the putative father shall be shown as the father on the certificate and the parents may give the child any surname they choose.”

So unless all three parties involved sign affidavits or there is a court decision, the husband is listed as the father. It’s literally designed to ensure the husband is listed as the father. So again, read this slowly, § 20-18-401 is perfectly fine with a husband listed as the father even if everybody knows he is not. Gorsuch and you have to ignore that fact to claim its about biology. He simply has no excuse for not seeing it.

You are clearly reading the above differently than I am (and Gorsuch for that matter). I'm sure though you believe your understanding of the law far exceeds that of a sitting Supreme Court justice. I see OR. It means that if the mother says Vern is the father and the court has reason to believe Vern's dad is the father, then the court will allow for an affidavit from both Vern and Vern's father clarifying who the real baby daddy is. Again, the law appears to be written in order to identify the biological father. Obviously, in the opinion of six justices this was not the case (or they didn't believe it was relevant). For three justices, they believed that it is the case and that it is a relevant fact. Now, you can sit here and argue about it until you are blue in the face. Have at it. Clearly, your confirmation bias has lead you to believe the path which aligns with your preferred outcome. The author at Slate showed the same bias when he labeled Gorsuch anti-gay. However, in the real world, reasonable people can disagree and it does not make one person a bigot or the other a saint. So, go ahead and continue bloviating about whatever it is you suppose you know while demonstrating how little really know.

 

[ibelsd]

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

Arkansas law requires that the husband of the mother be listed as the father on the birth certificate regardless of whether or not he is the father. Arkansas does not have a biology based registry, it is marriage based.

I quoted the law noted in Gorsuch's dissent. It does not demand that the "husband" be listed. If you wish to argue this point, then please, support your case, don't just state your opinion as a fact. I want to be very clear here however. I am not claiming that Gorsuch is correct in his dissent. I am arguing that labeling Gorsuch anti-gay or making it appear that he is acting as some sort of bigot based on his dissent is an ignorant point of view. I shared the link to the statute and showed how it simply is not as black and white as the Slate author would have you believe.

 

[Harshaw]

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

Har, this is what § 9-10-201 says

(a) 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.

Obergefell v. Hodges says gay couples have to be treated the same as straight couples. Based on this statute and OvH, the birth mother's wife should have been put on the BC. Arkansas said " no no, § 20-18-401 says it has to be the biological father." Gorsuch said "that's right, there's a biological requirement". Not only is there no biological requirement in § 20-18-401, it literally puts roadblocks in the path to name anybody but the husband as the father. So Gorsuch, like almost every conservative poster at this forum, is either not very smart or lying. But a supreme court judge pushes your agenda so you don't care about integrity. As I always say, when it comes time to choose between narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.

Dude, this is the only thing I will say to you. No exceptions.

YOU lied by calling it an "anti-gay" decision, owing to your extreme, dishonest partisan hackery. That is all. Dismissed.

 

[Vern]

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

You are clearly reading the above differently than I am (and Gorsuch for that matter).

Ib, I actually believe you mean well but you're ignoring that I'm reading it exactly like the majority and you're "misparaphrasing" what the law says. Let the majority opinion explain it.

"When a married woman gives birth in Arkansas, 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. "


that statement from the majority opinion is clear to anybody who reads § 20-18-401. It literally puts obstacles in the path to not name the husband the father. So there is simply no way for Gorsuch to interpret it as "establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate." It clearly says the husband is the father unless a court decides otherwise or all three parties agree in notarized affidavits. Your example assumes that everybody magically appears in court. And what makes it beyond delusional on Gorsuch's part and beyond your ability to spin it away is that § 9-10-201 says

(a) 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.

simply replace the word "husband" with "spouse" and the birth mother's wife should be listed on the BC. But Arkansas said § 20-18-401 prevented them from doing that. That's what makes Gorsuch such a flaming imbecile or a flaming liar. § 9-10-201 supported their right to put the wife of the birth mother on the BC. He said they should have contested that statute. And nothing in § 20-18-401 says the actual father has to be on the BC. Read that again slowly, nothing in § 20-18-401 says the actual father has to be on the BC. The fact that it literally has roadblocks to not putting the husband on the BC is just icing on the cake.

So IB, don't give me made up examples that ignore the relevant statutes to convince yourself. Like Gorsuch, you're simply posting words to push your agenda. His is anti-gay, yours is obedience. So I'm going to make this real easy for you. Vern's wife is pregnant. From the Jerry springer show, we learn that Vern's dad is the father of the baby. Vern, his wife and his dad don't sign notarized affidavits contesting paternity. Who is listed on the BC as the father? don't flail. Don't deflect. Just answer the question.

 

[Vern]

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

Dude, this is the only thing I will say to you. No exceptions.

YOU lied by calling it an "anti-gay" decision, owing to your extreme, dishonest partisan hackery. That is all. Dismissed.

well Har, I have to give you credit for so quickly cutting and running from your attempt to portray Gorsuch's blatant stupidity and/or dishonesty as just some technicality. It shows intelligence on your part. But you need to come up with a reasonable explanation of Gorsuch's blatant stupidity and/or dishonesty to call me wrong let alone a liar. Here's § 9-10-201

(a) 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.

Please explain how that doesn't support the couple's case to put the birth mother's wife on the BC and explain how Gorsuch said they should have contested it when it wasn't the statute that Arkansas was using to deny the couple. thanks in advance.

 

[CriticalThought]

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

I quoted the law noted in Gorsuch's dissent. It does not demand that the "husband" be listed. If you wish to argue this point, then please, support your case, don't just state your opinion as a fact.

Okay.

When a child is born to married parents, there is an automatic legal relationship between the child and the husband of the mother; and the father's name will appear on the birth certificate.

DFA - Paternity

Is that sufficient?

I want to be very clear here however. I am not claiming that Gorsuch is correct in his dissent. I am arguing that labeling Gorsuch anti-gay or making it appear that he is acting as some sort of bigot based on his dissent is an ignorant point of view. I shared the link to the statute and showed how it simply is not as black and white as the Slate author would have you believe.

Gorsuch is gunning for Robert's job. That is what he signalled with this and other decisions.