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

[Moderate Right]

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.

I love it! In case you didn't realize it, he's up there and you are down here. Your opinion means nothing. But, then again, your opinion never means anything.

 

[Vern]

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

I love it! In case you didn't realize it, he's up there and you are down here. Your opinion means nothing. But, then again, your opinion never means anything.

MR, your emotional need to flail about me ignores I'm simply reiterating the opinion of 6 supreme court judges. They're up there and you are done here whining about me. Anyhoo, I see you have cleverly avoided expressing any opinion concerning the facts of the case that prove Gorsuch is a liar or imbecile. Probably your smartest post ever.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

MR, your emotional need to flail about me ignores I'm simply reiterating the opinion of 6 supreme court judges. They're up there and you are done here whining about me. Anyhoo, I see you have cleverly avoided expressing any opinion concerning the facts of the case that prove Gorsuch is a liar or imbecile. Probably your smartest post ever.

I don' pretend to be an expert on legal matters like you pretend to be.

 

[Vern]

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

I don' pretend to be an expert on legal matters like you pretend to be.

MR, what about the conservatives in the thread who pretend to be experts on legal matters like I pretend. At least my posts are based on the majority opinion of the supreme court and a simple reading of the relevant statutes. Their posts are simply based on obedience. Anyhoo, you've once again cleverly avoided any discussion of the facts that prove Gorsuch is a liar or imbecile. If you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts, why are you even in this thread let alone a debate forum?

 

[Moderate Right]

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

MR, what about the conservatives in the thread who pretend to be experts on legal matters like I pretend. At least my posts are based on the majority opinion of the supreme court and a simple reading of the relevant statutes. Their posts are simply based on obedience. Anyhoo, you've once again cleverly avoided any discussion of the facts that prove Gorsuch is a liar or imbecile. If you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts, why are you even in this thread let alone a debate forum?

Well, since he was the minority opinion, you apparently don't have anything to worry about.

 

[sangha]

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.

Which is unconstitutional.

Under Obergefell, biology (ie sex or gender) can play no role in determining which priviliges of marriage are available to married couples. Same sex couples must be allowed to marry on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.

 

[sangha]

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.

The court is supposed to overturn laws which are unconstitutional. They are not supposed to ask the legislature which passed the unconstitutional law to Pretty Please, change the law.

 

[JamesBY]

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.

(1) Only you think liberals think that, but go ahead and offer evidence other than your opinion.

(2) You feelings about sperm donation and state law are more your opinion that fact. Please post the "studies that back [you] up about [sperm donation etc.] being harmful to children. They are not.

 

[Vern]

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".

Luther, §20–18–401 is pretty clear about prioritizing the husband on the BC. It literally puts obstacles in the path of the real father if he's not the husband. But you're missing the simple point. AR has a statute specifically for artificial insemination. § 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.

so a straight couple who used AI walk up to the window with the husband's consent in writing and they get a BC listing the husband as the father. A gay couple walks up to the window and they are told "er uh, §20–18–401 says the father has to be listed". What makes that a totally ridiculous lie is §20–18–401 doesn't apply for artificial insemination and §20–18–401 absolutely does not require the father be listed. OvH says gay couples have to be treated the same. Gorsuch says he agrees with OvH but he wrote an incoherent dissent that didn't take into account the simple facts.

there are no conflicts between § 9-10-201 and §20–18–401 when a straight couple uses AI. What changes when a gay couple uses it? The questions you need to ask yourself is why this even got to the SCOTUS and why it wasn't a 9-0 decision.

 

[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).

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.

So IB, did you figure out yet that the Arkansas statutes did not say what Gorsuch wanted you to believe they said? I figure as much because you seem to have disappeared without answering a simple question directly related to our discussion. Instead of “disappearing” just like you did in the other thread when the facts didn’t go your way, why not just admit you and Gorsuch seem to have “misparaphrased” what the statutes say. Its no big deal you were confused, you’re not on the Supreme Court and you were in a hurry to rebut me. Gorsuch gets no such pass. He’s not only supposed to be smart he had all the time in the world to ponder the facts. He’s a liar or an imbecile. I say liar. What do you say?

and if it wasn't for Slate, we would never known Gorsuch is completely unqualified to serve on the court.

 

[ModerationNow!]

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

I don't oppose same sex marriage, because A. Its none of my business or the govts business who you choose to spend your life with(and why should hetero couples monopolize the potential misery of marriage. Lol). B. When it comes right down to the basics, marriage is just a legal agreement that results in just more paperwork to store in your file cabinet. C. Even if you denied gay marriage, they will still be together, living exactly the same way as before. D. Children are MUCH better off with 2 parents than one, in every conceivable way, as long as the couple love each other and everyone treats each other well.

However, after reading the Slate article linked by the OP, it seems clear that the writer is 'interpreting' the judge's opinion in a way that is based mostly in politically motivated propaganda. I can take anything anyone says and twist it into something far more negative than was ever intended. At this point, most media outlets are nothing more that 'progressive' activists, whose primary motivation is to advance their political goals, by protecting and praising one side, while always insulting and demonizing the other.

They routinely omit any stories that may be deemed damaging to their cause or their preferred politicians. Just look how most of the msm have either omitted or twisted and spun the Evergreen college disaster.

If they were 100% truthful about what happened there, and they reported it as often and as vigorously as they do with minor issues regarding conservatives, Americans would be outraged at what the left wing movement is devolving into.

 

[Vern]

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

However, after reading the Slate article linked by the OP, it seems clear that the writer is 'interpreting' the judge's opinion in a way that is based mostly in politically motivated propaganda.

thank you for your bland and long winded rebuttal of the Slate article. The problem seems to be that you read the Slate article without reading anything to back up your claim. It'll be real easy for you to back up your claim, just show us the part of §20–18–401 that requires the biological father be listed on the BC, then explain why § 9-10-201 which was specifically written for couples using artificial insemination doesn't supercede §20–18–401 for couples using artificial insemination and then explain why the couple should have contested § 9-10-201 when the state of Arkansas used §20–18–401 to deny their request.

Now if you're not going to explain anything and simply reiterate your point, please spare us. We've already gotten plenty of "nuh uh's" from conservatives. we're looking for an honest and intelligent response.

 

[JackA]

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.

Not many comments here on the "puzzler". My guess is Gorsuch is saying the primary Constitutional question goes to the insemination statute that governed the birth in the first place. Because that statute did not address same-sex parents, the Constitutional infirmity, if there is one, is based there and that statute, therefore, is where it should be corrected. A lousy argument but what else could it be?

 

[Vern]

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

Not many comments here on the "puzzler". My guess is Gorsuch is saying the primary Constitutional question goes to the insemination statute that governed the birth in the first place. Because that statute did not address same-sex parents, the Constitutional infirmity, if there is one, is based there and that statute, therefore, is where it should be corrected. A lousy argument but what else could it be?

I just assume like most every conservative here he made up his mind what was right and then looked for the words to justify it. I get a lot of replies like Gorsuch's "dissent", incoherent and easily proven wrong. The problem was that Arkansas rejected the couple based on §20–18–401. Gorsuch falsely claimed §20–18–401 "establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.” It does no such thing. It literally does the opposite. Saying they should have challenged § 9-10-201 when that law supported their case was just deflecting nonsense on his part. Again, like a lot of the replies I get.