- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 13,893
- Reaction score
- 5,030
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.
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.