• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Vern

back from Vegas
DP Veteran
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

More lies from the right as usual.
 
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.

Well, you think a lot of stupid things.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Well, you think a lot of stupid things.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

The system already keeps children in the dark on who their father is even when it comes to issues of medical importance. The system goes out of it's way to make it very clear that the child has no right to ever know anything about him all the while failing to understand that harms the child.

What is interesting about the system is that on other issues parents don't really matter and the child is all that matters, but when it comes to this system the parents are all that matters and the child is nothing.

Other fun stuff that makes no sense:

We don't want men to go around having children with a bunch of women and not paying anything. Well, unless they're sperm donors and then it's like completely cool. We think men should always care for their children and they should be obligated to provide financial assistance at least, well unless they're sperm donors then it's completely cool if they don't. We think two parent homes are better than single parent homes, well, unless a woman not in a realtionship goes to a sperm bank than it's completely cool. Lol
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.

Henrin, I have to ask. Have you ever responded to a post? I know you hit the reply button but your deflecting and dishonest babble has nothing to do with my post. It just seems to me that every post you post is of that sort. this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Henrin, I have to ask. Have you ever responded to a post? I know you hit the reply button but your deflecting and dishonest babble has nothing to do with my post. It just seems to me that every post you post is of that sort. this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile.

But if liberals believe justices are always right then your premise is wrong. In that case he couldn't be lying or an imbecile because justices are always right.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

Does that also mean if a husband is cucked... he still has to take care of the child?
 
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?

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.
 
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.

There is one problem with your story (or the story you're telling). It is not factually correct. At the very least, the narrative from the author you are quoting is inserting his opinion and claiming it is fact. I agree with the author's interpretation of Gorsuch's dissent. This seems to be pretty clear from the reading. However, the author's interpretation of the Arkansas law is not as he presents it.

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.
"For the purposes of birth registration, the mother is deemed to be the woman who gives birth to the child, unless otherwise provided by state law or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the filing of the birth certificate. The information about the father shall be entered as provided in subsection (f) of this section."

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.
 
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.

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

But if liberals believe justices are always right then your premise is wrong. In that case he couldn't be lying or an imbecile because justices are always right.

again, this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile. I just have to wonder why you are at a debate forum.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

again, this thread is not about "librul opinion of justices" or your opinion on sperm donation. this thread is about a SC justice either blatantly lying or being an imbecile. I just have to wonder why you are at a debate forum.

Again, if I am correct then your argument is moot.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

It's interesting... I looked at the Arkansas law for artificial insemination, and it actually only refers to the woman's "husband" being able to be on the birth certificate... maybe he was thinking that the other spouse is not legally the "husband" of the woman... and felt that the artificial insemination law needs to be changed or challenged to include "spouse" instead.

Just trying to guess what he was thinking...
 
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?


they get to go on Jerry Springer ........
 
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 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
establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the birth certificate
. This information is for government officials so they can
government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders.

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.
 
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.

Well, good. Let all the LGBT Trump voters swallow that one whole.
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

To be fair to the court, here is the decision - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

I would also note that this decision was not that of Gorsuch alone. Alito and Thomas also concurred.

Both the per curium and the dissent are included at the link so that the interested parties can judge the validity of the Slate piece for themselves.
 
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.

This is about law. The plaintiffs simply challenged the wrong law.
 
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. At the very least, the narrative from the author you are quoting is inserting his opinion and claiming it is fact. I agree with the author's interpretation of Gorsuch's dissent. This seems to be pretty clear from the reading. However, the author's interpretation of the Arkansas law is not as he presents it.

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.
"For the purposes of birth registration, the mother is deemed to be the woman who gives birth to the child, unless otherwise provided by state law or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the filing of the birth certificate. The information about the father shall be entered as provided in subsection (f) of this section."

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.

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

the actual dissent not the slate twist and distortion.

"Before the state supreme court, the State argued that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Obergefell — like ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders," wrote Gorsuch.

"And it is very hard to see what is wrong with this conclusion for, just as the state court recognized, nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution."
 
Re: Gorsuch’s First Anti-Gay Dissent Has a Huge Factual Error—and Terrible, Dishonest

To be fair to the court, here is the decision - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf

I would also note that this decision was not that of Gorsuch alone. Alito and Thomas also concurred.

Both the per curium and the dissent are included at the link so that the interested parties can judge the validity of the Slate piece for themselves.

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 ...
 
Back
Top Bottom