SCOTUS strikes part of AR birth certificate statute because of same-sex marriage

[Joel]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-992_868c.pdf
Arkansas State Supreme Court decision that was overturned: http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/Web...lectronic.aspx

[Mountain Man]

FYI, the abbreviation for Arkansas is AR. AK is the short-form for Alaska.

And for the sake of completeness, Alabama is AL, and Arizona is AZ.

[Joel]

FYI, the abbreviation for Arkansas is AR. AK is the short-form for Alaska.

Doh!
Thanks.

[Bill the Cat]

I think the birth certificate should be as forensically accurate as possible. Parents should be biological father and biological mother. If the father is unknown, then UNK should be on the certificate until such time the father is discovered/proven. Sex should remain the biological sex that the chromosomes declare, and in cases like Klinefelter's Syndrome or another genetic abnormality, it should specify that as well.

[Just Passing Through]

[Joel]

I think the birth certificate should be as forensically accurate as possible. Parents should be biological father and biological mother. If the father is unknown, then UNK should be on the certificate until such time the father is discovered/proven. Sex should remain the biological sex that the chromosomes declare, and in cases like Klinefelter's Syndrome or another genetic abnormality, it should specify that as well.

Yes, from reading the ruling, it does seem that one option open to Arkansas is to repeal all the exceptions and only allow biological parents to be listed.

[Teallaura]

Yes, from reading the ruling, it does seem that one option open to Arkansas is to repeal all the exceptions and only allow biological parents to be listed.

Which wouldn't work - there are valid reasons to list the adoptive, not the biological, parents in some cases (esp. where parental rights have been terminated against the parent's wishes). Once they try to shoehorn in the valid exception, the whole thing starts all over.

It looks to be a fairly crappy decision by the Court.

[Bill the Cat]

Doh!
Thanks.

I fixed the thread title for you.

[Bill the Cat]

Which wouldn't work - there are valid reasons to list the adoptive, not the biological, parents in some cases (esp. where parental rights have been terminated against the parent's wishes). Once they try to shoehorn in the valid exception, the whole thing starts all over.

It looks to be a fairly crappy decision by the Court.

I don't think there should be any reason to not list the biological parents. The certificate is not for the parents. It is for the child as a form of legal documentation. Adoptive parents have an adoption certificate (my wife has hers in our firesafe box). I don't think there is any valid reason to deny anyone proof of their biological parentage.

[Psychic Missile]

I don't think there should be any reason to not list the biological parents. The certificate is not for the parents. It is for the child as a form of legal documentation. Adoptive parents have an adoption certificate (my wife has hers in our firesafe box). I don't think there is any valid reason to deny anyone proof of their biological parentage.

Doesn't the birth certificate establish legal rights to the parents? The desire for a certain legal outcome for the adults involved can be at odds with the desire for a child to understand their familial history.

[Bill the Cat]

Doesn't the birth certificate establish legal rights to the parents?

In some cases, yes. Others, no. Like my wife. When her birth father signed over his parental rights to her adoptive parents, his name remained on her birth certificate, but theirs were on the adoption certificate. Like most all legal documents, latter ones typically override earlier ones.

The desire for a certain legal outcome for the adults involved can be at odds with the desire for a child to understand their familial history.

I'm sure it can.