The Arkansas law which treats same-sex parents differently than the opposite-sex couple on the issue of the birth certificates has been reversed by the Supreme Court on Monday in Washington.
The Law does not allow same-sex spouses to be listed as named parents on birth certificates in the same way that it requires a birth mother’s opposite-sex husband to be listed as if he is biologically related to the baby, even when he is not.
The case that brought about this law is known as Pavan v. Smith. At the center, it’s about two female couples in Arkansas whom health officials refused to list non-biological spouse on a newborn baby’s birth certificate.
On the other hand, that same law requires that husbands be listed on birth certificates, whether they are the biological fathers or not.
On Monday, a ruling came in the form of an unsigned opinion stating that the Arkansas law unfairly treated same-sex couples differently. The Supreme Court reversed the law on the ground that Arkansas law failed to uphold a decision that helps to clarify the scope of protections provided by the high court’s landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage.
Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion to the order, and he was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. They believed that the Supreme Court erred because birth certificate law is only for tracking the biological origins of a person.
A lawyer named Douglas Hallward-Driemeier who, among others, won the landmark same-sex marriage case two years ago said the Arkansas law will enable the states to disregard same-sex couples, reduce their status and that of their families to second class. That if the law had been allowed, other states would not have been forced to change the statue that differentiates between husband and husband of the same-sex couple in the issue of birth certificates.
The state argued that the couple is not standing against the birth certificate law but the artificial insemination statute, which assumes a mother’s husband to be a child’s biological father as well. This dissenting opinion is inaccurate and dangerous.
Featured Image: Screenshot Via Facebook.