NationStates

If they're parents, they should be listed as parents. I don't think the Supreme Court will become involved in this, though.

Geneviev wrote:If they're parents, they should be listed as parents. I don't think the Supreme Court will become involved in this, though.

I have doubts too. I don’t think Roberts or Gorsch want to open this door .

Good old Indiana, the state that's the most southern northern state and an extension to the Bible Belt. Also had Mike Pence as governor!

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:If they're parents, they should be listed as parents. I don't think the Supreme Court will become involved in this, though.

I have doubts too. I don’t think Roberts or Gorsch want to open this door .

Which is a good thing, too. Parents being parents is just the way it should be.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I have doubts too. I don’t think Roberts or Gorsch want to open this door .

Which is a good thing, too. Parents being parents is just the way it should be.

I agree. Roberts is also very concerned about the image and legitimacy of the court. I might not always agree with him but overall hes been an ok chief justice. Gorsuch's opinion in the LGBT employment case suggest he's not open to the idea of overturning LGBT adoption.

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Which is a good thing, too. Parents being parents is just the way it should be.

I agree. Roberts is also very concerned about the image and legitimacy of the court. I might not always agree with him but overall hes been an ok chief justice.

Which may no longer be the case especially concerning extreme partisanship and corporate interests pushing on the court. Roberts could give less of a fuck about the legitimacy of the court and push the GOP partisan agenda whenever possible.

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Which is a good thing, too. Parents being parents is just the way it should be.

I agree. Roberts is also very concerned about the image and legitimacy of the court. I might not always agree with him but overall hes been an ok chief justice. Gorsuch's opinion in the LGBT employment case suggest he's not open to the idea of overturning LGBT adoption.

Is this a case about adoption? I might have misunderstood it.

Outer Sparta wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I agree. Roberts is also very concerned about the image and legitimacy of the court. I might not always agree with him but overall hes been an ok chief justice.

Which may no longer be the case especially concerning extreme partisanship and corporate interests pushing on the court. Roberts could give less of a fuck about the legitimacy of the court and push the GOP partisan agenda whenever possible.

I dont think so. I very much he wants to see a court seen as completely out of touch with the public and having no legitimacy. Oveturning LGBT adoption would do that.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I agree. Roberts is also very concerned about the image and legitimacy of the court. I might not always agree with him but overall hes been an ok chief justice. Gorsuch's opinion in the LGBT employment case suggest he's not open to the idea of overturning LGBT adoption.

Is this a case about adoption? I might have misunderstood it.

yes the case involves a lesbian couple who conceived via artificial insemination and the state does;t want them recognized as the parents. A lower court said they should be and now the outgoing AG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

San Lumen wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Is this a case about adoption? I might have misunderstood it.

yes the case involves a lesbian couple who conceived via artificial insemination and the state does;t want them recognized as the parents. A lower court said they should be and now the outgoing AG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

San Lumen wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Which may no longer be the case especially concerning extreme partisanship and corporate interests pushing on the court. Roberts could give less of a fuck about the legitimacy of the court and push the GOP partisan agenda whenever possible.

I dont think so. I very much he wants to see a court seen as completely out of touch with the public and having no legitimacy. Oveturning LGBT adoption would do that.

I certainly think Roberts will go down that path. Don't count him out for that task.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
yes the case involves a lesbian couple who conceived via artificial insemination and the state does;t want them recognized as the parents. A lower court said they should be and now the outgoing AG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

It technically is.

Outer Sparta wrote:

San Lumen wrote:

I dont think so. I very much he wants to see a court seen as completely out of touch with the public and having no legitimacy. Oveturning LGBT adoption would do that.

I certainly think Roberts will go down that path. Don't count him out for that task.

I don't think so given his opinion in the two lgbt discrimination cases. I doubt he'd suddenly reverse himself and say LGBT couples can't be recognized as parent

North American Imperial State wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What makes it shocking? Indiana is a very conservative state. I would have thought this issue would be settled.

What? Why have you singled out my post and not these two eh?

Anatoliyanskiy wrote:F#ck them. This is really disappointing, though not unexpected.

Ethics Committee of the SCPF wrote:Absolutely disgusting

Probably because only your post expressed shock.

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
yes the case involves a lesbian couple who conceived via artificial insemination and the state does;t want them recognized as the parents. A lower court said they should be and now the outgoing AG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

From what I understand, the legal father is the sperm donor, so they recognize him as the father.

Disappointing, if I'm understanding correctly.

Free Las Pinas wrote:

North American Imperial State wrote:What? Why have you singled out my post and not these two eh?

Probably because only your post expressed shock.

Geneviev wrote:But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

From what I understand, the legal father is the sperm donor, so they recognize him as the father.

Disappointing, if I'm understanding correctly.

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch this and if they do I doubt they rule the way the outgoing AG wants them too.

Free Las Pinas wrote:

Geneviev wrote:But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

From what I understand, the legal father is the sperm donor, so they recognize him as the father.

Disappointing, if I'm understanding correctly.

That's really disappointing if that's the problem.

Geneviev wrote:

Free Las Pinas wrote:
From what I understand, the legal father is the sperm donor, so they recognize him as the father.

Disappointing, if I'm understanding correctly.

That's really disappointing if that's the problem.

It is and presents a very serious problem if the court ruled how the AG wants them too. A friend of mine was raised by two men. He has no idea who has birth parents are as he was adopted at a very young age. Why should people who he has zero memory of be recognized as his parents over the people who raised him?

The Supreme court would have to reverse precedent to allow the Indiana AG to do this. And because Gorsuch joined the liberal block in that decision I do not think it looks like they would reverse precedent in this case.

Greed and Death wrote:The Supreme court would have to reverse precedent to allow the Indiana AG to do this. And because Gorsuch joined the liberal block in that decision I do not think it looks like they would reverse precedent in this case.

What precedent would they be reversing? I agree with you on Gorsuch. Roberts joined too. Gorsch wrote the opinion on the Lgbt discrimination case,

San Lumen wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:The Supreme court would have to reverse precedent to allow the Indiana AG to do this. And because Gorsuch joined the liberal block in that decision I do not think it looks like they would reverse precedent in this case.

What precedent would they be reversing? I agree with you on Gorsuch. Roberts joined too. Gorsch wrote the opinion on the Lgbt discrimination case,

Ask me again Saturday. I am in thanksgiving drunk right now.

Fuck him, and fuck that proposal.

F*ck that and F*ck him.

Luziyca wrote:Fuck him, and fuck that proposal.

He won't be attorney General for much longer. He lost renomination at the state convention.

San Lumen wrote:

Luziyca wrote:Fuck him, and fuck that proposal.

He won't be attorney General for much longer. He lost renomination at the state convention.

Good.

Hope his successor drops that request, if at all possible.

Luziyca wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
He won't be attorney General for much longer. He lost renomination at the state convention.

Good.

Hope his successor drops that request, if at all possible.

Hopefully he does. The law is not my area of expertise but i suppose its possible his successor could.

I... don't really see what's so heinous about this. A Birth Certificate isn't some kind of scoreboard or parent card. It's a record that someone was born. DNA from individual A and individual B was combined to make the person to which the certificate refers. Not to mention that you will want to have the donor on their for family medical history purposes in all probability.