Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Kannap]

Legally you can be as homophobic as you want, so long as you are not infringing on other people’s rights

This means that while you can be homophobic, you cannot stop LGBTQ+ marriage or adoption

But if you allow gay couples to adopt, my personal and private beliefs will be violated and it will hurt my sensitivities.

That sounds like a you problem.

[Minarchatopia]

Hopefully Amy Cohen Barett will change the law. She is a Supreme Court Justice, maybe there's something they can do.

Ok, I'm gonna stop your tirade right there. She is a Justice, not a congresswoman. All she can do is rule on legislation proposed by Congress. She can't strike down pro-gay laws on her own, nor can anyone in the Supreme Court create pro-gay laws on their own. She can only act on gay issues if someone else wants to pass legislation on gay issues.

Is this one of those rules Obama passed? The president should revoke it so she can do her job as a judge again.

[Minarchatopia]

But if you allow gay couples to adopt, my personal and private beliefs will be violated and it will hurt my sensitivities.

That sounds like a you problem.

Why does that not matter?

[Middle Barael]

Legally you can be as homophobic as you want, so long as you are not infringing on other people’s rights

This means that while you can be homophobic, you cannot stop LGBTQ+ marriage or adoption

But if you allow gay couples to adopt, my personal and private beliefs will be violated and it will hurt my sensitivities.

Too bad, the law doesn’t change at your whim

[Minarchatopia]

But if you allow gay couples to adopt, my personal and private beliefs will be violated and it will hurt my sensitivities.

Too bad, the law doesn’t change at your whim

Why not?

[Middle Barael]

Ok, I'm gonna stop your tirade right there. She is a Justice, not a congresswoman. All she can do is rule on legislation proposed by Congress. She can't strike down pro-gay laws on her own, nor can anyone in the Supreme Court create pro-gay laws on their own. She can only act on gay issues if someone else wants to pass legislation on gay issues.

Is this one of those rules Obama passed? The president should revoke it so she can do her job as a judge again.

No, this is detailed in the orignal Constitution

The point of the Supreme Court is to rule on important law cases, not to make its own legislation

[Esalia]

Too bad, the law doesn’t change at your whim

Why not?

Because, despite your ego, the legal system doesn't revolve around what you find icky.

[Boris Cult]

No they weren’t! They killed people just because they were gay!

But they also killed Germans so are you suggesting they weren't German as well?

No, I am saying that because they targeted LGBTQ, and the only Germans they killed was the LGBTQ ones, the Jews, and traitors

[Geneviev]

Ok, I'm gonna stop your tirade right there. She is a Justice, not a congresswoman. All she can do is rule on legislation proposed by Congress. She can't strike down pro-gay laws on her own, nor can anyone in the Supreme Court create pro-gay laws on their own. She can only act on gay issues if someone else wants to pass legislation on gay issues.

Is this one of those rules Obama passed? The president should revoke it so she can do her job as a judge again.

That's the Constitution. You probably won't be able to revoke it.

[Minarchatopia]

Is this one of those rules Obama passed? The president should revoke it so she can do her job as a judge again.

No, this is detailed in the orignal Constitution

The point of the Supreme Court is to rule on important law cases, not to make its own legislation

I'm not saying they should make a new law. Just reaffirm the original point of the 14th amendment which only protects people from racial discrimination.

[Middle Barael]

Too bad, the law doesn’t change at your whim

Why not?

Because You cannot legally impose your own religious beliefs upon other people, even if your feelings get hurt

[New Visayan Islands]

We're watching, people. This thread stays on track or we drop the hammer and dispense indiscriminate justice.

Thanks!
NVI

[San Lumen]

No, this is detailed in the orignal Constitution

The point of the Supreme Court is to rule on important law cases, not to make its own legislation

I'm not saying they should make a new law. Just reaffirm the original point of the 14th amendment which only protects people from racial discrimination.

Except it doesn’t. It says no state can deny any person the equal protection of the law or due process of the law.

[Boris Cult]

We're watching, people. This thread stays on track or we drop the hammer and dispense indiscriminate justice.

Thanks!
NVI

Okay! Got it!

[Ethel mermania]

That is fair, but it does lead to the question as to why in the cases of ivf you want the sperm donors name on the birth certificate?


As an aside in a straight couple ivf the married males name is placed on the birth certificate.

A birth certificate isn't a ticket to parental rights, and is instead a record of who the child's parents were. This is useful information for a child to have once reaching adulthood, and ought to be recorded for that child's use.

There are other means of providing genetic information to the family, that don't require it to be on the birth certificate. Birth certificates generally come with parental rights and responsibilities, most notibly child support. Also what about donors who wish to remain anonymous?

[Farnhamia]

And in case you've forgotten, here's the OP ...

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2020/11/25/indiana-curtis-hill-asks-supreme-court-take-same-sex-parenting-case/6422495002/

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the country's highest tribunal should reverse a lower court decision from earlier this year that allowed same-sex couples in Indiana the right to both be listed as parents on the birth certificate of their children.

The case involves a lesbian couple whom conceived a child via artificial insemination.

I find this very troubling and hope the Supreme Court does not take up this case nor overturn the ruling. LGBT people have a right to be parents and there is absolutely no reason they should not be.

Your Thoughts NSG?

[Intaglio]

Ok, so Hill's claim is that this decision about the parental rights of the child's biological father, saying that listing the other mother as the father would somehow undermine his parental rights. I don't really buy that argument because, besides the fact thaht the child was conceived by artificial insemination and thus the father is probably unknown, there's nothing anywhere that says that the biological father has to be listed as as the father on the birth certificate; anyone can sign the birth certificate and thus claim the child as his, biological or otherwise.

[Middle Barael]

We're watching, people. This thread stays on track or we drop the hammer and dispense indiscriminate justice.

Thanks!
NVI

Oh ok sorry, we’ll try to stay on course!

[Ethel mermania]

Are there people on that fence though?

There are often more than we give credit for. I used to be one. NS debates have absolutely influenced me.

In reading pope joan his arguments, not in a conversation with me, convinced me that gay marriage rather than being a liberal movement should be a profoundly conservative one

[Adamede]

Sure. But here your opponents aren't arguing. They're debating. Responding with vitriol and ignorance just undermines your position for any who might be on the fence.

That said, this discussion has been very civil.

Are there people on that fence though?

Always is. You just never hear from them.

[Kernen]

We're watching, people. This thread stays on track or we drop the hammer and dispense indiscriminate justice.

Thanks!
NVI

Seige tank justice.

No, this is detailed in the orignal Constitution

The point of the Supreme Court is to rule on important law cases, not to make its own legislation

I'm not saying they should make a new law. Just reaffirm the original point of the 14th amendment which only protects people from racial discrimination.

That was not the original point. If it was, the legislative record would so reflect. It does not.

[Intaglio]

Unfortunately for you, American law says otherwise.

Maybe you surrender to fascism but I do not.

Somebody being able to marry in a way you dislike is fascism?

[Telconi]

A birth certificate isn't a ticket to parental rights, and is instead a record of who the child's parents were. This is useful information for a child to have once reaching adulthood, and ought to be recorded for that child's use.

There are other means of providing genetic information to the family, that don't require it to be on the birth certificate. Birth certificates generally come with parental rights and responsibilities, most notibly child support. Also what about donors who wish to remain anonymous?

Sure, but there is also this means of providing it. And it's a legally binding means. As for the parental rights associated eith being on a birth certificate, there aren't any necessarily associated, and a donor forfeits parental rights such as it were by default.

I honestly have an issue with the concept of anonymous donors. I can understand not wanting to be involved with the life of the child conceived, but to deny the knowledge of who their biological parent is seems unfair.

[Neutraligon]

There are other means of providing genetic information to the family, that don't require it to be on the birth certificate. Birth certificates generally come with parental rights and responsibilities, most notibly child support. Also what about donors who wish to remain anonymous?

Sure, but there is also this means of providing it. And it's a legally binding means. As for the parental rights associated eith being on a birth certificate, there aren't any necessarily associated, and a donor forfeits parental rights such as it were by default.

I honestly have an issue with the concept of anonymous donors. I can understand not wanting to be involved with the life of the child conceived, but to deny the knowledge of who their biological parent is seems unfair.

Unfortunately in some states being anonymous is necessary. In Kansas at least sperm donors can be required to pay child support. (This might have changed since I last read up on it)

[Boda]

I don’t like this news at all. We’re [America] supposed to be the best country in the world but we can’t even have a handle on civil rights?