LGBT Activists "Furious" after Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch Opposes Gay Parents' Names on Birth Certificates

Doug Mainwaring : Jun 29, 2017
LifeSiteNews.com

Justice Gorsuch, who joined the Supreme Court in April, has clearly aligned himself with the court's conservatives.

(Washington, DC)—[LifeSiteNews] Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering dissent to the Court's decision to allow "spouses" of the same gender to appear on children's birth certificates. (Photo: Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch /Reuters/via AOL News)

The court's decision was predicated on the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex "marriage" across the country.  

Because same-sex "marriage" is now the law of the land, the court reasoned that states must "provide same-sex couples 'the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.'" In particular, since the Obergefell ruling specifically identified birth and death certificates as two of those rights, states can no longer deny same-sex couples any rights related to birth certificates that are granted to opposite-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges laid the groundwork for rulings such as this, going beyond establishing a legal right to gay "marriage," to asserting all rights normally associated with marriage.  

The constitutional basis of Justice Gorsuch's dissent
Justice Gorsuch said, "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. To the contrary, to the extent they speak to the question at all, this Court's precedents suggest just the opposite conclusion."
 
"Neither does anything in today's opinion purport to identify any constitutional problem with a biology-based birth registration regime."

Gorsuch asked, "What, then, is at work here?"
 
"Given all this, it seems far from clear what here warrants the strong medicine of summary reversal. Indeed, it is not even clear what the Court expects to happen on remand that hasn't happened already. The Court does not offer any remedial suggestion, and none leaps to mind."

Click here to continue reading.