by David Ramsey
The majority astoundingly—and incorrectly—asserted that Arkansas law does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. A basic understanding of family law reveals that, contrary to the justices’ conclusion, something more sinister is afoot.Kreis notes that under current law, if the woman who gives birth is married, the husband's name is presumptively placed on the birth certificate. This presumption applies whether or not the husband is actually the biological father. (Obviously, it would be silly to demand proof! Imagine daddy DNA tests on the happy day in the hospital.) Meanwhile, if the mother is not married, the parents can simply sign an affidavit of paternity. Married same-sex couples? They have to get a court order.
The court’s majority utterly failed to understand the constitutional issues at stake, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling in Obergefell was inapplicable because the right to be named as a parent on a child’s birth certificate is not a benefit of marriage. This twisted logic feels strikingly disingenuous. Arkansas law treats one class of married persons differently than another. Call it sex-based discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination; either way, Arkansas law impermissibly isolates same-sex couples for disparate treatment.Read the whole thing.
When the Obergefell decision was handed down, those celebrating it used a simple slogan: “Love Wins.” (The fallacy in that was the assumption that any and every relationship characterized by “love” is constitutionally entitled to be designated a “marriage.”)
Pro-family Americans can be grateful that, at least in the Arkansas Supreme Court, “Truth Wins.”