Arkansas Supreme Court upholds birth certificate law creating hurdles for same-sex couples | Arkansas Blog

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Arkansas Supreme Court upholds birth certificate law creating hurdles for same-sex couples

Posted By on Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:33 PM

TWO MOMMIES: The state Supreme Court upheld the state's demand that the parents of the newborn at right, Leigh and Jana Jacobs, have to get a court order to list both of their names on his birth certificate.
  • TWO MOMMIES: The state Supreme Court upheld the state's demand that the parents of the newborn at right, Leigh and Jana Jacobs, have to get a court order to list both of their names on his birth certificate.
The Arkansas Supreme Court today upheld state statutes that mandate a court order to list parent names on a birth certificate other than the biological mother and father. The Court threw out the ruling of Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox, who found last year that the state Health Department had violated the U.S. Constitution by refusing to list both parent names of children of same-sex couples (the children of the three couples who were plaintiffs in the case were conceived via sperm donation). Max wrote about one of the plaintiff couples, Leigh and Jana Jacobs, in July. Among other problems, denying same-sex couples the ability to immediately list both names on the birth certificate complicates obtaining health insurance for the newborn under the coverage of the unrecognized parent. The plaintiffs argued that the state does not impose this burden on heterosexual couples even if they are not married, regardless of how the child was conceived or whether the child actually shares a genetic connection to both parents.

Fox's ruling would have allowed married same-sex couples to list both names on the birth certificate without getting a court order (the state had said it would list another woman as a parent if presented with a court order determining parentage or otherwise granting parental rights to the other woman, or approving an adoption by that woman). Fox found that the state's rules were unconstitutional in light of the federal Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge appealed Fox's ruling to the state Supreme Court, which sided with the state and admonished Fox for what it dubbed "inappropriate comments."

"The statute centers on the relationship of the biological mother and the biological father to the child, not on the marital relationship of husband and wife," wrote Justice Josephine Linker Hart in the Court's majority opinion. "[It] does not run afoul of Obergefell."

Hart continued:

The question presented in this case does not concern either the right to same-sex marriage or the recognition of that marriage, or the right of a female same-sex spouse to be a parent to the child who was born to her spouse. What is before this court is the narrow issue of whether the birth-certificate statutes as written deny the appellees due process. The purpose of the statutes is to truthfully record the nexus of the biological mother and the biological father to the child. On the record presented, we cannot say that naming the nonbiological spouse on the birth certificate of the child is an interest of the person so fundamental that the State must accord the interest its respect under either statute ... In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has. It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.
In a dissent, Justice Paul Danielson argued that listing a parent's name on a birth certificate is "a benefit associated with marriage" and noted that "the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell that states are not free to deny same-sex couples 'the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.' Importantly, the Court listed 'birth and
death certificates' specifically as one of those benefits attached to marital status."

Justices Rhonda Wood and Howard Brill both concurred in part and dissented in part (Brill opened his opinion by quoting Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'").

Cheryl Maples, attorney for the three same-sex couples, has not yet decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on Fox and Danielson's views, she might have a strong argument under Obergefell.

The Court also took the unusual step today of admonishing Fox (Danielson, Wood, and Brill dissented from the admonishment). Fox had said in his order that if a stay was granted while the state appealed, it would deny the couples their constitutional rights — and made reference to the unconscionable delay — more than a year — by the Court of a decision in the "expedited" appeal of the same-sex marriage case.

These comments hurt the feelings of the majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court. "Judge Timothy Davis Fox is hereby admonished for his inappropriate comments made while performing the duties of his judicial office," stated Hart in her opinion.

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Comments (18)

Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

More by David Ramsey

Readers also liked…

  • In Little Rock, Marco Rubio sells American exceptionalism

    This is Rubio's axiomatic answer to Donald Trump's insistence that he and he alone will Make America Great Again: America is the greatest, always has been.
    • Feb 22, 2016
  • UPDATE: Hutchinson moves to cover himself on cut to War Memorial Stadium

    Gov. Asa Hutchinson apparently felt the burn from KARK's exclusive Tuesday night on his plans to cut state support of War Memorial Stadium in half beginning July 1, 2018. He has a so-far secret plan to make the stadium self-sustaining. We bet that doesn't include state support.
    • Oct 20, 2016
  • More on how highways were used to wipe out "blight" of non-white neighborhoods

    Vox, a news website that concerns itself with energy and other issues, has a fine piece, including before and after images, on the history of the U.S. interstate system and why roads were built through the middle of cities (unless people of influence stopped them — see Manhattan, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.)
    • Mar 22, 2016

Most Shared

  • ASU to reap $3.69 million from estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn

    Arkansas State University announced today plans for spending an expected $3.69 million gift in the final distribution of the estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn, who died in 2013 and 2015 respectively.
  • Bad health care bill, again

    Wait! Postpone tax reform and everything else for a while longer because the Senate is going to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act one more time before September ends and while it can do it with the votes of only 50 senators.
  • Sex on campus

    Look, the Great Campus Rape Crisis was mainly hype all along. What Vice President Joe Biden described as an epidemic of sexual violence sweeping American college campuses in 2011 was vastly overstated.
  • The inadequate legacy of Brown

    LRSD continues to abdicate its responsibility to educate poor black students.

Most Viewed

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: An open line for Sunday

    • Good Doonesbury today-- "Why would there be a whole movement against something that obvious?" http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2017/9/……

    • on September 24, 2017
  • Re: Arlington owners protest threat of closure

    • The property at 419 Prospect is a very good example of a complete restoration that…

    • on September 24, 2017
  • Re: An open line for Sunday

    • The cutting edge of freedom was reached this week , the Mormon church has Allowed…

    • on September 24, 2017

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation