Movement on birth certificate ruling; a call for solutions from parties | Arkansas Blog

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Movement on birth certificate ruling; a call for solutions from parties

Posted By on Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:54 PM

Late this afternoon, the attorney general's office released a letter to the Arkansas Supreme Court suggesting a path for the state of Arkansas to move forward to end discrimination against same-sex couples in issuing birth certificates.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state's refusal to list both parents of a same-sex couple on a birth certificate — while giving presumptive parenthood to both parents in an opposite sex couple regardless of means of conception — was unconstitutional.

A letter from Lee Rudofsky, top deputy in Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, to Stacy Pectol, clerk of the Supreme Court, noted that the Supreme Court referred its reversal of the Arkansas Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion but did not give "clear instructions" on how to proceed.

The letter acknowledged that the state used the birth certificate as more than a biological record (unlike the Arkansas Supreme Court had contended.)  Instead, it uses the certificate for other forms of legal recognition not equally available to same-sex married couples. A critical paragraph:

click to enlarge screen_shot_2017-06-27_at_5.39.14_pm.png

Rudofsky said the solution is a "gender neutral" reading of assisted reproduction statutes. (This could means couples with male and females as non-biological parents.) It would fix the constitutional violation and not create other problems, he said. Many other states already do the same. Arkansas could have done it long ago, including in the last legislative if only the state hadn't insisted on defending the indefensible and running up enormous legal bills  to defend discrimination against gay people, which is de facto and de jure state policy.

Simple: Married parents should be listed as parents on a birth certificate. Opposite sex couples aren't questioned about egg and sperm donors or, God forbid, whether a milkman intervened in the process.

The question is whether the resistant Arkansas Supreme Court can be persuaded to resolve this question without taking a summer vacation first. And if a remedy arises, will the legislatre insist in hearings on agency rules. Imagine if Jason Rapert or Bart Hester is given the floor on this.

Rudofsky suggested asking views of all parties to help the Arkansas Supreme Court make a "reasoned, informed and reflective" judgment.


Rutledge couldn't resist noting a "divided" Supreme Court in the case. It was divided in the opinion only on whether Arkansas should be summarily rebuffed. Three judges — the antti-gay Neal Gorscuh, Joseph Alito and Clarence Thomas — wanted more arguments first.

Tags: , , , , ,


Favorite

Comments (6)

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • How red are we?

    Election results in Arkansas were discouraging for Democrats and progressive voters.
    • Nov 15, 2018
  • Corporate welfare hostage-taking

    Wisconsin offers the latest example of what's wrong with corporate welfare and Arkansas figures in what amounts to a hostage situation.
    • Nov 14, 2018
  • Little Rock voting: Neighborhood matters

    Voting patterns in the race for 2nd District Congress might provide some clues on keys to victory in the runoff for Little Rock mayor.
    • Nov 14, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

Slideshows

  • Arkansas vs Ole Miss at War Memorial stadium in Little Rock, Saturday, Oct. 13, 2018. After leading for much of the game, Arkansas lost 37-33 when Ole Miss scored the game winning Touchdown with less that 2 minutes left. 
  • Margaret Clark Adventure Park
    New sculptures, preschoolers play area dedicated in Riverfront Park in Little Rock.

Most Recent Comments

 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation