- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS strikes down Arkansas attempt to treat same sex parents differently
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:27 am to Toddy
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:27 am to Toddy
And remember before Obergfell when the far left whackjobs were telling us that we were NUTS for engaging in "slippery slope" arguments???
This holding is completely f*cking INSANE.
This holding is completely f*cking INSANE.
1
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:27 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I don't personally give a shite about this ruling, but if birth certificates are meant to list biological parents, then this ruling is dumb. If not, then it is correct.
Except as a discussion I don't give a shite about this ruling either, it really doesn't affect anyone or anything. But how fricking stupid. If you're not a birth parent why would your name be on a BIRTH certificate? In fact, that seems to make the entire purpose of a birth certificate null and void. Couldn't gays just get a "parent certificate?"
Liberalism is a brain disorder, it really is.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:28 am to Toddy
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:28 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
What kind of insane moron thinks a non birth parent should be listed on a birth certificate?
Actually, laws on paternity differ from state to state. For instance, in Louisiana a husband is legally assumed to be the father of the child and, even if he isn't, if his name goes on the BC it takes a whole lot of lawyering to get it changed.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 10:30 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:28 am to Toddy
Awe poor baby 
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:32 am to Toddy
The birth certificate should list the 2 biological people that create the other human being. Regardless of gay or straight. Adoption/custodianship papers can cover the actual legal guardian aspect if needed.
A person's name should not be on birth certificate if their DNA is not part of the person being born.
A person's name should not be on birth certificate if their DNA is not part of the person being born.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:32 am to Toddy
quote:
OF COURSE Gorsuch dissents.
Ain't it great!!!
quote:
Looks like Gorsuch is turning out to be the anti gay bigot everyone knew he was. What else would anyone expect from Trump though.
Such a little drama queen you are.
And... if two gay dads have a baby.. ok.. convince a woman to have a baby for them since, well, they can't do it themselves, what exactly are you supposed to put in the mothers spot on the certificate? Not the actual mother? Stupid stupid stupid.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:33 am to EKG
quote:
The state court said the birth certificate law did not violate the guarantee of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution because it was intended to record biological relationships, not marital ones.
Makes complete sense to me.
Seems like a protection to allow a rapist to end up on a birth certificate as the father.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:33 am to Toddy
quote:
list married same-sex couples on their children’s birth certificate.
um - same sex =/= children.
Are you a science denier?? This one has been accepted by even the dimmest of mental bulbs since the dawn of time.
A child should have his mother and father listed on his birth certificate, not the temporary shack-up arraignments of his assigned mentally ill custodians.
Screw all this bullshite. For those who are so mentally deranged they should just go suck what they want, stick whatever they want up their butts, prance around in whatever garb they want, live in whatever accommodations they want, and just leave the normal people alone.
Screw allowing them to screw up the future of innocent children - an institution would be a better custodian.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:34 am to Toddy
There is one redeeming feature of this opinion --
It is SO F*CKING OUT THERE and COMPLETELY F*CKING INSANE that Trump can use it in 3.5 years to show why we need to keep electing Republicans so that this level of POLITICIZED INSANITY is eradicated from the Supreme Court for generations.
It is SO F*CKING OUT THERE and COMPLETELY F*CKING INSANE that Trump can use it in 3.5 years to show why we need to keep electing Republicans so that this level of POLITICIZED INSANITY is eradicated from the Supreme Court for generations.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:35 am to DarthRebel
quote:
The birth certificate should list the 2 biological people that create the other human being. Regardless of gay or straight. Adoption/custodianship papers can cover the actual legal guardian aspect if needed.
A person's name should not be on birth certificate if their DNA is not part of the person being born.
This is such a sane concept that anyone who disagrees immediately identifies themselves as mentally deficient.
There is no greater truth in the entire world.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 10:36 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:35 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Actually, laws on paternity differ from state to state. For instance, in Louisiana a husband is legally assumed to be the father of the child and, even if he isn't, if his name goes on the BC it takes a whole lot of lawyering to get it changed.
I don't understand how that negates my point?
There are documents that can be procured for situations like two lesbians have a child, and wish to accept al responsibility for the child while the father does not want to be part of the child's life or whatever, but is still listed on the birth certificate, for medical reasons or what have you...
My point is, this seems like a totally pointless complaint by gays and is yet another reason liberals are getting their asses kicked on a daily basis in this country.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:37 am to Toddy
the problem is that Obergefell was a terrible decision in terms of legal rhetoric and justification
when you rely on decisions with very flimsy legal arguments/bases, you're going to create an absolute mess of a situation down the road
Toddy, how is he wrong?
from a legal standpoint
when you rely on decisions with very flimsy legal arguments/bases, you're going to create an absolute mess of a situation down the road
quote:
Gorsuch wrote that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology” runs afoul of the 14th Amendment.
Toddy, how is he wrong?
from a legal standpoint
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:38 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
a husband is legally assumed to be the father of the child
Well that is a pretty logical assumption.
However, if either of them presents facts to the contrary, the actual semen-donor ought to be on the paper.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:38 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
However, if either of them presents facts to the contrary, the actual semen-donor ought to be on the paper.
oh that's possible
just takes some work
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:41 am to Toddy
quote:
The adoptive parents; why? So there isn't a paper trail to the adoptive papers and it ultimately protects the children. How do I know? I'm an adoptive parent.
This sums it up for me. If the adoptive parents are put on the BC then it shouldn't matter if they are gay or straight parents. That's the point of the ruling it should be fair for both set's of parents.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:41 am to MMauler
quote:
far left whackjobs were telling us that we were NUTS for engaging in "slippery slope" arguments???
There has nver been a more accurate statement. When the left wing radicals get any accommodation, they immediately go for the next increment.
Their entire agenda is one of progressionism - Keep pressing toward a goal than any sane individual would laugh out of the room if identified as the actual end point of their intentions.
Left wing radicalism must be abolished, ripped out root and branch with the earth salted where it grew.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Toddy is an idiot and has no idea how the supreme court works. I really fricking hate when people talk about constitutional law in such absolutes who have never actually studied the subject. The dissenting opinion was based on an entirely valid thought process.
This post was edited on 6/26/17 at 10:43 am
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:42 am to Toddy
If Toddy is an example of what being gay can do to one's brain, maybe I AM a homophobe. Because stupidity like that scares the hell out of me.
Posted on 6/26/17 at 10:43 am to Toddy
quote:
anti gay bigot
Funny, you seem to side with the muzzies. While Gorsuch may not believe in the gay bullshite, at least he won't throw your arse off of a building or set you on fire. GTFO here w/ your drama.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News