"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Tuesday, December 01, 2020

Trump's Legacy: The Knives Are Out

And they're going for same-sex couples:
On Monday, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill asked the Supreme Court to strip same-sex couples of their equal parenting rights. He did so at the request of the court, which is considering taking up his case. Hill implored the new conservative majority to rule that states may deny married same-sex couples the right to be recognized as parents of their own children. The case gives SCOTUS an opportunity to start chipping away at Obergefell v. Hodges by allowing states to withhold marital privileges from same-sex spouses. If the majority wants to begin eroding Obergefell, they will probably start here.
This, of course, has been the right's strategy since Roe v. Wade -- chip away, and keep chipping.

It looks as though the Court, or at least some of the justices, are interested in taking up the case, which does indicate an intent to begin demolishing Obergefell -- the central issue here has already been decided -- twice:

What’s strange about this case, Box v. Henderson, is that it poses a question the Supreme Court has already answered—twice. The plaintiffs are eight married lesbian couples in Indiana who used a sperm donor to conceive. When a married opposite-sex couple uses a sperm donor, Indiana recognizes the birth mother’s husband as the child’s parent. When a married same-sex couple does the same thing, however, the state refuses to list the birth mother’s wife as the child’s parent. In both instances, the second parent has no biological connection to the child; Indiana’s decision to extend parental rights to the nonbiological husbands of birth mothers, but not the wives of birth mothers, is sheer discrimination.
It's always possible that Roberts and Gorsuch will stand by stare decisis and vote with the liberal wing -- after all, as the article points out, Indiana's argument is garbage, relying exclusively on a "biological parent" argument that simple doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny. Do read the whole article -- it's a solid grounding in this issue and a pointer toward what the right will be attempting now that they've got a bunch of fascists in the courts. With thanks to commenter solitasolano at Joe.My.God.

No comments: