[syptopsygieds]

Taking all the issues out of this, since I agree that the child shouldn't be punished, but shouldn't the child's birth certificate have the mother's name on it so genealogy can be checked later if necessary. I know sometimes the father's name isn't given but I always thought the mother's was mandatory. Was the mother not known here?

[avaincmolla]

Children of Gay Parents Target of Bigotry

What precedents are there in our country's history that politicians can legally disregard court rulings?

There are plenty, dating back to the 19th century. They generally rest on the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[zttrftwsq]

Mr Fun thread? Yes.

Does the thread mention gay people? Yes.

Does the thread mention discrimination? Yes.

Does Ben jump at the opportunity to post in it and surround himself with gay men? Yes.

I don't see why Louisiana should be forced to recognise other state laws. This is just the standard procedure. It is standard procedure to recognize other states laws. Particularly with regards to family law (marriage, adoption, etc). This is the standard procedure.

Why don't you know anything?

Gay people move to states in order to force them to change their laws. You aren't a 'victim' if you've got an agenda backing you. You just called anyone discriminated against for being a Christian "not a victim". I don't think you realize that yet.

[unapelosina]

How could there be more than one father? Even if they skeeted into the same cup, it's not hard to determine paternity.

[Kneeniasy]

It's an adoption, Felch. It's about gays adopting. Did you just wake up? Need some coffee?

[Viyzarei]

No, it's not the standard procedure. States are under no obligations to recognise other state laws.

If this were not so, how could Massachusetts change their law wrt to marriage? The sword cuts both ways asher.

Uh, WTF?

States can change their own laws to recognize whatever they want. The standard procedure is to recognize marriages/unions from other jurisdictions unless there is legislation specifically to the contrary (eg, State A gay-marries Ben and Ned, Ben and Ned move to Arkansas which has legislation banning gay marriage, so their marriage is not recognized in Arkansas).

[CurtisTH]

I think you'll find recent court precedents are that out-of-state unions/marriages must be recognized unless there is specific legislation to the contrary. Not the case wrt to Massachusetts, although this is a common tactic. Get married there, move to a state that bars gay marriage and try to overturn the law there. Again, these folks aren't targets, the states are targets.

[radikal]

States can change their own laws to recognize whatever they want. Yes, and the corollary is that other states are not required to recognise their laws. Look at this from the other side. If massachusetts were required to have the same laws as other states, they never would have been permitted to change their law.

It's a double edged sword. Yes, states are free to have their own laws, but they are not free to force their laws on the other states.

The standard procedure is to recognize marriages/unions from other jurisdictions unless there is legislation specifically to the contrary (eg, State A gay-marries Ben and Ned, Ben and Ned move to Arkansas which has legislation banning gay marriage, so their marriage is not recognized in Arkansas). Which is exactly the case in Louisiana. So, your point here is that Massachusetts laws should take precedence over Louisiana laws in LA.

[Tilmbeinymn]

You asserted that no one can be a victim if they have an agenda backing them. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of what the US constitution says. You are not a victim if you move to another state to target their law. You are targetting the state, not the other way around.

Someone who is practicing their faith, that's different. If the state changes their law to prevent them from practicing then they run afoul of the constitutional guarantees wrt religious freedoms.

For instance, a Christian who is killed going door-to-door preaching is nota victim as he has an agenda backing him. That's your logic. He is not a victim of religious persecution, no. But he is still a victim of homocide.

In this case, they are not a victim of anything at all. They are attempting to overturn a law that they don't like. How are they negatively affected and persecuted by the law as it stands in LA?

[topbonusescod]

He is not a victim of religious persecution, no. But he is still a victim of homocide.

He remains a victim. Just like the gay men whose unions aren't recognized by some states are victims of religious bigotry.

Thank you for admitting you were wrong. First time ever.

[drmarshallusa]

Truth's a ***** innit.

I've no ****ing idea what you are talking about. Once again you've got some ****ing dialog in your head going on that doesn't correspond to a single ****ing word said in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

[BypeVupyide]

If you don't comprehend my statement, no explanation will make you smart enough to ever understand.

[mas-dkt-sive]

There are plenty, dating back to the 19th century. They generally rest on the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Would these precedents allow a politician to use his own personal opinion on a social issue as superior to a court's ruling?

[longrema]

Because Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell is defying his state's court ruling, and refusing to allow that to happen, BK.


PS: Did you ****ing read the damn article?

[endulundaSauh]

I guess you missed this part when you read the article, Solomwi, because it does show where Caldwell stands:

But Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell does not think that two gay men should be fathers.

[HonjUopu]

I guess you missed this part when you read the article, Solomwi, because it does show where Caldwell stands:

No, I saw that, but it's the conclusion of Kevin Cathcart, ED of Lambda Legal, which is apparently funding the plaintiffs, given with no support other than this appeal's existence. Why should I take it as gospel when I know from personal experience that attorneys fight for causes they disagree with every day? In fact, it's drilled into our heads from the first day of law school that we're ethically required to fight for those causes just as hard as the ones we agree with. Nothing Caldwell has done in this case tells us anything about his personal views.

[rockboyzaza]

They can't both be his biological fathers, can they? The certificate should have the name of the mother and the real father, the other father will have to adopt the child.

I don't think either is the biological father. The issue that began the whole thing, as far as I can tell from news articles, is whether the registrar could give them a birth certificate that showed an adoption by an unmarried couple (regardless of sex/orientation). She offered them a certificate with just one's name on it, since an unmarried individual can adopt there. To be clear, the kid was adopted in New York, not Louisiana, and the actual adoption isn't being challenged.

[JakilSong]

Did you? Caldwell isn't defying any ruling, and no Louisiana court has even made a ruling in this case for him to deny. Let me try to clarify:

1. Adar and Smith file suit in federal court against state official, i.e., against the state, seeking birth certificate.
2. LA state law prohibits registrar from issuing said certificate (per previous AG's opinion that the state can't issue a certificate reflecting adoption that would be illegal in the state).
3. Trial court rules for Adar and Smith, on the basis of the full faith and credit clause only, gets appealed.
4. Three-judge panel of federal appellate court rules that LA state official must issue birth certificate.
5. LA attorney general's office, under Caldwell, appeals the ruling, asking the full court to hear the case. In other words, they do their job.

By the way, there are plenty of non-gay-hating reasons for the state to take step 5, including the possibility that they want the same outcome you do, but want it to have some precedential weight behind it.

I think you're being too naive. Caldwell is a Democratic conservative, and he is a politician of the South. Are you not familiar with the Bible belt culture of the United States?

It's fair to make the conclusion that his actions are motivated by homophobia - I don't think Lamda article would make such a blantant, bald-faced lie (not saying Lambda is perfectly honest 100 percent of time, either). You're giving Caldwell the benefit of the doubt, that in all likliehood, he does not deserve. You're also ignoring the fact that more and more conservative (Democrat or Republican) politicians know it's become less acceptable to articulate blantantly bigoted, homophobic reasons for their actions so even when Caldwell does speak for himself, he will probably make up some other rationality for his actions other than the fact that he does hate gay people.

But, I did make the mistake - it was not the state court's ruling, but a federal appellate court.

[rostpribru]

Again, back to this quote from the article, which I don't have any reason to believe this is a deliberate lie or fabrication:

The fact that it is a press release from an organization interested in stirring passions in support of thier side, what is the basis for that assertion?

[Annewsded]

The fact that it is a press release from an organization interested in stirring passions in support of thier side, what is the basis for that assertion?

So for you, passion automatically means that the source has to be blantantly fabricating their claims.