N
Nepperhan
Guest
Sometimes a lawsuit should be entitled “Helping the ACLU get attorney fees”. That is what this one sounds like.
"Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the country’s highest tribunal should reverse a lower court decision from earlier this year that allowed same-sex couples in Indiana the right to both be listed as parents on the birth certificate of their children.
Hill’s petition comes 10 months after the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by judges in Indiana’s federal Southern District court, who said Indiana laws that limited who can be called a parent of a child were unconstitutional…
The 7th Circuit justices observed that, in Indiana law, “a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father, so that both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock.”
“There’s no similar presumption with respect to an all-female married couple—or for that matter an all-male married couple," wrote the judges, adding that requiring both women in a same sex marriage to be listed as parents would prevent any discrimination.
In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hill argues that upholding the lower court’s decision would violate common sense and throw into jeopardy parental rights based on biology.
“A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive ‘parentage’ status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication,” Hill wrote."
It sounds like SCOTUS may not even accept this case. If it does, I cannot see the high court going along with the Indiana AG.
"Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the country’s highest tribunal should reverse a lower court decision from earlier this year that allowed same-sex couples in Indiana the right to both be listed as parents on the birth certificate of their children.
Hill’s petition comes 10 months after the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by judges in Indiana’s federal Southern District court, who said Indiana laws that limited who can be called a parent of a child were unconstitutional…
The 7th Circuit justices observed that, in Indiana law, “a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father, so that both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock.”
“There’s no similar presumption with respect to an all-female married couple—or for that matter an all-male married couple," wrote the judges, adding that requiring both women in a same sex marriage to be listed as parents would prevent any discrimination.
In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hill argues that upholding the lower court’s decision would violate common sense and throw into jeopardy parental rights based on biology.
“A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive ‘parentage’ status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication,” Hill wrote."
It sounds like SCOTUS may not even accept this case. If it does, I cannot see the high court going along with the Indiana AG.