The high court’s decision not to hear Box v. Henderson leaves in place a lower court’s ruling that found Indiana must place both mothers on their child’s birth certificate.
The justices rejected the case without explanation.
In its petition to the court, Indiana argued that listing two mothers on a birth certificate undermines a “biological father’s” rights and obligations to the child.
“In the vast majority of cases, a birth mother’s husband will, in fact, be the biological father of the child, with all the rights and obligations attendant thereto,” Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill wrote. “But 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.”
In Obergefell, the 2015 landmark marriage equality case, the Supreme Court found that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the “constellation of benefits” of marriage. Two years later, in Pavan v. Smith, the court affirmed that these rights extend to birth certificates.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest LGBT rights advocate, applauded Monday’s decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision once again affirms that marriage equality under Obergefell v. Hodges means that married same-sex couples are entitled to be treated equally under the law,” HRC President Alphonso David said in a statement. “By refusing to hear this case, the Court effectively reaffirms its ruling in Pavan v. Smith that unequivocally ruled states must issue birth certificates on equal terms to same-sex parents.”
“We refuse to allow our love to be treated any differently under law, and will fight to make sure skim-milk marriage never becomes the law of the land,” he added.
by Carlos Santoscoy
Source – On Top Magazine
