![\"Neil](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.towleroad.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/gorsuch.jpeg?resize=740%2C453\")
<\/p>\nNeil Gorsuch Isn\u2019t Conservative. He\u2019s Reactionary.<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Today, the Supreme Court issued a\u00a0per curiam<\/em> ruling that solidified its landmark same-sex<\/a> marriage ruling in\u00a0Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em>. Contrary to popular belief,\u00a0per curiam\u00a0<\/em>doesn\u2019t mean \u201cunanimous\u201d; it means \u201cby the court,\u201d or that it is unsigned. Indeed, three justices did dissent: Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and the Court\u2019s newest member (who doesn\u2019t belong there in the first place), Neil Gorsuch. In his dissent, Gorsuch proves he\u2019s everything we feared he would be, an anti-queer wolf with a sneaky, homespun smile.<\/p>\n First, the decision itself. This case,\u00a0Pavan v. Smith<\/em>, was triggered by the State of Arkansas\u2019s refusal to list the names of married same-sex<\/a> couples<\/a> on their children\u2019s birth certificates. Recall that in\u00a0Obergefell<\/em>, Justice Kennedy wrote for Supreme Court\u2019s majority that the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s due process and equal protection guarantees required states to extend marriage rights to same-sex<\/a> couples<\/a>. Queer couples<\/a> deserved equal \u201cdignity,\u201d Kennedy wrote, ending his decision with this profound statement on marriage and equality:<\/p>\n Arkansas had tried to neuter this holding, arguing that nothing in a decision that guarantees queer persons the right to marry also gives them the right to both be listed as parents to a child where only one of them is a biological parent.<\/p>\n There are three problems with that argument. First, it makes a mockery of\u00a0Obergefell<\/em>. That decision required states to extend all the \u201cconstellation of\u201d rights and obligations that come with marriage to queer couples<\/a> \u201con the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex<\/a> couples<\/a>.\u201d Parentage is one of those rights.<\/p>\n Second, as the Court noted, Arkansas already includes nonbiological parents on birth certificates when the parents are in opposite-sex<\/a> marriages. Children born via artificial insemination to opposite-sex<\/a> couples<\/a> get their biological mom\u2019s name and her husband\u2019s name on their birth certificate. This is actually state law, and it even applies when everyone knows that the husband is not the biological father.<\/p>\n Third, any other holding would make marriage rights narrow and open the door to erosion of the rights associated with marriage. If queer persons can get married, but then they can\u2019t enjoy the rights that come with a valid marriage, what was the point in the first place?<\/p>\n But these arguments didn\u2019t move Justice Gorsuch, who took Arkansas\u2019s line and argued that a decision about marriage says nothing about a state administrative regime based on biology. As I noted earlier, this runs directly afoul of\u00a0Obergefell<\/em>, which guaranteed more than a certificate of marriage, but also all the rights associated with marriage. Combine this with Gorsuch\u2019s radical dissent in the Court\u2019s refusal to take up a challenge to California\u2019s law that only grants gun owners concealed carry permits for \u201cparticularized need.\u201d Only Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, arguing that the law infringes some nonexistent right to carry guns everywhere and for whatever reason, something not even the most conservative Supreme Court justices have even implied before.<\/p>\n Gorsuch\u2019s emerging jurisprudence is an affront to progressive values and a direct assault on our rights and safety as queer Americans.<\/p>\n The post Neil Gorsuch Isn\u2019t Conservative. He\u2019s Reactionary.<\/a> appeared first on Towleroad<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.towleroad.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/Obergefell.png?resize=300%2C218\")
<\/p>\n