SCOTUS Rules That Birth Certificates Can Be Falsified for the Sake of Social Justice

This is how far down the rabbit hole we are, as a society.

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that DNA has nothing to do with parentage.

Yes, according to the maniacs that make up SCOTUS, sperm and ovum do not join to create a life, but thoughts, or something even less concrete make a child grow in the womb.


Who knew??

We’ve known for some time that biology would soon become a banished science in the utopian, liberal world of make-believe. This one is a doozy, however.

Presumably, this new ruling is to prop up the court’s same-sex marriage ruling from 2015.

It involves a case out of Arkansas, where the state was arguing against allowing same-sex couples to list their names as mother and father on a child’s birth certificate.

By definition, you can’t have a mother and a father in a same-sex relationship.

I know. That was “hate speech,” wasn’t it?

From the Washington Times:

Arkansas had resisted, arguing that the birth certificate was a record of parentage for the child, rather than a document about the marriage.

But the high court rejected that argument, saying that in situations where a child is conceived from an anonymous sperm donor, the mother’s husband is still required to be listed. Denying that same accommodation to same-sex couples violates the 2015 Obergefell ruling that established a national right to same-sex marriages.

How? How does that deny any accommodation? The Obergefell ruling dealt with the legalities of same-sex marriage, not whether a female that wants to be the masculine, or “butch” partner in a relationship suddenly provides sperm (They don’t. Ever).

Just to check, I went to Merriam-Webster’s definition for “father.”


Definition of father

  1. 1a :  a man who has begotten a child; also :  sire 3b capitalized (1) :  god 1 (2) :  the first person of the Trinity (see Trinity 1)
  2. 2:  forefather the founding fathers
  3. 3a :  one related to another in a way suggesting that of father to childb :  an old man —used as a respectful form of address.

I guess Merriam-Webster is guilty of hate speech, too. Notice how there is nothing there to suggest a butch woman?

OK… let’s try again. defines “father” this way:

male parent.


a father-in-law, stepfather, or adoptive father.


any male ancestor, especially the founder of a family or line; progenitor.


a man who exercises paternal care over other persons; paternalprotector or provider:

It’s the patriarchy, ya’ll.

In excusing their insanity, the court extended this explanation:

“The State uses those certificates to give married parents a form of legal recognition that is not available to unmarried parents. Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition,” the court said.


The dissent was written by Neil Gorsuch, saying the state had reasons for wanting both birth mother and father listed on the birth certificate, and that SCOTUS was too quick to overturn an earlier ruling by the state high court.


Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. joined with Gorsuch on his dissent.

This is insanity, at its most perverse. We have reached a time when 5 people can deem biology null and void. So how will biology classes be taught in schools from here on out?

Pray for the children who are being denied the truth of their parentage, and the ensuing havoc that will be wrought on our society.

No matter how they try to wish it away, it will always require an egg and sperm cell to create life. Eggs are only produced by women, and sperm by men. If a genetic disease or abnormality is carried by the chromosomes of one or the other, how does making a biological lie a legal lock on birth paperwork help the child who may need that information for future medical issues?

Nobody is thinking about the children, in this situation. Not the parents, or the courts.






Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos