Children of gay parents also targets of discrimination.

[Solomwi]

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?

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.

[Solomwi]

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.

[onodera]

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.

[Solomwi]

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.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is terrible. The parents of gay kids need our understanding and support more than anyone else. It's not their fault...

[Zevico]

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.

Which makes it seem a little pedestrian. What will the appeal establish? "registrar forced to write down name of actual adoptive parents in birth certificate." A real step forward for gay rights, or an utter waste of money for all involved: you decide. (if the adoption were being challenged that would be another matter entirely)

[MrFun]

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.

[MrFun]

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.

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

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

There's the reason.

[DinoDoc]

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?

[Tuberski]

Two gay men are holding up this child's right to pre-school because they want both of their names on the birth certificate?

That's completely asinine.

Louisiana isn't violating the child's rights, the parents are.

ACK!

[MrFun]

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.

[SlowwHand]

Two gay men are holding up this child's right to pre-school because they want both of their names on the birth certificate?

That's completely asinine.

Louisiana isn't violating the child's rights, the parents are.

ACK!

Pretty much, yeah.

[DinoDoc]

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

This wouldn't be the first time you've posted a press release from an organization that saw fit to fudge the truth a little if they thought it would make for a more compelling case.

[Ecofarm]

Once again you completely miss the point.

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.

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.

This post was not directed at me (it really nailed Ben to the wall)...

I think it is important for us to establish that a person is not disqualified from the label 'victim' just because an agenda exists somewhere. Just as a basic exercise in logic and ethics...

US citizens are backed up by an agenda to exterminate terrorists, therefore... US civilians are never 'victims' of terrorism. Rape victims are backed up by an agenda to enforce laws against rape, therefore...

That crap doesn't fly. Admit, Ben, that it was a retarded statement. It was a classic Hitleresque blaming of the victims. At one point, you claimed that the states were the targets (and thus victims), making the people in the OP some kind of terrorists.

[Solomwi]

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.

Yeah, I can't imagine where I would have ever gotten any familiarity with Southern Bible Belt culture.

No, I'm not being naive, and it's not a fair conclusion. There's nothing to support it except a broad stereotype. I thought you were against those. I'm also mindful of the fact that his personal views don't matter here. A federal court has ordered a state official to do something that arguably violates state law. As that state's attorney general, it's his job to do just what he's doing. If he were, in fact, defying court orders and otherwise acting illegally or underhandedly, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that's just not the case here. In fact, Caldwell's not handling the case directly. Kyle Duncan, who works for Caldwell, is the lead attorney for the state. Don't you think that if Caldwell saw this as a big moral, or even calculated political, crusade to protect Louisiana from the Evil Gay Agenda (TM), that he'd get more personally involved?

Why are you so dead set on accepting the conclusory opinion of Lambda Legal's director, designed to stir emotions for his side in the fight, when no facts support it?

Again, just so you're clear on what I'm saying: Caldwell may or may not hate gay people. I don't know. Neither does Cathcart. It also doesn't matter, because either way, he would likely be doing just what he's doing now.