It comes as no surprise, but on June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pavan v. Smith, overturned a ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court and struck down an Arkansas law which did not allow the listing of non-biological same-sex partners on a child's birth certificate. The high court ruled that gay couples who are married are entitled to have both their names listed on "their child's" birth certificate.
And the June 26 ruling (6-3) was handed down on the second anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which struck down state bans on same-sex marriage by a 5-4 vote.
Arkansas attorney general Leslie Rutledge issued the following statement following the ruling: "In a sharply divided decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Arkansas Supreme Court without briefing or argument on the merits. I disagree with the majority's flawed reasoning and strongly agree with the conclusions of Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito in their well-reasoned dissent. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has spoken, and I will continue to review today's decision to determine the appropriate next steps upon remand to the Arkansas Supreme Court to ensure that the law is followed properly."
A release from the Arkansas Department of Health on June 28 said it will now begin issuing birth certificates for same-sex couples who utilized artificial insemination and were married at the time of the birth of their child, but that amended birth certificates will only be issued in cases where the birth mother is listed on the certificate and no one is listed as the father.
As I said, the decision was not surprising in light of the ruling which came two years ago, declaring state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. And, while it may be the law of the land, though the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court into such state matters might be challenged, the decision does not make it right or sensible.
Sensible on a birth certificate is to list both biological parents; and listing non-biological same-sex partners, even if the state calls them "married," is simply not being honest about who the biological parents of the child are.
And, morally, it's another slap in God's face (Psalm 2), for He instituted marriage between a man and a woman and His Word, the Bible, still calls homosexual relationships an abomination. And those who seek to paint another picture of Jesus and Christianity need to remember who it is who spoke to Abraham before the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah and who it is who gave to Moses and the apostles the words recorded in the Bible.
I must stand by the words I wrote in this column two years ago: "Our nation, which was once founded on Christian and Biblical principles, has abandoned its roots. It can no longer lay any claim to being a Christian nation. After all, what people who count themselves Christian could ban the Bible from schools, the 10 Commandments from public buildings, restrict prayer, support the murder of millions of unborn children and, now, endorse a definition of marriage entirely contrary to that of the Bible?
"Jesus said (Matthew 19:4-6): 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'
"Add to that the prohibitions and condemnation of homosexuality and adultery in Genesis 19, Exodus 20, Leviticus 18, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, Revelation 21 and elsewhere and it is clear that no true follower of Christ can support same-sex marriage, adultery or any other sin condemned by the Bible."
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 07/05/2017