Supreme Court rules in favor of adoption rights, but Gorsuch dissents

The case, Pavan v. Smith, was brought by two lesbian couples who had sued over the exclusion of the non-biological mother from the child's birth certificate.

It's helpful in other cases where states might try to say that they are allowing same-sex couples to marry but they still want to deny some of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Since Arkansas requires that the husbands of mothers of babies conceived through artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor be named on the birth certificate, a birth certificate in that is not just about biological relationships and the state can not treat same-sex marriages differently from opposite-sex marriages. Young people are the most supportive (cue up Whitney Houston singing, "I believe the children are the future...") with 76% of millennials and 65% of Gen Xers saying they support same-sex marriage.

Correspondent Richard Wolf explained in his write-up, "Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings", that "the court will hear a challenge from a Colorado baker who had lost lower court battles over his refusal to create a wedding cake for a gay couple".

The poll, which comes two years after the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, found that 62 percent support it now and 32 percent oppose it. Instead, the State insists, a birth certificate is simply a device for recording biological parentage - regardless of whether the child's parents are married.

According to reports, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented on the ruling which came from the court without one justice's authorship.

A Supreme Court decision made on Monday is giving LGBT allies and activists a reason to celebrate through the end of National Pride month. "The statute in question establishes a set of rules created to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child's birth certificate". Today's decision guarantees that the family we love will be respected and protected in the home we love'. The short dissenting opinion does some hand-waving around how men who are not biological fathers are routinely named on babies' birth certificates, but doesn't address the point since it really is proof that the state does not have a "biology based registration regime".

Same-sex parents across the country will now both be listed on their children's birth certificates, thanks to a Supreme Court decision.