The gay test cases before the Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court uses every excuse to avoid cases on parental rights, child custody, or family court due process. These family court issues are the biggest civil rights issues of our day, but the justices are scared to touch them. But it leaps to the chance to mandate same-sex marriage.

Left-wing law reporter Nina Totenberg of NPR Radio was promoting the upcoming cases, by describing the actual couples in the big test case in order to convince you that they have a compelling need:

But there was nothing they could do to ensure that if one of them died, the other parent would get custody of the two children adopted by the deceased partner. They could put their wishes on paper, but that paper would have little legal status.

"A judge could award that child to someone else," Jayne observes, effectively making the surviving parent "a legal stranger to the child that they've helped raise since birth."

So DeBoer and Rowse went to court to challenge the state's adoption law. The judge told them they would lose and suggested that they instead challenge the marriage ban.

That's the argument? Any single parent or married couple could say practically the same. State law allows them to name legal guardians for their kids in their will. Technically, I guess some judge has to rubber-stamp it. I don't know what the standards are, but this has very little to do with gays.

Next couple:

And in February of 1995, these two preppy-looking white men rushed to the hospital to begin caring for their newborn African-American twin boys. ...

The adoption, however, was not final, and again, only one of the two parents could actually adopt. ...

"It was a dream come true to actually become parents," says Randy. "Our lives have revolved around that role since that day over 20 years ago." ...

In 2008, when gay marriage was briefly legalized in California, the couple got married there, but their marriage is still not recognized in Kentucky. ...

And when Paul was diagnosed with prostate cancer three years ago, they had to shop for a doctor who would recognize Randy as his full partner with decision-making power should Paul's health make that necessary.

So these gay white men raise two black boys to adulthood, without problem, and now issue is just to sign a medical form for a prostate treatment?!

There are lots of single people who sign forms naming an emergency contact or even power of attorney. It is a routine matter that does not require any change to marriage law.

Next case:

Sophy Jesty is a specialist in animal cardiology. Her spouse, Val Tanco, is a specialist in animal gynecology and fertility. They were married in New York in 2011 and began looking for a place they could both have jobs as academic veterinarians. That's a tall order in academia, and they were elated when both were offered posts at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where they now teach, do clinical work, and conduct research.

But Tennessee does not recognize their New York marriage. ... Especially when Val got pregnant, through artificial insemination, with their daughter, Emilia. ...

Because Emilia was born in the short window of time when there was a court order requiring the state to recognize their New York marriage, Sophy Jesty is listed on the birth certificate as Emilia's father.

"I'm definitely not a father," Sophy says, "but the state on the birth certificates has only two slots; one is for mother and one is for father. So my name occupied the father slot."

That could change. If the state wins its case, it could try to reissue the birth certificate.

So this non-mother is on the birth certificate as the father, which is nearly her ideal, and her only concern is that the state might re-issue the birth certificate without her name?! Her complaint is about a pure hypothetical that has never happened.

Next case:

Friends and family quickly raised the $13,000 for a medical charter to Maryland, and soon the couple was off, with a nurse, medical technician, two pilots, and John's aunt, Paulette Roberts, who had been ordained online so she could marry them. ...

Through a friend, a civil rights lawyer came to Jim and John's home to explain that Ohio would not recognize the marriage.

Jim recalls what happened next: "He pulled out a blank death certificate and said, now, do you realize when John dies, the state of Ohio will say he's single, and this blank here for surviving spouse name will be blank. Your name won't show up there, Jim." ...

Three months and 11 days later, John Arthur died. The death certificate listed Jim Obergefell as his surviving spouse.

If the state wins its case in the Supreme Court, it can reissue a death certificate without Jim Obergefell's name.

So John is dead and Jim got exactly what he wanted.

I always thought that you had to have some sort of damages to get a court to hear your case. These same-sex couples are not even alleging any actual damages. All they can do is present some hypothetical scenario in which they might dislike how some document is worded, or be inconvenienced by having to write a will or power-of-attorney form.

For this, marriage law is being destroyed.

I don't want to give the impression that same-sex marriage is the main thing wrong with family law. It is not even in the top 10 things wrong. But the raw exercise of the power of this leftist-gay-feminist alliance that is scary.

Totenberg keeps saying things like:

The adoption, however, was not final, and again, only one of the two parents could actually adopt.

No, the black twin babies had 2 black parents, and were then legally adopted by one gay white guy. She could have "only one of the two gay men could adopt". But one man was not a parent in any sense of the word, and the other was only an adoptive parent after the adoption was legally finalized.

Somehow the Left is taking over the word "parent" and redefining it to meet their ideological purposes. Soon "parental rights" will CPS rights, or child support enforcement, or supervised visitation, or other such nonsense.

The US Supreme Court ruling is due June 30, and is widely expected to read same-sex marriage into the Constitution by a 5-4 vote.