Previous 3 / 29 Next

ii QUESTION PRESENTED – Continued grounds, and their motion for appellate fees was subsequently denied in an unreasoned order, is there any federal question for this Court to review?

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Marisa N. Pavan et al. v. Nathaniel Smith

Documents

Author: U.S. Supreme Court

Preview

Description: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution requires states to list married same-sex couples on their children's birth certificate. Arkansas had issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples; however, when these couples had children, the state refused to list both parents on the birth certificate. It should be noted that Arkansas at that point had been listing non-biological parents on birth certificates; in cases of artificial insemination, for example, the child’s birth certificate listed the mother’s husband as the father, irrespective of whether he was the biological father or not. However, Arkansas had refused to extend its birth certificate rules to cover same-sex parents. The Court held that since Arkansas law already “makes birth certificates about more than just genetics,” the state cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.

Type of resource

Legal instruments / Jurisprudence

Source

Other

Country

United States of America

Theme

Legal / Digital Identity

Date published: Jun 26, 2017

Source URL: Direct Link

Primary Documents

MARISA N. PAVAN, et al., v Nathaniel Smith.pdf
English
Download View

StatelessHub Library

Select target paragraph3

Marisa N. Pavan et al. v. Nathaniel Smith

Primary Documents

Notifications