Gorsuch Hints That He’s Deeply Critical of LGBT Rights

The Supreme Court’s newest justice dissented in a ruling involving same-sex couples.

Ron Sachs/CNP via ZUMA Wire

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples in determining who is listed on a child’s birth certificate. The decision bolsters the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case in which the court concluded that same-sex couple are entitled to marriage “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” It overturns the Arkansas Supreme Court’s December ruling that “it does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”

But the decision also holds a foreboding omen for LGBT rights. Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice, joined Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in dissenting, suggesting that he may be a reliable critic of LGBT protections in future cases.

Under Arkansas law, when a married woman gives birth, the name of her husband generally must appear on the child’s birth certificate, even if he is not the biological father. But the same rule did not apply to same-sex couples. When the two plaintiff couples in the case submitted paperwork listing both spouses as parents, the state sent them back birth certificates that listed only the birth mother. “Because that differential treatment infringes Obergefell’s commitment to provide same-sex couples ‘the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage,’ we reverse the state court’s judgment,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion.  

But Gorsuch wrote in his dissent, “Nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology…offends the Constitution…Neither does anything in today’s opinion purport to identify any constitutional problem with a biology based birth registration regime.”

Gorsuch’s record on LGBT matters is thin but has prompted concerns among LGBT rights advocates. In 2005, Gorsuch wrote an op-ed in the National Review accusing liberals of using the courts “as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide.” Some Gorsuch supporters argued he might be a “conservative defender of gay rights” because he has gay friends.

During his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch said same-sex marriage was “absolutely settled law,” but he also noted “there is ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now.” He didn’t indicate how he felt about that ongoing litigation, but Monday’s ruling provides some insight. And it doesn’t bode well for another case the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear regarding whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian clients based on religious objections to same-sex marriage.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate