Subscribe Register Login
Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 5:24 a.m.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Mobile App

Judge: Arkansas birth-certificate system will be shut down if not fixed by Jan. 5

State law found unconstitutional

By John Lynch

This article was published November 28, 2017 at 4:30 a.m.


Use the form below to sign up for any or all of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's free newsletters:

















Arkansas' birth-certificate system -- deemed illegally flawed by the U.S. Supreme Court -- will have to be shut down unless the lawyers involved in litigation over the process come up with a way to fix it by Jan. 5, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ruled on Monday.


Use the form below to sign up for any or all of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's free newsletters:

















This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: Judge: Fix birth recording by Jan. 5

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments on: Judge: Arkansas birth-certificate system will be shut down if not fixed by Jan. 5

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 30 total comments

Jump to last page >>

BOLTAR says... November 28, 2017 at 7:13 a.m.

I hope the homophobes can understand a birth certificate does not establish biological parentage.

( | suggest removal )

smmlv3 says... November 28, 2017 at 8:11 a.m.

BOLTAR The word "homophobe", literally a fear of homosexualuality, is usually a misnomer used for everyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle. Fundamentalist Christians literally believe the bible is the word of God. They (we) are not afraid of deviant behavior, but simply believe that sin, of every kind, is an affront to our Creator and our Savior who gave His life for us. As far as birth certificates are concerned surely everyone knows that the name listed as the "father" does not have to be the biological father.

( | suggest removal )

RBear says... November 28, 2017 at 8:16 a.m.

smmlv3, and yet Christ specifically spoke against divorce. So when you say you "simply believe that sin, of every kind, is an affront to our Creator" yet condone divorces to the point of allowing them to be legally granted, you're playing the typical hypocritical role of right wingers on this issue.

( | suggest removal )

hah406 says... November 28, 2017 at 8:35 a.m.

FYI smmlv3, I don't have a "lifestyle." I have a life. I was born this way, just as God made me, and we are both good with it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really closely. You will find that while Jesus spoke out against a number of sins and issues, he never once spoke about homosexuality. Don't you think if it was that important, the Son of God would have mentioned it sometime during those 33 years on earth?

( | suggest removal )

BOLTAR says... November 28, 2017 at 9:03 a.m.

You guys immediately begin invoking your imaginary friends. A more substantive conversation remains possible if you focus on reality.

( | suggest removal )

PopulistMom says... November 28, 2017 at 9:31 a.m.

smmlv3,

I am a Christian, but I do not believe that every word in the Bible is literal and the word of God. How do you account for the different versions and translations? Also, you are ignoring much scholarship and history about how the Bible was put together by different authors in different centuries, translated, and edited etc. In any event, we do have separation of Church and State in this country. You fundamentalists do not get to hoist your ill considered hatred on the rest of society.

( | suggest removal )

Whippersnapper says... November 28, 2017 at 9:55 a.m.

The real issue here is that a Pulaski County Circuit Judge is, in his ruling, declaring that the State Supreme Court ruling is wrong because it disagrees with him. Whatever your position on the issue of homosexuality or birth certificates, this is a major breakdown in the state judiciary.
.
The easy fix would be to change the law to state that the two people on a birth certificate are the biological mother and father, and allow for openings for other parents. Child X is born, you list the biological mom and dad (to the best of your knowledge) for the real and legitimate purpose of identifying blood relatives (which has lots of health and other logic behind it) and you also leave the possibility of other parents (for adoption, homosexuals, etc.)

( | suggest removal )

BOLTAR says... November 28, 2017 at 9:57 a.m.

Unless America is a theocracy ruled by your interpretations of second-hand claims attributed to a flying Jewish zombie wizard (or other imaginary friend), the most pertinent arguments are Constitutional. We know the answer to the relevant point and require no superstituous drivel.

( | suggest removal )

Vickie55 says... November 28, 2017 at 10:05 a.m.

Whipper, the only flaw with that plan is that some birth parents don’t want their children to know who they are. That would make confidentiality impossible

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... November 28, 2017 at 12:02 p.m.

Judge Fox in this ruling comes across as an arrogant jerk. Does anyone know if Fox is a member of the gbltqiawtf community? He seems to lack any objectivity on the subject and it might be due to some personal interest overriding judicial restraint.
.
Hey Pop - I see you're one of those Cafeteria Christians - the Bible is merely a buffet where you pick and choose what you believe.
.
Hey Boltar - I hope the heterophobes can understand it's impossible for two biological men or two biological women together to make a baby.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online