Read on Twitter
I’m shaken to learn that Judge Barrett served on the Bd of Trustees of a group of private schools that barred children from attending their schools simply because their parents were unmarried. In the year 2017. https://www.businessinsider.com/amy-coney-barrett-says-being-lgbtq-is-a-sexual-preference-2020-10
Even beyond the disturbing anti-LGBTQ animus, children are children. To exclude any child from school because the child’s parents are not married is a cruel legacy of a bygone era. It is at war with basic concepts of justice and fairness that all judges must adhere to.
I thought some principles were settled, like what the Supreme Court said in 1968:
“We start from the premise” that children of unmarried persons “are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“We start from the premise” that children of unmarried persons “are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“Why should [a] child be denied rights merely because of his birth out of wedlock? He certainly is subject to all the responsibilities of a citizen, including the payment of taxes and conscription under the Selective Service Act.”
“How under our constitutional regime can he be denied correlative rights which other citizens enjoy?” - Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968)
