Among the questions Walker asked Olson and Boise to address in their closing arguments is whether voters who believe "genuinely but without evidence" in legitimate reasons for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples are infringing on constitutional rights. The plaintiffs are also asked to provide evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages would reduce discrimination about gays and lesbians and provide benefits to the state.MarriageTrial.com plans to post their reenactment of closing arguments as soon as transcripts are available, and wants to stream the ruling announcement live as soon as it is made.
Walker asks Pugno and supporters of the marriage ban to provide concrete evidence that allowing same-sex weddings would harm the institution of marriage itself. He also asks, among other things, how banning the marriages would improve the chances of a child being raised by both a mom and dad given that the state already permits same-sex couples to adopt children.
The issue, then, under full equal rights would be phrasing of the term. As you mentioned (and I have myself experienced) it is a commonly held conservative Christian point of view that marriage is a sacred institution. I agree that it can be. However, many people can get married at the courthouse, no religious intercession required. Should these heterosexual marriages be denoted in the same way? No. The singular word "marriage" is just as applicable to civil ceremonies as it is religious ceremonies, and therefore it ought to be as applicable to same-sex marriages as heterosexual.This issue is geniunely difficult for sympathetic and caring individuals inside of religious institutions. I can sympathize for their desire to compromise to bring about more rights under the civic union (or etc) label, but it's impossible to endorse a position that effectively grants fewer total rights than het marriages.
Beyond that, we have to look at the sacred connotations of the word. Marriage does have strong religious traditions, but we are a secular and pluralistic society. Is it sufficient in a pluralistic society to say one is "married" Would it be acceptable for denominations attached to the term? Would my parents be "Ukrainian Orthodox Married"? Christian Married? Jewish Married? Muslim Married? When applied this way, the terms take on a term of divisiveness and mean-spirited exclusivity if not outright bigotry. Would you be settle for being "Roman Catholic Married"? The rights extended to you would be no different than a Protestant Married couple, but, it might be argued that society as a whole would be more accepting of your union.
For both of these reason "civic unions" ought to unacceptable to same-sex advocates.
This site is not owned or operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon Church or LDS Church). For the official Church websites, please visit LDS.org and Mormon.org.Why clarify, unless they're associated in loose terms? Oh right, because links to WhyMormonism.org are included in the reasons to "guard marriage" (example: "Historic marriage has its roots in pairing a man to a woman and has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole." -- link location maintained from the source text)
Among the questions Walker asked Olson and Boise to address in their closing arguments is whether voters who believe "genuinely but without evidence" in legitimate reasons for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples are infringing on constitutional rights. The plaintiffs are also asked to provide evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages would reduce discrimination about gays and lesbians and provide benefits to the state.Snarky reply: shouldn't the court first find out if voters actually understand the content and meaning of their constitutional rights? Also, why does this need to be a benefit to the state? However, the defendants are getting their own questions:
Walker asks Pugno and supporters of the marriage ban to provide concrete evidence that allowing same-sex weddings would harm the institution of marriage itself. He also asks, among other things, how banning the marriages would improve the chances of a child being raised by both a mom and dad given that the state already permits same-sex couples to adopt children.The article isn't very long, and these blocks of text represent about 1/4 of the total write-up, FYI.
whether voters who believe "genuinely but without evidence" in legitimate reasons for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples are infringing on constitutional rights.If it's a "legitimate" reason, what does is matter why people believe in it? Is the genuineness of the belief supposed to somehow stand in for evidence? And what does any of that have to do with the effect of that belief on the rights of others?
The plaintiffs are also asked to provide evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages would reduce discrimination about gays and lesbians and provide benefits to the state.Would eliminating a form of discrimination reduce discrimination? Let me ponder that for a moment.
"Project 1138 is designed to increase public awareness of the 1,138 federal marital benefits and protections denied to same-sex couples as the result of marriage inequality."Separate is not equal!
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination - according to Leviticus 18:22 - and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.posted by ericb at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2010 [27 favorites]
The following response is an open letter to Dr Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend their homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Should I smite him?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education, University of Virginia
Who the hell is this judge? ... it sounds like this trail has all the intellectual and Constitutional rigor of a third grade civics class.Judge Vaughn Walker? He's has presided over some pretty important cases involving the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, such as the Al Haramain case. I'm guessing he knows a little more then you do about 'civics'.
I loved it when Martin Sheen did that on the West Wing.
Isn't that getting on the wrong side of the Establishment Clause?Well, of course it is. Plus, we can't buy liquor on Sunday.
“In early October 2000, Dr. Schlessinger, ran a full-page ad in ‘Variety’ offering an apology for what she called "poorly chosen" words about homosexuality. She had previously referred to gays as "biological errors" and "deviants” …posted by ericb at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2010
October 2000 was not Dr. Laura's month. A few weeks after she issued her apology, a version of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" was incorporated into the 18 October episode of the political television drama ‘The West Wing.’ In "The Midterms," President Bartlet used his own detailed knowledge of the Bible to make a Schlessinger-esque character named Jenna Jacobs look ridiculous.
Just as the Internet piece gave the ‘West Wing’ writers fodder for a memorable scene, so did the exposure on a popular television show boost the online circulation of the "Letter to Dr. Laura." Similarly, the 2004 brouhaha over gay marriage sparked a renewal of this e-missive, causing it to once again be flung from inbox to inbox.”
So with respect to the Equal Protection clause, I go back to the Yick Wo case where the Supreme Court said the right to the equal protection of the laws is the protection of equal laws and in that case, this is 1886, because of a Chinese person not being able to run a laundry in this city, the Court stated that:"The very idea that a person would be denied a material right essential to the enjoyment of life" -- that's marriage -- "seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails as being the very essence of slavery."Well, we know that taking away the right to marry was, indeed, the very essence of slavery. Yet, that very freedom once denied to slaves and denied to interracial couples throughout this country is now being denied to the plaintiffs; not because they are Chinese in this case, not because of their race, but because of their sexual orientation. (page 3001, lines 6-23)
« Older Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Pres... | Wikipedia too credible for you... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:02 AM on June 16, 2010