Sex In The Public Square - Iowa - Comments

Stayed

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:06:06 -0700

So disappointing. Legally, I suppose, it is sensible, though morally it just seems so wrong. Very frustrating. But congrats to Fritz and McQuillan!

Amnesia

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:26:01 -0700

I forgot we had one of those....

D'oh.

I just added a link to that

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:10:09 -0700

Thanks JanieBelle. I just added a link to that same page on our "Links" page under the category "Court cases"

Court Documents

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:26:43 -0700

For anyone interested,

Lambda Legal has all the relevant court documents here.

Read the decision!

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:59:12 -0700

Holy crow.

It's actually very readable and understandable, and he cites Lawrence and Loving among a pile of other cases and laws.

The best part is that he quotes Scalia a couple times.

Ouch.

And the NYT has a decent

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:54:24 -0700

And the NYT has a decent story here .

Hurray for Hanson

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:52:28 -0700

(The judge, not the band.)

Indeed! Way to support the rule of science :) (Wait, I mean the rule of law, supported by science.)

Now, of course we expect that this is going to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, so it'll be interesting to see what they do. And any bets on whether this creates a new surge of energy fr state constitutional amendments?

(Wow, where did that pessimism come from?? I think I need to get out for a walk. I'll be back in a little bit.)

Judge Hanson Rips Defense "Experts"

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:42:04 -0700

I'm reading the decision and WOW. The Defense called in some Religious Studies type folks to testify, and the Judge was having none of it:

"...the Court does not believe that the expected testimony of these individuals is scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge..."

"...these individuals are not qualified to testify as experts regarding the issues in this matter...they do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields..."

"Ms. Somerville specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favor of “moral intuition.” She has no training in empirical research and admits having no knowledge of existing social science research relevant to this case. She concedes that her views do no reflect the mainstream views of other ethicists..."

"The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense."

That full section is posted on my blog.

The long and short of that seems to be "The religious opinions of a few people (edited unnecessary term of disparagement) does not qualify them as experts qualified to testify about marriage, sociology, .. or basically anything related to this case or the law."

Hurrah for Judge Hanson!

PDF of the Judge's ruling

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:34:43 -0700

Here's a link to a .pdf of Judge Robert Hanson's ruling in its entirety .

DesMoines Register Article

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:31:39 -0700

The DesMoines Register has a piece up , with a bit more meat to it than the CNN article.

The Lycos blurb is here .

The BBC blurb is here .

I had no idea

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:08:35 -0700

I had no idea there was even such a big case pending there. Who'da thunk it?

I'm up before God this morning, trying to find out what I can about the history of the case, and the reaction to the decision. I'm going to look for the decision in its entirety, too.

It's coffee break time, though. I don't do mornings well without gallons of coffee.

Kisses

The heartland

Elizabeth — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:16:05 -0700

It may just live up to its name yet. Good news indeed!