Sex In The Public Square - same-sex marriage - Comments

The heart of it

JanieBelle — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:58:00 -0700

It comes down to this: The federal government should not allow its official picture of the nation to be drawn inaccurately because of religious disagreements about the morality of homosexuality.

Yes, this is exactly the heart of the matter. You have nailed the issue in this post. From ignoring legal marriages to spinning, editing, and outright lying about science on climate science to stem cell research, to promoting prosyletization through government funded programs, our elected officials, most notably the current administration and its cohorts but not excluding the current members of Congress, are not only violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, but are attempting to legislate reality. It is very Orwellian in nature, and theocratic in its leanings. I, quite frankly, do not care for this artificial reality they are trying to establish.

Well thought out and well written, Elizabeth. There is no justifiable reason why same-sex marriages should not be counted in the states wherein they are legal and recognized.

Marriage in California

Elizabeth — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:31:18 -0700

Same sex marriages have now been legal in California for a full week. How is it going out there? Is the ballot-initiative work slowing down or speeding up? What kind of grass roots or online organizing is needed to make sure that it fails and marriage stays legal?

I understand your nervousness...

Elizabeth — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:38:00 -0700

I'm sorry to have missed this comment when it was first posted. It's been kind of crazy around here.

I totally understand your nervousness. I think the fact that it only takes a simply majority on a ballot initiative to amend the constitution is grounds for great nervousness. On the other hand, I suppose it is also grounds for some amount of optimism. Technically, I suppose, it means that the constitution can be amended very frequently should people decide to organize for change. Maybe this is a good reminder that people living in states with such simple amendment procedures should start combing through their constitutions for things that need changing.

And in California specifically it means that those who want to see equality protected need to organize voters in large numbers. Let us know if we can be helfpful at Sex In The Public Square. Unfortunately none of the site's founders are able to vote in California, but we are prepared to help mobilize voters there, to be certain! And California is our second largest source of readers after New York. Let us know what you need. And we'll keep following the story.

I'm nervous

papercutsandplastic — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:16:11 -0700

The court decision is really exciting! I wasn't in the Castro the evening it came down, but I hear it was a great party, a wonderful moment of community. It's the kind of thing that warms my hippie little heart and makes me feel a part of a great big family.

But as I said in my subject line, I'm nervous. I know that the Religious Right are really good at getting out their voters, and they will play with people's homophobia to get this ammendment passed. I'm worried that their tactics--which I think are lowbrow and hurtful but are nonetheless effective--might work to get California voters to put discrimination in our constitution. Which would obviously just be a shame. I love California, and I love living in San Francisco where people mostly have open minds. It would be so sad to see us pass something so...backwards.

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