|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yep yep. Good point.
TPM: Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays
Almost, but not quite right. Judge can refuse to perform same-sex marriages in Arizona because Arizona law forbids marriage between partners of the same sex. The broad writing of the bill allows judges to refuse "to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs". Any beliefs, as long as you preface it with "God says . . . " Don't like inter-racial marriage? Just say your God is against it. Inter-faith marriages? Marriages with a wide age gap? The bill is pretty much carte blanche to engage in exactly the kind of behavior we have civil rights laws to prevent.
I look forward to the supporters of the Bill explaining why it would never be used in the literal ways you suggest. That's usually what happens when a law is written in general terms because no-one wants to be seen to say something explicit in a law like "yeah, the 'religious views' we're protecting here are the ones against gays".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I look forward to the supporters of the Bill explaining why it would never be used in the literal ways you suggest. That's usually what happens when a law is written in general terms because no-one wants to be seen to say something explicit in a law like "yeah, the 'religious views' we're protecting here are the ones against gays".
You don't have to look forward. You can look back! Just check out this interview with one of the supporters of the just-vetoed SB 1062 arguing that no one in Arizona would ever discriminate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
Michigan... federal judge declared SSM ban unconstitutional. Can't do a linky from my phone.
[ 21. March 2014, 21:52: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
on a slight tangent
Bishop Martin D. McLee , the head Bishop in New York of the Methodist Church committed to ending church trials in his region for ministers who perform same sex-marriages. This allows ministers to conduct a ceremony still prohibited under his denomination’s laws without being brought to trial.
This was part of the settlement of the trial of Rev. Ogletree, retired dean of Yale Divinity School, who had officiated at the same sex marriage of his son.
New York Times article Since trials are still continuing in other districts, it may turn into another jurisdiction by jurisdiction slog.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Michigan... federal judge declared SSM ban unconstitutional. Can't do a linky from my phone.
The Michigan case is interesting because it started out as an adoption case. A lesbian couple sued for the right of joint adoption, which Michigan restricts to married couples. Each of the two lesbians had already been granted adoption as a single person, but they wanted the legal protection of having both parents recognized by the state. From the Washington Post:
quote:
U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman dismissed the state’s contention that Michigan voters adopted the ban on the premise that heterosexual married couples provided the optimal environment for raising children.
There is no proof that such a premise is true, Friedman wrote, and he declared the testimony of the state’s main witness “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”
BTW, one of the state's expert witnesses was Mark Regnerus, who has been discussed here before. I haven't read the full transcript, but what I have seen indicates he kind of crashed and burned on the stand.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The judge's comment on Regnerus's research was:
quote:
“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The judge's comment on Regnerus's research was:
“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”
Yeah, the judge was extremely harsh in his criticisms of Mark Regnerus, going so far as to write:
quote:
The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.
....
Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars...
Ouch. That's harsher criticism even than the ASA had of Regnerus' work (and when your own professional association testifies to the Supreme Court that your research is bogus, then you should probably just call it a day).
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
I haven't read the full transcript, but what I have seen indicates he kind of crashed and burned on the stand.
The trial transcripts are online here. I've read through Regnerus' full testimony (Day 5 pt 2, Day 6 pt 1, and Day 6 pt 2) and to be honest I didn't have too much problem with anything he actually said on the stand. I'm kindof surprised by the judge's vehement criticism of Regnerus given that Regnerus' own testimony struck me as rather innocuous (it looks like quite a lot of documentation that critiqued Regnerus' motives for his study was submitted to the court that I haven't read).
Regnerus admitted, yet again, that his NFSS study didn't prove anything about same-sex parenting. (It seems strange that the defence in these cases keeps trying to cite his study and use him as a witness, given he and everyone else admit that his study doesn't prove the things that it's claimed it does.) However, he stated his own belief that the current scientific literature in general s not sufficiently definitive on the subject of same-sex parenting to justify the conclusion which all the large scientific organisations have drawn from it, namely that same sex parents are as good at raising children as opposite sex parents.
He argued in the stand along the following lines (which I found an interesting argument):
1. Children benefit from family stability (ie lack of divorces, remarriages, parents changing partners etc)
2. Lesbian relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships (ie have a higher rate of divorce / separation)
3. Therefore children in lesbian relationships typically do less well than those in heterosexual relationships.
He argued that most scientific studies of same-sex parenting approach the subject by already knowing that family instability harms children and so they are very careful about comparing apples with apples and therefore only comparing stable lesbian relationships with stable heterosexual relationships (and then concluding there is no difference in parenting quality). In Regnerus' view, this wrongly hides the fact that lesbian parents are more likely to separate which leads to worse outcomes for the child. Their parenting ability is not the problem, it's their higher relationship instability that he sees as the problem, and he feels other scientists deliberately exclude that factor from consideration in their studies because they already know that relationship instability is a factor. The quote from his testimony that I though most summarised his argument was: "is there something... systematically unstable about that kind [lesbian parenting] of arrangement?"
I found that a surprising argument. Firstly, because it's actually a reasonably valid argument! And secondly, because that's not the usual criticism that conservatives have about same-sex parenting - usually we hear some crackpot theory espoused about the importance of gender roles and how a child needs to have parents of both gender to know what gender roles are. Regnerus didn't mention gender roles and seemed to implicitly concede they were irrelevant [insofar as he argued that any lesbian vs heterosexual parenting differences were a product of relationship stability and not parenting skills], and instead was only concerned with the fact that instability in lesbian relationships caused worse outcomes for their children.
Regnerus' line of argument above is actually reasonably valid. In heterosexual marriages it is most commonly the woman who initiates divorce proceedings. This extends to same-sex relationships and we find that the divorce rate among lesbians is typically higher than heterosexuals which is typically higher than gay men (ie the less women in the relationship the more stable it is... there is not yet any scientific consensus as to the reason(s) why this is)... it's not a massive difference in divorce rates but it is fairly consistently measurable.
It's extremely well documented that family breakups, such as divorce, have negative impacts on children (although parents staying in unhappy marriages and fighting etc also has negative impacts, so you can't just get around this by banning divorce). So we can reasonably guess that gay men, who have the most stable marriages, might make the best parents overall (not that Regnerus would probably like to agree with this conclusion that his argument implicitly leads to), and lesbians the worst and heterosexual couples somewhere in between.* So, at face value Regnerus' argument looks okay, but implies that gay men make the best fathers (this implication was not discussed in court). Although I note that it still means his NFSS study is largely pointless. What he would be better to do is focus more on evidence that lesbian couples have on average more breakups. The scientific community is already well-aware that breakups have negative effects on children which is exactly why everyone other than Regnerus controls for precisely that variable when they do studies. Therefore he would be better served to skip straight to talking about the rates of breakup of lesbian relationships and not try to indirectly infer that through studies of their children. He only takes about rates of divorce a little in his court testimony, but what he does say on the subject I found entirely unbelievable. He also appeared to believe that gay men had higher divorce rates than heterosexual couples - I think he's doing some pretty serious cherry-picking of data to get to that conclusion.
* It is in fact not actually true that lesbians do worse than heterosexuals at parenting. Heterosexual parenting is negatively affected by the high rate at which heterosexuals have children by mistake. In his testimony Regnerus suggested that about 50% of births are 'unplanned'. Same-sex couples by comparison cannot have children by mistake and so will only adopt / have IVF / surrogates etc when the parents want a child and feel conditions are right to raise a child in the household. Thus the lower stable lesbian relationships is offset by the lower rate of planned-ness of heterosexual children, and they approximately balance out.
Under cross-examination Regnerus agreed that there are certain groups scientifically well-known to be worse on average at raising children (lower income parents, less educated parents), but Regnerus thought they should still be allowed to marry and agreed that ability to raise children well shouldn't be a legal pre-requisite for marriage. So I guess he did come across looking a bit stupid for trying to peddle a gays-shouldn't-marry-because-they-might-raise-children-badly talking point when he wants groups who do raise children badly to be able to marry. The same self-contradiction applied to those groups with a high divorce rate (African-Americans, interracial couples, second marriages), who Regnerus was happy to see get married despite their higher divorce rates, yet he self-contradictingly wanted to prohibit same-sex marriages due to their allegedly higher divorce rates. Notably the judge agreed in the verdict, and observed that marriage has never been prohibited to groups that are well-documented scientifically as raising children poorly, and thus trying to prohibit gay people from marrying by claiming they raise children poorly is "a glaring inconsistency".
[ 24. March 2014, 04:15: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Regnerus admitted, yet again, that his NFSS study didn't prove anything about same-sex parenting. (It seems strange that the defence in these cases keeps trying to cite his study and use him as a witness, given he and everyone else admit that his study doesn't prove the things that it's claimed it does.)
It's only "strange" if you buy the self-serving bullshit Regnerus is serving up about his (self-reported) purity of motive. These kinds of "studies" exist for the sole purpose of giving a scientific veneer to religiously-based prejudice. In other words, they give cover for claiming that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to opposite-sex couples having teh buttsehks and being unfaithful when addressing the media or sympathetic audiences but, as observed in similar circumstances, a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. In other words, the whole purpose of the "study" was to generate cover for PR talking points. Using it as evidence was always going to be risky for whoever drew the short straw and had to parse words very carefully on the stand.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
However, he stated his own belief that the current scientific literature in general s not sufficiently definitive on the subject of same-sex parenting to justify the conclusion which all the large scientific organisations have drawn from it, namely that same sex parents are as good at raising children as opposite sex parents.
He argued in the stand along the following lines (which I found an interesting argument):
1. Children benefit from family stability (ie lack of divorces, remarriages, parents changing partners etc)
2. Lesbian relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships (ie have a higher rate of divorce / separation)
3. Therefore children in lesbian relationships typically do less well than those in heterosexual relationships.
What set off my alarm bells when I finally read through his testimony was how far afield (Scandinavia) he had to go to find a result to fit his desired narrative. The U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized full marriage for same-sex couples have (to date) shown a lower rate of divorce for same-sex couples of both genders than for opposite-sex couples of similar longevity. (The Williams Institute version of the report seems to be offline at the moment, but you can read the quick-and-dirty Wikipedia summary here.)
[ 25. March 2014, 01:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's only "strange" if you buy the self-serving bullshit Regnerus is serving up about his (self-reported) purity of motive. These kinds of "studies" exist for the sole purpose of giving a scientific veneer to religiously-based prejudice. In other words, they give cover for claiming that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to opposite-sex couples having teh buttsehks and being unfaithful when addressing the media or sympathetic audiences but, as observed in similar circumstances, a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. In other words, the whole purpose of the "study" was to generate cover for PR talking points. Using it as evidence was always going to be risky for whoever drew the short straw and had to parse words very carefully on the stand.
I 100% agree. From what I've seen/heard about what the man has blogged and written elsewhere he's an extreme religious zealot nut who propagates utter stupidity. And that was the view the judge clearly arrived at about him - I think quite a lot of information about him must have been submitted to the court in addition to his own statements on the stand, because in the court transcript itself of him as a witness he came across as plausible, if a bit self-contradictory.
quote:
What set off my alarm bells when I finally read through his testimony was how far afield (Scandinavia) he had to go to find a result to fit his desired narrative.
And that particular Scandinavian study is fairly well known as being in error as it covered only a very short period of time and longer studies from Scandinavia have not shown the same effects. He's cherry-picking his data here.
quote:
The U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized full marriage for same-sex couples have (to date) shown a lower rate of divorce for same-sex couples of both genders than for opposite-sex couples of similar longevity.
US data's not great to use because marriage equality there is so recent / ongoing, and you really really want to filter for the fact that a lot of homosexual couples getting married have been together for years and unable to marry (and now that they are allowed to marry, they do) and statistically there is a much lower likelihood of a couple that has been together 20 years already getting divorced within the first 3 years of marriage than there is for a couple that has only been together for a year before getting married (so that skews the divorce rates massively in favor of same-sex couples who are already in long-lasting relationships.). Sadly Denmark, that has had civil unions for 25 years now, the longest of any country in the world (and thus who's data would suffer least from this effect), doesn't even publish the same-sex divorce rate data. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) The Wiki page really isn't very great... This article explains which countries are publishing data and why some aren't. I guess I could go dig through their data and update the wiki article with it.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Under cross-examination Regnerus agreed that there are certain groups scientifically well-known to be worse on average at raising children (lower income parents, less educated parents), but Regnerus thought they should still be allowed to marry and agreed that ability to raise children well shouldn't be a legal pre-requisite for marriage. So I guess he did come across looking a bit stupid for trying to peddle a gays-shouldn't-marry-because-they-might-raise-children-badly talking point when he wants groups who do raise children badly to be able to marry. The same self-contradiction applied to those groups with a high divorce rate (African-Americans, interracial couples, second marriages), who Regnerus was happy to see get married despite their higher divorce rates, yet he self-contradictingly wanted to prohibit same-sex marriages due to their allegedly higher divorce rates. Notably the judge agreed in the verdict, and observed that marriage has never been prohibited to groups that are well-documented scientifically as raising children poorly, and thus trying to prohibit gay people from marrying by claiming they raise children poorly is "a glaring inconsistency".
I think that's the killer blow, right there. Either 'higher risk of poor parenting' is a reason to prevent marriage or it isn't.
It essentially comes down to the same problem as the common suggestion that, when it comes to homosexuals, 'inability to have biological children' is a reason to prevent marriage.
If either of those is a valid criterion, fine, but it ought to be applied to heterosexual couples just as much as it's applied to homosexual couples. Whereas what tends to happen is that a criterion is worked up to dress up a foregone conclusion that homosexual couples should be excluded, because these days no-one wants to be seen to just blatantly say 'we want to exclude homosexual couples because we disapprove of them'.
A criterion unequally applied is the very essence of the kind of discrimination that laws about equal protection, etc are intended to prevent.
[ 25. March 2014, 07:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
According to Rachel Maddow, the great state of Michigan paid Regnerus $40,000 of taxpayer money for his worthless testimony.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
According to Rachel Maddow, the great state of Michigan paid Regnerus $40,000 of taxpayer money for his worthless testimony.
Maybe that's why more and more attorneys-general are declining to mount defenses of these laws. Aside from the whole "being on the wrong side of history" think and having your grandkids look at you like you're Bull Connor, there's apparently been a increase in price and a decrease in effectiveness of transparently self-serving bullshit.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I hope you are right. Not for the first time, it becomes increasingly clear that the evidence contradicts the prejudice.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
More likely the various Attorney Generals don't want to litigate a court case that they feel certain will lose. It's not like either side will be impressed with the A-G for starting and losing a case.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
More likely the various Attorney Generals don't want to litigate a court case that they feel certain will lose.
Apparently the Michigan case was the 15th consecutive case that marriage equality has won in the US in the last 9 months. And reading the decisions shows they weren't close. Those against marriage equality simply have no arguments.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
No arguments except the ones used to deprive needy African children of the support that so-called Christians had promised (thread started here )
Way to Go, home team! Really good idea to score an own-goal!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No arguments except the ones used to deprive needy African children of the support that so-called Christians had promised (thread started here )
I particularly treasure this blog post which achieves a level of hypocrisy that is truly exceptional. "Children are the ones who suffer" when we boycott World Vision, but 'dem 'dere gay-folks goin' and fall'n in luv, they hurt those children by making us do this!
quote:
Way to Go, home team! Really good idea to score an own-goal!
It reminds me of an amusing own goal here. One guy was apparently so convinced that marriage equality would destroy marriage, that when this failed to actually happen he decided he needed to actively try to destroy marriage himself in order to prove the point and so he resigned as a marriage celebrant. It's all the gays' fault, of course.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am very pleased for same-gender marriages in England and Wales, but sadly it's marred by the backwards step the law has taken for trans* people. The spousal veto is a dreadful law and should never have been included in such an otherwise happy and equalising piece of legislation. I cannot consider it truly equal marriage until there is also equality for trans* people who want to get married - unfortunately the new law actually prevents trans* people from marrying, so not very equal for them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am very pleased for same-gender marriages in England and Wales, but sadly it's marred by the backwards step the law has taken for trans* people. The spousal veto is a dreadful law and should never have been included in such an otherwise happy and equalising piece of legislation. I cannot consider it truly equal marriage until there is also equality for trans* people who want to get married - unfortunately the new law actually prevents trans* people from marrying, so not very equal for them.
Forgive me, what's the asterisk for?
From what I understand of this veto (which admittedly isn't a great deal) I don't quite understand the claim that the law prevents transgender people from marrying. If a would-be spouse objects to something the couple are presumably unlikely to be married in the first place?
There's a separate (not entirely inconsequential) point that the legislation never set out to create 'equal' marriage in the first place, since the laws on consummation and adultery apply to heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am very pleased for same-gender marriages in England and Wales, but sadly it's marred by the backwards step the law has taken for trans* people. The spousal veto is a dreadful law and should never have been included in such an otherwise happy and equalising piece of legislation. I cannot consider it truly equal marriage until there is also equality for trans* people who want to get married - unfortunately the new law actually prevents trans* people from marrying, so not very equal for them.
Forgive me, what's the asterisk for?
From what I understand of this veto (which admittedly isn't a great deal) I don't quite understand the claim that the law prevents transgender people from marrying. If a would-be spouse objects to something the couple are presumably unlikely to be married in the first place?
There's a separate (not entirely inconsequential) point that the legislation never set out to create 'equal' marriage in the first place, since the laws on consummation and adultery apply to heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages.
Trans* with the asterisk includes all people who are gender-nonconforming, ie genderqueer/a-gender/otherwise gender-variant people as well as transgender people.
Those outside the gender binary are excluded from marriage because you have to be specifically male or female. The spousal veto means that the spouse of a trans person holds enormous and unfair power over their partner - a level of power which no other kind of marriage legally has, same-gender or different-gender. It's not hard to see how if a marriage breaks down, the spousal veto can be used as a weapon. It's deeply unfair and unequal, and it's baffling as to why it was felt to be necessary.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.
In related news, all opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales suddenly lost their "sanctity". I know it's harrowing, but it might be useful if some of the now-desanctified shipmates would tell us how they're dealing with this difficult development in their lives.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.
In related news, all opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales suddenly lost their "sanctity". I know it's harrowing, but it might be useful if some of the now-desanctified shipmates would tell us how they're dealing with this difficult development in their lives.
You will doubtless be surprised to learn that we have not noticed anything ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Laughing together at the idiotic comments of Andrea Thingy, we feel as sanctified as we did last week. And very happy for those couples who can now marry if they want to.
Hoping General Synod does not take very long to catch up... (and pleased at ++Justin's sensible reaction)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by JoannaP quote:
...pleased at ++Justin's sensible reaction...
You must have seen a different news clip from the one on the BBC where he came across as defensive and begrudging - my son said it reminded him of Violet Elizabeth Bott winding up ready to ...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.
In related news, all opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales suddenly lost their "sanctity". I know it's harrowing, but it might be useful if some of the now-desanctified shipmates would tell us how they're dealing with this difficult development in their lives.
Absolutely right. At the stroke of midnight, both my wife and I noticed a sudden lurch in our hitherto blissful mood. We looked at each other with barely concealed spite and envy; we hissed like cats in the night. At five past, I spat out, 'how about divorce?', and she spat back, 'name the day'. Sadly, the homosexualization of our culture has already begun. Could I add that our tomato seedlings have taken a turn for the worse, no doubt due to 'equal' 'marriage' polluting the air. We should never have given up India!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Quotes file.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
In Ohio today the judge warned he's about to issue a verdict legalizing same-sex marriage. He seems to be giving fair-warning so that the state can request a stay on his decision pending appeal.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Here's an interesting reflection by a former Michigan state legislator on voting to put an anti-same-sex marriage amendment on the ballot about ten years ago.
quote:
Ironically enough, it is just about the ten year anniversary of the one vote I took in the Michigan legislature that haunts me the most. The one I cannot come to terms with. Every excuse I make in my head is washed away by my conscience. Others took a principled stand and I thought they were nuts. I took the easy road. They went the other way and paid dearly.
It was just about this time ten years ago we voted in the Michigan House on the question of whether to put the question of whether marriage should be between one man and one woman in Michigan's Constitution.
<snip>
There are a lot of us in the GOP who think we get a free pass because we aren't one of THOSE people... you know.....the kind that mouthed off about it like Rick Santorum.... I just voted to put it on the ballot. This is common discussion when you get Republicans in private. It takes two seconds to realize the error in this logic, however much comfort it gives.
When we are quiet, everyone assumes that we are in 100% agreement. That creates the juggernaut that gives the "mouthy" ones the power to do the harm. Whether we are mouthy or not, the harm is still done. There are no free passes.
The whole thing is an interesting read, particularly the bits about the internal political calculus within the Republican party in 2004. It mostly verifies what I already suspected, but it's nice to have confirmation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The federal appeals court is reviewing the Utah federal decision permitting same-sex marriage.
Early reports the three judge appellate court appears divided
I also heard on NPR that Utah made a last minute revision to their case, to withdraw their citation of the Professor Mark Regnerus study that was soundly thrashed by the Judge in Michigan. They claimed they had other studies but weren't going to present them as part of the case.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The court case in Oregon challenging the anti-gay law has taken an odd turn.
The State Attorney General has refused to defend the law saying it violates the federal protections. So in the absence of a defender the Judge has had to question the case himself. Ironically, he's an openly gay judge. Belatedly the National Organization for Marriage has offered to defend the law. It remains to be seen if the Judge will allow a delay to let them do it.
So anti-gay marriage laws are rapidly approaching the status of anti-miscegenation laws as embarrassing relics to be set aside.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
Arkansas...
AR same sex marriage ban struck down
The judge's written comments should be read by all.
[ 10. May 2014, 01:35: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Arkansas...
AR same sex marriage ban struck down
The judge's written comments should be read by all.
Link to the actual decision (13 pages).
The judge extensively compared same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. He noted that "the issue at hand is the fundamental right to marry being denied to an unpopular minority. Our judiciary has failed such groups in the past."
His decision ends with:
"It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it."
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Today the New Zealand branch of the Anglican church in its general synod announced that they will continue to refrain from performing same-sex marriages, but will revisit the issue in 2 years' time.
Also they are allegedly sorry for the pain and distress suffered by gay people due to the church's ongoing rejection of them.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Idaho scramples in the same sex marriage case. The judge refused a stay. The state is appealing to the 9th circuit for a stay. That may or may not happen, but they refused a stay before and the Supreme Court gave a stay.
If the 9th circuit refuses a stay, it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will give one. In the mean time, there may be some people who get married quickly before the stay.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's interesting to me that all of these Federal judge's decisions are going the same way, because if the Supreme Court is going to overturn them, it would have to overturn a LOT of them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
I found this interesting... Southern Baptist convention
Given that the Southern Baptist Convention has been on the wrong side of history on literally every major social issue since its founding (pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, anti-women's-suffrage, anti-integration), I'm expecting them to hold out to the bitter end, even if they do it "softly". Then after a few years of silence they'll pretend that they were champions of equality. At least that's how it's worked in the past.
Of course the softened rhetoric approach is doomed because you can't deny people their rights and be nice about it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And now Oregon, which is surprising only in that this happened after states like Utah and Idaho.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And now Oregon, which is surprising only in that this happened after states like Utah and Idaho.
True but unlike those states it is unlikely to be appealed (no one has standing who wants to appeal) and stayed. Oregon also already recognized out-of-state marriages.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
Damn, Justinian beat me to the punch! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Damn, Justinian beat me to the punch!
ETA - Judge John Jones was also the judge on the Dover creationism case and is a republican appointee!
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
Here's a link to the full Pennsylvania ruling. It is as well written as the Dover decision.
Pennsylvania SSM decision
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Personally, I like the writing style in the Oregon decision better. Someone alerted me to this nice little passage:
quote:
Despite the fact that these co,uples present so vividly the characteristics of a loving and supportive relationship, none of these ideals we attribute to marriage are spousal prerequisites under Oregon law. In fact, Oregon recognizes a marriage of love with the same equal eye that it recognizes a marriage of convenience. It affords the same set of rights and privileges to Tristan and Isolde that it affords to a Hollywood celebrity waking up in Las Vegas with a blurry memory and a ringed finger. It does not, however, afford these very same rights to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry within the confines of our geographic borders.
There's also a good section on why the legitimate State interests in promoting stable families and protecting children have no rational connection with banning same-sex marriage.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally, I like the writing style in the Oregon decision better.
I thought the Pennsylvania ruling, while mostly very well argued, managed to fail badly on page 37, by on the one hand admitting the defendants had some valid arguments and on the other hand basically saying "ha, tricked you, I'm going to apply heightened scrutiny and so ignore your arguments and not give you the chance to revise them to meet my raised bar."
The Oregon ruling I regard with a bit of skepticism since there were no defendants in the case and the judge himself is openly gay.
But all these dozen or so district court rulings have made a lot of good points. Reading them, it's easy to see why a dozen judges in a row of all political persuasions have all come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is constitutional. I think the Supreme Court will really struggle to find any plausible looking reason to reject the arguments, and so I expect it will go 8-1 when the Supreme Court is eventually forced to rule on the merits.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The Oregon ruling I regard with a bit of skepticism since there were no defendants in the case and the judge himself is openly gay.
That seems a bit like arguing that Thurgood Marshall (for example) was unfit to try cases involving racial discrimination because he was black. It's somewhat telling that being openly straight is not seen as a bar in cases where the importance of privileging heterosexual relationships is argued by one of the parties.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems a bit like arguing that Thurgood Marshall (for example) was unfit to try cases involving racial discrimination because he was black. It's somewhat telling that being openly straight is not seen as a bar in cases where the importance of privileging heterosexual relationships is argued by one of the parties.
The Oregon case lacked defendants. If there had been defendants I'd have had far fewer issues with whether the judge was straight or gay. But having no defendants and having a gay judge... then what? A lot of gay people sat around and told each other how much they thought they should have the right to marry. That's far from an ideal looking court case.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
