Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse had a very productive, though snowy, trip to New York last week. One surprise was a FOX NEWS Strategy Room interview along with Chuck Stetson, organizer of National Marriage Week. Click here to watch.
Also, you can listen to a podcast of Dr. J’s debate with Prof. Katherine Franke called “Is Marriage Equality Possible?” Click the POD icon.
George Skelton of the LA Times opines that “the notion that baby-making is the principal purpose of marriage in 21st century America is plain absurd. Let’s just say that upfront.” Well that’s nice. How does he say that with such confidence? Read more…
The Quebec Policy Against Homophobia gives itself these missions and permissions:
On Page 20, the State gives itself the power to intervene in all parts of civil society, including the most private and intimate.
“awareness-raising and educational activities must publicize the various forms of homophobia, including the most insidious. It is important to target the various locations in which homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns, as well as heterosexist stereotypes, are found– in the family or workplace, at school, in sports activities, Read more…
Expanding the reach of the anti-discrimination law, is almost certainly a side effect of redefining marriage. The one and only argument for ssm is the equality argument. it’s crude form, which we saw during the Prop 8 campaign, is “you’re being mean to us. you’re hurting our feelings. it’s not fair.” incredibly enough, that is what we are now hearing in a federal courtroom. The legal argument is equal protection, but that’s just a dressed up version of the same thing. And, the plaintiffs have no shame about bringing sob stories into the courtroom. so, if we accept the equality argument for purposes of marriage, it will be that much easier to accept the equality argument for anti-discrimination purposes. So, contrary to some libertarians who woudl like to think that ssm represents a retreat of the state from civil society, the exact opposite is true. Read more…
Taken from townhall.com.
“Hidden in Obama’s health care bill is a huge marriage penalty. Both the Senate and House bills would set up yet another federal program to provide financial incentives to subsidize marriage avoidance and illegitimate offspring.
Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident — it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70 percent of unmarried women voting for Obama for president in 2008.
Please read the rest here.
In her syndicated column, my friend and colleague Maggie Gallagher makes these points about the upcoming Prop 8 trial. 1. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 should be a matter of law, not a matter of facts. But Judge Walker has ruled that they will have a trial about the facts. Ordinarily, findings of fact by a lower court, cannot be overturned by a higher court. So the more of his opinions he can stuff into the box labelled “fact,” the harder it will be to overturn. 2. The court has ruled that the private correspondence of the campaign, revealing the “motives” of the campaign are a fair subject for the trial. This is an outrage: the motives of the campaign or the voters should not be on trial. 3. The judge has ordered that the trial be televised, in defiance of federal rules.
Bottom line: the voters of CA are on trial for having the temerity to vote against same sex marriage. Money quote:
After Prop. 8, gay couples continue to enjoy unmolested all the legal civil rights of marriage under California law through civil unions. Who will stand up for the core civil rights of the people of California and the rest of the USA to participate in democracy without fear?
Certainly not Judge Vaughn Walker.
Ed Whelan is all over the Federal Court case against Prop 8 and the legal shennanigans to televise the trial. This case is fast turning into a the worst sort of Soviet-style show trial, designed more to make an example out of dissenters from the regime, than to administer justice.
Any intelligent and fair-minded judge would recognize that the obvious candidates for a pilot program would be low-profile cases that present no apparent risk of intimidation or abuse of trial participants and in which all parties consent to televised coverage. Only an idiot or a hardened ideological advocate for same-sex marriage — and (presiding Judge) Walker is no idiot — would imagine that the Proposition 8 case is a good candidate for the program. Read more…
Loading ...