From the SCOTUSBlog: The Court has announced that it will review the constitutionality of both the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The Court did not act today on the petition involving a challenge to Arizona’s Section O.
While we watch progress at the Supreme Court as well as across the country, we must also put effort into stopping the growing role of Catholic Church as government influencer. Or, the Church needs to lose their tax exempt status and call themselves a lobbying firm. Gay, lesbian, bi, trans, and supportive allies across the country must press for the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church to be revoked. Few actions will be as important in the coming next wave of activism.
But Parker’s purpose is more elementary. Here, the attempt is to equate the foundation of conservatism with anti-marriage equality; a position which cannot be supported rationally.
One of our greatest weapons in out struggle is free speech, and the ability for LGBTQ and supportive allies to express their ideas, and perspectives. The down-side of the free speech idea however, is that it allows our opponents to do the same. So often, their rhetoric is full of misinformation at best, and outright lies at the worst. We succeed however, not in taking away or stopping their right to free speech, but rather by countering theirs, and hateful misinformation with truth, reason and language that encourages fairness by promoting valid discourse over fear mongering. To lose his voice from that dialogue is a shame.
I love her post because it reframes the issue of how to vote. She asks her readers to consider how they want to be treated. That Golden Rule so many of us learned in Sunday School, and a way of being that is so absent from much of the religious rhetoric of today. She also connects the two sides of Marriage together in a wonderful way.
A video created in support of Referendum 74, Washington States Marriage Equality.
A third conclusion I would draw is that some pastors (not all) condone hate speech and violence against those with whom you disagree. Sometimes this is couched in or defended as simply preaching from the Bible, but Leisner’s comments can not be misconstrued as reading scripture. They are 100% cultural criticism.
The Ninth Circuit was not really asked if it as a whole body supports Prop 8 or not. It was merely asked if it wanted to re-hear the appeal. The reason it would re-hear the appeal would be if, a majority of the judges felt that the both sides had not had a fair trail in the first appeal before the three judge panel. Today’s actions merely mean that the whole court, or a majority of the 26 justices believed that the three panel judgement was fair, reasoned and based on sound judicial principles.
The linked story is an excellent read concerning what today’s ruling means: Assuming that the proponents will seek Supreme Court review of their appellate loss, they would file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The plaintiffs and the state defendants — who have opposed Proposition 8’s constitutionality — as well as outside groups and individuals would then be able to file a response to the proponents’ filing. The Supreme Court, which generally recesses for the[Read More…]
This afternoon at 1PM, Pittsburgh time, the Ninth circuit is expected to announce if a larger number of judges will re-hear the Prop 8 appeal. The best write up of this I have read, is Chris Geidner’s in MewtroWeekly. Check it out to understand what the various outcomes might mean.