A Mississippi woman wants the state Supreme Court to recognise gay marriage – so that she can divorce a partner she married in San Francisco.
Lauren Beth Czekala-Chatham, a 52-year-old credit analyst, who already had two children from a failed heterosexual marriage, moved to California in 2008 so that she could marry Dana Ann Melancon. But the relationship soured and they separated in 2010.
When Ms Czekala-Chatham, who now has a new girlfriend, applied for a divorce, citing adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, she failed. The state predictably argued that Mississippi could not grant a divorce for a marriage which it did not recognise. It was a result that she found devastating. In her eyes, divorce was an important dimension of the social recognition of marriage.
The skinny little kid rapping away on the stage has short spiky hair and baggy pants and jacket, just like a boy, and his voice hasn’t broken yet so it passes as a girl’s. Truth to tell, this youngster is a girl, except she thinks she’s a boy, and, well, mom is cool with that and so, it seems, is everyone at else at Camp Aranu’tiq, “a camp for transgender and gender-variant youth”, where she is performing her rap.
Alex can’t be more than eight years old, a very early stage on the journey of discovering what sexuality means, but she badly wants to be a boy and has “always felt that way”. That’s what she told her mother sometime in the last year or so.
This short but touching video is a promo for a major world conference in Rome next week reaffirming the beauty and wisdom of traditional marriage. The growing movement for same-sex marriage has not escaped the attention of the Vatican. One of its responses is Humanum, an international, interreligious gathering to support and reinvigorate marriage and family and social life.
The "colloquium" will bring together representatives from 14 religious traditions and 23 countries -- persuasive evidence that it is not just Christians who oppose the redefinition of marriage. The November 17-19 gathering will conclude with a joint statement on marriage.
The speakers represent both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Judaism as well as the Mormon church, various Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church.
Same-sex marriage is headed for the US Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Ginsberg is reported to have said that the Court would be in no rush to decide the issue unless there was a clear division among the courts of appeals.
Increasingly it seems that the touchstone of success for supporters of same-sex marriage is shifting from accommodation and acceptance to unconditional surrender. Disagreement and criticism will not be tolerated.
In a recent speech in Washington DC Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton University in the US and vice chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom explained why.
“The whole argument was and is that the idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than ‘bigotry.’ Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and subordination.”
On Tuesday last week, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez (pictured) handed down a ruling in a case upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
This ruling is the top headline of the week's marriage news.
"Marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order"
The Carter appointee did not fail to acknowledge that his opinion runs contrary to the majority of other Federal courts that have ruled on States' marriage laws since the Windsor decision by the Supreme Court, that struck down Section III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
But in acknowledging this, Pérez-Giménez spoke of a "misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts." Specifically, he said that all of these decisions have blatantly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent from the Baker v. Nelson decision of 1972.
Here is the latest case in the United States of people threatened with legal sanctions for following their conscience and declining to be involved in a same-sex wedding. This time it is a married couple, both ordained ministers, who run a wedding chapel in Idaho. Ryan T Anderson wrote in The Daily Signal last weekend:
Since there always is a Next Big Thing, what is the Next Big Thing after the legalisation of same-sex marriage? Is it legalising sado-masochism? Is it recognising paedophilia as a genetic disability?
Pointing the way to the future for US law is Margo Kaplan, an assistant professor at Rutgers School of Law-Camden. Ms Kaplan is carving out a niche for herself in the increasingly significant field of “legal limitations on intimate decisions”. This effectively means constructing arguments for legalising almost any kind of sexual activity.
In the crowded field of American sexperts, why single out Ms Kaplan for attention? Because the Washington Post and the New York Times, the leading outlets for elite opinions in the United States, have published her op-eds. Presumably they believe that she is making a valuable contribution to the national debate about appropriate uses of sexuality.
We often hear that same-sex marriage “won’t hurt you” or your beliefs, but the signs are that it does, and will. Conscientious beliefs are increasingly under assault as laws change in more states, but even without altering marriage law in a particular state citizens can be under pressure from the new ideological environment.
Oregon bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein had no problem doing business with Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman until the day in February 2013 that the lesbian couple asked Sweet Cakes by Melissa to make them a wedding cake.
That was a request the Christian owners decided they could not meet. So, instead of going to another business that would oblige them, Cryer and Bowman laid a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which decided earlier this year that the Kleins were in breach of the state’s Equality Act of 2007, designed to protect LGBT persons…
click here to read whole article and make comments
On monday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review appeals from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin on the definition of marriage. This means that lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws now will go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in these states and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.
This is an unfortunate setback for sound constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture.
The truth of the matter is that the marriage laws in these five states—as in many states across our nation—are good laws that reflect the truth about marriage. Frequently they were passed with overwhelming democratic support. The Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and should have upheld the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make good marriage policy. Instead, the Supreme Court left standing bad rulings from lower…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Conjugality deals with the true nature of marriage and the challenges it faces today. Our current focus is on the campaign to legalise same-sex marriage. We'd love to get your comments and suggestions. Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org