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
"Were a gay and happy family wagon" by Melinda - originally posted to Flickr as Children in Wagon (Part 2). via Wikimedia Commons
There can be no more contentious issue in sociology than whether same-sex couples do as good a job raising kids as married biological parents. As state after state in the US opens the door to same-sex marriage, judge after judge has affirmed the “no difference” thesis. The kids are OK. Occasionally a social science study even finds that kids do better when they grow up with gay parents.
The sentiments of California Judge Vaughn Walker, in his 2012 decision overturning Proposition 8, have been repeated numerous by judges ruling in favour of same-sex marriage:
In this hour-long lecture, Ryan T. Anderson, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, makes a reasoned case for opposing same-sex marriage on public policy grounds. He speaks rapidly and covers a lot of ground. But it is well-worth watching.
This event was videoed at Stanford University where he was a guest of the student-run Anscombe Society. His presence on campus generated a controversy because some students objected to his “hate speech”.
It's a great summary of the main arguments. Watch it.
Surfing the (Catholic) net is not a mindless occupation. You can stumble on some wonderful articles; indeed, depending on what you read and your state of mind when you read it, an inspiring personal account of faith might be enough to trigger a change in your life. The internet, despite its reputation for easy corruption, can be a school of evangelisation just as any other means. The trick, as with choosing friends, is to select sites that encourage “the better angels of your nature” rather than those which merely confirm – or feed -your personal weaknesses or vices.
Last week the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district-court ruling that had struck down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. Judge Richard Posner wrote the decision, a brilliant piece of rhetoric which was studded with sparkling one-liners and dripping with sarcasm. “Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage” was the headline in Gawker, a widely-read website. “A masterpiece of wit and logic,” was the verdict of Slate’s columnist.
Since the 75-year-old Posner is the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th Century and one of America’s leading public intellectuals, his views are bound to be influential as same-sex marriage heads for the Supreme Court.
But stripped of their sequinned garments Posner’s views are not as muscle-bound as they first appear.
There’s something to be said for longevity. At 80 years of age you can say what you want to say and go down with all guns blazing. That’s my impression of a US federal judge who broke ranks with dozens of his brethren on Wednesday to defend the meaning of marriage, and ruled that Louisiana has no obligation to recognise same-sex unions as marriage.
The ruling came from District Judge Martin Feldman, 80, who was named to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan more than 30 years ago. He echoed the two judges — both in their 70s and appointed by President George H.W. Bush — who dissented from recent rulings against Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia gay marriage bans in the 10th and 4th Circuits.
Kody Brown poses with his wives at one of their homes in Las Vegas. Photograph: Guardian/Jerry Henkel /AP
The Mormon stronghold of Utah is trying to defend its laws on marriage on two fronts, same-sex marriage and polygamy, but courts are not on the state’s side. Last week federal judge Clark Waddoups finalised an order striking down part of Utah’s law against bigamy in a drawn out lawsuit by Kody Brown and his four “sister wives” against the state.
The Browns are part of a sect with Mormon roots who feature in the television show “Sister Wives”. It was after this show first went to air four years ago that the state began its investigation of the polygamist family. They are framing the issue as one of religious freedom.
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