Gay Marriage Bans, Religious Freedom and the Battle of the Armrests

by Nomad

The Armrest Story

About fifteen years I had to fly back to the US, having learned my mother was ill. I wasn't in the mood for arguments. I really wasn't in the mood for traveling.  I had long since lost my thrill of air travel. It's now something I put up with but seldom enjoy. I just pray it will be uneventful. That's the best I can hope for.

Part of the problem is that I can't stand being packed in close quarters with strangers. If you share this particular dread, then you know that flights are a whole lot of un-fun. 

On this particular flight- from Izmir to Istanbul- the first leg in was to be 16-hour flight, I was unfortunate enough to be sitting next to a classic nightmare passenger. Almost anybody who has traveled has had at least one experience with one of the countless varieties of detestable types.

The Intrinsic Good: Why All Conservatives Should Be Rallying Around Same-Sex Marriage

by Nomad

You would probably never consider the Supreme Court decision against same-same marriage bans to be a great victory for the conservatives. And yet, that's exactly what it was. They just refuse to admit it.

The Friends of the Court

The term, AMICI CURIAE, in Latin means the "friends of the court." These are respected citizens who offer fact-based evidence  as well as reasoned advice to the Supreme Court judges. This assistance is unquestionably a great asset to the justices.when they are tasked with difficult rulings. 

Such consultants are also failsafe against making judicial blunders. In theory, the more input from varied sources is given, the more balanced and well-thought out that decision will be.  

The group is normally made up "social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse backgrounds."

One look at the list of participants would reveal the truth about Senator Ted Cruz's ridiculous charge that the “tragic” Supreme Court decisions were a case of "judicial activism." In the case of the same sex marriage ban ruling, the group came from all walks of life.   

Many have served as elected or appointed officeholders in various Presidential administrations, as governors, mayors, and other officeholders in States and cities across the Nation, as members of Congress, as ambassadors, as military officers, as officials in political campaigns and political parties, and as advocates and activists for various political and social causes.

To claim this group of around 280 men and women from such varied political and social backgrounds could have an activist agenda is preposterous in the extreme.

When the SCOTUS was reviewing the constitutionality of state-level same sex marriage bans, the Amici dutifully reviewed as much information as it could find on the legality of same sex bans. Around 55 court cases were referenced and 19 authoritative texts were also consulted before they reached their conclusions.

The counsels, in addition, reviewed the constitutional and statutory provision with care. Due to the importance of the case and the ramifications of the decision, the amicus brief not a hastily drawn-up brief.

Unable to Forward: The Tragic Story of a Gay Son's Letter Lost for 26 Years

by Nomad

A local news affiliate in Virginia, WSET recently reported how a local man received a long lost letter from his now-deceased gay son. While reading the story I was struck by the fact that the father was- even now- unable to fully understand the tragedy of the situation.

For Father's Day, 1989, Duane Schrock Jr wrote to let his father know that despite their differences, he was very happy with his life and that the estrangement between them could be patched up:

"Dear Dad, we haven't been in touch for quite a while. I'm doing fine and am very happy in Richmond. I'd like to hear from you. Have a happy Father's Day. Love, Duane."

That letter, a tentative reaching out to a disapproving father on Father's Day, somehow never arrived. Six years later, in 1995, at the age of 45, Duane died of AIDS without ever re-establishing contact with his father. 

People who knew Duane considered him "a very kind and gentle person."

Liberty, Marriage Equality and Your Silent Sanction

by Nomad

When it comes to politics, your silence means your approval. 

I saw this intelligently-written article about equality and the values that hold this nation together. I thought it was worth sharing. 

While Ayn Rand is probably not a person I would normally quote, in this context, her words are spot-on. The idea that "Silence means sanction" can also be applied on a larger scale. By not voting in elections, liberals and moderates are giving a stamp of approval for every thing wrong with Congress. Whether they know it or not, they send the message that mixing religion and government is okay, that healthcare is only for those who can afford it, that pushing the country back to the time before the Civil Rights Act is fine and the treating women as second-class citizens is a great idea. 

Marriage Equality, the Ex-Marine and Ayn Rand (via Pride & Equality Post)

Ex-marine Roger Huffstetler discovered two friends were gay. One was a bunkmate from Afghanistan; the other a childhood friend. He started to wonder what kind of friend he was and went to them. Both assured him he had never said or done anything that…

---

Lawsuit by North Carolina Church A New and Surprising Challenge to Same-Sex Bans

by Nomad

One North Carolina Church has taken the unusual step of challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban. The suit claims that  the state's ban violates its constitutionally-protected freedom to worship and conduct religious rites. 
Turning the whole argument on its head, this latest objection is one that lawmakers in North Carolina- and other states- should take seriously. It could just be the final nail in the coffin for same-sex bans across the country. 

Religious Freedom Working Both Ways

This has to be the weirdest twist in the same-sex marriage debate so far. On Monday, a liberal Protestant denomination opened a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in that state. The suit argues that by forbidding its clergy from blessing gay and lesbian couples, it is effectively violating constitutionally protected religious freedom. According to an article in the New York Times:

The lawsuit, filed in a Federal District Court by the United Church of Christ, is the first such case brought by a national religious denomination challenging a state’s marriage laws. The denomination, which claims nearly one million members nationwide, has supported same-sex marriage since 2005.

That NYT piece also quotes Donald Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.

“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices.

According to the leaders of this denomination, the state of North Carolina has no jurisdiction to criminalize what any church can and cannot do. It would, they argue, against the First Amendment which guarantees that the government, whether local, state or federal, keep a hands off policy when it comes to religious practice.

Clark points out that North Carolina laws is not only unconstitutional, it is clearly inconsistent. Although clergy of the denomination are allowed to bless same-sex couples who have been married in other states, they are prohibited by law from performing religious blessings or marriage rites for same-sex couples within their own congregation. Violating such a prohibition would, according to the state law, subject the clergy to prosecution and civil judgement in court.

Call It Irony: Mormon Leaders Oppose Re-Defining The Concept of Marriage

by Nomad

The official opposition of the Mormon Church to same-sex marriage reveals an amusing paradox, unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Given its history with polygamy, what authority does the Mormon Church have to dictate what is and what is not a traditional marriage?

A few days ago Neil L. Andersen , a well-respected leader of the  Church of the Latter Day Saints,  had an announcement to make on the official position of the Mormon Church on same-sex marriage.  The opinions of Andersen, as a member of of the Quorum of the Twelve, carry a lot of weight. He declared:

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."

One can scrutinize the position and point out its flaws, such as the fact that, while the Church gives its stamp of approval on all traditional marriage, it doesn't dare claim that every marriage is an ideal setting for children. So why does it do so in this case?

Apart from some manufactured evidence from special interests, there is no actual proof that same-sex marriage is any better or any worse for child rearing and nurturing. At least that's what qualified doctors tell us:

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Nevertheless, Andersen knows because .. well, he just knows because God told him so. Yet, Church leaders have been wrong in the past. And they have had to suddenly reverse their formerly rock-solid positions on marriage in the past.

Junk Science? Questions about Expert Testimony in Michigan's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Trial

by Nomad

The testimony of the state's expert witness challenging Michigan's same-sex marriage took an amusing turn when he admitted that he believed gays would suffer eternal damnation in the depths of hell. But that's only half of the story. 
Read more to learn the rest.

Last week, the testimony in a federal court challenge on Michigan's same-sex ban took an unusual turn. In order to show a clear bias in what was supposed to be pure science- the plaintiff's attorney asked Professor Douglas Allen, a Canadian economist about his personal views on homosexuality.

The Monkey Trial Trick
As the state's expert, Professor Allen had warned the court that, after reviewing 60 same-sex parenting studies over a 15-year period, he recommended that the state uphold its ban. On the surface, the testimony seemed persuasive.

Then, Attorney Ken Mogill asked Allen:

“Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation? .. in other words, they’re going to hell.”

“Without repentance, yes,” answered Allen.

This courtroom technique is straight out of the historic "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925 in which Tennessee attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. Those bans came after lobbying from by World Christian Fundamentals Association whose president also happened to be a state representative. (In the same-sex marriage debate, it's a bit more camouflaged and involves a few politically-active Christian groups.)  The climax of the Scopes trial had one legendary attorney the great William Jennings Bryan, taking the stand and being quizzed about his religious views. The defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, in effect, publicly humiliated the state's attorney. 

(However, it should be recalled too that the Tennessee court found that the teaching of evolution could be banned and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It was a victory for fundamentalists though it is usually portrayed as victory for progressives, a victory of science over superstition.

In any event, the same-sex marriage bans have not met with the same Supreme Court approval, In fact, the decision by the high court has been the key to overturning the discriminatory laws on a state-by-state basis.
Douglas' answer suggested that his pure science might not be quite as pure as he suggested. Naturally, the courtroom exchange made all the headlines but it was only half of the story. 

  

Victoria Woodhull: The Fascinating Story of America's First Female Presidential Candidate

by Nomad

Does the name Victoria Claflin Woodhull ring many bells? Probably not, but she was without argument one of the most talked-about women of the 19th century. Although something of an eccentric with a slightly unimpressive background, her biography, with its ups and downs, is a fascinating one. Her outspoken opinions about women's rights put her far ahead of her time.

  

Most of us think of the Victorian era as a time when women, like children of that time, generally were seen but not heard. A woman's place was in her home and any adventure outside of that realm could bring infamy.
Not altogether true.
Take the story of Victoria Woodhull.  As we shall see, her life contradicts that conventional wisdom. It's only surprising that Hollywood hasn't made a film about her tumultuous life; there's a lot of material there.

The Rise of A Radical

Her early life was hardly promising. Victoria Claflin and her sisters were raised by parents who used the girls as  "spiritualist mediums and faith healers in the family’s traveling medicine." They eventually married her off to Dr. Canning Woodhull when she was only 15. It must have come as a salvation to her since she stayed married to him for 11 years. ( As one source tells us, she would subsequently remarry three times and divorce twice more, in an age when divorce was unusual and socially disapproved.)

Eventually, she and her sister moved to New York City and became famous for giving financial advice from the spirit world to rich investors. In a twist of fate, despite her radical thought, her name was on the lips of many influential capitalists who took her stock tips.

Among her radical thoughts, Woodhull was most famous for being an early advocate for the right of women to vote. At heart, Woodhull was a social reformer. She was an advocate of free love- which despite its tantalizing name- actually only proposed marriage reforms. At that time, The Free Love movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. These issues, proponents claimed, were personal matters and need not be legislated by others. Her opponents claimed she was simply promoting promiscuity and scandal.

That was to be expected, These were radical ideas for that time and even today we are still struggling with the same issues.