One of the more interesting aspects of the gay marriage debate that the arguments of the last two days have highlighted is how different the discussion of marriage is from the religious to the legal realm. Religion was not mentioned one time over the course of the two days and neither should it have been. The issues of the extension of civil marriage are not issues of theology or spirituality (and they still won’t be if same-sex marriage became legal nationwide tomorrow).
By Jason Hines – Today was a landmark day for the Supreme Court, as it heard arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. I have written about this case at every level (on the state level and at the 9th Cir.) so it only seems right that I talk about the arguments that took place earlier today. However, it doesn’t make sense to give a straight up and down summary or even a major analysis (there are plenty of people who did a good job of that, including this article by Adam Serwer), but there are some things that I want to highlight. Some will be important, some won’t, but these are the things that came to mind as I listened to the oral arguments –
Once again making the same tactical mistakes that were made in the lower courts, the Proposition 8 advocate failed to make an argument that would pass the muster of the “rational basis” test required before rights can be denied, and lost any ability to frame the debate.
On Friday, March 22, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) vetoed a religious freedom Bill (HB 279) claiming that the bill would “cause serious unintentional consequences that could threaten public safety, health care, and individuals’ civil rights.” The legislature is expected to override the veto.
In response to a state Supreme Court decision upholding incarceration of an Amish group for refusing for religious reasons to install orange triangles on their buggies, the Kentucky Legislature has, by a veto proof margin, passed a measure (HB 279) which is designed to prevent the government from substantially burdening an individual’s freedom of religion.
New Hungarian legislation will limit religious freedom by giving parliament the sole right to decide which religious organizations are considered ‘churches’ for the purpose of domestic legislation. (Human Rights Watch)
It is not WASC’s role to dictate bylaw changes, determine who is on the board, or to dictate how personnel decisions will be made. Threats to remove accreditation should be taken very seriously and La Sierra University, and its parent organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, like other institutions, can and must challenge WASC when it exceeds its authority.
[fblike style=”standard” showfaces=”true” verb=”like” font=”arial”] [dc]I[/dc]n Colorado, a Catholic hospital chain is being sued by John Stodghill who claims that the Catholic hospital failed to save the life of his seven-month pregnant wife’s twin fetuses when she died. The hospital’s lawyers, in turn, argued that fetuses were not people, and even if they were, they…
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two days of oral arguments on two separate but related cases beginning on March 26, 2013. The Court will be hearing arguments on California’s Proposition 8 which amended the state constitution to disallow same-sex marriage is constitutional and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
On December 17, 2012 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013” (S.3686) which would Amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion specifically in the areas of “garb, grooming, and scheduling.”