gay marriage

An Analysis of the Results of the Federal Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Trial

By |

In short, Judge Walker ruled based on the evidence presented, as any trial judge should, and regardless of his own personal sexual orientation or biases, Prop 8 supporters simply did not make a viable case for themselves. Sloganeering may have won the election but did not win a trial where real evidence was required. Prop 8 supporters may later look at the ruling and claim it was wrongly decided but as this essay points out, the reality is that they did a poor job presenting their evidence and only put two witnesses on the stand, both of whom had previously written statements that contradicted their testimony in favor of Prop 8. When both of these witnesses were neutralized, Prop 8 advocates had nothing left with which to prove their case and any effort by any judge to add in facts to uphold Prop 8 would have been the very definition of judicial activism.

An Analysis of the Results of the Federal Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Trial Read More »

1967 U.S. Supreme Court Decision sheds light on California marriage debate

By |

There is presently much debate about gay marriage in California, and the roots for the argument come from several directions. In 1967 the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether marriage was a fundamental right. Granted it had to do with people of the opposite sex, but the arguments for the State of Virginia which forbade interracial marriage were primarily religious in nature.

When you think about it, 1967 was not very long ago. If you are older than 42, if your parents were from sixteen states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida, and were from different races their marriages would have been illegal. In California, interracial marriage was illegal until 1948.

1967 U.S. Supreme Court Decision sheds light on California marriage debate Read More »

Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter

By |

An epic battle played out on two levels at the California Supreme Court on March 5. On a surface level, attorneys fought over a technical issue of whether the Proposition 8 prohibition on gay marriage represented a revision or an amendment. On the deeper level, the question asked was whether there are any limits on the majority to impact the rights of the minority.

Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter Read More »

Double Standards? – Supreme Court to hear two religious groups battle over monument

By |

PLEASANT GROVE, UTAH – The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear an argument where two religious groups are fighting over whether one or both of them have the right to have their viewpoint heard. Summum, a small religious group wants to erect a monument on public land listing of the “Seven Aphorisms,” but conservative Christian groups oppose it on the basis that it does not reflect their traditional values. The small plot of land already has a 10 comandments monument that has been there since 1971.

Double Standards? – Supreme Court to hear two religious groups battle over monument Read More »

The 2008 Election – Religion, the Economy, and Values Voters (AP)

By |

“Barriers remain to both major parties if they seek to appeal to religious voters on the economy. You’re either for or against gay marriage or abortion rights, but no one supports foreclosures and layoffs. Differences arise over solutions, and analysts say it can make more sense for campaigns to make general pitches on the economy than faith-based appeals.”

The 2008 Election – Religion, the Economy, and Values Voters (AP) Read More »

Interview with Attorney and Pastor Mitch Tyner

By |

“In my view, if we are not prepared to protect the rights of those with whom we disagree, we are not serious about religious freedom.”

Former associate general counsel of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Mitch Tyner, asks questions about the legal process, lawsuits between believers, separation of church and state, and addresses the controversy about gay marriage.

Interview with Attorney and Pastor Mitch Tyner Read More »

Prof. Daniel Crane – “A Judeo-Christian Argument for Privatizing Marriage” (Cardozo Law Review)

By |

In this law review article, Cardozo Law School professor Daniel Crane argues that marriage has traditionally been in the province of faith, not of the state, and that this should be taken into consideration when evaluating proposed marriage amendments. The

Prof. Daniel Crane – “A Judeo-Christian Argument for Privatizing Marriage” (Cardozo Law Review) Read More »

Scroll to Top