Theocratic Treachery

[BruceChris]

Like Zerbie, and me, and who knows all else. -- BC

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Like Zerbie, and me, and who knows all else. -- BC

Please forgive me for not using GBLTQ. I had no intention of leaving anyone out. That was not my point.

What I was alluding to the specific reason why several recent court decisions (NY gay marriage case comes to mind here) were decided as they were.

In a majority of them, the bar was set too low. These courts used a lower standard of judicial review. I sum, these rulings said: ""You aren't a class or a group so we can't give you the right you want here.

Let me restate: Until GLBTQ persons are recognized as a class in the courts in the United States of Amercia, they won't have any civil rights.

The attainment of marriage rights will, I believe, open the door to pretty much everything else. That's why conservatives fear it so much.

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by Daniel

In a majority of them, the bar was set too low. These courts used a lower standard of judicial review. I sum, these rulings said: ""You aren't a class or a group so we can't give you the right you want here.

Let me restate: Until GLBTQ persons are recognized as a class in the courts in the United States of Amercia, they won't have any civil rights.

The attainment of marriage rights will, I believe, open the door to pretty much everything else. That's why conservatives fear it so much.

I agree on the last point that marriage is a critical, critical thing for us. The anti group is very aware of this, and that's why they're so up in arms about it.

On the legal issues, I agree that things would be far easier for us if we were treated as a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection. That's been a huge stumbling block in many places because, as you probably know, if we are not a suspect classification, the law is considered constitutional if it meets the "rational basis" test (which is easy to meet). Although I would say, editorially, that in my view the Court of Appeals of NY came up with an extremely odd rational basis for NY's restrictive law ... it had the appearance of clutching at straws, to be honest, but a rational basis test permits that.

From my perspective, I think we still have a good shot under a "substantive due process"/fundamental rights analysis, regardless of whether we are a suspect class or not. In other words, the line of cases from Loving v. Virginia to Zablocki are pretty solid on the idea that marriage is a fundamental right such that restrictions on it are subject to a high degree of scrutiny. When you read those together with the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, it isn't hard to reach the conclusion that because marriage itself is a fundamental right, statutes that operate to bar access to that right based on sexual orientation are not constitutional. In other words, if Lawrence stands for the proposition that the state cannot make it illegal for gay people to have sex (on the basis that sexual intimacy is a fundamental right), and Loving and so forth stand for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right ... it's not hard to conclude that the state cannot make it impossible for gay people to have access to marriage (or, arguably, something the same as marriage in terms of benefits but called something else) because marriage, like sexual intimacy, is a fundamental right. I think that this argument has some "legs" constitutionally, as evidenced by Justice Scalia's fears expressed in his dissent in Lawrence. The main problem I see with it (other than the issue of whether the court were to view it as an equal protection or substantive due process issue) is that it may not have enough votes given the current Supreme Court lineup, a lineup which may very well have reached a different conclusion in Lawrence were it the lineup at the time.

Ugh, a bit of a technical post, but alas some of these issues are a bit technical.

[Zerbie]

Thanks Nova, I'm glad you posted that.

I hope you're right, and I hope it happens that way. The obvious hurdle with regard to the protected class status is the political furor clouding the very issue of gay persons (LBGTQ persons) as a class with distinct, immutable characteristics (hence the intensity of the "ex-gay" campaigns.)

[Daniel]

Nova- thanks for your missive. I see I was missing a good deal of the argument and the possibilites regarding "substantive due process". Not being a legal scholar - and it sounds very much as if you are- - I appreciate your take on the matter.

With this in mind, I guess it really does come down to legislative efforts (that is what's left for us in NY now- and the hope is that our Governor-Elect- Spritzer- will get that ball rolling shortly) as well as the right kind of case presented in just the right manner.

As always: 'timing is everything'?

And Zerbie- as you know more than enyone else: when the stakes are high the fight can be intense. Glad you are on the frontline in your state!

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by Daniel

As always: 'timing is everything'?

Indeed so, Daniel. And who knows when the timing will be right ... we'll just have to see.

[Daniel]

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/01/010507divorce.htm

Group Behind Virginia Anti-Gay Amendment Now Targets Divorcing Straight Couples
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 5, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET

(Richmond, Virginia) The organization that mounted the successful bid to amend Virginia's constitution to block same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partner benefits says it will now concentrate on making it more difficult for straight couples to break up.

Voters approved the gay marriage ban in November. Now the Family Foundation of Virginia has begun a drive to end no-fault divorce in the state.

No-fault allows either partner in a marriage to get a divorce without specific grounds. That person can then apply for full custody rights over the couple's children. It currently is available in most states.

The Family Foundation says it makes divorce too easy to get and disadvantages children. It is supporting a proposed bill that would require specific grounds - such adultery - for couples with minor children.

"Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end [a marriage], and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation told a news conference this week.

She said that statistics have shown children suffer more from messy divorces than they do from unhappy parents.

So far the Foundation's bill does not have a sponsor in the General Assembly, although the Assembly will consider a motion to examine no-fault divorce.

When the organization was pushing to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage LGBT advocates said the group should be spending its time addressing the state's high divorce rate.

Cobb referenced that argument at her news conference.

"While they used this argument to divert attention from the matter at hand, we couldn't agree more with their point," Cobb told reporters.

In 2004, the most recent year the Virginia Department of Health has full statistics on marriages and divorces in the state, there were 57,510 marriage licenses issued and 29,411 divorces.

The agenda seems pretty clear, though I wonder if Virginian's are going to start to realize that totalitarianism of this sort has no end. As well, the comments by GLBTQ activists made earlier, I venture, had little to do with making it harder for being to get divorced. More to the point are the reasons why marriages become unsustainable. That is a whole other matter. And a nuance which fundamentalists do not seem to get.

The proposed law- a requirement of adultery- harkens back to the Victorian Era. Do we really want people spying on each other again?

Why is it that these kind of proposals are always recidivist in expression?

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by davidcom

hopefully people in Va (especially Northern VA) will wise up and see the connections.

We're outnumbered by the rest of the state.

In the recent vote on the marriage amendment, Northern Virginia, Albemarle (where UVA is), Richmond City and bits and pieces down near Norfolk voted against, and everyone else voted for. The power of Falwell and Robertson here (they're both based here) is extreme, and the influence on the General Assembly is extreme.

Having said that, if this even does come to a big political issue in the Assembly, it's extremely unlikely that the law would be changed in this way. There would be hell to pay politically for the legislature to do this without some kind of referendum. And a referendum would be unlikely to generate the same participation from the fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals as a vote on gay issues (nothing gets them more motivated than the opportunity to cast their vote against gays, so that they can get on God's good side in terms of the way they look at Sodom and Gomorrah).

So while I think it's a thoroughly regrettable idea from these folks, I doubt they have anything near the political traction on this issue that they did on the anti-gay vote last November.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

The proposed law- a requirement of adultery- harkens back to the Victorian Era. Do we really want people spying on each other again?

It harkens further back than that. Biblically speaking, I believe that divorce due to spousal adultery is the ONLY way one can legitimately remarry without it being considered adultery.

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

~~

I’m glad you posted that Daniel, I’ve been using Luke 16:18 to argue that remarriage is adultery, but I Googled Jesus on divorce, and this site lists four other places in the Bible where it’s also said, some interesting footnotes too.

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/stuff2.html

~~

Why don’t we just pass a federal anti-hypocrisy law and cover all our bas...oh that’s right, we already have one, it's called the constitution. Including such freedoms as the equal protection clause, freedom of religion, all men are created equal...etcetera...etcetera...etcetera...

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by davidcom

... lets just start referring to them as what they are (using the biblical term) Pharisees! (or if you prefer... neo-pharis. pronounced: nee-oh-fairies)

PS: I think my messages are getting lost in the group spam folder again.

» Thom says: ☛ ¡Watch it! I have a Fairy, and I know how to Use her! (Elven Proverb)

¡Watch it, the Fairies are loose, and they are carrying Dragons! (Elven Humor)

Actually, I would say they are simply Sad. Do they really think that two adults fighting like cats is going to be a pretty sight for their children? I can say from personal experience, NO!

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ It looks like 2007 is going to be a year of desperation for the religious Fascists. On one hand the strength they felt they once held is crumbling. It might even be that the Religious Fascists are losing relevance on the middle ground of moderates and thinkers from the head.

Well, I now know what side of the “GLBTQ” question Charisma OnLine is.

A Prophetic Word for 2007: Changing Priorities and Paradigms
This is a year for bold, drastic measures. The American church must change, or change will be forced upon us.

2007: A year to challenge apostasy. Don’t be shocked when people you consider evangelical Christians embrace blatant heresy. Some will begin to preach a gospel of universal salvation. Others, even in the charismatic camp, will join the chorus of “gay-affirming” ministers, because they care more about being relevant to culture than to God’s Word. Just as in the days of Jezebel, many will bow their knee to Baal. The American church must have the courage of Elijah in order to challenge this spirit of idolatry and depravity. Though we must seek to be culturally relevant, we must also be willing to be criticized as “old-fashioned” when it comes to biblical morality.

» Thom says: ☛ And yet, they say nothing about education, the homeless, the sick, those imprisoned for no good reason, those we imprison but might not have been had they had better choices available to them. Where is the Justice? Where is the Mercy? Would it be violent to call these fellows Sodomites in light of the following?

«As I live» — declares the Lord יהוה — «your sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what you and your daughters did. Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: Arrogance! She and her daughters had pleanty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy. In her haughtiness, they committed abonimation before Me; and so I removed them, as you saw.
Ezekiel 16:48-49