Friday, April 17, 2009



Jen Pollard, a student at the University of Washington (in biology, no less), doesn't like the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court invalidating the state's marriage law, to the extent that it did not permit marriages between gays and lesbians, and complains about an earlier column in the student newspaper on the subject. Her reasoning is, however, somewhat ... unique:

[T]his is a republic! You might remember that from saying the pledge of allegiance as a kid in school. The major issue is that a few judges changing the law is not how a republic works. This is not the way to change the system. This is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. The republic is being distorted and changed by a few people. This only leads to an oligarchy, which isn't good for anybody.

Of course, the judges didn't "change the law." They found that one provision of the law was in conflict with another provision of the law and, since one of them was a higher authority -- the state's Constitution, which was adopted collectively by the people of the state -- they ruled the marriage law was invalid. But this is where it gets funny. Ms. Pollard then complains of the column's assertion that the ruling doesn't mean churches would be forced to recognize gay marriages:

I'd like to know where you get you research from? You should cite or give specific examples as a journalist. You're not the only one, as it seems to be the trend these days. There is a very real threat against churches' ability to continue practicing their religions. Pastor Ake Green preached a sermon in his church from the New Testament saying that homosexuality is sinful. Then came a criminal prosecution against Pastor Green for allegedly violating Sweden's "hate-speech" law prohibiting expression criticizing a minority group, in this case, persons who engage in homosexual behavior.

He was sentenced to prison for a period of 30 days for preaching his religion in his church. Luckily, the Swedish Supreme Court reversed this decision. This is what happens when the definition of marriage is changed.

Now, quite apart from the validity of citing a Swedish law, subject to the Swedish Constitution, as an example of the "danger" faced by religion under the Iowa and United States Constitutions, what, exactly, does she think the Swedish Supreme Court was doing when it overturned Rev. Green's conviction but "changing" the law in precisely the same way that she was just complaining about?

It's one thing to be more concerned about your own ox being gored, it's quite another to not even notice a dead ox at your feet.

Has anybody ever expressed an opinion about whether people with XXY or other non-standard chronomosomes can legally get married, to anyone?
Re: XXY etc.
I doubt it's an issue. AFAIK, trans-sexuals have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite anatomical (and legal) sex, even though they are the "wrong" chromosomal sex. Now they can marry people of their own anatomical/legal sex, if they want.

Yes, I have heard of people with confusing gender identities like "homosexual man in a woman's body". Which seems like it should sort of cancel out, but what comfortable straights like me don't get is that who you're attracted to is somewhat distinct from who you subjectively are.
When someone talks about republics and oligarchies and judges, that's a pretty good sign that they're getting their theories from the 700 Club. (Usually they throw Thomas Jefferson in there somewhere too.)
This obsession with with gay marriages is such a narrow view of morality as prescribed in the Old Testament. Where are all the demands to be allowed to stone adulterers or - much more understandably - rebellious children to death? These people are No True Christians (even if they do have Scottish ancestry).
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education