|
|
The news articles and features presented below are simply an indication of how topical, controversial, and all-encompassing the issues surrounding marriage are throughout our society—and the world—today. Some of the views and opinions expressed, and their respective web sites, do NOT reflect the views or opinions of The Real Proposal™ magazine. Many are highlighted largely to reiterate that the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family"—outlined in"A Mere Glimpse"—will continue unabated without a fundamental grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH on the issues.
|
|
|
- Conservative Group Asks Judge to Make Arnie, Jerry Defend Prop. 8 Wall Street Journal, By Ashby Jones, September 1, 2010
Just when you though the procedural maneuverings in the Prop. 8 case couldn’t get any more complicated, well, they did. A conservative legal group, the Pacific Justice Institute, has filed papers in state court, asking that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown (pictured) be made to defend the law in federal court. A quick recap: Last month, a federal judge in San Francisco, shot down Proposition 8, the voter-passed California initiative that bans same-sex marriage. Since then, questions have arisen as to whether the plaintiffs in the case have standing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Click here for all previous LB coverage of Prop. 8. The most natural party to appeal the ruling would be the state of California, which, after all, bears the responsibility of enforcing the law. But Schwarzenegger and Brown have chosen not to. Without their participation, the appeal totters along on shaky legs. Enter the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute is arguing that as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees. “To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust,” Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday. . . .
RELATED COMMENTS: Conservative Group Asks Judge to Make Arnie, Jerry Defend Prop. 8
5:03 pm September 2, 2010, Call to Reason wrote:
Prop 8 Defenders = Popular sovereignty demands that an AG act in a ministerial capacity and not weigh in on a cultural war.
Prop 8 Dissenters = Prop 8 is discrimination, and AG acts with legal discretion as to whether a case has proper merits to defend.
There! That is both sides. Please do not pretend that there is not another side to the debate by merely reciting the rhetoric from either side (e.g. “prop 8 is unconstitutional” or “the abandoned or indigent client”). Arguments that Prop 8 is unconstitutional ignore the fact the Supreme Court and most circuits have intentionally refused to decide that issue, and there is no constitutional provision regarding sexual preference (unless you make homosexuality a race) (as the bomb states). On the other hand, an argument that the AG is merely an errand-boy for majoritarianism must answer how an AG would counter mob rule or filter out frivolous claims (as Anonymous alludes to with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)) So, lets talk about the real issues. Credibility attacks are logical fallacies (sorry John Trustov), and rhetoric helps no one. Take a stance, and understand the implications of that position if the circumstances/facts of the case were slightly different (kudos to Cuts both Ways). . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Legal group seeks to compel Calif to defend Prop 8 AP, By Lisa Leff- AP, August 31, 2010
A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court. The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require the two officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month. Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws. The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger, who also refused to support Proposition 8 in Walker's court, have said they do not plan to. The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees. And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states. "To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday. . .
|
|
|
- Dr. Jacquelyn Kotarac Dies In Chimney Trying To Break Into Boyfriend's Home Huffington Post, September 01, 2010
A doctor involved in an "on-again, off-again" relationship apparently tried to force her way into her boyfriend's home by sliding down the chimney, police said Tuesday. Her decomposing body was found there three days later. Dr. Jacquelyn Kotarac, 49, first tried to get into the house with a shovel, then climbed a ladder to the roof last Wednesday night, removed the chimney cap and slid feet first down the flue, Bakersfield police Sgt. Mary DeGeare said. While she was trying to break in, the man she was pursuing escaped unnoticed from another exit "to avoid a confrontation," authorities said. DeGeare said the two were in an "on-again, off-again" relationship. The man's identity was not revealed by police, but the man who resides in the home is William Moodie, 58. "She made an unbelievable error in judgment and nobody understands why, and unfortunately she's passed away," Moodie told The Associated Press. "She had her issues – she had her demons – but I never lost my respect for her." Reached by telephone, Moodie did not dispute the police's characterization of his relationship with Kotarac. He would not comment on the circumstances that led to her death, saying it was more important to focus on the good she did in life. Moodie, who runs an engineering consulting firm, said Kotarac was a superb internist who often provided service and medication free of charge to her patients. Kotarac apparently died in the chimney, but her body was not discovered until a house-sitter noticed a stench and fluids coming from the fireplace Saturday, according to a police statement. The house-sitter and her son investigated with a flashlight and found Kotarac dead, wedged about two feet above the top of the interior fireplace opening. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Relationships: Romantic Jealousy: How to recognize where jealousy comes from and how to cope with it. Psychology Today, By A.M. Pines, C.F. Bowes, March 01, 1992 - last reviewed on October 01, 2009
The Shadow of Love: "I found myself sitting curled up in the bushes, following every movement seen through the curtains in her lit-up window. I knew her boyfriend was there, and the knowledge caused me excruciating pain. It was a cold winter night, and once in a while it would drizzle. I said to myself: "I know I am a sane, well-adjusted, responsible adult. What in the world is happening to me? Have I totally lost my mind?" And yet, I continued sitting in those bushes for hours. I didn't leave until the light in the window was gone. A force larger than myself held me hypnotized to the light and to her. I have never in my life felt so close to madness.". . .
|
 |
- Same-sex couple loses appeal over their right to divorce in Texas Dallas Morning News, By Roy Appleton, September 01, 2010
A state appeals court in Dallas has rejected a lower court's decision that two gay men who married in Massachusetts had the right to divorce in Texas. In October, state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the men could legally end their marriage and that the state's prohibition against same-sex marriage violated the federal constitutional right to equal protection. On Tuesday, the 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed that decision and instructed Callahan to dismiss the case. Same-sex marriages or civil unions are prohibited by a voter-approved amendment to the state Constitution and the Texas Family Code. The three-judge panel said Tuesday that the trial court had wrongly ruled that those provisions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, Justice Kerry P. Fitzgerald wrote in the decision: "We hold that Texas district courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case." The two men, identified in court records as J.B. and H.B., married in Cambridge, Mass., in 2006, later returned to Dallas and separated two years later. J.B., citing "discord or conflict of personalities," sued in January 2008 to dissolve the union. The Dallas County resident could obtain a divorce in Massachusetts after regaining legal residency there. He could also appeal the case to the Texas Supreme Court. "We are disappointed with the justices' decision," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who represented J.B. in the divorce filing, "but we respect the court and process and are evaluating our options about moving forward." Schulte said his client did not want to speak publicly about the decision. In an interview last year, J.B. said the marriage "was not entered into lightly" and the breakup was painful. But "I believe all people should have the same rights to do what they want with their private lives." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the divorce case, arguing that because Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage, a Texas court can't dissolve one through divorce. But Callahan, a Democrat, rejected the attorney general's intervention and said her court had jurisdiction to consider a divorce case "filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction." Abbott said he would appeal that ruling "to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters." In arguments before the three judges, all Republicans, attorneys for the state and the conservative Plano-based Liberty Institute repeated the claim that to recognize same-sex divorce, Texas would have to recognize same-sex marriage. In a statement Tuesday, Abbott applauded the ruling:. . .
|
RELATED ARTICLE: In Texas, You Can't Separate What Isn't Together: Appeal to decision expected NBC-DFW, By Eric Kreindler and Frank Heinz, August 31, 2010
An appeals court ruled Tuesday that Texas District courts do not have jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case because gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas. (Read the full opinion here.) In other words, since gay marriage doesn't exist in Texas, Texas can't sign off on a gay divorce. To do so would recognize that two men were married -- which is a ball of wax the state would prefer to not get into again. . . |
RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay "Marriage" Boundless.org, By David Orland
To
justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular
group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must
first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough.
Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because
the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my
argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits
they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic
love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of
special interest groups but rather because the next generation is
something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by
definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions.
To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic
partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay "Marriage" -Round Two Boundless.org, By David Orland
On
reflection, it’s amazing that supporters of gay marriage have gotten
this far. Set aside the hype with which the issue is usually presented
and one is left with a surprisingly feeble argument for an imaginary
right. The standard argument for gay marriage goes something like this:
Heterosexual marriage is legal (true). In most states, homosexual
marriage is not (also true). Therefore, gay marriage advocates
conclude, the civil rights of gay Americans are being violated
(false!). Where to start? In the first place, homosexuals are not
denied the right to marry — they are denied a right to marry other
homosexuals, which is something else altogether. Next, the argument
trades on the idea — superficially appealing but practically empty —
that discrimination is by definition a bad and evil thing. Denying
legal status to gay marriage does indeed involve discrimination — but
it is discrimination of a perfectly legitimate kind. Finally and most
crucially, the argument assumes what it is meant to prove: the rights
of gays are being violated only if you already agree that one of their
rights is to get married to a person of the same sex as themselves. But
that, of course, is precisely what is at issue. It’s as if proponents
of gay marriage believe that saying you have a right, loud enough and
often enough, gives you one. While this tactic may succeed in silencing
some of their opponents, it falls miserably short of making the sort of
case that needs to be made if a specifically “gay right” to marriage is
to be recognized. If gays hope to show that they have a right to marry
one another, they will have to prove that they meet the same conditions
that give heterosexual couples this right. There’s no way around it:
any discussion of gay marriage must begin with a discussion of marriage
in general. So why is heterosexual marriage recognized as a right?. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Zombie Killers: A.K.A., "Queering the Social" National Review Online, By Stanley Kurtz, May 25, 2006
Gay marriage undermines marriage. You see, it turns out that this decidedly conservative observation is entirely consistent with the views of some of the most influential sociologists in Europe (and their followers here in America). I’ve been quoting and paraphrasing these prominent sociologists to show that I’m far from the only one who connects same-sex marriage with the decline of traditional marriage. Of course, “hip-and-happening” left-leaning sociologists would be loathe to put the matter precisely the way I do. For fear of scaring the public away from still more change, they’d be careful not to offer a detailed causal case showing that gay marriage undermines marriage. Above all, Europe’s sociologists (and their American fellow travelers) actually celebrate and promote the decline of the traditional family that is signaled and advanced by same-sex marriage. But strip away the jargon, drop the element of celebration, and it turns out that conservative opponents of same-sex marriage and some of Europe’s most influential sociologists are saying much the same thing: Same-sex marriage doesn’t reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like single parenting, parental cohabitation, and multi-partner unions) that only serve to weaken marriage. In short, “the queering of the social” (meaning a broad spectrum of family change, including, but not limited to, same-sex partnerships) calls into question the normativity and naturalness of “heterorelationality” (i.e., traditional marriage). . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Libertarian Question: Incest, homosexuality, and adultery. National Review Online, By Stanley Kurtz, April 30, 2003
There is a mystery at the heart of the gay-marriage debate. I call it the “libertarian question.” The libertarian question (really a series of questions) goes like this: Why should any form of adult consensual sex be illegal? What rational or compelling interest does the state have in regulating consensual adult sex? More specifically, how does the marriage of two gay men undermine my marriage? Will the fact that two married gay men live next door make me leave my wife? Hardly. So how, then, does gay marriage undermine heterosexual marriage? Why not get the state out of such matters altogether?. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women O magazine— Oprah.com, By Mary A. Fischer, April 2009 Issue
Cynthia Nixon did it. Lindsay Lohan's doing it. TV shows are based on it. Is it our imaginations, or are wives and girlfriends ditching their men and falling in love with other women? New science says that sexuality is more fluid than we thought. . . . . .Feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, PhD, a professor of English and gender and women's studies at the University of Kentucky and author of Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, also agrees that in the current environment, more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box. "When a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things," she says. "So it makes sense that we would see women, for all sorts of reasons, walking through that door now that the culture has cracked it open. . . . . . Over the past several decades, scientists have struggled in fits and starts to get a handle on sexual orientation. Born or bred? Can it change during one's lifetime? A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. Today, however, a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought, especially when it comes to women. The idea that human sexuality forms a continuum has been around since 1948, when Alfred Kinsey introduced his famous seven-point scale, with 0 representing complete heterosexuality, 7 signifying complete homosexuality, and bisexuality in the middle, where many of the men and women he interviewed fell. The new buzz phrase coming out of contemporary studies is "sexual fluidity. . .
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuality:
it isn’t natural: Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered
a ‘gay gene’, says Peter Tatchell: gay desire is not genetically
determined Spiked.com, By Peter Tatchell, June 24, 2008
There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.
[Editor's note: Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party.]
RELATED ARTICLE: The Best Research Yet: Two psychologists show that homosexuals should not be discouraged from seeking change Christianity Today, By Tim Stafford, September 13, 2007
When
Stanton Jones first began to study psychology, homosexuality was a
malady, listed and described in the official "diagnostic Bible," the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In 1973, that
diagnosis was dropped. Now the American Psychological Association's
official website states, "The reality is that homosexuality is not an
illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." The
website warns that "conversion therapy" is poorly documented and could
cause potential harm. The American Psychiatric Association's website
adds, "[T]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the
efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual
orientation. The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great,
including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior." What to
make, then, of the apparently sincere personal testimonies of people
claiming to be ex-gay?. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Hetero-flexible Gene Townhall.com, By Jennifer Roback Morse, February 20, 2006
There
is actually plenty of data that supports the position that sexual
orientation is not a fixed trait. I know, I know, I can hear the howls
already. Everybody knows that homosexuality is genetically determined. Actually, everybody who knows anything about the subject knows exactly the opposite. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That
Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that CWA, By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
The
debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether
homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual
activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn,
cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to
marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing
that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or
hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all
exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked
sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the
brain, to genes, finger length, inner ear differences, eye-blinking, and
"neuro-hormonal differentiation." Meanwhile, Columbia University
Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in
removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric
Association's list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the
October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can
change their "sexual orientation" from homosexual to heterosexual. . .
|
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Double Lives On The Down Low The New York Times, By Benoit Denizet- Lewis, August 3, 2003
In
its upper stories, the Flex bathhouse in Cleveland feels like a squash
club for backslapping businessmen. There's a large gym with free weights
and exercise machines on the third floor. In the common area, on the
main floor, men in towels lounge on couches and watch CNN on big-screen
TV's. In the basement, the mood is different: the TV's are tuned to
porn, and the dimly lighted hallways buzz with sexual energy. A naked
black man reclines on a sling in a room called ''the dungeon play
area.'' Along a hallway lined with lockers, black men eye each other as
they walk by in towels. In small rooms nearby, some men are having sex.
Others are napping. There are two bathhouses in Cleveland. On the city's
predominantly white West Side, Club Cleveland -- which opened in 1965
and recently settled into a modern 15,000-square-foot space -- attracts
many white and openly gay men. Flex is on the East Side, and it serves a
mostly black and Hispanic clientele, many of whom don't consider
themselves gay. (Flex recently shut its doors temporarily while it
relocates.) I go to Flex one night to meet Ricardo Wallace, an
African-American outreach worker for the AIDS Task Force of Cleveland
who comes here twice a month to test men for H.I.V. I eventually find
him sitting alone on a twin-size bed in a small room on the main floor.
Next to him on the bed are a dozen unopened condoms and several oral
H.I.V.-testing kits. Twenty years ago, Wallace came here for fun. He was
22 then, and AIDS seemed to kill only gay white men in San Francisco
and New York. Wallace and the other black men who frequented Flex in the
early 80's worried just about being spotted walking in the front door.
Today, while there are black men who are openly gay, it seems that the
majority of those having sex with men still lead secret lives, products
of a black culture that deems masculinity and fatherhood as a black
man's primary responsibility -- and homosexuality as a white man's
perversion. . . |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
