Connect with us

Iowa

Published

on

roger kuhle polk county assist att. 

Child-raising: If marriage provides the optimal environment for children denying it harms the children of same sex unions. Essential right to know biological parent. No dispute that it’s better for a child to have two parents. Judge: Is it your argument that they will be harmed if we honor? State has an intertest in  marriage. By fostering dss marr will harm and could defeat its vital purpose. State will be teaching marriage is not necessary. child of current ss marr = stigma. Judge they claim more than that. Tangible benefits can be obtained legally. argu are hypiothetical. Could not provide evidence example of anyone turned away from a hospital or will contested. Perceived harms are not real. Difference treatment not substantial. How does a man terach a girl to be a woman, vice versa. Judge: Maybe dual marriage gender optimal. We allow sex offenderds and felons and deadbeat dads to get marriaed. If sex offender or alcoholic marries they do not destroy fabric of marriage. JHudge: can we allow felons to not get married. Lawyer would violate their rights. Judge Is a view of morality sufficient to allow legislative opinion. Scalia yes oconnor no. “Morality is our culture”. Judge: Challenge may be to balance individual rights vs. moral argument. Lawyer Not merely a question of morality. Marriage cannot bhe proven to have just a procreative value. Procretion is a feature not a function. Judge: Hoew excluding glbt interferes with this purpiose of procreation? Lawyer: Does state’s concern with procret marrige further marrige? “quibble” on gender. In a generation or two of ss marr the state is saying you do not bneed a mother or father. Judge If stab is the goal then by denying ss vouples arent you going against your argument. L: Undoubtlyu thats possible. Law doesnt have to be a perfect fit. 

Judge: Heightened scrutiny: one’s orientation/gender does not affect abiltiy to operdform in society. You admit there has been disc of glbt. lawyer: Equal protection not valid. “Loving is based on race” 

Procreation: If priomary basis, how does recog of ss marriage result in less child born. “IUt doesn’t. but it could. Legitamte fear is when state encour ss marr teaches that marriafe ios no longer abt procreation, says pro not important. Judg; how is this having real purpose. more child born out of wedlock. Nofault divorce is a problem . ss marr defriving child of right of child to know theuir parents. J: Happends in borth couples, issue odf allowing artificial birthing. Judge: Is sealing of adopt records against state law? next week we could be opening iup polygamy.

History: Four thousand years

Equal protection:

“There is no ban there is no exclus to ss marr.” to reach the con that ss marr is bigoty flies in the face of 

 

Dennis Johnson: plaintiffs

firstwords of iowa constitution all men and women are crerated equal. 1857 free and indep changed to free and equal. 

If there were studies that showed there were problems with ss marriage those studies would be in the records. If there were good evidence they would be in the record. 

Its clear diff sex couples will have children. Its est policy in this state that says gl are valid parents.

concern about limiting marr between 2 people. Polygamy would require new array of statutes and laws. 

Attribute of right not who historicasllty exercises it. 

Mariage bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, morte than just procreation, intimate combining opf two lives forever, most revered institution in our socuiety. You dont grow up thinking about the financial rights you think about the intimate rights. 

Dual gender parenting: socioliogical evidence most imp is for child to have 2 partents good relationship with primary, then secondary giver, then financial. There is no evidence to suggest 

By allowing same sex couples to adot court has est that ss parents are sufficient. 

we will allow convicted pedofiles to get married without blinking an eye. optimal environment: 

Is glbt suspect class? politically powerless. 

Marriage is declining, less personal responsibility, cortrossive effect:

“no basis in fact. sheer speculation.” No interest in maintaining ss exclusion. all the reasons of marriage are right. quesrtion is why is glbt excluded. not been able to articulate rerason to say why excluded. Marriage is changing. I dont know how barring ss marr wouold have an effect on what diff sex couples are doing in their lives. No plausible credible reason for exclusion. Religious notions of marriage shouldn not be examined. Trad is no just to continue discrimination. weve been dis for so long that we should be able to continue. Marr is ultimate statement about committ,. civil union is badge of second class. Turn argument on yourself. 

Brown vs boe: Would hurt their hearts andf minds in weay they mifght never recover. 

 

——

 

Plaint taken prob of disc of homo sex. 

B/c homo not criminal they are no lionger minority. 

Goiung to knock down the inst og marr to gain equality.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘It Will Not Come Today’: Judge Kaplan Smacks Down Trump

Published

on

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over E. Jean Carroll‘s successful $83.3 million lawsuit against Donald Trump, issued a cautionary rebuke on Monday to the ex-president who was demanding an immediate ruling on his request to delay payment to the journalist whose lawsuit made him a legally adjudicated rapist.

It is Trump’s third request, according to Law & Crime.

Trump attorneys Alina Habba and John Sauer again requested Judge Kaplan delay the payment due date for 30 days, after alleging Carroll’s attorneys “contradicted themselves in a recent court filing,” as ABC News reports. Habba and Sauer are asking for the delay, or that Judge Kaplan allow Trump to post a reduced bond of just under $25 million.

“Last month,” ABC adds, “Kaplan declined Trump’s initial request for a reduced bond or a delay, but asked for a reply from Carroll’s lawyers. In a filing last week, her attorneys argued that the reasoning in Trump’s request relief ‘boils down to nothing more than ‘trust me.””

Trump has until Thursday to post bond, a total of $91.63 million, so he can appeal.

READ MORE: Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reports, “Judge Lew Kaplan, faced with Trump’s fully-briefed request for a further stay of the E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million judgment, effectively says, ‘I’ll rule when I rule.'”

Kaplan wrote: “The Court is aware of defendant’s request for a decision on the stay motion no later than today ‘to allow time for [him] to finalize arrangements for an appropriate bond if necessary.’ … A decision will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible. Without implying what that decision will be or when it will be made, however, it will not come today.”

Just over a week ago, Judge Kaplan took “a pretty sharp dig at Trump’s attempt to delay the enforcement until right before the wire,” noted Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld. Kaplan had written: “Twenty-five days after the jury verdict in this case, and only shortly before the expiration of Rule 62’s automatic stay of enforcement of the judgment, Mr. Trump has moved for an ‘administrative stay’ of enforcement pending the filing and disposition of any post-trial motions that he may file. He seeks that relief without posting any security.”

“The Court declines to grant any stay, much less an unsecured stay, without first having afforded plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

READ MORE: ‘The Good of the Country’: Trump Explains Why He Thinks He Should Have Immunity

Continue Reading

News

‘The Good of the Country’: Trump Explains Why He Thinks He Should Have Immunity

Published

on

Responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday that he can remain on the Colorado ballot after the state, citing the 14th Amendment, removed him for engaging in insurrection, Donald Trump on Monday suggested he should have absolute immunity “for the good of the country and actually the good of the world.”

The Supreme Court recently decided to take up Trump’s “absolute immunity” claim, which is tied to Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. But falling under that argument could be his Espionage Act case against Trump, also referred to as the classified documents case, and indeed, possibly any case against him for his actions while in office.

“I don’t want to be prosecuted, because I decided to do something that is very much for the good of the country and actually for the good of the world,” Trump said in his rambling remarks, while talking about fighting ISIS when he was Commander-in-Chief.

“We were fighting for 20 years against ISIS. And we did it very quickly. I don’t want to be prosecuted. In that case, it worked out very well. There will be some things that perhaps don’t work out so well, but I don’t want to be prosecuted because I decided to do something that is very much for the good of the country and actually for the good of the world,” Trump said in his remarks.

READ MORE: Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

Trump’s hypothetical, however, is not why he’s being prosecuted.

He is facing a myriad of charges in just the two cases being prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. But Trump also faces charges in the New York District Attorney’s case, often referred to as the “hush money” case, and in the Fulton County election interference case – none of which have to do with battling terrorists overseas.

“A President shouldn’t have that on his mind and he has to have a free and clear mind when he makes very big decisions,” Trump continued, “or it’s going to be nothing more than a ceremonial post. You’ll be president, it’ll be a wonderful thing and you won’t do anything because you don’t want to be hit by your opponent or hit by somebody else because who wants to leave office and go through what I’ve gone through?”

No president in U.S. history has been charged with crimes related to his actions while in office.

Later in his remarks, as Real Clear Politics reported, Trump went on to say, “you have deranged Jack Smith, who is a Trump hater and represents all the Trump haters, and he’s going wild, wild man and he was just overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court, went after other people and he’s a great failure. He is mean, nasty, unfair.”

Smith was not “just overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.” The Court agreed to take up Trump’s immunity claim, which Smith asked the Court to do in December.

READ MORE: Here’s What SCOTUS Just Did – and Did Not Do – in Its ‘Unanimous’ Trump Ruling: Experts

“The judges on these cases are Trump haters,” Trump continued. “Other than we have one or two I think can be fair. But you look at New York what has happened. These people have tremendous hatred.”

Political commentator Bob Cesca responded to Trump’s remarks, writing: “Remaining in office is the goal of a *campaign* not the duty of a *president*. He thinks illegally remaining president was an act ‘for the good of the country.’ He’s tacitly admitting to engaging in insurrection as part of his… duties? Hello, Jack Smith.”

Watch a clip of Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

News

Video Shows 32 Times Trump ‘Babbled Nonsense’ or ‘Got Confused’ in Just One Day

Published

on

A video compilation purports to show 32 times Donald Trump forgot words, mispronounced or mixed up names, got confused, or just “babbled insane nonsense” during his two campaign speeches on Saturday.

The video, posted to social media by attorney and MeidasTouch editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski, lasts under 3 minutes, and has gotten 1.3 million views in under 30 hours.

“’Anybody that loves me, I like them’ – a reminder of how easy it is to play or manipulate Trump and how, per his own words, he has zero principles or values and operates on a purely narcissistic, self-serving basis,” observed journalist Mehdi Hasan, quoting Trump from the video.

READ MORE: Here’s What SCOTUS Just Did – and Did Not Do – in Its ‘Unanimous’ Trump Ruling: Experts

“And yet again the media will be primarily focused on Biden’s age,” lamented pollster and MSNBC political analyst Cornell Belcher. “As if Biden simply being old with no credible ethics issues is somehow equivalent to Trump’s clear cognitive problems along with 90+ criminal counts & an attempt to overthrow an election. Make it make sense.”

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday did a segment on what it called Trump’s “public gaffes.”

“The guy just kept getting confused,” co-host Joe Scarborough told viewers as he introduced video.

“We see it more and more,” Scarborough added, calling it “pathetic and sad.”

“He looks lost.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘All Had Security Clearances’: Trump White House Loaded With Speed, Xanax, and Alcohol – Report

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.