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

‘I Will Not Stand by Silently’: Sotomayor Blasts SCOTUS Conservatives Over Their Latest Attack on Abortion Rights

Published

on

“The Court may look the other way, but I cannot.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed outrage at her conservative Supreme Court colleagues Thursday afternoon, after the six right wing jurists went one step further in attacking the constitutional guarantee of abortion.

Voting 6-3 against a women’s health care provider the Court denied a request by Texas Women’s Health, which provides abortion services, to change jurisdictions, which according to Justice Sotomayor the Court should have done.

“The lawsuit is now stalled with the Texas Supreme Court,” Rewire News reports.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, a Supreme Court expert calls Sotomayor’s dissent “stunning.”

“This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies,” Sotomayor writes. “I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee. I dissent.”

She begins her dissent by explaining the case:

“It has been over four months since Texas Senate Bill 8 (S. B. 8) took effect. The law immediately devastated access to abortion care in Texas through a complicated private-bounty-hunter scheme that violates nearly 50 years of this Court’s precedents.”

“Today, for the fourth time, this Court declines to protect pregnant Texans from egregious violations of their constitutional rights. One month after directing that the petitioners’ suit could proceed in part, the Court countenances yet another violation of its own commands. Instead of stopping a Fifth Circuit panel from indulging Texas’ newest delay tactics, the Court allows the State yet again to extend the deprivation of the federal constitutional rights of its citizens through procedural manipulation. The Court may look the other way, but I cannot.”

In response the Guttmacher Institute, an organization focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights, accused the Supreme Court of “once again putting ideology over the rule of law.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Ivanka Trump Responds to Committee’s Invite by Saying She Called for End to Violence – Leaves Out ‘Patriots’ Part

Published

on

Ivanka Trump is responding to her invitation from the January 6 Committee by issuing a statement that is being seen suggesting she has no intention of accepting. Earlier Thursday the Committee sent the former First Daughter and White House senior advisor a lengthy 11-page letter asking for her voluntary cooperation.

A statement from her spokesperson given to CNN White House Correspondent Kate Bennett references a tweet posted by Ivanka Trump the day of the attack on the Capitol – a tweet she was forced to delete after massive outrage.

“As the Committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally,” the statement reads. “As she publicly stated at 3:15pm, ‘any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately.”

But in the actual Ivanka Trump called the insurrectionists “American Patriots,” as CNN reported that day:

 

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

Georgia Prosecutor Asks to Convene Special Grand Jury to Investigate Donald Trump’s Alleged Election Interference

Published

on

A Georgia county district attorney has requested to convene a special grand jury to assist in her investigation of Donald Trump‘s alleged election interference.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in a letter to the county’s Superior Court chief judge writes that her office “has received information indicating a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions,” according to the Associated Press.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (photo) was forced to release audio of then-President Trump appearing to intimidate him into fixing the election in his favor.

Trump, in the audio, can be heard berating and threatening the Republican Secretary of State, demanding he “recalculate” the losing election results and “find 11,780 votes” for him, which would have enabled Trump to falsely be declared the winner. Raffensberger refused.

“So look. All I want to do is this,” Trump told Raffensberger. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

“There’s no way I lost Georgia,” he added, falsely. “There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

Willis told the AP the scope of her investigation “includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election.”

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.