While he claimed his views were "evolving" for the last several years, the president who has done much to support LGBT rights, has never gone further on the issue than saying he supported "civil unions". But yesterday, he made public his support:
And historian Doris Kearns Goodwin thinks history will smile on Obama for his public statements
Showing posts with label equal rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal rights. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Justice stands by refusal to give interracial couple license to wed
Justice stands by refusal to give interracial couple license to wed - CNN.comGiven the fact that laws against inter-racial marriages were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) I don't see how this judge thinks this ruling is going to stand. I'm pretty sure he will lose his job as a Louisiana judge within a few days since he is being so defiant and obnoxious about it.
A more detailed article here:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Supremes rule in the firefighter race case
From Newsweek:
From Christian Science Monitor
Court rules for white firefighters, reversing Sotomayor panel | csmonitor.com
Dahlia Lithwick: When Constitutional Worlds Collide
From Christian Science Monitor
Court rules for white firefighters, reversing Sotomayor panel | csmonitor.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
Supreme Court Decisions on Voting Rights Act and Special Education
Listen to the discussion from the Newshour on PBS
Justice Ginsberg looking forward to having another female on the high cout
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's thoughts on the importance of having a balance of men and women on the Supreme Court were published recently in an article on CNN's website.
"Women belong in all places where decision are being made," she said. "I don't say [the split] should be 50-50. It could be 60 percent men, 40 percent women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception."
Ginsburg noted gender differences are "seldom in the outcome." But then, she said, "it is sometimes in the outcome."
Ginsburg expressed frustration in that interview with how her male colleagues view her role, and how they view certain cases. She said in closed door conferences where all the justices gather to decide cases and pending appeals, her views occasionally are ignored. "When I will say something -- and I don't think I'm a confused speaker -- and it isn't until somebody else says it that everyone will focus on the point."
"Women belong in all places where decision are being made," she said. "I don't say [the split] should be 50-50. It could be 60 percent men, 40 percent women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception."
Ginsburg noted gender differences are "seldom in the outcome." But then, she said, "it is sometimes in the outcome."
Ginsburg expressed frustration in that interview with how her male colleagues view her role, and how they view certain cases. She said in closed door conferences where all the justices gather to decide cases and pending appeals, her views occasionally are ignored. "When I will say something -- and I don't think I'm a confused speaker -- and it isn't until somebody else says it that everyone will focus on the point."
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Same-sex marriage back before California Supreme Court
The deal in California is basically this:1. A year or so ago, the State Supreme Court ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the California State Constitution (not necessarily the U.S. Constitution).
2. So, some 18,000 same-sex couples were married in the Golden State until a proposition was put on the ballot in November (Proposition 8) that amended the CA State Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. And same-sex marriage became illegal in California once again.
3. This week however, proponents of gay marriage are before the Californai State Supreme Court again, this time asking the court to strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
Confused yet? Before you try to make up your mind, check out the information in the article below from the Christian Science Monitor. There are a lot of issues and arguments on both sides of the issue you may need to consider before being informed enough to understand this legal issue.
(I say "legal issue" as opposed to "moral issue", because whether or not your morals push you in one direction or another on this issue, you have to remember that we are a nation of laws, and the rule of law must be respected - even if the law is confusing and it is easy to let emotion get in the way on controversial issues. The complex system of checks and balances that exists within California State government must be kept in mind here. So, in my case, I think two adults that love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment to each other should be able to do so regardless of their sexual orientation. However, that needs to be done within the rule of law, in accordance with the California State Constitution.)
Same-sex marriage before California Supreme Court csmonitor.com
This news story from a California T.V. station also does a nice job of outlining the key issues involved in this legal battle:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)