Comments on: PATH Member PFOX Files Amicus Brief in the Prop 8 Case

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:21:34 +0000

Warren, unfortunately, I’m continuing to take this Post, off-topic.
SGM, actually I find Family Scholars (FS) a really challenging, on-topic, great blog. I enjoy the many-sided discussions that take place there. Since I found the site, I’ve learned many things that revolve around ‘family’: Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART), Third Party Reproduction (3PR) etc., and how these help or harm family. Alana S., who has started Anonymous us.org recently put up a thoughtful Post on 3PR, and what it means for 3PR persons.
As anyone who participates here on Warren’s blog knows, I’m a Catholic, gay woman who is opposed to same-sex marriage. I’m, also, opposed to any and all forms of ART and 3PR. So, Family Scholars, is really up my alley. What I find disenchanting, actually frustrating, is how do these groups make a difference to me, to you, to families in America.
So, my frustration with Family Scholars is not their focus but how do think-tanks change anything, culturally? How can FS help families in America by being neutral on same sex marriage?
I’ll probably be back at the FS blog after a bit of a rest.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:11:42 +0000

Things may change quite a bit with regards to DOMA and Prop. 8 with regard if either of the 2 cases accepted by the Court will actually be heard. Here's a link to the wonderful SCOTUS Blog, detailing a Court Ordered Challenge: Amicus plea: Don't rule on DOMA now Lyle Denniston's Blog, SCOTUS BLOG has gained prominence as THE blog for SCOTUS stuff. Live chats when pending decisions are coming down, which Lyle and others will answer questions in the wait process, on-the-spot analysis of decisions and their effects, pre-analysis of cases pending in the Court, etc. This Blog has made an incredible imprint on legal eagles watching SCOTUS. My own take on this is that the Court will not hear either case. The challenge, in my own ignorant opinion, seems very rational.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:11:42 +0000

Yes Immutability is necessary for heightened scrutiny. It is just that National Origin and religion is already part of the Civil Rights Act or the Constitution. Sexual Orientation is not in the Civil Rights Act, we think it is i. The Constitution even though it is not specifically listed. We are trying to get sexual orientation classified as a “protected class” (to use Lyman’s terms) We think the Supreme Court will give us that, but to get that you have to have an immutable (or practically immutable) characteristic. That is why we are seeing so many of these Amicus Briefs saying that gays can change to straight if they really wanted to. They are saying anybody can change their sexual orientation that it is NOT immutable.
I could write a lot more about this, the different levels of Judicial Scrutiny but I think this Wikepedia article does a pretty good job. Make sure and click also on the links in the article for intermediate and strict review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:11:42 +0000

What will guide Roberts is his Roman Catholic religion. You will not see Roberts side for equality.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:11:42 +0000

PFOX is a joke.