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: Mary

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

PFOX is a joke.

By: StraightGrandmother

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

Ken, you are right they have dodged this enough, I think we will get a decision on heightened Judicial Scrutiny. You think they will dodge it, I think they’ll decide it. I’ll try and remember this conversation and circle back after the decision which they say is going to be late June.
I read the Amici Brief of the Harvard Prof SCOTUS hired, I read it carefully several times, because actually it was kind of complicated and I wanted to make sure I understand it. I think Windsor DOMA is going to be kicked out for lack of standing by BLAG and lack of a controversy by the United States.
I think they will take PROP 8, recognize sexual minorities as a suspect class and rule broadly under Equal Protection. This is just one of those cases and a point in history that I think will not be lost on Roberts. Don’t forget Chief Justice Roberts children are adopted so I think the mantra of pro-creation, pro-creation, pro-creation and the biological mother and father is *Best* , will not be convincing to Roberts. It’s game on now.

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: 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: 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: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:33:32 +0000

Fascinating blog, actually.
[The] provocative study by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future, titled “My Daddy’s Name is Donor”…surveyed 485 donor offspring, concluded they were more troubled and depression-prone than other young adults in comparison groups, and recommended an end to anonymous sperm donation. The study’s authors said they sought to ignite a debate, and they succeeded. . . .
—David Crary, Associated Press, August 12, 2010
Hm. I hadn’t heard. There’s a near-total blackout of this sort of thing in the national conversation.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MarquardtDonor.php
I presume there is a sizable batch of people who spend a lot of time attempting to discredit Ms. Marquardt, et al. They seem to be succeeding.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:33:32 +0000

“So, my frustration with Family Scholars is not their focus but how do think-tanks change anything, culturally?”
Teresa,
I don’t think they do. I have always found them fascinating, however, all they can really offer is a cluster of ideas and opinions on any given topic that may or may not mean anything to an individual. None of that changes a heart.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:33:32 +0000

Well, they featured “Teresa” on their front page a couple days ago.
http://familyscholars.org/2013/01/31/child-labor/
I’ve seen worse. Much worse. The blog’s worth a read.

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:33:32 +0000

Richard, yes, civil partnerships, the more traditional arrangement before marriage was redefined in the 19th cent. And then again in the 20th. And then again when the language of the service was so radically redefined to allow the bride a say in the matter. Marriage is a matter of civil law and has always been so. Let’s get back to that.
SG: Family Scholars reminds me of Victorian ladies deploring the morals of others. They ban all the more interesting commenters in their quest for ‘civility’ yet never seem to ban people like Maggie Gallagher whose living is built off the lives of others. It is of course mere think-tankery mostly funded by the Witherspoon outfit and has a distinctly conservative Catholic bent. It reeks of smug self-satisfaction and third-rate ideas: they want to discuss marriage yet ignore all the economic factors that have chipped away at what might be considered the ideal. If I want to read real scholars I go to the NYRB. I’ve long-since been banned. Though I’ve been immoderate here in the past Warren does not ban those who make trouble. Though I may not always agree with him I have come to respect him. If for no other reason what he’s done to get the word out about Uganda makes this blog invaluable.