I have a lot of topics I want to blog about but I can't figure out how to do while maintaining my anonymity. Of course I've already given away enough details that all of my friends and coworkers could ID me instantly. I mostly maintain the anonymous status of my blog to prevent future employers from finding it.
I've applied for a couple PD internships next summer already. I've also applied for an internship at a non-profit working on prisoners' rights issues. I realize it is important to show that I am a "true believer" if I ever hope to get a job at a PD office and I hope that prisoners' rights work shows that. I figure working for prisoners shows my understanding that the guilty still deserve legal representation. I think prisoners work shows that even more than PD work. In theory a higher percentage of clients in a PD office are innocent than I would encounter doing prisoners' rights work.
I signed up for moot court yesterday after learning one of the moot courts offered has a criminal procedure case this year. Now I just have to hope I don't get assigned to the State's side of the case.
The Opine Editorials* linked to my post about marriage for same-sex couples in Iowa. I was all excited to have new readers until I went and read some posts at the Opine Editorials. The blog uses the term same-sex "marriage" with marriage always in quotation marks. The blog is devoted to "defending" marriage as between a man and a woman. I guess I should be happy that I'm not just preaching to the choir.
*I'm not going to link to them. You all have Google and can find their blog if you want to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I always wonder how many divorced people are anti-same sex marriage. I mean, us heterosexuals have done SO WELL with that institution, right?
What geographical regions are you interested in interning in?
The blog uses the term same-sex "marriage" with marriage always in quotation marks
Sometimes. But it I find the term "neutered marriage" to be more specific.
Same-sex or even gay marriage simply discusses who is being targeted with benefits. And even that is a misnomer since only a program such as Civil Unions really justifies as catering to gays or same-sex couples. It does not describe the actual change being proposed to the institution itself, which is to render the definition of marriage gender-neutral -- to remove the reference to gender altogether. Hence neutered marriage.
And think about it, if an all-white private school in your neighborhood wanted to be recognized equally as a public school, its requirement for race segregation would be suspect. But a same-sex (racially segregated) marriage is somehow the new integration?
We are told that there are people who are different, designed to be in same-sex relationships and cannot meaningfully integrate with the other sex in any marital way. That is a very close parallel to the same-sex marriage arguments of yore.
But when it all comes down to it, Opine Editorials is simply about encouraging the government to recognize and support responsible procreation. To help strengthen in-tact family bonds, which in turn help ensure the rights of children, mothers and fathers. It is definitely a site that is for something rather than against something. And I ask, don't you support that too?
Hi, It's Renee from Opine...
You said....
"I am 100% convinced that marriage should be between two loving people regardless of sex"
Well... what about persons in non-sexual relationships, that love one another?
Think about it, why does someone have to be sexually active to obtain someone else's healthcare? Why does any adult have to be in a sexual relationship to decide who their healthcare proxy or other reciprocals benefits should be? Why are we discriminating against someone for being in a non-sexual active person no matter their sexual orientation?
Heterosexual activity is the only activity that could creates something out of the bedroom, specifically nine months later. Homosexual activity in itself is irrelevant to the creation of the child. Homosexual activity has the same chance of producing a child as two persons engaging in no sexual activity what so ever. Neither type of relationship have the element found in heterosexual relationships which is the possible resulting act of coitus; pregnancy and the birth of a child. Heterosexual and homosexual activity are not 'equal' in the possible resulting consequences. Homsexuals never have to consider pregnancy achievement, family planning or its personal/method failure rates, or expereince months or years of 'trying' through their sexual activity.
Also the Howard Law Journal from the historic black university has a good article, "Portrait of a Marriage" on the importance of marriage and minority families. .
http://www.law.howard.edu/dictator/media/229/how_50_1.pdf
Page 105/116
"A same-sex partnership cannot create the same
obligation because there is no potential for unintentional procreation in that context. Some of the courts try to compensate for the absence of obligation by invoking concepts like "commitment,"48 but commitment is an awfully diluted substitute for obligation. Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective."
Yes, I agree we should have stronger at-fault divorce laws and I agree with you on the Death Penalty. If you ever want to practice your arguments with us,we can dicuss it on the blog or we can email.
Hi Renee,
I didn't realize that marriage required sex.
So homosexuals cannot reproduce so they should not be allowed to get married?
Ok fine. If the entire purpose of marriage is procreation, then it should be limited to those who are capable of producing children. So post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, men who have had vasectomies, etc should not be allowed to get married. You tell the infertile couples that because they cannot produce children they are not capable of loving each other the same way as a fertile couple.
"[I]t cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the possession of the organs necessary to conception are essential to entrance to the marriage state, so long as there is no impediment to the indulgence of the passions incident to that state." Wendel v. Wendel, 52 N.Y.S. 72, 74 (App. Div. 1898) For more on this topic I highly suggest Evan Gerstmann's book "Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution."
on lawn- If you want to encourage responsible procreation why not let same-sex couples who adopt children marry? Because I agree that we should "help strengthen in-tact family bonds" for ALL families.
So homosexuals cannot reproduce so they should not be allowed to get married?
No one is saying who can and who can't get married. Marriage requires one man and one woman, are you saying they are neither man nor woman?
Should they be allowed to prosecute the human disaster that would be neutering the definition of marriage?
The demand for some component of identity from the state before they can feel adequate dignity sounds less like equality and more like self-esteem issues -- if you ask me.
Please re-read my comment above...
So post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, men who have had vasectomies, etc should not be allowed to get married.
They have been barred in the past. But thanks for showing another anti-social argument underpinning the neutered marriage movement.
Should we bar the disabled and handicapped from marriage? Usually society is much more caring and accommodating to the disabled. I do not find homosexuality a handicap, do you? As was noted above, the only disability homosexuality can claim is a social prejudice against the other sex. But I find that claim unfounded, and nothing that should be pampered by law.
Why make this a rhetorical question, why not go ahead and propose the legislation to knock people down for a disability, and see how much sympathy that generates for neutering marriage.
It already throws children's needs under the bus, why not show just how willing you are to throw other needy groups under the bus for pampering and indulging what is purely an adult sexual lifestyle.
Or, perhaps I speak in err. Do you presume sexual intimacy in marriage? Do you presume a romance needs to happen in marriage? If you are proposing that we make romance recognition the primary form of marriage, and you claim that if procreation were the purpose of marriage that the disabled should be barred from it, then do you propose a romance test to make sure they are romantically inclined at regular intervals?
You suggested the totalitarian test after all, but I doubt that you really believe the law requires such totalitarian measures. Or that marriage really is about romantic recognition.
If you want to encourage responsible procreation why not let same-sex couples who adopt children marry? Because I agree that we should "help strengthen in-tact family bonds" for ALL families.
Because adoption is not responsible procreation, it is responsibility for people who did not take responsibility for their procreation. Its a noble cause, a way to restore as best as possible what tragedy took away -- a mother *and* father.
I have nothing against adoption, but if you don't note the tragedy that ripped the child from the parents and just say adoption is procreation and in-tact bond, then you wind up throwing the baby out with the bath water. And I simply don't understand why people are so willing to do that, but thank your lucky charms such radicalism is still a minority in this country.
Post a Comment