Well in all honesty...the guy was going to be an attorney and he had to know this whole gay rights thing would be an issue. He should have stated his case long before he got as far as taking his bar exam. I find it hard to believe that this whole gay thing wasn't discussed during his schooling. And he's in Mass...what the heck was he thinking?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"Knowing the law has nothing to do with agreeing with the law," he said. Yas said if Dunne really believed the question was improper, he should "answer the question correctly, get your law degree and use it to argue for what you believe in."
Take it in and spit it back out. I must say that they do have a point right here. He must have known that there would be some sort of question on homosexual marriage on the test, as Massachusetts has been publicized so much for it stance on this.
Psychologists’ group to review therapies for gays Activists consider reparative counseling harmful BY DAVID CRARY The Associated Press
NEW YORK — The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gayrights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation. Such efforts — often called reparative therapy or conversion therapy — are considered futile and harmful by many gay-rights activists. Conservative groups defend the right to offer such treatment, and say people with their viewpoint have been excluded from the review panel. A six-member task force set up by the APA has its first meeting Tuesday. Already, scores of conservative religious leaders and counselors, representing such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, have written a joint letter to the APA, expressing concern that the task force’s proposals would not properly accommodate gays and lesbians whose religious beliefs condemn gay sex. “We believe that psychologists should assist clients to develop lives that they value, even if that means they decline to identify as homosexual,” read the letter, which requested a meeting between APA leaders and some of the signatories. APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman said a decision on when and how to reply to the letter had not yet been made. The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it. Conservatives contend that the review’s outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters. “We’re concerned,” said Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family. “The APA does not have a good track record of listening to other views.” Joseph Nicolosi, a leading proponent of reparative therapy, predicted the task force would propose a ban of the practice — and he vowed to resist such a move. Nicolosi, who was rejected as a task force nominee, is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Clinton Anderson, director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, insisted the panel would base its findings on scientific research, not ideology. He defended the decision to reject certain conservative applicants to the task force. “We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality — they don’t fit into our world view,” Anderson said. One of the counselors denied a seat on the task force was Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College near Pittsburgh. Though Throckmorton doesn’t advocate a specific form of reparative therapy, he argues that psychologists should respect gay clients’ religious beliefs in cases where the faith teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong. “We work with clients to pursue their chosen values,” he said. “If they are core, unwavering commitments to their religious belief, therapists should not try to persuade them differently under the guise of science.” However, one of the task force members, New York City psychiatrist Jack Drescher, said the conservatives don’t acknowledge the harm that might be caused when a gay patient — even voluntarily — undergoes therapy to suppress or change sexual orientation. “They want a rubber stamp of approval for a form of therapy that’s questionable in its efficacy, and they don’t want to deal with the issue of harmful side effects,” said Drescher, who is editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy. As the APA planned the policy review, it received input from gayrights groups, including Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. PFLAG’s executive director, Jody Huckaby, said reparative therapy had been particularly harmful for young gays whose parents insisted on trying to change their sexual orientation. His group contends these efforts can cause depression and suicidal behavior. Current APA policy stipulates that no therapy should occur without “informed consent” of a gay or lesbian client. Jason Cianciotto of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said he hoped the APA would declare that no young person could ever be deemed to have given informed consent, and thus no reparative therapy would be approved for minors.
By DAVID PITT, Associated Press Friday, August 31, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa -- A county judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.
Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson's ruling.
Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.
Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom on the form and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride.
"I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.
Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon and expected a rush of applications Friday.
County attorney John Sarcone said the county will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and immediately sought a stay from Hanson that would prevent gay couples from seeking a marriage license until the appeal is resolved. The Supreme Court could refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear it.
A hearing is likely to be held on the stay motion next week, said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, though nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Dennis Johnson, the lawyer for the six gay couples who sued in 2005 after they were denied marriage licenses, had argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights.
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.
Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.
"We stand for a progressive religious voice," said Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum of New York City's Congregation Beth Simchat Torah. "Those who use religion to advocate an anti-gay agenda, I believe, are blaspheming God's name."
I would challenge the Rabbi to cite passages from the Torah, that contains what those of the Jewish faith believe to be the God's direct words, that support same sex marriage or civil unions. Church leaders of several denominations of Christianity have asserted their liberal interpretations of the scripture that same sex unions are acceptable.
Our society has become tolerant of and embraced abhorrent immoral behavior. Hedonistic practices have become common and accepted (by some) and are promoted by the entertainment industry. Though the religious scriptures have not changed in thousands of years, the interpretation of God's word by religious leaders is being transformed so that it is embraceable by those who lack moral conviction. While we are taught to forgive and love thy neighbor, we should not be expected to change our religious beliefs, morals, and principles to accommodate the "feel good" society in which we live.
Though I oppose civil unions between two individuals of the same gender, the newly granted/acknowledged "rights" must be accompanied by responsibility and liability. If the government is to recognize these civil unions, the benefits and the costs to those involved must be consistent with those of married heterosexual couples. That includes the penalty of the "marriage tax", the requirements regarding child support and alimony, etc. in cases of divorce, and the commitment to a monogamous relationship.
The separation between church and state requires that the government not restrict the practices or beliefs of the religious institution so long as they are not illegal. If a religion/church changes its beliefs and practices so as to accept and support same sex marriage, it is the right of the membership and its leadership to so decide. For those who oppose marriage between two individuals of the same gender, they can accept the position of the church, influence change, or leave the denomination for another whose stated beliefs are more compatible with their own.
Though I oppose civil unions between two individuals of the same gender, the newly granted/acknowledged "rights" must be accompanied by responsibility and liability. If the government is to recognize these civil unions, the benefits and the costs to those involved must be consistent with those of married heterosexual couples. That includes the penalty of the "marriage tax", the requirements regarding child support and alimony, etc. in cases of divorce, and the commitment to a monogamous relationship.
I say have at it folks.....let's see how many 'generations' you can last---without the science.....ha ha ha ha ha.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I have gay relatives. I went to school with gays. I have worked with gays. And I believe that it is their choice to be gay if they choose. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle and that is due to my religious convictions. Religious convictions and the rights under the law are two seperate entities. My religious beliefs may say no and their religion (if any) may say yes to the gay lifestyle. I do not have the right to expect someone else to live by MY religious convictions. Nor do I want to be expected to live my life by other's convictions. And that is freedom of religion.
Under the 'law of the land', I agree with Z. No special privileges for the gay community. If there is to be legal same sex 'marraige'...than I say join the ranks of divorce, child support, alimony and everything else that comes with the territory. Perhaps once they have a taste of the marital life, they'll change their mind!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Gay NYC policeman files suit BY SAMUEL MAULL The Associated Press
NEW YORK — A gay police officer has fi led a discrimination suit against the city and the New York Police Department, saying he was threatened with violence, called vulgar names and treated unfairly by supervisors because of his sexuality. The lawsuit was filed by Michael Harrington, 30, who claimed his superior officers failed to take proper action when he told them about the malicious and discriminatory mistreatment he suffered. “The hell he’s gone through is heart-wrenching,” said Harrington’s lawyer, George D. Rosenbaum. Connie Pankratz, spokeswoman for the city’s Law Department, said the city had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment Harrington, a police officer since July 2002, says in court papers he disclosed to another officer at the 75th Precinct in the East New York section of Brooklyn in February 2003 that he was gay and that was the beginning of his problems with co-workers. Harrington, of Brooklyn, said in the suit that within months he overheard an officer in the men’s room referring to him as a “f*g**t.” Harrington spoke to the officer, who said he would hurt Harrington if he confronted the officer again. Court papers say Harrington also repeatedly sought a transfer from the 75th Precinct but his written applications “kept getting lost.” He was told that after he finally transferred out of the 75th Precinct, someone posted obscene drawings of him in a sex act, the suit claimed. While working at the 79th Precinct in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, Harrington brought his domestic partner to the station’s Christmas party. When he introduced his partner, another officer spit out his drink and began laughing. Harrington says he complained to a supervisor about being mistreated and the supervisor said he was going to transfer him to the Sixth Precinct in Greenwich Village “so plaintiff could be with his people,” the suit said. At the Sixth Precinct, court papers say, a coworker told Harrington in December 2006 that “all faggots should be shot.” Harrington was repeatedly denied a chance to work day shifts even after he explained to his supervisors that he needed to do so because he hoped to adopt a child, according to court papers. He claimed he was rarely allowed to work in a patrol car with other officers and was almost always assigned the “rookie” job of taking prisoners downtown to central booking or assigned to walk foot patrols. According to the suit, by January 2007, stress, harassment and a hostile work environment had caused Harrington to develop stomach cramps and nausea. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court, asked for unspecified monetary damages.
Court: Gay marriage should be recognized The Associated Press
ROCHESTER — An appeals court has ruled that a gay couple’s marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge’s ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefi ts to an employee’s lesbian partner. Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005, arguing that it granted benefits to heterosexual married couples but denied them to Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden. The couple formalized their relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001 and were married in Canada in 2004. The college refused to add Golden to the health care benefits because its contract with the Civil Service Employees Association did not address benefits for same-sex partners. Since then, the contract has been enhanced to extend benefits to an employee’s domestic partner. State Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway dismissed Martinez’ lawsuit in August 2006, saying that the state does not recognize samesex marriages. The state Legislature “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman,” he wrote. The appellate judges disagreed, determining that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature “may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” the ruling said. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.” The New York Civil Liberties Union called Friday’s ruling a victory for families, justice and human rights.
FYI, I just checked the New York State Constitution (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/cons2004.pdf) and there's nothing in there stating what marriage actually is, just that the court system deals with the dissolution of a marriage and other things that are affected by it.
I personally think that it should be between 1 man and 1 woman.
New York State has it's laws. We do not follow Vermont's laws (which didn't even create a marriage in this instance) or Canada's laws (Canada, last time I checked, is not part of this country and therefore is statute to different laws)
Governor orders agencies to recognize same-sex marriages The Associated Press
NEW YORK — Gov. David Paterson has told New York state agencies that they should begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they’re legal. Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan says the governor’s legal counsel sent a memo to all of the state’s agencies telling them they could be violating state human rights law if they don’t start recognizing the unions. Duggan says the move is in response to a state appeals court ruling in February in the case of a woman whose partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada. The move is one of the strongest steps the state can take short of action by the Legislature.
Logged
