9th Circuit Appeals Court affirms holding that CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

The pedophilia example works as far as he was actually applying it - to show that the 'naturalness' and the morality of an action are two different things, not that pedophilia and homosexuality are in any way analogous. This works both ways, of course(if homosexuality is in any way unnatural, it still wouldn't follow that homosexuality is immoral).

As for the moral vs. legal issue, I would agree that the questions are separate. But I don't know whether I'd characterize it the way you've said it. Yes, if you believe that the Vatican is wrong(or at least that it is not authoritative), then what the vatican thinks would be irrelevant. But say you're the guy who believes that the Catholic church holds the truth and the rest of it. Moral truth in that case is hardly a "personal disapproval" and is very much a "universal prohibition", from that perspective.

 

First, I'm not arguing that it is only genetic, but that it is strongly determined by genetic factors, so the desire for 100% (or close to it) is a bit of a straw man. However, the data strongly suggest that it isn't just 50% concordance (articles below). Additionally, the hormonal argument does stand, because while the monozygotic twins do share the same womb, they do not necessarily share the same chorion or hormonal environment (see below), and if you take a course dealing with genetics and embryology, you'll find that the concordance rates for monozygotic/monochorionic twins are even higher than monozygotic/dichorionic twins.

 

I agree but morality is necessarily subjective as you know. Religious morality really doesn't inform legislation, otherwise there would still be anti-sodomy laws in the US. Those laws were struck down as being unconstituional, partly on the basis that the government had no business distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals when it came to adult consensual sexual activity, and this rationale extends to same sex marriage as well.

Whether homosexuality is a 'choice' or not is irrelevant. In most cases, religion is a choice as is political affiliation, yet these are attributes which are protected against discriminatory laws. The church may well have a legitimate interest in distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals when it comes to church activities but the church is not the government and the church is not in the business of issuing marriage licenses.

 

Federal judge upholds Prop 8 ruling.

As it should have been.

 

AFAIK, that ruling is only regarding the conflict of interest issue. I'm pretty sure it's still stuck at the Ninth Circuit because they're still deciding whether third parties (i.e., people who don't represent the state of California) have sufficient interest in defending Prop. 8.

 

Nith Circuit rejects Prop, 8 in split decision.

Apparently it's "tailored narrowly to California," so it would save the SC the embarrassment of striking down all same sex marriage bans. The horror.

 

But...but...think about the sanctity of marriage!
[image=http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201118//300.Humphries.KArdashian.tg.020811.jpg]


.....


oh.



Carry on then.