Human Rights and Immigration Lawyer Contact Me
What do you expect when you openly put up a sign that screams ‘bigot?’
Well, it gets called what it is – (IT WASN’T ME, I CAN SPELL AND WON’T BE FOUND DEAD/ALIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY)
While the battle is heating up in California, some mad props are in order for those that ‘get it.’
THE Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre for relying on religious scriptures to justify ban on gay sex. The Centre had quoted Bible to defend its stand.
The court, which asked the government to come up with scientific justification, said scriptures cannot be the basis for government’s views. The court’s remarks came when additional solicitor-general P P Malhotra referred to an article condemning gay sex by quoting the Bible. “We should not accept religious literature,” a bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah said. “These are not scientific reports. These are propaganda articles quoting Bible. Your arguments should be based on scientific reports. Show us scientific reports which justify criminalisation of such acts (gay sex),” the bench observed.
In a secular country, what the Bible, the Koran or any other religious text says about homosexuality should have no standing in court. When are people going to realize that we cannot and should not legislate morality that condemns a particular social group to a life in the margins of society?
I get that Proposition 8 is not precisely about ‘criminalizing’ or decriminalizing homosexual behavior — it is about eliminating the right of marriage for same-sex couples. But the arguments used in favor of banning same-sex marriage are the same ones used for criminalizing homosexuality altogether: biblical propaganda.
Second props go to Connecticut, for becoming only the third state in the United States to legalize gay marriage.
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” justice Richard N Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
Wake up America and get with the program.
Also, congrats to Indonesia – the first gay Hindu wedding in Bali?