Divorce Attorneys
The sound of silence in Indiana
|
|
Even as liberal senators in Washington were painting mild-mannered U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito as an extremist bent on destroying everything good and decent, Indiana state senators were demonstrating where the real problem lies in our wounded republic. In the Hoosier state, the Senate opened its session on Monday with 20 seconds of silence. That’s because U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, at the behest of the local American Civil Liberties Union, decided that a prayer in the Indiana House violated the First Amendment last summer when the preacher mentioned the name of Jesus. In a way, the silent opening was fitting. You could almost envision the senators sitting there with muzzles on their jowls, adjusting them for comfort. But the culprit is not the corrupt courts, where judges routinely issue sweeping rulings that would make Fidel Castro green with envy. It’s not even liberal legislators like Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who abet the steady destruction of self government in the name of “diversity.” They’re just acting like, well, liberals. The real problem is spineless elected officials who know better but refuse to assert their authority and rein in our robed masters. Had Judge Hamilton been around during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, he undoubtedly would have tried to shut down the prayers that opened each session, and also the church services every Sunday in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives, which Jefferson attended regularly. I say only “try.” Can you imagine how the Congress of 1804 would have reacted to such a judicial dictate? They’d throw the bum out. These men actually believed that they had established, under God and through much spilled blood, a self-governing republic. To this day, Congress opens with prayer. If it’s good enough for Washington, D.C., why isn’t it good enough for Indiana? |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Indiana Judge Upholds Marriage Law
Indiana state Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid has ruled that state law clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, dismissing a lawsuit attempting to win marital status for homosexuals. Reid said the existing law "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child. ... No text of the [state] Constitution contains any provision specifically guaranteeing even traditional marriage, much less same-sex marriage," Reid said. Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter defended the decision. "Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a
Gay marriage rulings may affect ND housing
The University Office of Residence Life and Housing could face allowing same-sex marriage partners to reside in campus marriage housing residents if Massachusetts' ruling allowing same-sex marriages becomes a national trend. The University also could change its graduate family housing contracts, which limit lodging to degree-seeking students and their spouses pending proof of marriage, but does not specify that the couples must be male and female, which would create a loophole if Indiana acknowledged gay civil unions. However Mary Gude, assistant vice president of student affairs and standing committee chair for gay and lesbian student needs, said she was not concerned about
Analysis: Kids a factor in gay marriages.
The qualifications of homosexuals to act as fit parents is an underlying hook in the challenge to California's marriage law that will be heard Wednesday by a San Francisco judge. Lawyers representing gay-rights organizations on one side and Christian-based pro-family groups on the other will break the issue down into dry legal precedent and constitutional intentions; however the welfare of children will an issue that will be near the surface. "In endorsing same-sex marriage, law and government will be making a powerful statement," the lawyers for the Campaign for California Families said in a recent court document. "Our government
Judge calls Defense of Marriage Act legally sound
The federal law that excludes same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage is constitutionally sound, a federal judge in Southern California declared Thursday in a case that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruling in a suit by two gay men who were denied a marriage license in Orange County, U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor said the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act promotes "the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents.'' Taylor declined the couple's request to rule on the constitutionality of California's law,
Is That All You Got?
On Wednesday, New Jersey's supreme court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the state's marriage law brought by the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, representing seven same-sex couples. It is difficult to predict the outcome of a case from watching the oral arguments; the justices asked difficult questions of Lambda's attorney and the attorney for the state. What the argument did make clear, though, is the difficulty of defending marriage laws when the attorney general's office has made a strategic decision to deliberately avoid a whole set of arguments for its position. The New Jersey case is just one in