http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/04/religion-and-same-sex-marriage/ Nearly all of us root for fairness, not for our own sex. - Nicholas Kristof Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:26:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/04/religion-and-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-4678 Blawg Review #207 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:33:03 +0000 http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=9694#comment-4678 [...] as Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Tony Infanti of Feminist Law Professors explored the court’s detailed deconstruction of religious arguments in favour of the ban, [...] [...] as Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Tony Infanti of Feminist Law Professors explored the court’s detailed deconstruction of religious arguments in favour of the ban, [...]

]]> http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/04/religion-and-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-4627 Religion and Same-Sex Marriage « Feminist Law Professors | AV Online,sex blog Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:08:42 +0000 http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=9694#comment-4627 [...] View original here: Religion and Same-Sex Marriage « Feminist Law Professors [...] [...] View original here: Religion and Same-Sex Marriage « Feminist Law Professors [...]

]]> http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/04/religion-and-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-4624 bob coley jr Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:54:50 +0000 http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=9694#comment-4624 This decision and debate would seem to have bearing important to the pro-choice issue. The state not religion is the law. The act of choice is personal if no harm to others rights is inherent in that choice. I SUPPOSE the debate centers on the rights of choice. So harm and benefit must never be decided by the state in a religious context but rather in a right v right context. All being equal, the choice should not be corrupted by the personal beliefs of others. Logic and provable truth must always be the standard measuring stick. This decision and debate would seem to have bearing important to the pro-choice issue. The state not religion is the law. The act of choice is personal if no harm to others rights is inherent in that choice. I SUPPOSE the debate centers on the rights of choice. So harm and benefit must never be decided by the state in a religious context but rather in a right v right context. All being equal, the choice should not be corrupted by the personal beliefs of others. Logic and provable truth must always be the standard measuring stick.

]]> http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/04/religion-and-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-4622 Same-sex marriage in Iowa: The debate « The Road Less Traveled Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:02:02 +0000 http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=9694#comment-4622 [...] Note: For a more articulate analysis of the court’s opinion (and its implications for the ongoing debate) than I can offer, check out WordInEdgewise or Constitutional Law Prof Blog., and a brief analysis of church and state issues raised in the Supreme Court opinion at Feminist Law Professors. [...] [...] Note: For a more articulate analysis of the court’s opinion (and its implications for the ongoing debate) than I can offer, check out WordInEdgewise or Constitutional Law Prof Blog., and a brief analysis of church and state issues raised in the Supreme Court opinion at Feminist Law Professors. [...]

]]>