Prometheus 6

Despite dire predictions, the institution of marriage didn't crumble under the weight of homosexuals seeking the rights and responsibility that come with it.

Some disagree. 

Dunne scored a 268.866 on the bar exam, just missing a passing grade of 270. The exam question at issue concerns two married lesbian attorneys and their rights regarding a house and two children when one decides to end the marriage.

“Yesterday, Jane got drunk and hit (her spouse) Mary with a baseball bat,breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa,” the bar exam question stated. “As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”

    Dunne claims the question was used as a “screening device” to identify and penalize him for “refusing to subscribe to a liberal ideology based on ‘secular humanism,’ ”according to his lawsuit.

    “Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with (Dunne’s) Christian practices, beliefs and values, which are protected by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit states. 

You don't want a lawyer that thinks he can ignore the law he doesn't like. This idiot not only deserves to have his suit dismissed, he should be publicly humiliated in the process, and penalized for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

The Sky Isn't Falling
Experience may be trumping hysteria over gay marriage.
Thursday, July 5, 2007; A16

WHEN THE high court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the commonwealth's constitution gave same-sex couples the right to marry, detractors railed against "activist judges" who were "imposing" their will on the people. Only the people, through their elected representatives, should decide something so fundamental, they said. Thus began an effort to amend Massachusetts's constitution by referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Four years and about 10,000 same-sex marriages later, here's what the people have said: never mind.

To get the referendum on the 2008 ballot, opponents of gay marriage needed only 50 of Massachusetts's 200 legislators to vote for the amendment during consecutive two-year sessions. The first vote at the end of the last session, in January, garnered the support of 62 lawmakers. But the second vote last month attracted only 45. Now the earliest the amendment could hit the ballot is 2012. By then, the response from the people very well might be "What's the big deal?"

Opponents of same-sex unions felt democracy was under attack by the courts, with judges dictating what people could and couldn't accept. Meanwhile, supporters argued that the rights of a minority should not be put to a vote. The ultimate defeat of the referendum was democracy catching up with the court.

Despite dire predictions, the institution of marriage didn't crumble under the weight of homosexuals seeking the rights and responsibility that come with it. The sky didn't fall in Massachusetts. Nor has it buckled in the District of Columbia and the five states that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships to gay couples. Washington state's domestic partnership law goes into effect next month. Oregon's domestic partnership law and New Hampshire's civil unions take effect in January 2008. Acceptance of gay marriage is by no means widespread. Marriage is restricted to one man and one woman by constitutional amendment in 26 states and by state law in 19 others. But the tide is slowly changing. Opinion polls show growing acceptance of gay rights.