http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-strikes-down-montanas-gay-marriage-ban-n252016
Montana's same-sex marriage ban has been struck down in a federal court, as the judge ruled that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This means that the state must also recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The state may appeal the ruling, as another state, South Carolina, is planning to do. Recently bans on same-sex marriage were upheld in four states, which may mean that the matter may go to the Supreme Court (see more here http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/appeals-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage-ban.html).
I agree that the Equal Protection Clause should apply to same-sex marriage. There should be equal opportunity for a man to marry another man, just like an African-American can marry a white person or a an American can marry someone who isn't American. South Dakota still has a ban on same-sex marriage but having a state so close to us overturn their ban may mean South Dakota could as well.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Alabama Tries to Sneak by Supreme Court
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/jurisprudence/2014/11/alabama_foreign_law_amendment_challenges_supreme_court_on_gay_rights_death.html
Alabama has just amended its state constitution to state that their courts will not consult international laws when making decisions. This amendment was a way for the state to attempt to ban Sharia law- the religious laws which Muslims must follow- (see more on that here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html), since it is not an American-made law. As an example of Sharia law, interest is prohibited, so a loan between two Muslims possibly may not have interest added. Another example is Muslim parents having their older children participate in Ramadan, the monthly fast. Right now, judges respect these choices as long as they do not violate the Constitution (so all rights are still protected). Under the amendment, a Muslim not putting interest on a loan to another Muslim may be considered illegal due to discrimination, and the Ramadan case might be ruled abuse of children. The amendment avoided mentioning the Sharia law outright because several states laws which tried to ban it have been struck down by the Supreme Court for targeting Muslims. This amendment is also a way for Alabama to ignore other Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that executing minors was unconstitutional. The judge mentioned in his ruling that America was the only country that officially approved the execution of minors. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the decision, as did several Republican Senators. The Alabama amendment would make this decision void, since the judge consulted international law when making their judgement. This is also connected to a series of Supreme Court decisions concerning gay rights. In 1986, a judge ruled that states should be allowed to ban same-sex intercourse since it was common in the history of Western civilization. This would also be void under the Alabama law (something they might not have considered). However, a judge ruled in 2003 that states could not ban same-sex intercourse and stated that neither America nor any other country had a consistent history of laws banning it. The judge also pointed out that most countries considered to be 'Western civilization' are now supporting the gay rights movement.
This article makes me glad that I don't live in Alabama. I understand that we do not allow religion to control our laws, but we as a country have a history of respecting people's religion. For example, no state can pass a law against the practice of Christianity. People can follow their own religions as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Many people say that Sharia law would allow stoning and cutting off the hands of thiefs. First, as is common with most religions, your average Muslim-American tends to ignore the extremist parts of their doctrine. After all, the Bible supports stoning and says that women shouldn't speak in church, and I don't see a lot of Christians upholding that. Second, these would be clear violations of the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause and therefore would not be protected by judges. On another note, the fact that anyone was upset about a law forbidding the execution of minors is a little odd to me (as is the fact that we didn't ban it until 2005).
Alabama has just amended its state constitution to state that their courts will not consult international laws when making decisions. This amendment was a way for the state to attempt to ban Sharia law- the religious laws which Muslims must follow- (see more on that here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html), since it is not an American-made law. As an example of Sharia law, interest is prohibited, so a loan between two Muslims possibly may not have interest added. Another example is Muslim parents having their older children participate in Ramadan, the monthly fast. Right now, judges respect these choices as long as they do not violate the Constitution (so all rights are still protected). Under the amendment, a Muslim not putting interest on a loan to another Muslim may be considered illegal due to discrimination, and the Ramadan case might be ruled abuse of children. The amendment avoided mentioning the Sharia law outright because several states laws which tried to ban it have been struck down by the Supreme Court for targeting Muslims. This amendment is also a way for Alabama to ignore other Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that executing minors was unconstitutional. The judge mentioned in his ruling that America was the only country that officially approved the execution of minors. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the decision, as did several Republican Senators. The Alabama amendment would make this decision void, since the judge consulted international law when making their judgement. This is also connected to a series of Supreme Court decisions concerning gay rights. In 1986, a judge ruled that states should be allowed to ban same-sex intercourse since it was common in the history of Western civilization. This would also be void under the Alabama law (something they might not have considered). However, a judge ruled in 2003 that states could not ban same-sex intercourse and stated that neither America nor any other country had a consistent history of laws banning it. The judge also pointed out that most countries considered to be 'Western civilization' are now supporting the gay rights movement.
This article makes me glad that I don't live in Alabama. I understand that we do not allow religion to control our laws, but we as a country have a history of respecting people's religion. For example, no state can pass a law against the practice of Christianity. People can follow their own religions as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Many people say that Sharia law would allow stoning and cutting off the hands of thiefs. First, as is common with most religions, your average Muslim-American tends to ignore the extremist parts of their doctrine. After all, the Bible supports stoning and says that women shouldn't speak in church, and I don't see a lot of Christians upholding that. Second, these would be clear violations of the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause and therefore would not be protected by judges. On another note, the fact that anyone was upset about a law forbidding the execution of minors is a little odd to me (as is the fact that we didn't ban it until 2005).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)