#scotus is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage (#ssm) late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.
They are probably hoping everyone dies of old age before they have to make a decision.:-)BTW did you note that West Point just had two weddings which would not have been legal a couple of years ago. The second (and the first fairly public one) had an Episcopal military chaplain conduct the ceremony.
On another legal front, a San Francisco federal judge has temporarily blocked California's new law banning gay "conversion" therapy (full story here):"A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure. "U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people. "'Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech,' Shubb wrote. "The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on 'questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.'"
Another federal judge, however, refused to block the gay therapy law -- story here. Both judges are from Sacramento (the statement in my previous comment that the other judge was from San Francisco was in error).
"U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people. Doesn't that fly in the face of established legal precedent that when free speech is dangerous to others the safety of others supersedes the right to free speech? Such as falsely crying "FIRE" in a crowded room.
As I understand it, the first decision (staying the law) applies ONLY to the particular plaintiffs.Obviously, these two decision will have to be reconciled.***The fact that the law applies to MINORS only (to whom such "therapy" cannot be directed) will have to have some legal import. One could consider sex itself to be a form of "free expression" (First Amendment!) . . . but you cannot "express yourself" (Cue Madonna! Or is it Sly and the Family Stone?) in this way w/ a *minor* (because they cannot legally consent to it---among other reasons!)
Post a Comment