Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Supreme Court Thinks All Gay Folks Out Of Control Sex Machines (

I have just finished reading for the first time through Christian Legal Society v. Hastings College of the Law which is a incredibly mixed up case on several levels.

I will have more of a overview on this tomorrow but for those that read it a question. It appears that the Christian Legal Society had a rule that said it members must adhere to and believe to the "concept" that human sexuality was to take place between a man and woman under the sacrament/contract of marriage. I see nothing in their by laws saying people that same sex attraction or inclinations cannot join.


However does it? I was reading the Catholic Bishops Friend of the Court brief they filed and they made the pretty obvious point that this "discriminates against both heterosexuals and all others with degrees of same sex attraction. In other words if you straight and not married you better be going around advocating FREE love, living together and having sexual relations, etc ,etc.

In other words both the straights and the gays that were not married (in the Christian way of course) better be celibate.

Why is the Court making the jump here? Am I missing something.

Let us say at Hastings Law a Catholic chapter of Courage wanted to form on campus. Courage is group for people that have some level of same sex attractions or are gay. They help men and women live chaste lives. Would this be allowed to form or is the Court saying THEY ARE GAY THEY CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES so of course you have to admit sexually active gay folks that ignore the prime teachings of your support group !!

Update- I am aware on stipulation issue that Ginsburg brings up and Alito responds too.. More on all this later. I am not so sure this opinion is as narrow as some are saying. More after I get some sleep and read it again.

Update II- I have not my full post on the opinion but I have added another thought here at Does Justice Kennedy Consider the Creed At Mass A Loyalty Oath (Christian Legal Society V Martinez)

No comments: