Texas Pastor’s Advice for Better Marriage: More Sex, More Often: I just think this is a really amusing article: Rev. Ed Young of the evangelical Fellowship Church entreats his parishioners to strengthen their marital bonds by taking the Seven Day Sex Challenge. You guessed it—he told spouses that having sex once a day for a week would bring them closer to each other and closer to God, and "double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”
Maureen Dowd actually writes a good opinion piece for the New York Times on the new Gus Van Sant biopic, "Milk," the story of the murder of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with Sen. Diane Feinstein.
With Same-Sex Marriage, a Court Takes on the People’s Voice: A pretty interesting article published a couple of days ago about more of the legal issues surrounding California's gay marriage ban Prop. 8. The state supreme court will probably rule on Prop. 8's constitutionality early next year. If you don't have time to read it all, atleast read the chunk below:
“The California Supreme Court has never articulated criteria for what makes something an amendment versus a revision,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. “So I don’t think you can predict anything because there is so little law.”
Supporters of the ban say legal history is on their side. “Whenever an amendment or an initiative has been challenged, almost always the court rejects that and upholds the people’s initiative power,” said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for backers of the proposition, citing past state bans on the use of race, sex or ethnicity in college admissions and caps on property taxes. “These are major policy changes that the court has recognized are fine,” he said.
But Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with Lamdba Legal, which represents one of the petitioners, said that Proposition 8 “essentially nullifies the equal protection guarantee” of the Constitution and sets a dangerous precedent, something that has been cited by several minority groups who asked for relief from the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment