Comments on: Montana House Blocks Attempt to Decriminalize Homosexuality

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:58:05 +0000

If I recall, Ryan, the Texas decision speicifcally said that bowers vs. hardwicke was wronly decided, but i oculd be wrong about that.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:08:06 +0000

Is he right about the SCOTUS ruling? Was it just about privacy, or were anti-sodomy laws specifically ruled unconstitutional? So I guess “natural law” and “eternal law” are the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:53:34 +0000

TK,

I do not disagree, however, it is being used to give antigay arguments the patina of “reason” and the potentially prejudicial connotations “natural”.

Pointing out that there is no need for “natural law” to be antigay denies them the “black and white fallacy” at the heart of their propaganda, either you believe, with us, or you are part of a “fashionable ideology” (cf. Manhattan Declaration).

Also at risk is their courtroom assertion that they have an appeal to reason in “new natural law”, even to moral reason. Once one reconstructs so that “natural law” is inclusive of the natural fact of gays – yes, fact, not “choice”, then it becomes fairly obvious that their appeal to reason is really their other propaganda technique, i.e. an “appeal to prejudice”.

By: RK

RK — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:39:19 +0000

Report after report, we are seeing these anti-gay garbage come up recently all over the country. So, we complain and whine about it on these blogs, but what is being done about it? Why isn’t there some form of recall action against this guy in Montana. Words are cheap, action is what counts and I don’t see any action from the gay population of this country to do anything about it. And they know it so they get away with it.

By: Embarcadero

Embarcadero — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:20:35 +0000

@Amicus (and anyone else), “Natural law” is the new “jesus said so” for the far right.

Have you seen FRC’s “Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage”?

The FRC and others are using these materials to “train” pastors and others in Iowa.

It’s Jesus-lite and tries to pass off “natural law” as though it were some actual legal argument.

In theory, I’m sure it could be different. In practice, it’s the center-piece of their new anti-gay talking points.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:27:17 +0000

Amicus,

Based on my observation, “natural law” as currently used in the US means “the teachings of the Catholic Church”.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:17:11 +0000

I guess the slightly light gray (if not quite silver) lining is that the House has 68 Republicans and 32 Democrats. So at least 19 Republicans do not believe that their personal animus trumps the US Constitution.

Also, this was a vote on whether to bring it out of committee, not a vote on the bill. It’s possible that a few “no” votes were from people who didn’t want to go on record.

Okay, it’s not much, but it’s better than a straight-party-line. Especially in Montana where Republican control is pretty much assured for the foreseeable future.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:15:16 +0000

It’s well past time to dispel the notion that natural law theory is antigay.

Some practitioners have coded a specific antigay moral theory, using the precepts of natural law.

However, ‘natural law’ itself is not antigay.

That is, other practitioners, including religious and social conservatives, are free to fashion a ‘natural law’ that is not needlessly (or recklessly) exclusive of gays or gay marriage and, at the same time, is not a philosophical invitation (or legal one) to some strange liberalization scheme.

This includes the “new” natural law theory, which threw off the old “perverted faculty argument” about homosexuality in favor of a different precept or two.

By: Reed Boyer

Reed Boyer — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:31:14 +0000

How lovely (not): a return to those halcyon days of yore, when we were all “sexual outlaws.” John Rechy, take note. Everything old is new again.

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:19:28 +0000

I bet this whole situation will be solved when some over reaching a-hole messes with the wrong person and the state ends up being sued for violating the civil rights of people and ends up paying millions in damages and legal fees.

Apparently that is the only way some people learn.