Louisiana gay marriage case

 The Louisiana petition was one of a kind in that sense that it remains unresolved at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, where a three-judge panel listened to arguments on Friday. There are seven couples that are part of the case, with many pursuing to marry and others pursuing to have marriages done somewhere else where it is recognized in Louisiana state. Gay marriage supporters seemed to find approachable addressees in the 5th Circuit U.S. Appeals on Friday (Jan. 9), as attorneys defending government bans on homosexual marriage retrieved skeptical questions from judges.
Throughout a three-hour inquiry in New Orleans, a three-judge board set to rule on the destiny of marriage regulations in the three states, receiv ed arguments from both sides. Homosexual marriage advocates observed from a crowded courtroom gallery. Two out of the three judges(Obama appointee James Graves and Reagan appointee Patrick Higginbotham) they asked doubtful questions
regarding the state’s point about protection of the sanction, hardly allowing attorney Kyle Duncan, who was representing Louisiana, complete his opening annotations. The state claimed that the high court should make choices about its case due to the traditional definition of marriage that is revealed regularly across Louisiana’s family laws, and also to think through a wider range of marriage laws, defended by a wider arrangement of legal arguments. Those against the law are mostly the older “Christian” people who believe the lie about the church creating marriages. It was only a few hundred years ago that churches got involved when it became profitable to rent out the halls. Before that the clergy were completely uninvolved with marriage ceremonies and at most a priest would give the couple a blessing for healthy children (for a donation). But you know how
it is, history is written by the winners and ignored by the foolish.
The Court’s rejection of assessment in the Louisiana homosexual marriage case is not a trustworthy indicator of the Court’s contemporary interest in the authority of the states to sanction homosexual marriage. The couples in the Louisiana case had asked the Court to dodge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and take on the case as soon as possible.
TheJustices’ answer most likely indicates a wish not to impose into the review by the Fifth Circuit Court, which apparently held a hearing on the Louisiana case, and also two others. That happened just last Friday. The Justices have an isolated Conference arranged for Fridayof this week, and when it comes to the other cases, from the Sixth Circuit, they may also be considered then. A final word on that arrangement may come on Monday afternoon.

What did Dawkins try to say?

 Clinton Richard Dawkins was born on 26 March 1941. He is an evolutionary biologist ethnologist, and writer. He is a resigned fellow of New College, Oxford, and was also teaching the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford’s from 1995 until 2008. Today he is famous for being an atheist. Voltaire’s anti-Semitism was thorough. In its contempt for the primarily “primitive,” it forestalls greatly that is said about Muslims in Europe and the US nowadays. He is also saying that the Jews never were native philosophers, geometricians, or even astronomers.
That would major Islamophobe of modern world, famous Richard Dawkins proud, that can be concluded after he said that Nobel Prize winners who were Muslim are fewer than the University of Cambridge and then made a joke about middle ages when Muslims were the most modern group. In the wake up what’s happened in France, I think it’s worth m
aking a couple of points:
1) Free speech is not negotiable. Do we truly want to live in free societies (A question we should consider carefully before answer!)? If so, we must accept offensive, vile, destructive, and reductive speech as part of the bargain.
2) Accepting that those forms of speech will not be censored or punished by the government does not mean that we must personally find them ethically acceptable.
3) Free speech is also a negative right– the right NOT to have words put in your mouth. This goes for pledges of allegiance, motions of solidarity, etc.
4a) Charlie Hebdo magazine is a xenophobic, racist, obnoxious, destructive, reductive exercise in free speech. I want nothing to do with the kind of person who subscribes to such a magazine.
4b) Charlie Hebdo magazine exists to attack deeply held ideas indiscriminately. They have spent an inordinate amount of time attacking what amount to powerless populations in France (minority populations, relatively economically disenfranchised, socially ‘separate,’ lacking significant representation in government). This is not a ction of a brave organization. This is punching down; it’s pure cowardice and it’s despicable.
4c) at the same time, I acknowledge and support their right to be all of those things in physical safety and without official recrimination.
At this moment in history, I think it’s more appropriate to say “I am with the people of Paris, I am not supportive of racist and destructive magazines, but I believe in dissent and the right of the ugly to exist.”
To mock a whole civilization and set of values on the basis of its number of Nobel Prizes, is as disappointing (rationally) as doing the same to women because men have won 20 times as many Nobel prizes, or implying on grounds of race that white Europeans or Americans are superior because they have more Nobels than others.