P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Okay, I watched the segment and I have to say it didn’t really fulfill my expectations. While I will agree that George made a very effective defense for marriage as a sexually complimentary union, that defense was a philosophical and historic, not legal. He wasn’t even conflicting with the legal case during that defense, but with the desire of homosexuals to be granted marriage rights, so it isn’t that he was ineffective, but that during his best segment he simply wasn’t addressing that matter we are discussing.
He did make one excellent point that I had not fully considered before though in regards to the decisions 77th finding of fact. I certainly believe that the section in particular is not well titled, and should be labeled “Some religious groups can be harmful to gays and lesbians” rather than a declaration that religious belief that they are engaging in sinful behavior is harmful. Certainly we would not say the same of remarried couples, of cohabitors, so why homosexuals? Still this finding of fact was not at all addressed in the actual decision, so while it is certainly grounds for an appeal it doesn’t make the whole judgement bad.
I was however disappointed in the comments they made about Judge Walker when discussing his comment on the defendants ability to appeal. He judged Walker’s comment that an appeal may not be granted since the defendant can’t demonstrate substantial loss from the decision as tyrannical and an attempt to control the legal system when Walker was merely answering a question. Obviously Walker is well aware that he hold no power in the appeals process, and his comment certainly isn’t going to influence a higher court’s thoughts on the matter, he was simply making a comment on the cases ability to be appealed as a legal expert. He didn’t even say that it shouldn’t be appealed, just that he wasn’t sure if the appeal would be granted to defendant-intervenors for X reasons. The Ninth Circuit has just recently ordered that the defendants demonstrate the standings the Walker questioned too so his thoughts were not at all unfounded.
I agree with his claims that this ruling leads to polyamorists pushing for equal rights as well, but again I don’t think that makes it a bad ruling, just a generally bad social condition of our nation.
He also dodged a concept I really wanted to hear from him on, which was the matter of gender separation. Walker declared that due to the current social condition of, and laws surrounding, genders that gender separation could not have a bearing on his legal ruling. George somehow construed this to be Walker exercising his own ideologies through judicial power with no rational basis. At the very least I would have liked George to directly address Walker supporting points rather than call it an ideology, but even more so I wish he would have openly stated for those viewing that there is a separation of genders both in the religious and physiological sense, he did not do this however. Honestly I think one of the main reasons this idea is not being brought up is that gender equality is so enshrined in our society that many people are actually afraid to state that we are different, and you can completely forget mentioning women being subservient to their husbands (Even a Catholic audience doesn’t want to hear that after all).
Honestly, I didn’t find the video near convincing enough for me to change my position, in fact I didn’t even really feel like Dr. George was really addressing issues of law for the most part. It seemed more like he was just preaching to an audience that he suspected already agreed with him. He might be able to make a good argument too if he were to hit on the legal points of the issue, but that just wasn’t what he was doing in this segment.
He did make one excellent point that I had not fully considered before though in regards to the decisions 77th finding of fact. I certainly believe that the section in particular is not well titled, and should be labeled “Some religious groups can be harmful to gays and lesbians” rather than a declaration that religious belief that they are engaging in sinful behavior is harmful. Certainly we would not say the same of remarried couples, of cohabitors, so why homosexuals? Still this finding of fact was not at all addressed in the actual decision, so while it is certainly grounds for an appeal it doesn’t make the whole judgement bad.
I was however disappointed in the comments they made about Judge Walker when discussing his comment on the defendants ability to appeal. He judged Walker’s comment that an appeal may not be granted since the defendant can’t demonstrate substantial loss from the decision as tyrannical and an attempt to control the legal system when Walker was merely answering a question. Obviously Walker is well aware that he hold no power in the appeals process, and his comment certainly isn’t going to influence a higher court’s thoughts on the matter, he was simply making a comment on the cases ability to be appealed as a legal expert. He didn’t even say that it shouldn’t be appealed, just that he wasn’t sure if the appeal would be granted to defendant-intervenors for X reasons. The Ninth Circuit has just recently ordered that the defendants demonstrate the standings the Walker questioned too so his thoughts were not at all unfounded.
I agree with his claims that this ruling leads to polyamorists pushing for equal rights as well, but again I don’t think that makes it a bad ruling, just a generally bad social condition of our nation.
He also dodged a concept I really wanted to hear from him on, which was the matter of gender separation. Walker declared that due to the current social condition of, and laws surrounding, genders that gender separation could not have a bearing on his legal ruling. George somehow construed this to be Walker exercising his own ideologies through judicial power with no rational basis. At the very least I would have liked George to directly address Walker supporting points rather than call it an ideology, but even more so I wish he would have openly stated for those viewing that there is a separation of genders both in the religious and physiological sense, he did not do this however. Honestly I think one of the main reasons this idea is not being brought up is that gender equality is so enshrined in our society that many people are actually afraid to state that we are different, and you can completely forget mentioning women being subservient to their husbands (Even a Catholic audience doesn’t want to hear that after all).
Honestly, I didn’t find the video near convincing enough for me to change my position, in fact I didn’t even really feel like Dr. George was really addressing issues of law for the most part. It seemed more like he was just preaching to an audience that he suspected already agreed with him. He might be able to make a good argument too if he were to hit on the legal points of the issue, but that just wasn’t what he was doing in this segment.
