Although it’s not clear if 43-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is still under a death sentence for participating in an “illicit relationship” outside of marriage, officials in Iran’s London embassy announced that she “will not be executed by stoning.”
In other legal news, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, as it infringes on states’ rights to define marriage, and violates the protection of the Fifth Amendment. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro stated: “Irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest …To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.”
In similar legislation, a 1969 Supreme Court ruling declared banning interracial marriages unconstitutional. If Judge Tauro’s ruling stands under Supreme Court scrutiny—should appeals get that far—gay marriage could potentially win constitutional protection as well. The decision is currently being reviewed by the Obama administration.
At the same time, leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) tabled a proposal to define marriage as “two people” instead of “one man and one woman,” effectively banning same-sex marriages within their institution for the time being. Cindy Bolbach, the general assembly’s moderator, said the discussion over defining marriage was “a reflection of what’s going on in the secular world” as legalized same-sex marriage “puts pastors in a bind.”
But Rev. Janet McCune Edwards of Pittsburgh, one of those pastors supporting the proposal, said, “Two men or two women can show all the love and commitment we recognize as marriage.” Amen.
In other legal news, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, as it infringes on states’ rights to define marriage, and violates the protection of the Fifth Amendment. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro stated: “Irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest …To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.”
In similar legislation, a 1969 Supreme Court ruling declared banning interracial marriages unconstitutional. If Judge Tauro’s ruling stands under Supreme Court scrutiny—should appeals get that far—gay marriage could potentially win constitutional protection as well. The decision is currently being reviewed by the Obama administration.
At the same time, leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) tabled a proposal to define marriage as “two people” instead of “one man and one woman,” effectively banning same-sex marriages within their institution for the time being. Cindy Bolbach, the general assembly’s moderator, said the discussion over defining marriage was “a reflection of what’s going on in the secular world” as legalized same-sex marriage “puts pastors in a bind.”
But Rev. Janet McCune Edwards of Pittsburgh, one of those pastors supporting the proposal, said, “Two men or two women can show all the love and commitment we recognize as marriage.” Amen.
Comments