Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Religion & Law

: Thoughts in a Haystack

Bull

By John Pieret

ADVERTISEMENTS

Jen Pollard, a student at the University of Washington (in biology, no less), doesn't like the recent decision of the Iowa Supreme Court invalidating the state's marriage law, to the extent that it did not permit marriages between gays and lesbians, and complains about an earlier column in the student newspaper on the subject. Her reasoning is, however, somewhat ... unique:

[T]his is a republic! You might remember that from saying the pledge of allegiance as a kid in school. The major issue is that a few judges changing the law is not how a republic works. This is not the way to change the system. This is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. The republic is being distorted and changed by a few people. This only leads to an oligarchy, which isn't good for anybody.

Of course, the judges didn't "change the law." They found that one provision of the law was in conflict with another provision of the law and, since one of them was a higher authority -- the state's Constitution, which was adopted collectively by the people of the state -- they ruled the marriage law was invalid. But this is where it gets funny. Ms. Pollard then complains of the column's assertion that the ruling doesn't mean churches would be forced to recognize gay marriages:

I'd like to know where you get you research from? You should cite or give specific examples as a journalist. You're not the only one, as it seems to be the trend these days. There is a very real threat against churches' ability to continue practicing their religions. Pastor Ake Green preached a sermon in his church from the New Testament saying that homosexuality is sinful. Then came a criminal prosecution against Pastor Green for allegedly violating Sweden's "hate-speech" law prohibiting expression criticizing a minority group, in this case, persons who engage in homosexual behavior.
He was sentenced to prison for a period of 30 days for preaching his religion in his church. Luckily, the Swedish Supreme Court reversed this decision. This is what happens when the definition of marriage is changed.

Now, quite apart from the validity of citing a Swedish law, subject to the Swedish Constitution, as an example of the "danger" faced by religion under the Iowa and United States Constitutions, what, exactly, does she think the Swedish Supreme Court was doing when it overturned Rev. Green's conviction but "changing" the law in precisely the same way that she was just complaining about?

It's one thing to be more concerned about your own ox being gored, it's quite another to not even notice a dead ox at your feet.
.

Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on April 17, 2009 (boomark / email).