In its decision, the court ruled that Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional. The court also ruled that the legislature acted properly when it created public policy which preserves marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. According to one Indiana family advocate, the court acted as it should have -- as a court.
Ryan McCann, director of public policy for the Indiana Family Institute (IFI), says while the court's opinion was not perfect, its work is commendable. "Judge Barnes [who wrote the lead opinion] rightly finds that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not violate the Indiana Constitution," McCann says, "and that the proper venue for the plaintiffs to institute same-sex marriage is the General Assembly -- not the court system."
"Finally," says McCann, "a judge who understands the role of the judiciary!"
At least we can agree that these decisions should be made by the legislature, by elected representatives, and not the courts. Or can we?
Parent Claims Bias Killed His Darwin-Critical Curriculum Proposal
Caldwell says when he presented the curriculum to the Roseville District school board, officials did everything they could to prevent his proposals from being debated in public or acted upon by the board. He in turn sued the school district, alleging that his free speech, equal protection, and religious freedom rights had been violated...
Caldwell's complaint against the Roseville Joint Union High School District cites expert testimony that the biology text the school board did adopt, which has Darwinian evolution as a unifying theme, was not scientifically "accurate," "objective," or "current" as required by state law. The complaint also notes that the science expert, who holds a doctorate from the University of Illinois, felt such a text, if used, should be supplemented with scientific criticism of the theory of evolution.
Bonus From the first Agape article:
"The reality is [that] they just keep firing from the other side, and all they need to do is win one or two and, really, the marriage edifice on which all of society is based collapses almost over night," the attorney says. "It is absurd that we have to sit around sort of wringing our hands waiting to see whether some court is going to take the activist challenge and destroy marriage for all of us."