« How Should Warren Then Pray? | Main | New Congress Reflects Overall U.S. Religious Landscape »

December 22, 2008

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state court

Most people remember Kenneth Starr from his days as the special investigator of Whitewater and President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But for the last few years he has served as dean of the law school at Pepperdine University, which is affiliated with a conservative Christian denomination that I grew up in.

After rumors circulated last month, Starr was named today the lead counsel for the chief proponents of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment, passed last month by 52 percent of Californians, that would limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. Legal challenges have been filed, and proponents are preparing for a battle.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. "The addition of Dean Starr to this legal conversation will provide useful guidance for the Court in resolving these important issues."

Starr, like me, grew up in the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ, which resides on the other end of the theological spectrum). I'm curious as to how his faith shapes his practice of law. I couldn't find much online. The best window I got into Starr's Christian worldview comes from a comment he made during his speech at Christian Business Men's Committee in Washington. It appeared in a 1998 Washington Times article, no longer online:

"When you think of the blessed life that Jesus led on earth, think of his time utilization," Mr. Starr said. "He didn't waste a lot of time. Three years, that's the length of time . . . that this individual, human yet God, ended up shaping not just history, but each person who will say, ?I want to come to know Christ.? "

(Originally published at The God Blog.)

Comments

LOL....

Why are some folks are against the love and commitment of other folks to each other?

Kudos to CT and MA.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington CT 06793 USA

http://www.justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

Curious that Ken Starr would opine on efficiency and wasted time, when he wasted so much of his and ours, (not to mention wasted taxpayer money) on the rightwing (dare we think it Christian) vendetta against the Clintons, while they were in the process of putting the country on a sound financial financial course, which among other things lowered the abortion rate, put people to work (instead of wasting time) etc. etc.
Ken was curiously absent (perhaps wasting time) during the last 8 years of Civic rape perpetuated by the 'Christian brothers and sisters' of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, et al.
If Starr wants to utilize his time better (more like Jesus I would think) he might consider 'crusading' against, oh say, divorce among Christians (What is it, around 50% ) instead of against those (what, 2or3%?) who desire to actively not be 'divorced', who have found someone (who in the broad spectrum of God given genderness) they think enough of to want to pledge fidelity to for life.
No wonder a growing number of young people (in particular) are looking elsewhere than the church for some spiritual integrity.

IT does amaze me how over the many centuries / millinia it has always been.. in every country and land.. not logical for 2 same sex individuals to be married. Its not been considered healthy for children in a " family " or trusted in nearly any sort of stable way. Every country that did challenge that , Romans, Greeks so forth.. fell into moral dissipation and political self destruction... just the facts folks. But now a few bullying minorities who watch too much Soap on TV.. think they want Cake and Eat it too, and don't understand why the majority Disagree. If you wish to say you love one another.. DO IT.. BUT GOD created marriage.. take it in HIS WAY.. or leave it.. but don't sue GOD for not changing HIS MIND. You have bonding services.. you have forms of accepted governmental support.. yet lack moral control over the groups you associate with. You have parades that are debilitating to your cause.. If other non Gay groups had parades about SEX.. in open public.. they would be sued.. and very often by your very groups.. yet you expect the masses to accept what ever YOU do.. with out question. Think about it.. not logical.

Yes, I don't know why a Christian would defend the gay ban or try to bring Clinton to trial for lying to a grand jury which I think is illegal. Us little people would have spent 15 years in jail for lying to the grand jury like a women in my city is now doing.
Yes, a waste of tax payers money defending the law and
a yes vote to a constitutional amendment which I believe is more legal than some of these US Supreme Court decisions by people appointed to their positions instead of being voted in by the majority, you know the ripping apart of a human baby, etc. I think the people wasting taxpayers money are the ones lying to the grand juries and the ones taking to court a vote by the populace. That's why that ability to vote a change or add or subtract to a constitution is available to the populace, to stop the inappropriate wishes of the few and those not elected to office.

Why are some folks are against the love and commitment of other folks to each other?-- Posted by: Joseph A. Mustich, Justice of the Peace at December 22, 2008

NOBODY denies one from loving another:

A heterosexual man may marry a heterosexual woman.
A heterosexual man may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

A heterosexual woman may marry a heterosexual man.
A heterosexual woman may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.

A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.

NO heterosexual man -- not one -- may marry a heterosexual man.
NO heterosexual man -- not one -- may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.

NO man -- not one -- who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
NO man -- not one -- who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.

NO heterosexual woman -- not one -- may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO heterosexual woman -- not one -- may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

NO woman -- not one -- who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO woman -- not one -- who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

There are only two sexes in the world: male and female. Those who claim to be homosexual fall into one of those categories; they are either male, or female. There is no third sex.

There is no discrimination in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everyone is either male, or female. No one is excluded.

Each man may do what other men do.
Each woman may do what other women do.

No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.

This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.