Answer:
These are the ways in which the culture of marriage in the United States reinforces heterosexuality as a cultural norm.
Explanation:
Sexuality is often imposed on human beings as a social construction, where the culture around us and the concepts and customs defended by it determine that heterosexuality is correct, desired and expected from each of us. While homosexuality is seen as something wrong and culturally combated in the strongest possible way.
Our culture presents marriage as a way of teaching us about heterosexuality and as a way of imposing that this type of sexuality is desired by us. This can be seen through the prohibition of homosexual marriage and all the prejudices carried by homosexuality, which imposes on us that homosexual couples are unhappy, because they do not fit in the heteronormatized culture, which causes suffering, and, nobody wants to suffer or be unhappy.
On the other hand, for cultural reasons, marriage is shown as something heterosexual, happy, easy and that promotes improvements in everyone's life.
Answer:
To limit hate speech
Explanation:
While freedom of speech is one of our fundamental rights, there are limitations. As a general rule, limitations on free speech preclude speech that is harmful to others, threatening, or generally repulsive and reviled.
Answer:
Your answer to this is going to be (A war).
Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
