08/23/2010
Also, superstitious Accounting students must acknowledge existence of 13
Remember that Augusta State University student who, as part of her counseling studies, said she planned to tell gay clients "their behavior is morally wrong and then help the client change that behavior"? Well on Friday, a District Judge confirmed that the school does, in fact, have a right to set its own curriculum standards based on facts, science, and inclusivity rather than personally-held biases:
U.S. District Judge Randal Hall's decision enables university officials to expel Jennifer Keeton if she does not follow the remediation plan, which professors designed to "address issues of multicultural competence and develop understanding and empathy."
Hall said the case is not about "pitting Christianity against homosexuality," but rather the constitutionality of the school's requirement.
...
In an Aug. 11 hearing, ASU professors testified that the plan was not a punishment for voicing her beliefs, but a tool to teach Keeton how to counsel clients while not imposing her views.
"All three professors testified that they never told (Keeton) that she was required to change her religious beliefs in order to stay in the counseling program," Hall wrote.
...
Hall said Keeton's unwillingness to adhere to the school's viewpoint-neutral code of ethics set by the American Counseling Association constitutes a refusal to complete the curriculum.
Judge rejects Keeton lawsuit [Augusta Chronicle]
If any entrepreneurial gay wants to set up a line of District Judge Thank You cards, the market is certainly there.
***
**And now for our favorite Jennifer KeAton lesson (as well as our favorite lesbian TV mom):
------------------
------------------
08/23/2010
8's Parts: Courts should look to sum, not some
Although Judge Vaughn Walker's federal court decision on Proposition 8 has brought the same-sex marriage conversation into a more prominent light than it's seen in years, there is an ancillary component that's being overlooked. A particularly interesting side argument that, while easy to write off as a distraction, actually tells us quite a bit about the anti-LGBT movement and the tactical way its midwives engage in the so-called "culture wars."
On one side we have the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian conservative legal outfit that headed up the Prop 8 proponents' defense in Judge Walker's court. In the days since Walker's August 4 decision in favor of equality, the ADF and its defenders have spent considerable time criticizing "activist judges" and the cherry-picked quotes from the 136-page ruling that they find most conveniently spinnable. For Team ADF, there's been little public self reflection, and even fewer questions asking why their case was so shockingly lacking that even Judge Walker expressed concern over the lack of presented evidence.
But where ADF has failed to ask these tough questions, the even more conservative attorneys at the Liberty Counsel have more than picked up the slack. In press releases both on the day of the ruling and in the weeks since, the Liberty lawyers, who had requested to provide additional defense in the federal trial, have pointedly criticized the ADF for shutting them out of the process. And it's not only the personal shut out that's earned the LC's ire. Speaking to Lifesite News on Aug. 17, Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver also criticized the ADF's refusal to "focus or even address the consequences of homosexualityand homosexual marriage," and said that a case under his leadership "would have called a number of witnesses who have high credentials in the area of homosexuality and homosexual behavior, marriage, and reparative therapy."
It's patently obvious why the ADF lawyers and the Prop 8 strategists shied away from pushing overheated rhetoric and "ex-gay" therapy into the court of law. To quote pro-equality litigator David Boies from his 8/8/10 appearance on CBS's "Face The Nation": "It's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions, appeal to people's fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what they say you do. In a court of law you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions, you’ve got to stand up under oath and cross-examination." Obviously the incendiary charges that the Liberty Counsel planned to use would've been destroyed by Boise and fellow Prop 8 opponent Ted Olson in front of Judge Walker. Or perhaps even more cringe-inducing for the side of anti-LGBT bias: The true nature of the anti-gay movement's teachings and rhetoric would have been put on display for the public at large.
But for me as someone who observes the so-called "culture wars," I have to say that I personally side with the overheated Liberty Counsel on this matter. This on-going marriage conversation deals with one group that's fighting for what they see as a constitutional right, pressing against the entire range of presented reasons for why that civil equality remains out of reach. It's not just hesitation that keeps same-sex marriage at bay: Within the anti- movement, there's also undeniable detestation (even if its voicers claim to direct it more towards the "sin" than towards the "sinner"). And while this fire branding is more enraging on a purely emotional level, one has to respect its carriers for having the gumption to stand on their convictions. Because let's get real: It's not like the organized players who use "nicer" anti-gay tones are typically any less convinced about homosexuality's eternal ticket.
This war between letting it all hang out and playing "nice" is the same thing we pro-equality activists see in every election where LGBT rights are put before a public vote. All of a sudden the usual "pro-family" voices from whatever state is being contended are either swept under the rug or carefully schooled in what to say and do. Up from nowhere, a new team of more politically savvy, more "mainstream"-sounding figures take the lead. The ads become softer. The rhetoric less aggressive. The tone completely changed. For a case study of this, see Michael Heath, who was Maine's most prominent and proud ant-LGBT voice for a decade or more before marriage was put before voters, but who was entirely shut out of the state's 2009 Question One campaign. In February of '09, Heath was feted at a Focus on the Family-affiliated banquet; by November, those same people who appeared at the banquet would sooner buy a gay wedding card than associate with Mike in public. (*After I noticed and highlighted this forced burial of Heath and his uncompromisingly sharp tongue, a few from the socially conservative movement confirmed to me that my insight on this matter was spot-on.)
"Culture war" observers witness similarly double-faceted engagement from anti-LGBT leaders who perform on the punditry circuit. In more than one church in the past year, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a regular fixture on the "from the right" TV panelist circuit, has boldly stated that his pro-LGBT adversaries are "being held captive by the enemy." But one would never hear Tony voice an enemy possession stance when appearing on Anderson Cooper or similar mainstream cable news show. Because there's one message being delivered to the anti-LGBT base on whom these groups rely for funding, rally attendance, etc., and a whole other set of talking points geared towards the general public 9and especially that much sought-after "moveable middle).
Which brings us back to the case of Liberty v. Alliance. The latter group, along with its affiliated attorneys, had embarrassingly little to show in court, in large part because they shut out a massive portion of the anti-gay rights movement. Is that fair to the social conservatives? Doesn't the court and the public deserve to hear about the forces that literally want to "change" gays into scientifically discredited "ex-gays"? And since there is such a decided strategy from the Prop 8 proponents to silence their most determined potential troops, isn't that battle plan itself a crucial component of the associated referendum? Don't both the shunned gays and the shunned anti-gays deserve to know why Schubert Flint Public Affairs gets to be the gatekeeper of which rights-depriving arguments hit the public ears?
The answer to all of those questions is a resounding YES. I, for one, hope the Liberty Counsel refuses to shut up!
The Real 'Elle' Word
Benign, inclusive progress, one Tyra-sanctioned runway aspirant at a time:
Kayla, America's Next Top Lesbian Model [Queerty]
And this 19-year-old looker is actually a Hooters server too. So if "Top Model" doesn't work out, there's always "America's Next Top Straight Male Beer Commercial Fantasy" to fall back upon. She'll just need to move to Vegas and find a twin sister.
Visual aid: Tracking bull(crap) market's fall, bear/bear wedding market's rise
An interesting polling graph from The New York Times, ranking the states in order from least supportive of marriage equality (Utah, big shocker) to most in favor (Massachusetts, same deal), as well as tracking the change in statewide attitudes from the mid-'90s to now. Take a look:
Support for Same-Sex Marriage, State by State [NYT]
17 states are now at 50% or above. Not too shabby, folks.
But even if this, a drastic uptake in even the most conservative of states, were not enough to scare the talking points off of Maggie Gallagher's tongue, then this related Times tidbit certainly should:
"This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same-sex marriage. And this is not because of overwhelming majorities found in more liberal states that skew the national picture: our research shows that a majority of young people in almost every state support it. As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, it’s likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark."
Will some of these young folks swing more conservative on this issue once the beer bongs are replaced with baby bottles? Perhaps. But not enough of them will choose to keep this "culture war" matter afloat. Not this time. Not on this (non)issue.
So let's get a head start on the inevitable, America. Support peace. Support fairness. Support love. History has your back.
08/20/2010
Video: 'Go forth!'
According to the YouTuber who uploaded it, this was filmed at a gay-affirming church in Dallas, TX. Which would make total sense to us, as the folks in it seem to have been prescient enough to make a YouTube camp classic years before the site even existed. And everyone knows how trendy the gays are:
Alliance Defense Fund: Loves A.G. refusals in Central time, not so much in Pacific
We've already posted a lengthy take on why it's disingenuous for the Alliance Defense Fund and supporters to treat domestic partnerships one way in California and another way in Wisconsin. Now let's look at another issue related to that matter: The fact that that state's Republican attorney general, J.B Van Hoolen, is refusing to represent his state law in court because he finds it unconstitutional.
What are we hearing all the time out of CA? That both state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) are out-of-line because they have chosen to take a stand against what they (and a federal district judge) perceive to be an unconstitutional slighting of gay and lesbian citizens' civil rights. Both men have refused to defend Prop 8 in court. And this little fact has made the anti-equality side nothing short of apoplectic. Here's ADF attorney Austin Nimocks speaking recently to "Point of View" radio:
(click to play audio clip)
*AUDIO SOURCE: 8/18/10 [Point of View Radio]
But yet now here we have the ADF and Wisconsin Family Action filing suit against the Badger State's domestic partnership law, and we have an A.G. who has pointedly refused to defend the legislatively-enacted D.P. registry (Gov. Doyle, the Secretary of the WI Dept. of health Services, and the State Registrar of Vital Statistic are the listed defendants). And yet there's not *one peep* about the A.G. supposedly shirking his duties. Not one mention of Van Hollen's political stripes or aspirations (which decidedly bend towards socially conservative), the way there have been with gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. It's as if Van Hollen's controversial decision either never happened, or is totally okay since it's the anti-LGBT side he's benefitting.
In fact, both the ADF and Julaine Appling (the lead plaintiff in the case in the ADF's suit) have applauded Van Hollen's decision:
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen — who ordinarily would defend a duly-enacted law — announced Friday he will not defend the state’s domestic-partner law from a legal challenge brought by a pro-family group.
...
Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of Wisconsin Family Action, said Van Hollen took a strong position when he said he would not disregard the constitution or the will of the people by defending the registry.
“What J.B. Van Hollen was saying was that his oath of office is to defend the constitution,” she said, “not the Legislature and not the governor.”
...
Jim Campbell, legal counsel for ADF, said he hopes the Wisconsin Supreme Court takes note of Van Hollen’s position.
“We believe that it’s very clear here. The people of Wisconsin said that they do not want the government creating anything that is substantially similar to marriage, and that is exactly what they’ve done here,” he said.
Wisconsin Attorney General Will Not Defend Domestic Partnerships [Focus on the Family]
And we, Mr. Campell, hope the United States Supreme Court takes note of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzengger's positions! After all, their stands are actually rooted in principle, not discriminatory politics.
***
*Note: The WI Supreme Court ultimately did not "take note," like Campell wanted, as that judicial body refused the case. The current suit was filed in the Dane County Circuit Court
***
**EARLIER: Alliance Defense Fund: Loves domestic partnerships in Pacific time, not so much in Central [G-A-Y]
Alliance Defense Fund: Loves domestic partnerships in Pacific time, not so much in Central
As everyone is focused on the Alliance Defense Fund and the case they've been making against marriage equality in the California courts, we want to take a pause and look at another fight that this very same outfit has put on its legal slate. Namely: The ADF's fight to overturn the state domestic partnership registry in Wisconsin:
MADISON, Wis. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys together with allied attorneys representing Wisconsin Family Action officers and board members filed suit instate court Wednesday to stop the governor and state legislature from skirting a voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The lawsuit asks the court to halt the state’s “domestic partnership” scheme because it creates a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage, which directly violates Article 13, Section 13, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
“Politicians shouldn’t defy the will of voters who legitimately amended the Wisconsin Constitution in a fair election,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “This domestic partnership scheme is precisely the type of marriage imitation that the constitutional amendment approved by Wisconsin voters was intended to prevent. Those who are determined to tamper with marriage in Wisconsin are attempting an end-run attack hoping they can evade the clear language of the state constitution.”
ADF files suit to stop violation of Wis. marriage amendment [ADF]
Alright, so let's consider this. The ADF is taking on this case because they claim that domestic partnerships place an unfair burden on the institution of marriage. They claim that in "protecting marriage," the state's voters also intended to stop DPs. Despite the easily discernible differences and limitations that disconnect DPs from marriage, the ADF is building its whole case around the idea that a limited domestic partnership registry is meant to directly emulate its bigger cousin, and thus harms the "traditional marriage" side.
But now let's move west to California. That state has one of the most expansive domestic partnership programs in all of the country. Far more expansive than the one in place in Wisconsin. But even so, it is still not marriage. Those pro-equality peeps engaged in the current fight for marriage in California have ably demonstrated that even their strong DPs are a few steps away from full matrimony. Because they are.
Yet it's not only the pro-equality side that's demonstrated this difference: The ADF and fellow Prop 8 proponents have made a point to say that they are not opposed to domestic partnerships. That's a major part of the pro-Prop 8 strategy: To say that gay couples don't need marriage because they already have "most of the rights and benefits," and that the state's voters don't hold animus towards gay people because they have allowed domestic partnerships to stand. And in fact, the proponents' star witness, David Blankenhorn, very fully expanded on this idea:
Video: Paper, personal objections, and fear = non-binding anti-equality
It turns out that we shouldn't marry, fellow gays. Ya know, because one Judge Executive in Whitley County, KY, has "moral objections" that he wishes to codify into law, starting with a completely time-wasting, wholly non-binding resolution:
Whitley County Fiscal Court passes resolution aimed at banning same-sex marriage [WYMT]
Okay, kids, we have a project for you:
STEP1: Get a piece of paper. It can be a sticky note. Or a scrap piece. Or a gum wrapper. Anything, really.
STEP2: Write a personal whim on said paper. One than bans some group from doing something. It can be faith-based, like if you have some dietary commandment you follow. Or it can be about whatever you personally dislike. For me, it's ketchup. For you, who knows?
STEP3: Smugly look at what you wrote. Even pat yourself on the back, if you feel so inclined. Go ahead. Superiority = America.
STEP4: Call local TV crews. Talk about how you'd like to take your ideas national. Bonus points if you can find some sort of public opinion polling that helps make your whim sound like a majority consensus, independent from constitutionality.
STEP5: Congratulate yourself once more. For you have just created a personally-motivated document and news story with as much legal power as the Whitley Court, KY, Fiscal Court.
STEP6: Count up the minutes that you could have instead been dedicating to actual problems. Continue to ignore them in favor of baseless discrimination.
Repeat whenever some other group you don't support gets "radical" and/or "uppity" enough to seek basic peace and fairness.
***
*SEE ALSO: Meet the panel who gave unanimous approval to this resolution: Elected officials [Whitley County]
