08/24/2010
Focus on the waffle: Same date, opposite elected duty
Focus on the Family, today:
California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is making news because she said that, if elected governor, she will uphold the law. This is a headline in California.
I wonder if it’s also shocking that she will uphold the law even if it means that she will not have the support of major Hollywood stars. Shocking.
Weirdly, upholding the law is a crazy tangent from the what California voters have come to expect of current Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown—at least as it concerns Prop. 8.
...
Even if a person disagrees with a law, there’s something amiss in America when elected leaders refuse to uphold the law and the will of the people. This should concern every American, not just those who support Proposition 8.
Candidate makes news with promise to uphold the law [FOtF Citizenlink]
Focus on the Family, in a piece posted a year ago to the date:
A decision not to defend a bad law is good news for marriage supporters in Wisconsin.
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.
Under that law, which passed the Legislature and was signed by Gov. Jim Doyle earlier this year, same-sex couples began applying for domestic-partnership recognition this month. Wisconsin Family Action has asked that the registry be declared unconstitutional under the 2006 amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
...
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.
Campbell would like to see the state’s high court strike down the law.
“It would set good precedent for other states,” he said.
Wisconsin Attorney General Will Not Defend Domestic Partnerships [FOtF Citizenlink]
So on August 24, 2009, it's totally awesome when an elected official decides to not defend a law that he finds out of line. But on August 24, 2010, there's apparently "something amiss in America when elected leaders refuse to uphold the law and the will of the people." Interesting how that works.
Now, FOtF would surely argue that the only "will of the people" rests with a direct vote (as in Prop 8), and that WI voters are the ones being undermined because the legislatively-enacted DP system supposedly trumps the marriage ban they enacted at the polls. But this is of course hogwash. "The people" elect their representatives and their governor. This is how it works in America. And both that state's legislature and that state's governor put Wisconsin DPs into law, knowing that domestic partnerships are a separate system from marriage that do not, in any way, fool anyone into believing the two institutions are one and the same. AG Van Hollen is failing to defend the DP system because he personally thinks it's unconstitutional, just like Jerry Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger think Prop 8 fails the legal smell test.
Regardless of where anyone stands on the principles and facts behind the individual refusals, it's completely errant to condemn one elected official's right as unconscionable, while calling the other "good news" and "good precedent." And it's equally disingenuous to act like Meg Whitman is the calm, cool head because she sees a responsibility to defend a law as dependent more on the bare majority number that put it into place rather than the merits of the law itself.
------------------
------------------
08/24/2010
'Disgusting' book: A field guide to biblical unicorns
Just in time for your "War on Christmas" shopping needs:
(PRWEB) August 23, 2010 -- A new book entitled Being Gay is Disgusting, which irreverently paraphrases the first five books of the Judeo-Christian Bible,has launched worldwide through amazon.com.
Australian author Edward Falzon has 'faithfully' paraphrased the first 2,700 years of biblical history, chapter-by-chapter, into a tome whose alternative title is 'God Likes the Smell of Burning Fat.' By removing the repetition and formality in the text, he says, "all that's left is, frankly, the ridiculous."
...
"There are laws passed all over the world restricting the rights of gays," he says. "The UK's Section 28 was only repealed in 2003, California's Proposition 8 is brand new, and even in Australia, gay sex was illegal until 1994! The source of these and other laws and bigotry against gays is rooted firmly in the Bible, as if anti-homosexual rules are written on every page. But in fact, in the whole 1,500-page King James Bible, homosexuality is mentioned all of six times. By contrast, UNICORNS are mentioned nine times - 50% more often. Clearly, gay people weren't a huge priority for Yahweh. But the way Christian groups carry on, the Bible might as well be called 'Being Gay is Disgusting' because the only laws passed nowadays that have anything to do with the Bible are about restricting the rights of the LGBT community. It's bullshit. So my book is part-parody and part-protest."
'Being Gay is Disgusting' - A New Take on an Old Testament [PR Web]
Just like its more respected cousin, we imagine this book will hold a shocking amount of appeal for those who like to get stoned.
Focus relies on Meese; you'll have to settle with Me
Focus on the Family's Jenny Tyree has highlighted what she finds to be the strongest arguments from a recent Op-Ed penned by conservative personality Edwin Meese. So that being the case, we will now look at those same arguments, then proceed to obliterate them. Let's get started.
#1:
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.
The supposed "binding Supreme Court precedent" is 1972's Baker v. Nelson. And it was not completely unacknowledged -- Judge Walker pointedly asked Ted Olson about that very case in the closing day of arguments:
THE COURT: Well, now, the Supreme Court in the Baker vs. Nelson case, decided that the issue which we are confronted with here was not ripe for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. That was 1972. What's happened in the 38 years since 1972?
MR. OLSON: Well, a great deal has happened. Among the things that have happened is the Romer case. Among the things that have happened is the Lawrence vs. Texas case. You know what those cases involve. A lot of other things have happened. Changes in the ballot propositions. California has adopted something completely different than the state -- I guess it was Minnesota or Michigan, involved in that case. So there are a lot of factual situations that are different. This case is very different.
And, by the way, the Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to take a miscegenation case. Now, I think it was -- Dr. Cott testified to this. I think it was 1955. And then they took the case, the Loving case, in 1967.
CONTD: Closing Arguments [AFER]
But as Olson mentions: The reality of both the world and the law has greatly changed since 1972. Romer v. Evans. Lawrence v. Texas. DOMA and anti-LGBT ballot initiatives, which while anti-equality, certainly raise new legal questions about the constitutionality of bias that did not exist in 1972. Plus the undeniable reality that is five U.S. states and one jurisdiction in our nation's capital with equality, as well as the many other countries with marriage equality abroad. And the civil unions and domestic partnerships that are spread all over, including in California.
So it is absurd to suggest that a 38-year-old, one sentence order that dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question" (and that was heavily based in the procreation argument) has bound the Supreme Court's gavels here in 2010. In the almost four decades since, other SCOTUS and legislative matters have changed the law and thus distinguished the two cases. And the matter before the court is the unconstitutionality of current law, not that which existed when Marcia Brady was still on first-run TV!
#2:
Sound judicial opinions consider the facts and evidence on both sides of an argument, apply them fairly to the dispute at hand and determine which legal cases are on point. Yet Walker’s opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist.
Absolute bullshit! Walker's 136-page decision totally acknowledged the (weak) evidence and (few) "experts" that the Prop 8 proponents presented. He simply rejected it. BIG TIME! Why can't social conservatives understand that? Weighing evidence is kinda, sorta what Judge Walker is supposed to do.
#3:
Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker’s opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact.
Hogwash again. Judge Walker did not deny the relevance of reproduction AT ALL. What he denied is the idea that procreation (or the lack thereof) should have any bearing on a couple's civil marriage status! That is a MAJOR difference.
The procreation argument may have had its run in court. But in a world where all opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry regardless of child status, where no child quotas are attached to the civil marriage license, and where gay and lesbian couples are parenting at higher rates than ever before, it's just plain common sense to see that the procreation argument has crossed its tipping point. Even a non-mandated child can see that.
#4:
Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted “without reason” and demonstrates “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples.”
This one is particularly galling. Because here we are talking about the Prop 8 campaign, one that heavily relied on religious figures (e.g. Jim Garlow, Lou Engle, Miles McPherson, Chris Clark, the Mormon church, Bishop Cordileone, the usual "pro-family" national groups and figureheads) and on arguments that said or implied gay couples would somehow scare kids in schools (e.g. the ads about school books, the ad about a lesbian teacher taking her class to her wedding ceremony, etc.). So yes, OF COURSE Judge Walker found that a "private moral view" was used to suggest that same-sex couples are less than ideal! Because that is what the "pro-family" side did. And does. Daily.
But Judge Walker *did not* ignore "everything courts typically rely on": In actuality, it's the anti-LGBT side that did! They ignored the crucial elements of credible witnesses, facts that can withstand scrutiny, and arguments that cut the constitutional mustard! The judge even took note, asking them if they were sure they were satisfied with what they had presented. But they were. Even though they shouldn't have been.
Although to be frank, what else did they really have -- Matt Barber's "ex-gay" suggestion?! Oh how we wish they'd have gone there!
#5:
The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker’s decision delivered.
No, the truth is that the independent judiciary demands more respect than the anti-equality forces are delivering! In the days since Walker's decision, we've heard the anti-LGBT troops drum up innuendo about the judge's sexuality, cherry-pick and reduce the most conveniently spinnable lines from the lengthy opinion, ignore or excuse their own incredibly feeble court presence, war with each other, and of course attack the courts as "activist." Some have even suggested that they would simply ignore a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of equality. All because they think that minority rights should, for the first time in history, be terminally stifled because of the whims of a bare, drastically changing majority.
It's easy to write off a (Republican-appointed) judge as a "liberal gay activist" rather than objectively look at what led him to his findings. But this easy, baseless route is what led the social conservatives to their increasingly losing position on this (non)issue. The more they refuse to reflect, the easier time we will have turning Walker's legal template into one that higher courts will mirror.
Oh, and let's not forget, Mr. Meese: When it comes to Vaughn Walker's booty on the federal bench, you only have yourself to blame!
*Jenny Tyree's piece, with all Meese quotes and link back to his full Op-Ed: Meese: Judge Walker’s decision not the definitive word [FOtF]
Video: Toronto Christians boldly resist radical residing-while-gay agenda
Congregants from Toronto's Highfield Road Gospel Hall needed something new to do for a church outing. So since the poor will surely find a way to clothe themselves and the hungry can subside on air alone, these loving Christians chose to instead harass a gay couple for the simple reason that they are 'mosexual:
O They Will Know We Are Christians... [SLOG]
Wait, no signs? What's a good anti-gay protest without pithy condemnations on poster board? A weak one, that's what!
The Phelps family should really teach a night class or something.
08/23/2010
People. People who need papal.
Launching September 14:
Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for LGBT people of any religious group in the U.S..
Yet the official voice of the hierarchy is increasingly one favoring discrimination and opposing just, humane, and reasonable efforts to secure legal equality for LGBT Americans. Far too often, that anti-equality voice is portrayed as representing the values of American Catholics.
We believe this trend is a repudiation of Catholic teaching about the equal dignity of every person as well as the American and constitutional values of fairness and equality under the law.
Catholics for Equality was founded in 2010 to support, educate, and mobilize equality-supporting Catholics to advance LGBT equality at federal, state, and local levels.
We’re here to help pro-equality Catholics make a difference.
Catholics For Equality
A good idea, considering how many people have greatly overlooked the Catholic influence in anti-equality measures, focusing instead on the LDS. Bishop Cordileone, Bishop Malone, Bishop Nienstedt, etc. In every state where a civil right is matched up with a voting booth, a con$iderable Catholic $upport $ystem suddenly falls into place. We need to challenge that not only on marriage, but as it applies to the entire equality movement.
And unlike our opposition, our side has the fortitude to admit their faithful starting point. If the organization that even its own affiliated lawyers admits is "predominantly Catholic" would be so forthright about their own motivations, we'd all be better off.
'Our intent is to swamp them out': The first words of one extremely biased baby
Because of the weak (and much-criticized) defense that they helped shape in the Prop 8 federal trial, the Alliance Defense Fund and its allied litigators are heavily in the news these days. But how did this conservative Christian legal organization even get its start? What helped the flawed talking points achieve liftoff? Who filled the kitty that'd go on to claw at equality's eyes?
Well like so many conservative right side-thorns, talk radio is at root of this equality-hostile petunia:
Alliance-defying Fun: LaBarbera, Barber accuse Prop 8 lawyers of 'legal malpractice'
American For Truth's Peter LaBarbera says the Alliance Defense Fund and fellow Proposition 8 proponents were "namby-pamby" in a defense that constituted "legal malpractice," setting up a situation that he's calling calling Prop8Gate.
Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber wanted to see "ex-gays" and officials from the scientifically-discredited NARTH on the stand:
(click to play audio clip)
*AUDIO SOURCE: 8/27/10 [Liberty Counsel]
Meanwhile Good As You's Jeremy Hooper is sitting in NYC whispering the words "fight, fight, fight!" under his breath, reveling in the unwitting insight that these "pro-family" players are fleshing out through their public rifts.
***
*EARLIER TAKE ON THIS ADF/LIBERTY COUNSEL RIFT: 8's Parts: Courts should look to sum, not some [G-A-Y]
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):
