Saturday, February 26, 2011
The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies
Charles Blow has a great op-ed in the New York Times that looks at the hypocrisy of the "family values" Republicans and the Christianist hate merchants to whom the GOP increasingly prostitutes itself. These people claim to "respect life" and worry about the unborn. Yet once children are born - other than denigrating parenting by same sex couples - these children disappear from the radar screen and the GOP/Christianists do all they can to destroy and undermine government social programs that would help provide children with health care, decent nutrition, education and many other forms of support. Indeed, the GOP and its evil allies would just as soon throw children on the trash heap as look at them. HYPOCRITES is one of many negative descriptions that applies to these self-congratulatory modern day Pharisees. Words do not begin to convey the disgust that I feel towards these false Christians who make me want to distance myself from the term Christian. Here are highlights from Blow's excellent column:
*
Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.
*
Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies,” the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd.
*
Part of the reason for our poor ranking is that declines in our rates stalled after premature births — a leading cause of infant mortality as well as long-term developmental disabilities — began to rise in the 1990s.
*
[T]he Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress [to reduce infant mortality]. The budget proposes: • $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”
*
• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”
*
• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.
*
This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood. It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?
*
A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.
*
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
*
Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.
*
Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies,” the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd.
*
Part of the reason for our poor ranking is that declines in our rates stalled after premature births — a leading cause of infant mortality as well as long-term developmental disabilities — began to rise in the 1990s.
*
[T]he Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress [to reduce infant mortality]. The budget proposes: • $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”
*
• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”
*
• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.
*
This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood. It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?
*
A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.
*
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
Virginia House of Delegates Extends Statute of Limitations for Clerical Abuse Lawsuits
In a move that I applaud the Virginia House of Delegates has voted to extend the statute of limitations for lawsuits against sexual predator clergy to 20 years. Not surprisingly, the Catholic Church opposed the legislation. The Church talks a good game about caring about the victims of predator priests, but it's all lip service. Actions speak volumes and the Church's actions consists of lies, cover ups and extreme efforts to re-victimize victims of abuse and to avoid paying out well deserved compensation for damaged lives. One of the sponsors of the bill was Chesapeake Senator Fred Qualyle who while conservative is no religious extremist like so many of his Virginia GOP colleagues. One would hope that Bob McDonald will sign the legislation.The Washington Post looks at the this development and here are some highlights:*
The House [of Delegates] on Thursday agreed to give victims of childhood sexual assault more time to sue their abusers, clearing the way for final passage of one of the more combative issues of the session.
*
The compromise would allow victims to file a lawsuit up to 20 years after the event, after the victim turns 18 years old, or after the abuse has come to light, such as through a recovered memory. The current statute of limitations sets a two-year limit.
*
some lawmakers and organizations, including the Catholic Church, expressed reservations about extending the deadline too far. They said it would be difficult and unfair for organizations to defend against allegations that happened long in the past. They also expressed concern that tangled memories about a distant event and an absence of witnesses or other evidence could make it easier for an innocent person to be wrongly accused.
As initially written, the bills sponsored by Albo and Sen. Frederick M. Quayle (R-Chesapeake) would have extended the deadline to 25 years. The Senate passed an amended version of Quayle's bill that would set the limit at 20 years. The House adopted Albo's bill but reduced the period to eight years. That was amended again in the Senate to 20 years, like Quayle's, and returned to the House.
*
I think it could provide some access to the courts," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond's School of Law. He also dismissed fears that people might bring groundless suits. "I just don't think it's going to open the door to those kinds of complaints," Tobias said.
The House [of Delegates] on Thursday agreed to give victims of childhood sexual assault more time to sue their abusers, clearing the way for final passage of one of the more combative issues of the session.
*
The compromise would allow victims to file a lawsuit up to 20 years after the event, after the victim turns 18 years old, or after the abuse has come to light, such as through a recovered memory. The current statute of limitations sets a two-year limit.
*
some lawmakers and organizations, including the Catholic Church, expressed reservations about extending the deadline too far. They said it would be difficult and unfair for organizations to defend against allegations that happened long in the past. They also expressed concern that tangled memories about a distant event and an absence of witnesses or other evidence could make it easier for an innocent person to be wrongly accused.
As initially written, the bills sponsored by Albo and Sen. Frederick M. Quayle (R-Chesapeake) would have extended the deadline to 25 years. The Senate passed an amended version of Quayle's bill that would set the limit at 20 years. The House adopted Albo's bill but reduced the period to eight years. That was amended again in the Senate to 20 years, like Quayle's, and returned to the House.
*
I think it could provide some access to the courts," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond's School of Law. He also dismissed fears that people might bring groundless suits. "I just don't think it's going to open the door to those kinds of complaints," Tobias said.
Weekend Travel Reflections
UPDATED: We went by the house and it is GORGEOUS!! We will definitely be back to visit later in the year once our friends have moved in!
*
So far we are having a great trip and arrived in Ft. Lauderdale uneventfully. We had a great dinner with our hosts celebrating their anniversary last night and the weather today looks like it will be absolutely beautiful. One of today's outings will be checking out the new house that our friends are in the process of buy (see photo above). Also, today is the birthday of one of our hosts and "Martha Stewart" will be preparing a birthday feast here at the house. Tomorrow we are having a bunch of gay friends over for a get together. It's a nice break to have some warm weather - it's only in the low 40's in Hampton Roads!
*
So far we are having a great trip and arrived in Ft. Lauderdale uneventfully. We had a great dinner with our hosts celebrating their anniversary last night and the weather today looks like it will be absolutely beautiful. One of today's outings will be checking out the new house that our friends are in the process of buy (see photo above). Also, today is the birthday of one of our hosts and "Martha Stewart" will be preparing a birthday feast here at the house. Tomorrow we are having a bunch of gay friends over for a get together. It's a nice break to have some warm weather - it's only in the low 40's in Hampton Roads!
Mike Huckabee Once Again Displays His Open Contempt for Gay Americans
Personally, I find it frightening that anyone sees Mike Huckabee as a serious candidate for any political office much less the presidency. I still recall Huckabee on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" program where he unabashedly said he believed that the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution should set the law of the United States. If that isn't a statement that borders on treason - i.e., seeking to subvert the Constitution - I don't know what is. It's a statement that demonstrates that Huckabee cannot separate his personal religious extremism from the duties of an elected official sworn to uphold among other things the U.S. Constitution. And when it comes to gays, Huckabee has nothing but open contempt for us as the video clip below indicates.
Huckabee makes it clear that he wants special rights afforded to his intolerant religious beliefs and that everyone else can go to Hell - literally and figuratively.
Catholics for Equality Takes on the Morally Bankrupt United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
While protecting child rapists among the ranks of the Catholic priesthood is apparently perfectly fine in the bizarre world of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, civil marriage - to repeat CIVIL marriage, not religious ceremonial marriage - between two loving and committed individuals of the same sex is an affront to decency. Obviously, the pedophile protectors among the Catholic Church hierarchy (and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in particular) have their priorities ass backwards. Especially since a majority of Catholics now support gay marriage. Catholics for Equality has challenged the bigotry of the USCCB led by in my view the very slimy Timothy Dolan who may have had a hand in hiding millions of dollars in his former dioceses to block efforts of victims of sexual abuse by priest to receive compensation for the damage done to their lives. Here are highlights from a rebuttal Catholics for Equality sent to the child rapist protectors at the USCCB:*
Archbishop Timothy Dolan
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
*
Dear Archbishop Dolan:
*
It was with great disappointment that Catholics for Equality receivedthe February 23, 2011 statement
community.
*
The USCCB statement asserts that President Obama's decision to no longer
*
According to the 2010 Knights of Columbus/ Marist Poll 52% of U.S. Catholics support marriage equality including 63% of young adult Catholics. The shift among young Catholics will continue as more people accept their gay and lesbians siblings, friends, and co-workers as fully equal citizens and fellow Catholics. These polls also show that on this issue, American Catholics support marriage equality more than any other national Christian faith group.
*
Even more troubling is the assertion that the President's decision not to
*
To testify otherwise in plain terms, Archbishop Dolan, is to bear false witness.
*
This is becoming an increasingly troubling pattern with our bishops when it comes to honesty around public policy on LGBT civil rights. Last year, Archbishop of the U.S. Military Services Timothy Broglio made similar falsehoods regarding the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, . . .
*
Bearing false witness is increasingly the hallmark of the leadership of the Catholic Church. If the trend continues, one can only hope that the free fall of the Church in Ireland will spread across America and other educated parts of the world.
The Craigslist Congressman and the Crossdressing Prostitute
Remember Christopher Lee, the idiot family values Republican from New York State who resigned his seat in Congress after it became known he was looking for hookups on Craigslist with women who were not his wife? Well, the stories seems to be getting way, way more interesting and in the process underscoring the lies and hypocrisy of these "family values" politicians. It seems per a new Gawker story that Mr. Lee also had a penchant for cross dressing prostitutes - yep, he apparently likes to play with those with a cock. It would almost be hysterically funny but for the fact that there are voters out in the general public who are stupid enough to allow themselves to be so shamelessly played for suckers. As more and more of the stridently homophobic members of the GOP get caught looking for gay sexual play, one almost has to wonder when we'll hear that Bob Marshall has been going into D.C. for kinky gay sex. It would surely fit the pattern. Here are highlights on the still unfolding Lee story (you can't make stuff up that would be this over the top):*
Lee's sudden exit took many people by surprise. Hadn't other members of Congress admitted to worse than an unconsummated, PG-13 flirtation and managed to stay in office? It turns out Lee may have had good reason to step out of the spotlight so quickly: It wasn't just women that the Craigslist Congressman was hunting for on the Internet.
*
In the past two weeks, two D.C.-area transgender women contacted us, each with a separate story about exchanging emails with the ex-congressman. One sent us an ad that Lee allegedly posted on Craigslist in search of trans women; the other sent us a never-before-seen photo that she says Lee sent her after they started chatting by email. Taken together, they present a possible explanation to those who have wondered why such a tame "sex scandal" forced Lee's hand so quickly.
*
The first woman who reached out to us was a pre-op transgender woman from Arlington, Virginia who we'll call Fiona.
Fiona told us she replied to an ad that appeared in the "casual encounters" section of Craigslist in mid-January. She used Craigslist's "e-mail this posting to a friend" link to send the ad to herself, she explained, so even though the ad no longer appears on the site, she was able to forward us a copy:
Sexy Classy guy for passable TS/CD - m4t - 39 (Cap Hill)
Date: 2011-01-14, 8:55PM EST
New to area. Very fit classy, successful guy. 39, 6ft 190lbs, blond/blue. smooth hard body. Looking for a sexy ts/cd that i can spoil. I promise not to disappoint.
*
Google does cache index pages on Craigslist, and we were able to confirm that an ad with precisely the same headline was posted on the evening of January 14, which is convincing evidence that the ad is genuine.
*
Revealingly, the headline and ad itself contain many elements from Lee's first known Craigslist flirtation, including the words "fit" and "classy." It dates to the same evening Lee exchanged emails with the woman we told you about two weeks ago. And it even featured Lee's infamous shirtless Blackberry picture, albeit cropped to hide Lee's face. Yes, that's right: a member of Congress posted a personal ad seeking transsexuals and crossdressers and even included a picture of himself, all without thinking twice, apparently.
*
Fiona said she found out who Lee was much the same way the other Craigslist correspondent did. "I copied and pasted his email into Facebook, and that's when his picture of him and his wife and his little boy showed up. Then I clicked on the link and realized he was a politician from New York, and I was like OMG."
*
The other person who contacted us shortly after our story was published was a transvestite who lives and works in Washington, D.C. We'll call her Holly.
*
The first thing Holly sent us was a never-before-seen picture of Chris Lee's now-familiar torso and red Blackberry. She edited the picture to obscure the Congressman's face, however, and printed her email address over his chest. (We have covered up the address in the photo above.) If we wanted to publish the unedited image, Holly explained, we'd have to pay her for it.
*
It didn't take very long to determine that Holly was a prostitute. We found a profile for her on an escort website which featured the same email address that she'd used to contact us. When we asked about her chosen line of work, Holly confirmed it. She was a working girl, she explained, and a man using Lee's email address had responded to a "Trans for Men" ad she'd posted on Craigslist.
*
I guess the moral is that the next time you hear some GOP windbag ranting against gays, it's not too far fetched to realize that they may be out trolling for what they claim to condemn online. Or at least lusting for it in their hearts as Jimmy Carter might say.
Virginian Pilot Once Again Prostitutes Itself to the Far Right
If one is a LGBT Virginian, few individuals have done more to harm out lives and relegate us to third class citizenship status that Delegate Bob Marshall. Indeed, the man has a religious mentality not much removed from that of the Taliban - you can believe whatever you want as long as it's what he believes. If one begs to differ, his approach is to try to make your life so miserable that you'll leave the state. Marshall has even admitted that he'd like gays to all move from Virginia. Despite this truly horrid political history and open contempt for religious freedom, the Virginian Pilot is once again giving the equivalent to journalistic fellatio to Marshall in a nauseating piece in today's issue of what has increasingly become a rag of a newspaper aimed more at selling advertising space than legitimate journalism. Indeed, the Pilot in true whore like behavior gushes over Marshall's possible run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Webb. Why not do a puff piece on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while the Pilot's at it. Marshall's respect for religious freedom is after all pretty much on a par with Ahmadinejad's. It's disgusting journalism and I suspected by the far right political leanings of members of the Batten family which controls the ownership of the Pilot's parent company. Here are some highlights that show Marshall vile record of intolerance.:*
In a legislature where many politicians carefully calibrate their moves to gain influence, Marshall seems content being out on a limb. When the Obama administration announced it was ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, he fired back with a bill to ban gays from serving openly in the National Guard. It failed. Worried that the Federal Reserve could collapse, he proposed a study to see whether Virginia could mint its own currency. That failed, too - but not before a blogger asked, "Dude, are you serious?"
*
Yet three years ago, Marshall came close to winning the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, and he's considering trying for it again next year.
*
Marshall's stands are nothing if not controversial, but he doesn't seem to mind the fuss. "Someone has to hit the beach first, to crack the opposition, to make an awareness," Marshall said. Others, he added, can "come and mop up later." There are a couple schools of thought about Marshall: He's a sincere, faith-based crusader shaped by personal tragedy; or he's an egotist with an intolerant streak.
*
Marshall is perhaps best known for the push in 2006 to define marriage between a man and a woman in the state constitution, and for filing the lawsuit that led to the undoing of a plan to raise taxes for transportation projects in Hampton Roads and northern Virginia a year later.
*
He unflinchingly endured criticism this year over his bill to ban gays from serving in the Virginia National Guard, a move even some Republicans said wasn't possible. When asked his views on gays, Marshall said they are "made in God's image" but disguise that through behavior he called a "disorder desire."
*
Marshall and his wife have steeled their children to deal with the inevitable slings they'll encounter. "As a wife, it does hurt me when I see my husband made out to be a kook sometimes when I know he's anything but," Cathy Marshall said. "But that's the price you pay when you stand up for what you believe in."
*
Marshall is a toxic menace in Virginia and the sooner he leaves the political scene, the better for all Virginians. As for those who try to sugar coat his nastiness by saying he can be charming in person, I'd remind them that the same was often said about Adolph Hitler. Public actions and hate based policies tell the true tale of what Marshall is really all about and it's a very ugly picture.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Travel Weekend and Likely Reduced Posts
The boyfriend and I are headed to Pompano Beach to help friends celebrate their anniversary and a birthday. The photo above is the back yard of our friends' home. The Chihuahua is at the boyfriend's parents place and a house sitter will be tending the house. I will try to put up posts as travel and socializing allow. We're likely going to be at George's Alibi in Wilton manor either tomorrow or Sunday night. Drop me an e-mail if anyone would like to perhaps get together.
Wingnut B&B Owners Tell Gay Couple they Are "Wrong and Unnatural"
Based on their treatment of a gay couple seeking a venue for their civil union ceremony, the owners of TimberCreek B&B (pictured at left) demonstrate the mindless idiocy - and bigotry - of self-congratulatory Christianists who feel they can flout the civil laws and discriminate against anyone who does not live their life in accordance with fear based and intolerant based Christianist religious beliefs. One can only hope that the State of Illinois will prosecute these jerks for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public. Not only did the B&B owners refuse to accommodate the civil unions ceremony but they also chastised the couple and called on them to repent. With too many individuals like these B&B owners, it is no wonder that the USA is sliding towards second tier nation status. Here are some highlights from the Advocate:*
Todd Wathen of downstate Illinois sent out inquiries to Beall Mansion and the TimberCreek B&B regarding his upcoming civil union reception. While Beall Mansion's managers told Wathen they allow only traditional weddings at their property, the TimberCreek B&B went much further.
*
"We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois," TimberCreek operators told Wathen in an e-mail. “We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate."
*
When informed of Illinois's new civil unions law, Jim Walder of TimberCreek replied, “The Bible does not state opinions, but facts. It contains the highest laws pertinent to man. It trumps Illinois law, United States law, and global law should there ever be any.”
*
Walder later sent an unsolicited e-mail of Bible passages to Wathen. He wrote, “Hi Todd, I know you may not want to hear this, but I thought I would send along a couple of verses in Romans 1 detailing how the Creator of the Universe looks at the gay lifestyle. It’s not to late to change your behavior.”
*
Walder obviously knows very little accurate history and has done no serious study of the Bible and its many rewritings and the political compromises made in dogma all the way back to the time of Constantine the Great. Oh, and did I mention that some of the "facts" recounted in the Bible are off by centuries in terms of true time line chronology? Perhaps Walden needs to be shipped to Iran where the current leadership welcomes such ignorance in the populace.
Dublin Archbishop: Irish Church on Brink of Collapse
Ireland was once a Roman Catholic Church bastion. Those days are clearly gone and the continued downward spiral of the Church has nothing to do with outside enemies or the secularization of society despite whatever disingenuous bull shit may emanate from the Vatican. No, the Church has destroyed itself in Ireland - and seems to be working hard to achieve similar results across North America, Europe and ever corner of the educated world. In remarks delivered at at Cambridge University in Britain Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin pointedly said the Catholic Church in Ireland is on the brink of total collapse. He give it another 10 years to either undergo radical change or be relegated to an irrelevant minority element of society. Obviously, under the current Pope who is up to his neck in the sex abuse scandal and chose to protect child rapists over children and youth, the needed change is unlikely to occur. Irish Central has coverage on Archbishop Martin's no holds barred remarks. Here are some highlights:*
Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says the Irish Catholic Church must resign itself to being a minority culture and believes it is on the brink of collapse. In a strikingly frank admission, he said he had failed to lead the church in the changes it needed to survive. Ireland's second most senior cleric said the Catholic Church would have to relinquish control of grade schools and commented that sacraments had become social events.
*
He also hit out at his peers. Martin said there was a lack of proper thought and debate about the church and how to deal with its difficulties. . . . He also revealed that the congregation at Sunday Mass was only two percent of the Catholic population.
*
He had said the Irish church had only five to 10 years before it would fall. . . . . He added that for decades the church policy had merely been "keeping the show on the road.” He commented that the church's crisis pre-dated the child sex abuse scandals. He said the church’s policy lacked thought as to where it was going, and that the abuse scandal had simply damaged it further. He insisted that only a radical change would ensure the Catholic Church’s survival.
*
Absent dramatic change, what is occurring in Ireland will continue to sweep the educated world where irrational positions on celibacy, homophobia, the subjugation of women, etc., have no objective or empirical support - and only have justification based on a few passages in the Bible - simply no longer are accepted by anyone but the emotionally troubled or ignorant. The choice is change or die.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Did Obama Set a Marriage Trap fro the GOP?
With the professional Christians in full cry for the GOP members of Congress to intervene in the DOMA litigation now that - according to the Christianist hate merchants - Obama has rejected his duties to defend DOMA, some are questioning what other motivations Obama and his DOJ might have been seeking to achieve. Some in the blogosphere have suggested that Obama may be trying to seek a narrow reversal of Sec. 3 of DOMA which cuts against the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. As Bob Felton correctly notes, that provision reads as follows and is aimed at preventing chaos and a patch work of conflicting laws on basic issues:*
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
*
The clause means that if you are married in Idaho, you are married in Oklahoma, as well. That is, each state must recognize the civil arrangements of the other states. . . . The point of the Founders’ inclusion of that clause is obvious; without it, the country would be consumed by constant interstate chaos.
*
Felton also aptly notes as follows as to the hystrionics of the Christianists:
*
Fix this in your head and be ready when some jabbering moron gets to carrying on about the ruin of the Constitution: DOMA is a federal law that aims to void a portion of the Constitution for the purpose of upholding religion-based discrimination: It was never a part of the Constitution, and it was never Constitutional.
*
Another possible goal of Obama is conjectured to be setting the stage for the Christianists and their political whores in the GOP to rush into court where the rules of evidence apply and mere posturing and slogans do not carry the day as was evident in the trial court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Linda R. Hirshman at Salon looks at this possibility. Here are some highlights:
*
By all conventional analysis, this decision by the Obama administration represents a risky and courageous act. . . . Thus, the Republicans who run Congress may now be tempted to follow the administration's subtle suggestion in its Wednesday announcement that Congress should act to defend DOMA in court itself if it disagrees with this move.
*
That would be a mistake. . . . . Defending the exclusionary law in court, however, is something very different from braying about it on talk radio. The defenders of California’s Proposition 8, who rushed in when that state's governor and attorney general refused the job, learned this lesson in a federal case last year, when their arguments and witnesses were utterly dismantled by the all-star legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson.
*
If House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow Republicans elect to wage a fight for DOMA, they will undoubtedly phrase their announcement in the culture war language that plays so well with their party base.
*
But then, the Republicans and their lawyers will have to step into federal court and prove -- subject to cross-examination -- how the republic would be damaged if same sex spouses can get, say, federal railroad retirement benefits. As Boies said after dismantling that disqualified expert in the Proposition 8 trial, "the witness stand is a very lonely place." Moreover, the gay marriage opponents during that Proposition 8 trial didn’t just look dumb -- they looked mean.
*
As Republican House members contemplate stepping in to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, they might want to consider all of these negatives. Oh, and that poll showing how many Republicans oppose gay marriage? In the 2010 election, the issue polled at dead last among voters' concerns.
Marriage Equality Advances in Maryland; Civil Unions Now the Law in Hawaii
In addition to the Department of Justice's announcement on DOMA yesterday, the anti-modernity, anti-equality Christianists took two other major hits on the recognition of same sex relationships front. The Maryland Senate passed a bill that will legalize same sex marriage and Hawaii signed into law civil unions legislation that affords all the rights of marriage except the name "marriage." The Maryland measure is expected to pass the House of Delegates and the governor has announced that he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk. The forces of the far right are apoplectic - if gay marriage becomes the norm, one of their biggest cash cows for fleecing the sheeple they target will largely dry up. Image - people like Maggie Gallagher, Victoria Cobb and Tony Perkins might have to get real jobs!!! Here are highlights from the Washington Post on the legislation in Maryland:*
The Maryland Senate advanced legislation Wednesday allowing same-sex marriages on a preliminary vote of 25 to 22, all but ensuring passage of the measure in that chamber.
*
Measures were defeated that sought to allow religiously affiliated adoption agencies to refuse services to same-sex couples, to allow clerks of courts to refuse to conduct marriages based on religious objections and to exempt public school teachers from teaching materials that "promote" gay unions.
*
Senators on both sides of the bill predicted its passage Thursday, which would send the legislation to the House of Delegates - traditionally the more liberal chamber on social policy. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he would sign the legislation.
*
Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's) withdrew his measure that would have allowed small-business owners to refuse to offer their services for weddings or celebrations of gay couples. Pipkin said the amendment was intended to protect caterers, florists, musicians, wedding planners, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners.
*
As for Hawaii, these are highlights from the Honolulu Advertiser:
*
Gov. Neil Abercrombie affixed his signature to the legislation (the first bill signing of his career) approving civil unions and making Hawaii the seventh state to grant most of the same rights and benefits of traditional marriage to same-sex couples. "For me, this bill represents equal rights for everyone in Hawaii -- everyone who comes here," Abercrombie said. "This is, to me, the essence of the aloha spirit."
*
A celebratory crowd of about 150 invited guests to Washington Place gave Abercrombie a standing ovation -- and cries of "Thank you, governor!" -- as he declared the Senate Bill 232 signed into law.
*
[A]s supporters applauded the bill that placed Hawaii a step closer to same-sex marriage, opponents lamented and denounced the bill signing for the very same reason. "It's a sad day for the people of Hawaii," said Sen. Mike Gabbard (D, Kalaeloa-Makakilo), who has been at the forefront of opposition for gay marriage since the 1990s. "Politicians have shown that they just don't care about the views and values of the majority of Hawaii's residents.
*
"Civil unions is same-sex marriage with a different name," Gabbard said. "The people of Hawaii made it clear that they're against civil unions and same-sex marriage and the politicians have basically said, 'To hell with you.'" Conservative groups including the Hawaii Family Forum and the Hawaii Catholic Conference issued similar statements, arguing the matter is far from over, as they expect gay rights groups to continue the drive for same-sex marriage.
*
The Christianist are going to be on the losing side of history and one can only hope that their opposition to equality ultimately hastens the demise of their hate and fear based form of religion.
*
Gov. Neil Abercrombie affixed his signature to the legislation (the first bill signing of his career) approving civil unions and making Hawaii the seventh state to grant most of the same rights and benefits of traditional marriage to same-sex couples. "For me, this bill represents equal rights for everyone in Hawaii -- everyone who comes here," Abercrombie said. "This is, to me, the essence of the aloha spirit."
*
A celebratory crowd of about 150 invited guests to Washington Place gave Abercrombie a standing ovation -- and cries of "Thank you, governor!" -- as he declared the Senate Bill 232 signed into law.
*
[A]s supporters applauded the bill that placed Hawaii a step closer to same-sex marriage, opponents lamented and denounced the bill signing for the very same reason. "It's a sad day for the people of Hawaii," said Sen. Mike Gabbard (D, Kalaeloa-Makakilo), who has been at the forefront of opposition for gay marriage since the 1990s. "Politicians have shown that they just don't care about the views and values of the majority of Hawaii's residents.
*
"Civil unions is same-sex marriage with a different name," Gabbard said. "The people of Hawaii made it clear that they're against civil unions and same-sex marriage and the politicians have basically said, 'To hell with you.'" Conservative groups including the Hawaii Family Forum and the Hawaii Catholic Conference issued similar statements, arguing the matter is far from over, as they expect gay rights groups to continue the drive for same-sex marriage.
*
The Christianist are going to be on the losing side of history and one can only hope that their opposition to equality ultimately hastens the demise of their hate and fear based form of religion.
Law Professors Ask for Ethics Code for Supreme Court Justices
This blog has looked at the unethical and biased conduct of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia a number of times. Given the conduct of Thomas in lying on financial disclosure statements and the activities of his wife, a case can surely be made that Thomas needs to be removed from the Court. Thomas clearly thinks himself above the law and has flipped the bird at traditional political disengagement by judges. Scalia's behavior, while less egregious, is no less troubling. These two men have made it perfectly clear that they are incapable of objectivity and unbiased consideration of a number of significant cases coming before the Court. Now, a number of law professors are calling on Congress to enact ethical rules that would clarify when Justices must step aside in cases. The Washington Post looks at this development. Here are some story highlights:*
A group of more than a hundred law professors from across the country has asked Congress to extend an ethical code of conduct to the Supreme Court - for the first time - and clarify when individual justices should step away from specific legal cases.
*
The group's appeal on Wednesday, in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, comes after recent controversies involving travel and appearances at political events by several Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Rep. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) said he plans to introduce legislation that addresses the issue.
*
Thomas and Scalia have been criticized by a public interest group for attending private political meetings sponsored in January 2007 and 2008 by David and Charles Koch, conservative billionaires who made large contributions during last year's election and have financially backed the tea party movement.
*
Precisely what happened at those meetings remains unclear, but neither of the justices' routine financial disclosures mentioned that the Kochs had organized the events.
*
Decisions to recuse, or step away from deliberations, by tradition have been left up to the individual justices at the center of any complaint, contrary to the practice on most state supreme courts. The professors said in their letter to the committees that their goal is not to second-guess the activities of any individual judge but to create "mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
*
As seems to be increasingly the case it is the so-called conservatives who claim to honor the Constitution that are the biggest threat to its continued application across the board. Just like the Christianists who lie incessantly while claiming to revere the Bible, Thomas, Scalia and their conservative brethren make a mockery of much of the Constitution.
Christofascists at The Family Foundation React to Cessation of Defense of DOMA
Needless to say Victoria Cobb and her coven of Christo-fascists at The Family Foundation are none too happy with the decision of the Department of Justice to cease defending the unconstitutional Sec.3 of DOMA. Cobb and others like her who will not rest until they inflict a Christian Taliban rule over Virginia and the nation. Like other Christianists who want their personal religious views inflicted on all of society, Cobb whines that Obama has abandoned his duty to defend DOMA. No doubt Cobb would take a similar position in respect to a supposedly biblical supported law re instituting slavery for African Americans or depriving women the right to vote. She's all about special rights for Christianist pals and the rest of society in her view can go do something rude and crude to themselves. As a column in the Virginian Pilot (hardly what one would consider a liberal newspaper) recognizes the changes in society which one can only hope will accelerate and push Cobb and her fellow would be theocrats into the political and social wilderness. Here are some highlights:*
One way for President Barack Obama to win the future, it seems, is to have his administration stop defending a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage. Opinion polls show a steady rise in Americans' embrace of gay rights, and young voters solidly back positions their grandparents opposed, including gay marriage.
*
"Anybody under the age of 40 doesn't care, or actively supports it," said Steve Elmendorf, a longtime Democratic staffer and lobbyist.
*
Public opinion on gay rights has shifted substantially in recent years. An October poll by the Pew Research Center found that 42 percent of adults favored same-sex marriage, while 48 percent opposed. A year earlier, it was 37 percent in favor and 54 percent opposed.
*
Pluralities of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics favored same-sex marriage for the first time in the Pew surveys' history, and the issue ranked at the bottom of voters' concerns in the 2010 elections.
*
So-called millennials - Americans born after 1980 - favor same-sex marriage by 53 percent to 39 percent. Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1980) favor gay marriage by a somewhat smaller margin. Slightly more than half of the baby boomers, born 1946 to 1964, oppose gay marriage, with 38 percent approving.
*
"The country's moving, and it's moving fast," Elmendorf said. "No one has lost an election in the last 10 years" over gay marriage questions, he said.
*
The end of the special rights heretofore given to far right Christianist beliefs in the civil laws cannot come about soon enough to please me and others who really believe in freedom of religion as opposed to merely giving it lip service like Ms. Cobb.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
30 Years of Far Right Christians Who Incite Murder
As even a casual reader of this blog will quickly figure out, I am no fan of the poisonous form of Christianity marketed by the professional Christian set, intolerant and hate motivated conservative churches, and of course, the falsely name "family values" organizations. As Anne Rice noted in her interview with her son, Christopher Rice recently, if these people represent the true face of Christianity, then I don;t want to be a Christian. Fellow Bilerico contributor Patricia Nell Warren has a post that takes a good look at the horrid handiwork of these merchants of hate - and indeed the incitement to murder. Unfortunately, the main stream media all too often utterly refuses to show the larger public the real face of these people. Here are highlights from Patricia's lengthy post:Here in the U.S., we have our own home-grown Bahatis who incite violence against gays and other groups as well. For 30 years now, they've been brazenly building their nationwide falling-domino machine, inciting murder of certain U.S. citizens. And they've been exporting their hate speech to other countries through missionary work. So far, the American people have let them get away with it.
By "hate speech," I mean that brand of rhetoric that goes beyond mere disagreement, to advocating injury and death for certain groups of people. Any religion is capable of hate speech, no matter what they believe in. But in the U.S. we have a specific problem with extremist Bible-based religion, because of the powerful missionary spirit that drives it.
Righters who incite murder usually deny their guilt to the face of the God in whom they say they believe. After all -- they have no blood on to their personal hands! The purpose of their maneuver is to incite others -- nobody believers who are expendable, and passionate enough t do the dirty work for them. While the nobodies go to prison, or even death row, the inciters go free, so they can continue preaching their poison in freedom, power and wealth. It's one of the oldest political tricks on the planet.
FBI hate-crime statistics for 1995-2008 tell us that, during those 13 years alone, over 20,000 Americans were victims of crimes against sexual orientation, including numerous community leaders besides Harvey Milk. Side by side with religious issues polarizing the country more and more, the stats show these crimes happening more and more in recent years. And those 20,000+ are just the crimes that got counted
America has exported this violence against gays into African countries, along with the more virulent missionaries that went there. Today there are the ultra-conservative African Catholics and Episcopalians (like Episcopal Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria) who have all fueled the explosive anti-gay climate that is building across central Africa, not only in Uganda, but other countries as well. But it is the American NAR [New Apostolic Reformation, aka Joel's Army], with their goal of setting up puppet "governments for Jesus" everywhere in Africa, who have done the most to unleash all that inciting against LGBT activists.
Why this stark contrast between the way our justice system treated the radical Left and the way it treated the radical right? Why have the American people done so little to stop this deadly trend? [Because] It is politically difficult to attack the Bible as the source of radical-right incitings for violent death, when so many moderate Americans have warm fuzzies about the Bible. Since childhood they've felt a naive Sunday School reverence for what they call "the Good Book."
But most Americans have never actually bothered to read the Bible cover to cover. If they did, they might see the passages where all the hate speech is coming from, and their warm fuzzies for the Good Book might vanish overnight. Today, any efforts to prohibit Americans from advocating gory religious massacre, or to punish them if their words have provably led to someone's death, raises a daunting issue of free speech. Our country has yet to deal with this speech issue in a courageous and clear-minded manner.
The American people had better wake up to what's happening right in their front yards. Americans who are more moderate than conservative, and who fondly believe that the "Good Book" is a good model for American society, need to start asking themselves if they what that book to be used as a murder weapon. As long as there is a public policy that God "wants His people to violently destroy His
enemies," some of us will pay the ultimate price for somebody else's perceived
"right" to demand that all of us should be shot.
Spittle Flying Christian Right Reactions to the DOJ Announcement on DOMA
As predicted, the untethered among the professional Christian set are nearly wetting themselves and the conniptions fit are unfolding and waves of spittle are flying from the lips of the likes of Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher over the announcement that the Obama administration Department of Justice will no longer defend sec. 3 of DOMA. DADT and DOMA have been the twin pillars of the Christianist in terms of utilizing the federal law to reinforce and justify their demonetization of LGBT citizens. With DADT on the way out, DOMA has been a even more cherished tool for the Christianists who seek to inflict their version of "Biblical law" on the rest of society. Before turning to the maniacal rants of the far right, here are some highlights from the Plum Line's reaction to today's announcement at the Washington Post:"[T]he President's determination that Section 3 is unconstitutional unquestionably a welcome act of leadership on his part. It also hints at a larger dynamic that's worth noting. After the President did the right thing and threw his weight behind the repeal of don't ask don't tell, many argued that his success on that front would only make his position on DOMA less tenable -- basic consistency would demand that his administration stop defending it in court.
*
That's exactly what happened. Now, in similar fashion, his determination that the key plank of DOMA is unconstitutional may make his current position on the issue -- that he's "grappling" with it -- less tenable over time, too. Or, if it doesn't, it certainly should.
*
Obviously today's statement from Carney suggests Obama doesn't believe it's politically safe enough (yet) to declare full support for gay marriage. But the overall
dynamic is certainly encouraging. The arc of history is bending -- albeit slowly
-- in the right direction.
Enough for a rational reaction. Now for the spittle spraying lunatic reactions from "godly Christiants", Here first, the rants from KKK lover Tony Perkins at the hate group named the Family Research Council (Note: the last time I looked, the U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion to ALL citizens and, as such, Obama is upholding the oath of his office whereas Perkins actually wants him to violate and uphold Christianist religious beliefs only):
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his
oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet,
challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond
by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's
neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
If that's not enough spittle spray to get you saturated, here's this from NOM - fat cow, I mean - self enriching Maggie Gallagher money making machine :
This fight is not over, it has only begun! On the one hand this is a truly
shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama
And let's not Liberty Counsel, a Lynchburg based blight on the Commonwealth of Virginia headed up by Matt Staver, another theocrat who would suspend the Constitution if given his druthers and set up a theocracy:
This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defenseMr. Staver conveniently forgets that once upon a time slavery was "legal" in a majority of states as were bans on interracial marriage. Just because an ignorant majority favors discrimination against different minorities doesn't make such discrimination permissible under the U. S. Constitution. One would think that Staver would have learned from the Holocaust the dangers of mob majority rule and the dangers of using national laws to discriminate against disliked minorities. But with Staver - as with other such :godly Christians" - its all about his personal beliefs and the civil rights of others mean nothing.
of marriage. President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to
defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional,
namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman. Regardless of President
Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a
duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the
law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage
amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has ab his role as President of the United States and transformed his
office into the President of the Divided States.
Justice Department Will Cease Defending DOMA Lawsuits
In a surprising move, Barack Obama and the Department of Justice have announced that the DOJ will cease defending the constitutionality of DOMA in pending lawsuits. The action seems to have been triggered by the new filings in the 2nd Circuit. This is precisely the action that some LGBT legal experts have been demanding for quite some time. No doubt the Bible beaters and their GOP political whores in Congress are going to go absolutely berserk since this move blocks their effort to use the federal laws to punish gays for not conforming to Christianist religious beliefs. The following is the text of the DOJ letter to Congress explaining the basis for the decision:*
The Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
*
Re: Defense of Marriage Act Dear Mr. Speaker:
Re: Defense of Marriage Act Dear Mr. Speaker:
*
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.
*
While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In particular, in November 2011, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. *Windsor** v. United States*, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); *Pedersen v. OPM*, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.). Previously, the Administration has defended Section 3 in jurisdictions where circuit courts have already held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced arguments to defend DOMA Section 3 under the binding standard that has applied in those cases.
While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In particular, in November 2011, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. *Windsor** v. United States*, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); *Pedersen v. OPM*, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.). Previously, the Administration has defended Section 3 in jurisdictions where circuit courts have already held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced arguments to defend DOMA Section 3 under the binding standard that has applied in those cases.
*
These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
*
These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
*
Standard of Review
*
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” *See Bowen v. Gilliard*, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); *City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.*, 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985).
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” *See Bowen v. Gilliard*, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); *City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.*, 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985).
*
Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual orientation. First and most importantly, there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Indeed, until very recently, states have “demean[ed] the[] existence” of gays and lesbians “by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual orientation. First and most importantly, there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Indeed, until very recently, states have “demean[ed] the[] existence” of gays and lesbians “by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
*
Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, *see* Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, *see* Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).
Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, *see* Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, *see* Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).
*
Third, the adoption of laws like those at issue in *Romer v. Evans, *517 U.S. 620 (1996), and *Lawrence*, the longstanding ban on gays and lesbians in the military, and the absence of federal protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation show the group to have limited political power and “ability to attract the [favorable] attention of the lawmakers.” *Cleburne*, 473 U.S. at 445. And while the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell indicate that the political process is not closed *entirely* to gay and lesbian people, that is not the standard by which the Court has judged “political powerlessness.” Indeed, when the Court ruled that gender-based classifications were subject to heightened scrutiny, women already had won major political victories such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).
Third, the adoption of laws like those at issue in *Romer v. Evans, *517 U.S. 620 (1996), and *Lawrence*, the longstanding ban on gays and lesbians in the military, and the absence of federal protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation show the group to have limited political power and “ability to attract the [favorable] attention of the lawmakers.” *Cleburne*, 473 U.S. at 445. And while the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell indicate that the political process is not closed *entirely* to gay and lesbian people, that is not the standard by which the Court has judged “political powerlessness.” Indeed, when the Court ruled that gender-based classifications were subject to heightened scrutiny, women already had won major political victories such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).
*
Finally, there is a growing acknowledgment that sexual orientation “bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.” *Frontiero v. Richardson*, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality). Recent evolutions in legislation (including the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), in community practices and attitudes, in case law (including the Supreme Court’s holdings in *Lawrence* and* Romer*), and in social science regarding sexual orientation all make clear that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that generally bears on legitimate policy objectives. *See, e.g.,* Statement by the President on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (“It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”)
Finally, there is a growing acknowledgment that sexual orientation “bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.” *Frontiero v. Richardson*, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality). Recent evolutions in legislation (including the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), in community practices and attitudes, in case law (including the Supreme Court’s holdings in *Lawrence* and* Romer*), and in social science regarding sexual orientation all make clear that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that generally bears on legitimate policy objectives. *See, e.g.,* Statement by the President on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (“It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”)
*
To be sure, there is substantial circuit court authority applying rational basis review to sexual-orientation classifications. We have carefully examined each of those decisions. Many of them reason only that if consensual same-sex sodomy may be criminalized under *Bowers v. Hardwick*, then it follows that no heightened review is appropriate – a line of reasoning that does not survive the overruling of *Bowers* in *Lawrence v. Texas*, 538 U.S. 558 (2003). Others rely on claims regarding “procreational responsibility” that the Department has disavowed already in litigation as unreasonable, or claims regarding the immutability of sexual orientation that we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social science understandings. And none engages in an examination of all the factors that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to a decision about the appropriate level of scrutiny. Finally, many of the more recent decisions have relied on the fact that the Supreme Court has not recognized that gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class or the fact that the Court has applied rational basis review in its most recent decisions addressing classifications based on sexual orientation, *Lawrence* and *Romer*. But neither of those decisions reached, let alone resolved, the level of scrutiny issue because in both the Court concluded that the laws could not even survive the more deferential rational basis standard.
*
To be sure, there is substantial circuit court authority applying rational basis review to sexual-orientation classifications. We have carefully examined each of those decisions. Many of them reason only that if consensual same-sex sodomy may be criminalized under *Bowers v. Hardwick*, then it follows that no heightened review is appropriate – a line of reasoning that does not survive the overruling of *Bowers* in *Lawrence v. Texas*, 538 U.S. 558 (2003). Others rely on claims regarding “procreational responsibility” that the Department has disavowed already in litigation as unreasonable, or claims regarding the immutability of sexual orientation that we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social science understandings. And none engages in an examination of all the factors that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to a decision about the appropriate level of scrutiny. Finally, many of the more recent decisions have relied on the fact that the Supreme Court has not recognized that gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class or the fact that the Court has applied rational basis review in its most recent decisions addressing classifications based on sexual orientation, *Lawrence* and *Romer*. But neither of those decisions reached, let alone resolved, the level of scrutiny issue because in both the Court concluded that the laws could not even survive the more deferential rational basis standard.
*
Application to Section 3 of DOMA
*
In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” *Clark v. Jeter*, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” *United States** v. Virginia* , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” *Id*. at 533.
In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” *Clark v. Jeter*, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” *United States** v. Virginia* , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” *Id*. at 533.
*
In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.
In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.
*
Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. *See Cleburne*, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); *see also* *Romer*, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); *Palmore v. Sidotti*, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).
Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. *See Cleburne*, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); *see also* *Romer*, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); *Palmore v. Sidotti*, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).
*
Application to Second Circuit Cases
Application to Second Circuit Cases
*
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in *Windsor* and *Pedersen*, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.
*
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.
*
As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, *Defending Congress*, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).
As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, *Defending Congress*, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).
*
In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in *Windsor* and *Pedersen* of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.
In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in *Windsor* and *Pedersen* of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.
*
Furthermore, pursuant to the President’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.
Furthermore, pursuant to the President’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.
*
A motion to dismiss in the *Windsor *and *Pedersen *cases would be due on March 11, 2011. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
*
A motion to dismiss in the *Windsor *and *Pedersen *cases would be due on March 11, 2011. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
*
Sincerely yours,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)