When Will the ABA Yank Liberty Law School's Accreditation?

Virginia is curse by having the distinction of two "universities" that are run by crackpot nutcases and hate merchants: Regent University in Virginia Beach and Liberty University in Lynchburg.  While the increasingly insane Pat Robertson continues to embarrass the region with his batshit crazy/hate filled comments, he seemingly leaves the operation of Regent's law school alone.  The same cannot be said for Liberty's law school where Mat Staver continues to make remarks and push policies that ought to make the American Bar Association revisit the law school's accreditation - the loss of which would make it impossible for Liberty graduates to tax the bar exam in most states (something that would great benefit the legal profession).  Staver's latest dose of hate marketing is noted by the Washington Post.  Staver is ranting that the GOP's failure to loudly oppose gay marriage is akin to silence in Germany in the 1930's as the Nazi regime rose to power.  If the statement isn't insane enough by itself, the real irony is that Staver wants a Christian theocracy where those who do not subscribe to his hate and fear based religion would suffer like those who opposed the Nazis. Here are highlights from the Post piece:

Mathew Staver, the dean of the ABA-accredited Liberty University School of Law in Virginia, is upset that Republicans aren’t saying and doing more to stop same-sex marriage. In an interview on a Christian radio program, he offered this observation:

I think from the political right, the Republicans and so forth, those that are Republican elected officials state and federal, those who remain silent will ultimately be held accountable just as much as Democrats who advocate to the contrary. This is not an issue in which you can remain silent any more than you can remain silent during Nazi Germany. That was a moral issue, it was not defined by geography, there was a moral imperative there of the dignity of the human being, you can’t remain silent there and expect no consequences. Nor can you remain silent or advocate to the contrary with regards to the undermining of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to stay the Fourth Circuit’s decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. 

ABA Unanimously Passes Resolution Condeming "Gay Panic" Defense

Time and time again we have sadly seen those who murder gays use the "gay panic defense" - i.e., that they panicked and flipped out and acted unintentionally - to justify murder and convince juries to acquit them of what is by any other standard noting less than cold blooded murder.  Now, the American Bar Association ("ABA") has adopted a resolution condemning the "gay panic defense" and seeking to have its use curtailed.  It goes without saying that the "godly Christian" folk will be condemning the ABA just as that constantly condemn gays.  Here are highlights on the ABA's action via The Edge:

As reported in the ABA Journal, yesterday during the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in San Francisco, the House of Delegates - the ABA’s governing body, unanimously passed a resolution urging federal, state, local and territorial governments to pass legislation curtailing the availability and effectiveness of the use of "gay panic" and "trans panic" defenses by criminal defendants.

In a press release issued by the National LGBT Bar Association, executive director D’Arcy Kemnitz said "The ABA’s adoption of this measure sends a clear message to state legislatures that legal professionals find no validity in the sham defenses mounted by those who seek to perpetuate discrimination and stereotypes as an excuse for violence." Further stating, "The ’gay panic’ and ’trans panic’ defenses have been used to try and excuse some of the most heinous violence exacted against innocent victims. State legislatures should immediately move to enact the ABA’s recommendation by passing laws banning ’panic’ defenses."

The full language of the adopted resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local and territorial governments to take legislative action to curtail the availability and effectiveness of the "gay panic" and "trans panic" defenses, which seek to partially or completely excuse crimes such as murder and assault on the grounds that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the defendant’s violent reaction. Such legislative action should include:

(a) Requiring courts in any criminal trial or proceeding, upon the request of a party, to instruct the jury not to let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence its decision about the victims, witnesses, or defendants based upon sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(b) Specifying that neither a non-violent sexual advance, nor the discovery of a person’s sex or gender identity, constitutes legally adequate provocation to mitigate the crime of murder to manslaughter, or to mitigate the severity of any non-capital crime.

 The theory of "gay panic" goes back to 1920 when the term was first coined by psychiatrist Edward J. Kempf in his textbook "Psychopathology", in which he describes an acute, brief reactive psychosis suffered by the target of unwanted homosexual advances.

"Gay panic" has been used as a defense in recent years on a number of high profile assault and murder cases, most notably the 1995 trial of Jonathan Schmitz, who killed his friend Scott Amedure after learning, during a taping of "The Jenny Jones Show," that Amedure was sexually attracted to him. Schmitz confessed to committing the crime, but claimed that Amedure’s homosexual overtures angered and humiliated him. Three years later, the defense would be used during the trial of the two men accused of killing university student Matthew Shepard. The strategy proved ineffective or inadmissible and in both cases, ended with convictions for the defendants.

"Too many people have hidden for far too long behind baseless ’panic’ defenses," Kemnitz said. "Judges, lawmakers and juries must demand that these practices come to an end and juries must be provided with instructions advising juries to make their decisions free of improper bias and prejudice. Today’s ABA resolution is an important first step towards realizing that goal."

The reality is that anyone who doesn't have issues with their own sexual orientation - which rules out Ken Cuccinelli - isn't going to react violently to the discovery that some one is gay or that said individual finds them attractive.  The defense is in a word bullshit.

Unethical and Possibly Illegal Lunacy at Liberty Law School

One has to continually wonder how on earth Liberty Law School at the late Jerry Falwell's wingnut Liberty University ever received accreditation from the American Bar Association since the institution teaches students to have disdain - if not open contempt - for the nation's laws that don't conform to "God's law" as interpreted by the theocrats and Christofascists on Liberty's faculty. You know, folks like Matt Staver (pictured at left) and Rena Lindevaldsen who represented international child kidnapping fugitive Lisa Miller. In my view, Liberty is a blight on the Commonwealth of Virginia and an insult to the rule of law upon which the USA is supposedly grounded. Religion Dispatches has an article that looks at the efforts of Liberty's faculty to train students to disregard laws that do not conform to "God's law as interpreted by the Christian Taliban. It's disturbing and suggests, at least to me, that Liberty University's accreditation ought to be reconsidered. Here are some highlights:
*
Students at Liberty Law School tell RD that in the required Foundations of Law class in the fall of 2008, taught by Miller’s attorneys Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, they were repeatedly instructed that when faced with a conflict between “God’s law” and “man’s law,” they should resolve that conflict through “civil disobedience.” One student said, “the idea was when you are confronted with a particular situation, for instance, if you have a court order against you that is in violation of what you see as God’s law, essentially... civil disobedience was the answer.”
*
This student and two others, who all requested anonymity for fear of reprisal by Staver (who is also the law school’s dean), recounted the classroom discussion of civil disobedience, as well as efforts to draw comparisons between choosing “God’s law” over “man’s law” to the American revolution and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. According to one student, in the Foundations course both Staver and Lindevaldsen “espoused the opinion that in situations where God’s law is in direct contradiction to man’s law, we have an obligation to disobey it.”
*
That semester’s mid-term exam, obtained by RD [see excerpts of the actual exam here], included a question based on Miller’s case asking students to describe what advice they would give her “as a friend who is a Christian lawyer.” After laying out a slanted history of the protracted legal battle, the exam asked, “Lisa needs your counsel on how to think through her legal situation and how to respond as a Christian to this difficult problem. Relying only on what we have learned thus far in class, how would you counsel Lisa?”
*
Students who wrote that Miller should comply with court orders received bad grades while those who wrote she should engage in civil disobedience received an A, the three students said. “People were appalled,” said one of the students, adding, “especially as lawyers to be, who are trained and licensed to practice the law—to disobey that law, that seemed completely counterintuitive to all of us.”
*
Given what was expected of them on the exam, and the tenor of the class, there is “not a lot of shock among the students about the current developments,” said one of the students, referring to the revelation that Miller is in hiding in Nicaragua. “Everybody semi-suspected that Liberty Counsel had something to do with her disappearance.”
*
Liberty Counsel’s publicity for its relentless litigation on Miller’s behalf has exploited several religious right tropes: that gay and lesbian people can be made straight through Christ; that “activist judges” are subverting biblical principles; and that the very health of the republic is at risk because gay and lesbian people can be parents.
*
Did Liberty Counsel Know Miller Had Fled To Nicaragua? Neither Staver nor Lindevaldsen responded to RD’s requests for comment, but Staver told the New York Times last month that they had not had contact with Miller since 2009 and had always advised her to obey the law. Staver and Lindevaldsen did, however, teach their students that “civil disobedience” was a proper response, and persisted in their efforts to reverse court orders with relentless appeals claiming that court orders were in contravention of Miller’s Christian beliefs.
*
The Foundations class is unlike anything offered at secular law schools, its purpose being to guide students toward a “Christian worldview” of the law. In the 2008-09 academic year, the required texts included David Barton’s Original Intent, which Barton’s website describes as “essential resource for anyone interested in our nation's religious heritage and the Founders' intended role for the American judicial system,” and Francis Schaeffer’s Christian Manifesto.
*
But the students who spoke to RD worry that these Christian credentials will not serve them well after graduation. “If you walked into court and argued what Liberty wants you to,” said one, “you’d be laughed out of the room.”
*
Staver’s views, they said, are “militant” and “fundamentalist.” He brooks no criticism from students or faculty. “He rules the law school like Moammar Gaddafi runs Libya,” said one of the students.

American Bar Association Urges All States to Allow Gay Marriage

While the boyfriend cynically said that the motivation is that the divorce bar wants to get in on the action in same sex splits (currently such splits are governed by simple contract and property law law), the American Bar Association ("ABA"),at its annual meeting in San Francisco, adopted a resolution today calling upon all states in the USA to allow same sex couples to marry. Whatever the motivation, I applaud the ABA's action and hope that the resolution may perhaps make a few people reconsider their opposition to gay marriage. Obviously, the action will have no impact on the far right Christianists who view homophobia as a cash cow and a means to make themselves feel morally superior to others. The Los Angeles Times has coverage on the ABA action. Here are some highlights:
*
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The country's largest lawyers' group has backed a resolution calling on all state legislatures to let same-sex couples get married.
*
The American Bar Association voted at its annual meeting Tuesday in San Francisco to support the measure sponsored by the New York State Bar Association. New York State Bar Association President Stephen P. Younger says the resolution passed overwhelmingly, with only one speaker voicing opposition during debate.
*
As The American Foundation for Equal Rights (which backed the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) noted in relevant part as follows to the San Francisco Sentinel,
*
By approving a resolution in support of marriage equality, the ABA has confirmed what the federal courts, the state’s chief executive and the state’s chief law enforcement officer have determined in Perry v. Schwarzenegger—that excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violates their constitutional right to due process and equal protection and causes significant harm to them and their families.

ABA and Interfaith Alliance Support Repeal of DADT

Any lawyer who can read the U.S. Constitution, Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson, and many other laws and court rulings against religious based discrimination should have no problem discerning the impropriety and unconstitutionality of DADT. At least if that lawyer doesn't allow his/her personal religious beliefs to trump their duties as an officer of the court to uphold the civil laws and the nation's Constitution. Thus, it is no surprise to me that the American Bar Association ("ABA") has come out against DADT and sent a letter urging Congress to repeal DADT. As the Legal Times Blog reports:
*
American Bar Association sent a letter to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and Department of Defense on Monday expressing its "strong support" for ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
*
"Subjecting a person to discharge from military service on the basis of sexual orientation is, and always has been, a denial of the very constitutional protections that the oath administered to military members calls upon servicemembers to protect," wrote ABA President Carolyn Lamm.
*
"Contrary to the asserted purpose of the policy, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ appears already to have hampered military readiness by requiring the dismissal of hundreds of highly trained and skilled personnel," Lamm wrote.

*

Also joining the fray and seeking to counter a letter - probably arranged by Elaine Donnelly or some other professional homophobe - from 40 retired military chaplains. Obviously, I question the propriety of chaplains seeking to influence CIVIL legislation that currently embodies unconstitutional religious based discrimination. I also question why anyone in Congress should listen to retired relics of a by gone day who are more than likely utterly out of touch with the younger generation that is not afflicted with the homophobia of yesteryear. In any event, Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued a statement today in response to a letter from these retired chaplains asking President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates to uphold the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of gays in the military. (Founded in 1994, Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition.) Here are some highlights:
*
As a longtime advocate for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, I am deeply troubled by the views expressed in today’s letter from a group of retired military chaplains to President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates. It is so fraught with illogical reasoning, one almost does not know where to begin in discussing its content.
*
The chaplains claim that their religious freedoms would be threatened if gays serve openly in the military. Yet, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in no way would hinder chaplains from voicing their personal moral convictions and theological doctrines. The chaplaincy should represent the diversity of faiths in the military, not simply one point of view.
*
Similarly, the chaplains argue that this would impact their “ability to counsel” because “service members seeking guidance regarding homosexual relationships will place chaplains in an untenable position.” By this logic, we also should ban all service members whose gambling habits, treatment of spouses, and views on abortion, politics, or the economy are not in line with those of the chaplains. As a Baptist minister, I frequently counsel people whose beliefs on a number of subjects are not exactly in line with the religious or moral values that I embrace. Such a challenge in counseling comes with the territory of being a clergy member.
*
The views expressed by the chaplains are the antithesis of the themes of love and inclusion commended and demonstrated by the Christ from whom they form their religious identity. If Christian chaplains followed the teachings of Jesus they would have no problem joining any military member in prayer or spiritual thought.
*
Our servicemen and women deserve chaplains who support and comfort them as they carry out their military duties regardless of their individual lifestyles. Sexual orientation is no more a hindrance to that mission now than was racial identity years ago. Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a step forward in equality and justice for all citizens. When chaplains find the government’s pursuit of these goals to be a threat to their values, we must ask whether something is askew with their values.

LGBT Attorneys Talk of Experiences

The fact that LGBT attorneys exist is slowly coming to be recognized in some quarters, including the American Bar Association which has now created a Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Sadly, in Virginia, the Virginia State Bar acts as if LGBT attorneys do not exist and certainly are not something to be discussed. Similarly, even though the Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct requires judges to be unbiased based on sexual orientation or else recuse themselves from a case involving LGBT litigants, virtually NOTHING is done to enforce these requirements and LGBT litigants are crucified for their sexual orientation regularly. Indeed, of five gays I know personally currently going through divorces, only one had a judge that did not take the divorcing husband's sexual orientation into consideration and use it as a reason to treat him with extreme harshness.

*

The Windy City Times has a story that looks at the experiences of some LGBT attorneys who - like myself- in some instances found themselves unwelcome because of their sexual orientation and their unwillingness to live in the closet. The irony, of course, is that most top law schools have anti-discrimination policies that interviewing law firms must sign whereby they swear that they will not discriminate against hiring and promoting LGBT attorneys. In Virginia, law firms sign these statements and then go right ahead and discriminate - one of the reasons I have told LGBT law students to seek careers outside of Virginia. Here are some story highlights:

*

Lawyers talked about their experiences in school and work in "The Gay Bar: LGBT Attorneys in the Profession," a forum held July 31 at the Hotel Intercontinental, 505 N. Michigan, as part of the American Bar Association's annual meeting. The attorneys spoke as the ABA's Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, chaired by San Francisco attorney Jeffrey G. Gibson, presided over the event and listened intently to the experiences.

*

Orr talked about working with an investment bank in Virginia—a place where he did not feel welcome. "They started off each day with a prayer," he said. When he eventually ended up with the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & McKenzie, he said, " [ the firm ] didn't know what they were getting," as the audience laughed. Orr indicated that he made it quite clear from the start that he was gay. He admitted that the firm has its challenges: "In order to have a breakthrough ... firms need to understand what diversity means."

*

Brent Adams, acting secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, talked about attending the New York School University of Law as well as working at the Chicago law firm Katten Muchin Roseman ( then known as Katten Muchin Zavis ). Adams said that he was very out in law school and at work, serving as chair of the Bisexual Gay & Lesbian Law Students Association—commonly referred to as "Big Lisa." He received only one callback when he applied with ( mostly ) Chicago firms—from Katten—although he had no evidence that homophobia was involved in the lack of positive responses. When he was at Katten, a hiring partner asked me where he was from, and Adams responded, "Oklahoma." He laughed and said, "Well you know they only raise two things in Oklahoma." ( For those who don't know, the answer to that saying is "steers and queers." ) Adams informed his own mentor about what happened, and the partner visited him the next day "to see how he was doing."

*

"When I came out to the lesbian and gay law students as transgender, I was not met with the welcome atmosphere that I had anticipated," Levasseur continued. "One student asked me invasive and inappropriate questions about my genitals. Another said, 'I just don't get it.' ... I quickly realized that the community that had once been my support no longer included me. I didn't know where to turn."
*

A particular low point occurred when "during my first year, as I walked from the parking lot towards the law school building, an SUV sped up towards me as if to hit me," he said. "I jumped out of the way just in time and turned to see three of my classmates, future attorneys, in the car, laughing. At the time, I was not immune to threats on my life based on my gender expression. I just didn't expect it at my law school."

*

The above quotes give you a sense of how far the legal profession has to go in actually embracing diversity. States like Virginia - and anti-gay law firms - are losing many talented and innovate people because they continue to put more store in religious based discrimination rather than the Constitution's promise of equality. Sadly, medicine and accounting seem even more bigoted that the legal community.

50 Gayest Songs Of All Time

A website in Australia compiled a list of the "50 Gayest Songs Of All Time" to celebrate Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. They received thousands of votes from their readers and revealed the list. You can see it here. Not surprisingly, four singers, Agnetha, Anni-Frid, Benny, Björn Ulvaeus, a/k/ Abba and their song "Dancing Queen" - which I have personally always liked - took the number one spot. :)

You can play the song here: http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/2051/

The American Bar Association Shows a Spine

As this story in Harpers indicates, Chimperator Bush has received an unprecidented condemnation from the legal profession:

The LawyersYesterday meeting in San Francisco, the organized legal profession in the United States — the American Bar Association — took a firm stand on the president’s order, denouncing it as unlawful and calling upon Congress to override it. Of the more than five hundred delegates present and voting, one single delegate sided with the administration—the most devastating defeat ever suffered by any U.S. administration on what was essentially a vote of condemnation. Even the ABA committees that represent government lawyers involved in national security organizations and retired military officers led the charge in assailing the Bush order’s legality.

The Los Angeles Times reports: The first resolution dealt with an executive order adopted by the Bush Administration less than a month ago that Barbara Berger Opotowsky, president of the New York City Bar Association, said was clearly “inconsistent with U.S. obligations” under Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires humane treatment of detainees.

“The use of official cruelty has repeatedly been shown to be far from the best means of extracting truthful information,” said Opotowsky, who proposed the resolution. She noted that a U.S. Army field manual on intelligence interrogations issued last September barred the controversial interrogation techniques that will be available to the CIA. “Unfortunately, the executive order sets a lower standard for the CIA,” she said.

Memphis, Tenn., lawyer Albert Harvey, a retired Marine major general, also spoke in favor of the resolution, which passed by voice vote with only a single “nay” registering in the large meeting hall at the Moscone Center here. “When we put our troops in harm’s way, we expect other countries to treat our soldiers humanely. We can do no less,” said Harvey, who heads the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Like Opotowsky, Harvey quoted an article recently published by P.X. Kelley, a former Marine commandant, and Robert Turner, of the University’s Center on Law and National Security, who in the past have been supportive of the administration’s war on terror. In this instance, however, the duo wrote that they could not “in good conscience” support the executive order, saying it affords the CIA “carte blanche to engage in ‘willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.’ “

By passing this resolution, the ABA has now committed itself and its resources to oppose the Bush Administration in court proceedings and in Congress. It also established an opinion within the profession that the executive order itself is unlawful. The ability of CIA officials and others to rely on the order in taking action and claim immunity based on that reliance has been strongly eroded by this action. And from this point, the view advanced by a small handful of “loyal Bushie” lawyers that the techniques themselves are lawful has to be understood as the perspective of of a tiny insular minority within the legal profession, a view which has now been forcefully denounced by the profession as a whole.

I continue to hope that Americans are finally waking up to what this regime has truly done. Soon the American Psychological Association may deliver a similar rebuke. For the full story see: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000899