The Ugly Truth About the Alliance Defending Freedom

The Alliance Defending Freedom ("ADF") likes to depict itself as a mainstream Christian legal group and, sadly, far too many lazy mainstream media outlets mindlessly parrot ADF's propaganda and never look at why the organization is, in fact, an extremist hate group.  Here in Virginia, ADF was the main proponent of upholding Virginia's foul theocratic backed Marshall-Newman Amendment.  The ugly truth, however, is that ADF not only oppose LGBT civil rights in America, but overseas it is working overtime to criminalize homosexuality and induce ignorant and uneducated populations to embrace its religious based hatred.  It is a very foul organization.   Media Matters looks at the real ADF agenda.  Here are excerpts:

Few anti-LGBT groups get as much media attention as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the right-wing legal organization best known for defending anti-gay business owners who refuse to comply with nondiscrimination laws. But while ADF's "religious liberty" work generates plenty of headlines, few media outlets have highlighted the most extreme facet of ADF's legal agenda: criminalizing homosexuality.

ADF has become a fixture on Fox News, but its involvement in crafting Arizona's license-to-discriminate law in early 2014 attracted coverage from other networks as well. In October, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat apologized after he spoke at an ADF fundraiser.

But aside from a handful of examples, media outlets have failed to highlight just how extreme ADF's anti-gay agenda really is. While the group prefers to talk about its "religious liberty" work when in the media spotlight, ADF is actively working to promote and defend anti-sodomy laws that criminalize gay sex.

United States: ADF's formal support for anti-sodomy laws dates to at least 2003, before the Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. ADF, which was at the time still known as the Alliance Defense Fund, filed an amicus brief in the case, defending state laws criminalizing gay sex. In its brief, ADF spent nearly 30 pages arguing that gay sex is unhealthy, harmful, and a public-health risk.

In 2003, ADF president Alan Sears co-wrote a book titled The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, which warned that eliminating anti-sodomy lawswould lead to the overturning of "laws against pedophilia, sex between close relatives, polygamy, bestiality and all other distortions and violations of God's plan."Th  e Supreme Court disagreed, striking down state bans on gay sex in its Lawrence v. Texas decision.
 
Jamaica:  In December 2012, the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society hosted an international conference titled "Human Rights, International Law and the Family" in Kingston. The event was aimed at discussing how the fight for LGBT equality -- including a legal challenge to the country's anti-sodomy law -- threatened "the traditional, natural family." Jeffrey Ventrella and Piero Tozzi, two senior legal counsels for ADF at the time, spoke at the conference.

Belize: ADF has also worked to help defend Belize's Section 53, a law that criminalizes gay sex. As the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported in 2013, ADF attorneys offered legal assistance to Belize Action, a local group working to keep homosexuality criminalized.

India: In December 2011, India's Supreme Court voted to restore the country's colonial-era law banning "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." The ruling reversed a 2009 decision by the Delhi High Court, which found the law unconstitutional. Under India's criminalization statute, gay sex is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

In an interview with OneNewsNow, Alliance Defending Freedom Global executive director Benjamin Bull applauded the Supreme Court's decision for not "giv[ing] in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates"
[I]t matters in terms of the media, which continues to treat ADF as a mainstream group fighting for "religious liberty." ADF has given up on promoting anti-sodomy laws in the U.S. afterLawrence, but the group still aggressively supports imprisoning gay people around the world for having sex. It's an ugly truth about one of the right's highest-profile legal organizations.

Failing to note ADF's support for anti-sodomy laws -- which places it firmly on the fringe of even conservative circles -- paints a grossly misleading picture of the extremism that motivates the group's anti-gay legal work.

How Straight Promiscuity Is Being Used to Justify Banning Same-Sex Marriage

Given that they have no real justification for banning same sex marriage other than religious based anti-gay animus, the Christofascists keep grasping at straws to try to disguise their bigotry.  In addition to arguing that somehow - although it is never explained how - same sex marriage will discourage straight males from marrying, now heterosexual promiscuity is also being used as a justification for barring same sex civil law marriage.  Anything rather than openly admit that opposition to marriage equality is really about religion and nothing else. Among those making this ridiculous argument is the batshit crazy Michele McQuigg, Prince William County Clerk, a defendant in Bostic v. Rainey now before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Not surprisingly, McQuigg is being represented by the lunatics from Alliance Defending Freedom, a far right Christofascist law group.  Think Progress looks at this latest batshitery.  Here are highlights:

Opponents of gay rights and homosexuality in general have long offered that gay men are incredibly promiscuous and will thus upend marriage. It’s actually not true that gay people are any more promiscuous than straight people, but the very same stigma inherent in the accusation has limited the ability of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to be open about their relationships. Ironically, as a result of conservatives trying to soften their tone, one of the primary arguments against marriage equality for same-sex couples is now that straight people are the ones with irresponsible sex lives.

In a new brief filed on behalf of Michèle B. McQuigg, one of the Virginia county clerks defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) argues that marriage should be reserved for straight couples specifically because they are the ones who might accidentally have children.
Marriage doesn’t require that couples have children, but its purpose is to “channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born, they are more likely to be raised in stable family units by both their biological mothers and fathers.” The brief seems to argue that marriage doesn’t serve any purpose for families that intentionally have children. 

George E. Schaefer, III, the other Virginia county clerk defending the ban, similarly argued in his latest brief that the state has a very narrow motivation to recognize marriages:

Encouraging traditional marriage does not disparage other alternative parenting arrangements. State sanctioned marriage is not about acknowledging society’s acceptance of two persons’ love and commitment to one another. It is not about furthering or opposing the political and social objectives of a group or encouraging or discouraging the public to recognize gays and lesbians as part of society. State recognition of marriage exists to encourage a stable relationship between two persons who may be able to naturally procreate and provide a protective structure for their offspring in case they conceive children.

Schaefer previously argued that marriage equality would so significantly disincentivize straight couples from having children that society might die out.

No matter how many times they say it, different-sex parents are in no way superior to same-sex parents. Children actually have very little to do with the legal question of marriage, because several thousand same-sex couples are raising families in Virginia even without access to marriage. Marriage also provides many important legal and financial protections to couples whether they have children or not; the consequences of not having access to these protections can be seen in the many disadvantages experienced by LGBT older adults.

In other words, marriage doesn’t actually reward or punish anybody’s sex life. What it does is provide a structure to protect people who’ve committing to caring for one another and for the children they may raise together — even if they didn’t plan to.

The argument of these nutcases ignores the issue of older heterosexual couples who remarry after their wives have pasted childbearing age.   Based on this argument, such couples should not be permitted to marry because they cannot accidentally conceive children.   Frankly, the argument is so disingenuous, the Court ought to sanction the appellants and their attorneys.

The Next Step For Marriage Equality in Virginia

While it is uncertain whether or not Norfolk Clerk of Court George Schaefer will appeal the U. S. District Court ruling in Bostic v. Rainey, it is a pretty safe assumption that Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele McQuigg will do so inasmuch as she is represented by the Christoascist Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund ("ADF").  The good news is that to date, ADF hasn't won any of the lawsuits in which it has been involved and on occasion, the group's extremism and insane witnesses have probably motivated courts to rule against whatever ADF is advocating for.  If an appeal is forthcoming, the next stop in the litigation will be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia (see photo above) which sits across from the Virginia Capitol.  Historically, the 4th Circuit has been one of the more conservative Courts of Appeal.  However, more recent appointments to the Court may make it more receptive to affirming the District Court ruling.  Here are some highlights from a Virginian Pilot piece on the Court:

With Virginia's gay marriage ban overturned, the legal fight over same-sex unions in that state goes to a court that has shifted to the left since President Barack Obama's election.

It's no accident that the state has become a key testing ground for federal judges' willingness to embrace same-sex marriage after last year's strongly worded pro-gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court. Judges appointed by Democratic presidents have a 10-5 edge over Republicans on the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, formerly among the nation's most conservative appeals courts.

Nationally, three other federal appeals courts will soon take up the right of same-sex couples to marry, too, in Ohio, Colorado and California. The San Francisco-based 9th circuit is dominated by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The Denver-based court, home of the 10th circuit, has shifted from a Republican advantage to an even split between the parties, while the 6th circuit, based in Cincinnati, remains relatively unchanged in favor of Republicans during Obama's tenure.

Jon Davidson of the gay rights group Lambda Legal said the "very dramatic" shift in the 4th circuit under Obama was an important reason behind the decision to sue for marriage rights in Virginia, which also twice voted for Obama.

Five federal district judges have issued pro-gay marriage rulings since the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. U.S. in June that struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law. Three of those judges are Obama appointees, one was named by Democratic President Bill Clinton and the other by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Nancy Leong, a University of Denver law professor who is closely following the gay marriage issue at the 10th circuit, said the lineup of judges who have ruled so far conforms to general expectations.

Theodore Olson, half of the high-powered legal team representing two Virginia couples in the case decided Thursday, said he is confident about the outcome in the appeals courts "irrespective of the composition of any court. These arguments are so compelling...and the arguments presented against marriage equality are so weak."

The issue ultimately is headed to the Supreme Court. When and from which state are not clear.

The justices are more likely to step into a case when a federal court has struck down a state constitutional provision, as has happened in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. The Kentucky case involves only the state's recognition of legal same-sex weddings from elsewhere.

 Obviously, it will be interesting to watch how things proceed.  In some ways it is appropriate that religious extremists from ADF will be defending the Marshall-Newman Amendment which was designed and deceptively marketed by religious extremists and hate merchants at The Family Foundation and their allies in the Virginia GOP.

Lawyer For Anti-Gay Alliance Found Guilty Of Making Child Porn

I do not like to revel in the misfortune of others, but at times it is hard to fight the urge to do so, especially when such misfortunes overtake those who make careers in peddling anti-gay hate and bigotry.  This blog previously noted the indictment of Lisa Biron who was arrested in 2012 after taking a teenage girl to Canada and filming her have sex with two adult men.  Biron's trial has now concluded and she was convicted of the charges brought against her.  The irony, of course is that Biron had been an attorney for the virulently anti-gay Christofascist organization Alliance Defense Fund, proving once again that it is the self-congratulatory, falsely pious "godly Christian" crowd that one most needs to watch when it comes to issues of sexual perversion.  Queerty had coverage.  Here are excerpts:

A lawyer who has worked with the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom has been found guilty of coercing a 14-year-old girl into making pornographic videos.

Manchester, New Hampshire, lawyer Lisa Biron was arrested in 2012 after taking a teenage girl to Canada and filming her have sex with two adult men.

On Friday, the jury deliberated for less than two hours before finding Biron guilty of eight federal indictments, including transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, possession of child pornography, and sexual exploitation of a child.

Biron was remanded into custody last fall after breaking the conditions of her bail. According to the Concord Monitor:

* Two witnesses testified to seeing Biron in possession of ecstasy, marijuana and cocaine.
* Biron sent a threatening text message to the person who turned her in to the police, advising him he would have to watch his back “FOR EVER.”
* Biron sent a text to a friend saying she might flee to Cuba because she had “nothing left.”
* Biron has asked people to lie to law enforcement about her case.
* Other juveniles have been subjected to Biron’s sexual activity and drug use.

During the trial, jurors listened to a recording of a jailhouse phone call between Biron and her father, in which she claimed the girl “had a part in this.”  Biron’s sentencing is scheduled for April, when prosecutors say they’ll ask for a nice long prison sentence.

ADF is a legal foundation founded in 1994 by, among others, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and American Family Association’s Donald Wildmon.

I have long maintained that those who hang onto the legalistic, hate and fear based teachings of far right Christianity are compensating for their own inner demons and sexual perversions - perversions they trey to transfer to others.   When someone wraps themselves in conservative Christianity and rants about the damnation of others, the best option is to run for safety, guarding your purse or wallet as you run fleeing.

Member of Anti-Gay Alliance Defense Fund Arrested for Child Pornography

Once again we see the hypocrisy of the anti-gay Christofascist set coming to the fore - a member of the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund who is also a member of a national coalition of Christian lawyers (pictured at right) has been arrested on child pornography charges.  It never ceases to amaze me (although I guess at this point I should no longer be amazed) that it seems to almost always be the most vociferous anti-gay "Christians" who are the ones engaging in either same sex trysts themselves (e.g., former Congressman Ed Schrock) or child porn.  To be clear, I am not saying that liberals and Democrats don't get in to similar trouble from time to time, but the vast majority seem to be the ultra-conservative homophobic Christians.   The Concord Monitor has details.  Here are excerpts:

A Manchester lawyer took a teenage girl to Canada, had her engage in sexual activity and convinced her to let it be filmed, according to federal indictments.

FBI agents swiftly arrested Lisa Biron yesterday morning as she awaited a hearing on child pornography charges at Manchester’s district court. About 9 a.m. FBI agents entered the courtroom, told Biron to leave her belongings and took her into an adjoining conference room where she remained for several minutes before coming out in handcuffs.  Outside, Biron ducked her head below the backseat window of a white vehicle as it was driven away from the courthouse.

A few hours later in U.S. District Court in Concord, Biron, who is associated with a national coalition of Christian lawyers, was formally told of the federal charges against her: transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, possession of child pornography and five counts of sexual exploitation of children.

Biron is associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of lawyers who, according to their website, are committed to keeping “the door open for the spread of the Gospel” by advocating for “religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” In Concord, she worked with the ADF in defending a Pentecostal Church on Mountain Road in its tax fight against the city.

She recently served on the board of directors at Mount Zion Christian Schools in Manchester, according to the school’s headmaster.

On Biron’s Facebook page, which was taken down in recent weeks, she had listed the Bible as her favorite book.

As Joe Jervis correctly notes, the Alliance Defense Fund, recently which changed its name to Alliance Defending Freedom, has a non-stop agenda of working to inflict Christian Sharia Law upon all Americans.  Gays and anything that would afford gays civil rights are, of course, one of the group's favorite targets.

World Congress of Families Seeks a New Dark Ages

It's no secret that conservative - might we better say ultra-reactionary - "family values" want to turn back time.  But the question really isn't turning the clock back to the 1950's.  No, they truly would prefer a period more akin tot he Middle Ages when religion trump almost everything and when dictatorial Popes could intimidate and threaten kings and rulers.  And that's not counting when they sent their own armies to invade noncomplying countries. A worldwide display of this deeply reactionary thinking recently took place at the World Congress of Families (WCF) gathering in Madrid where the purported goal was to to share tactics in defense of the “natural family.” In reality, the gathering was a planning session on how to usurp the civil rights of other citizens and inflict far right Christianist views on all.  Their version of the "natural family" not surprisingly is modeled on a 13th century model and relies on scientific and sociological knowledge from that ignorant and backward era.  And not surprisingly, they claim that they are being persecuted if the rights of others are recognized.  And as for gays?  We are clearly viewed as enemy number one.  Religion Dispatches looks at the gathering and the messages is that these people need to be stopped if civil liberties for those other than Christofascists are to be protected.  Here are highlights:

Last month the World Congress of Families (WCF), an international conservative network, met at the Palacio de Congresos in Madrid to share tactics in defense of the “natural family.” For its participants the natural family is a standard for social values that harkens back to a mythical era when men headed the household, women tended the kitchen and children, and sex was for procreation only.

[I]t’s tempting to dismiss the WCF as a gathering of out-of-touch extremists. Scratch the surface, though, and what you find are well-connected and well-funded groups hard at work codifying their “traditional values” through national and regional legislatures and judiciaries. 

While drolly retrograde panels like “Authentic Women and Rediscovering Homemaking” and “Solutions to Homosexual Behavior” featured prominently, embedded in these and most other panels were serious themes articulating a conservative worldview and strategies for protecting and promoting them in the public sphere.

What emerged after three days was a clear tension between agitating against governments, courts, and international human rights bodies that had “corrupted the meaning and dignity of marriage, devalued parenting, encouraged easy divorce and births outside of marriage, confused sexual identities, promoted promiscuity, created conditions that increased child abuse, isolated the elderly, and fostered depopulation,” and figuring out how to best manipulate those same systems into defending their particular religious values.

One concern undergirding the varied topics covered by the speakers was that the protection of individual rights (youth rights, gay rights, reproductive rights) was taking place at the expense of “fundamental” religious, cultural, and parental rights. .  .  .  .  Human rights were oppressive when they protected reproductive and gender rights (or “new” rights), whereas, when it came to protecting “traditional” rights to freedom of religion and speech, they were suddenly fundamental. New rights, they argued, cannot supersede traditional human rights. 

Stand Up For Religious Freedom, one of the lead networks agitating against health care reform, explicitly states that: “the American ideal of religious liberty is at stake. This isn’t really about contraception—it’s about the First Amendment.”

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), one of four World Congress of Families co-conveners, has been extremely active in “defending religious organizations and businesses that refuse to comply with the mandate and abandon their faith.” .   .   .   .    The ADF is also actively litigating religious freedom cases overseas. Because U.S. justices are increasingly citing progressive international jurisprudence in their opinions and decisions, much of the ADF’s international litigation is aimed at ensuring that foreign rulings serve its domestic objectives.

“How to Fight Back against International Law,” included a four-point strategy that, while not revealing too many trade secrets, was notable for its venomous tone toward “humanists” and others who, he says, accuse Christians of demanding preferential treatment.

While WCF participants make the case that they’re being denied their fundamental rights, they are in fact using “religious freedom” as a cover to deny women, children, sexual minorities, and others access to basic needs and protections. The WCF may want to take us back to the Dark Ages, but they’re not afraid to use modern human rights systems to get there.

On the final day of the conference Paul Herzog Von Oldenburg, the Belgian president of the right-wing Catholic group Tradition, Family and Property, summarized it best: “our great aim, our great ideal, is to build a Christian civilization from the ruins of the modern world just as the medieval world arose from the ruins of the Roman world.”

These people are frighteningly self-centered and do in fact want preferential rights - rights that trump the rights of everyone else.  As for the comparison of the Christian Middle Ages versus the Roman Empire, the former was based on ignorance and superstition while the latter despite its many flaws was a period of knowledge and creativity.

It may sound mean, but I truly believe that these ultra-far right Christianists suffer from a form of mental illness.  Life is short and all too fragile.  It should be lived and enjoyed while doing good by others.  In contrast, the Christianists dwell in a world of guilt, hate and condemnation of others.  Moreover, they are terrified of anything that challenge their childish beliefs and superstitions, or worse yet, requires that they have to think and make their own moral decisions.  I truly cannot fathom how one becomes so delusional.

The "Gay Solution" Focus on the Family/Hate Group Style

The Nazi regime had its "Final Solution" for those of Jewish descent and certainly Pastor Worley referenced in the last post certainly has his own equally horrible and deadly "solution" for the "gay problem."  What's frightening, however, is that Worley is hardly alone in his hatred and animus towards gays.  Jeremy Hooper at Good As You reports as follows:

Call me alarmist if you must, but when a speaker at a world conference with backing from American powerhouses like Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund hosts a plenary session with a threatening title like "Solutions to Homosexual Behavior," I get a tad uneasy:

It's not just Focus on the Family or ADF, either. Representatives from Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, and a host of other "pro-family" groups will be on hand to watch the highly repudiated Richard Cohen try to "solve" a problem like Maria as they see it. 

Yes, that's right.  The American based hate groups are working hard to continue to export anti-gay bigotry and extremism overseas.   Meanwhile, curing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and giving shelter to the homeless don't even make it onto the Christianists' radar screen.  It's a reason why I no longer want to be called a Christian.  These foul groups are irreparably destroying the Christian brand.

MN School District Investigated for Anti-Bullying Policy

UPDATED: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC")and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) today filed a lawsuit today against the Anoka-Hennepin School District. The lawsuit challenges the pervasive anti-gay harassment in the district’s schools as well as a “gag policy” that prevents teachers from discussing issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Here's more from the SPLC website:

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five students who have faced severe anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in school. It charges that the district’s gag policy perpetuates the abuses suffered by these students and others.

The groups filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota after the school district failed to address the persistent abuse or repeal its discriminatory policy.

“We are disappointed that the district fails to see the serious harm this policy is causing its students,” said Sam Wolfe, the SPLC’s lead attorney in the case. “School and district officials who are entrusted with the safety and education of all students continue to ignore, minimize, dismiss and even blame victims for the abusive behavior of other students.”

The lawsuit charges that LGBT students and students perceived as LGBT have been subjected to a constant torrent of slurs and have been physically threatened or attacked by peers. While many of these abuses occurred in front of teachers or were reported to school officials, school personnel almost always took insufficient action to stop the abuse.

This piece is cross posted from The Bilerico Project. The U. S. Justice Department and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights are investigating the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota for alleged abuse and bullying of students who do not conform to gender stereotypes. The school district has experienced a string of seven student suicides in fewer than two years (including 15-year-old Justin Aaberg, whose mother is a Facebook friend of mine and who provided the photo), yet it has refused to implement an anti-gay bullying policy that would seek to specifically protect LGBT students.

Instead, the school division - principally due the efforts of anti-gay "family values" organizations such as affiliates of Focus on the Family and the SPLC registered hate group, the American Family Association - has adopted a policy that purports to be "neutral on the issue of homosexuality."

Earlier this month the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to the Anoka-Hennepin School District urging it to maintain its "neutrality policy" with regard to sexual orientation.
And the consequences of blocking any meaningful anti-gay bullying policies are deadly. Just ask Alise Williams, whose son, Christian Taylor, committed suicide on May 31, 2010, after constant bullying because he was perceived as gay by bigoted students. The York County Schools purportedly have an anti-bullying policy, but as seems to be the case time and time again, it is rarely, if ever, enforced.

Here are highlights from CNN's coverage of the Justice Department and Office of Civil Rights investigation:

Federal authorities are investigating "incidents involving harassment and bullying" in Minnesota's largest school district, the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in an e-mail to CNN.

The civil rights investigation is under way in the suburban Minneapolis school district, Anoka-Hennepin, a community already embattled in a culture war over homosexuality in the classroom.

The Justice Department together with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights are looking into "allegations of harassment and discrimination in the Anoka-Hennepin School District based on sex, including peer-on-peer harassment based on not conforming to gender stereotypes," according to a district memo provided exclusively to CNN.

The federal investigation comes after a string of seven student suicides in less than two years, which stirred public debate over the district's sexual orientation curriculum policy.

Parents and friends say four of those students were either gay, perceived to be gay or questioning their sexuality, and they say, at least two of them were bullied over their sexuality.

It's unclear whether the suicides or the policy are a significant part of the federal investigation. The controversial policy, adopted in 2009, states that staff must "remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation" and that "such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches or community organizations."

Anoka-Hennepin is the only Minnesota school district known to have such a policy. However, at least eight other states - Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah - have statutes specifying varying limits on classroom instruction regarding homosexuality. Tennessee considered similar legislation this year.

In May, two advocacy groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, threatened the school district with a federal lawsuit challenging the policy. So far, negotiations with the school district have not met their demands.

Tammy Aaberg - whose 15-year-old son, Justin, committed suicide last July - has become an outspoken critic of the neutrality policy. "He came to me and said, 'Mom, a kid at school says I'm going to go to hell because I'm gay,'" said Aaberg. The neutrality policy, she said, contributed to a school environment harmful to her son, who was outed in the eighth grade by another student. "I believe that the climate that they have in the school, the way that kids are allowed to treat other kids - they say 'fag' all the time," Aaberg said. "If you're even questioning who you are and you're not seeing anybody who's like you, you don't see anything positive about who you are, then you start wondering, 'What's wrong with me?'"

Sam Wolfe, the Southern Poverty Law Center attorney handling the advocacy group's case, calls the curriculum policy a "gag policy." In May, Wolfe wrote a letter to Carlson stating that students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and those perceived to be LGBT "remain in jeopardy in a hostile and alienating environment."

"The gag policy singles out LGBT students by denying them and them alone any affirmation of their identity," Wolfe wrote in the May 24 letter. He also said the policy "categorically preclud(es) any meaningful classroom discussion about history, literature, current events or any other relevant lessons involving LGBT people."

A similar federal investigation in Tehachapi, California, led to federally mandated revisions of the Tehachapi Unified School District's policies. After investigating a complaint surrounding the suicide of a 13-year-old student, the departments of Justice and Education concluded the eighth grader "suffered sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers, including harassment based on his nonconformity to gender stereotypes" and the school district "did not adequately investigate or respond appropriately as it is required to do by federal law," according to the resolution agreement reached this month between the Tehachapi Unified School District and the federal agencies. Tehachapi district officials disagreed with the investigation's findings.

One can only hope that similar changes will be forced on the Anoka-Hennepin School District.

Gay Friendly Military Chaplains Push Back

This blog has previously looked at the lies and whining of Christianist members of the Chaplain Corps who have alleged that the repeal of DADT and/or allowing military chaplains threatens their freedom of religion. As is typical of the far right elements of the right wing, the Christianist chaplains are in reality accusing others of what they themselves are doing as their seek to inflict their religious beliefs on all. Thankfully, some non-Neanderthal members of the Chaplain Corps are pushing back and speaking out - something non-Christofascists need to do more often. The Advocate has a lengthy article on the development and a copy of the response submitted in reaction to threatened lawsuit by the extremists at the Alliance Defense Fund. Here are some highlights:
*
A progressive military chaplains organization has condemned recent assertions by antigay groups that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is quickly eroding religious liberty for service members from conservative faith traditions.
*
Capt. John F. Gundlach, a retired Navy chaplain and member of the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, wrote in a Monday commentary that ADF's pleas are the result of antigay bigotry, not concern for religious liberty.
*
"Are ADF and the religious groups they represent as willing to defend the same rights and protections for others they claim for themselves?" Gundlach wrote. "Are they as willing to acknowledge the right of chaplains from gay-friendly denominations to perform gay weddings in military chapels? And are they as willing to speak up for those who suffer discrimination because they are gay? If not, their pleas for special protection from discrimination for themselves are self-serving and unworthy of consideration."
*
What are ADF and these groups afraid of? They fear that their chaplains and other military members who are anti-gay because of their religious beliefs will be discriminated against. Lifting up this perceived threat serves as a rallying cry for religious conservatives and the politicians who support them, but it’s really an S.O.S. It’s the Same Old Stuff they have been saying since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” appeared to be headed for the regulatory scrap heap.
*
This S.O.S. may seem real enough to them, but what are the facts? Will religious conservatives in the military no longer be able to practice their religion? Will their chaplains have to refrain from preaching against homosexuality (their term, not mine)? Not at all.
*
The one thing that every chaplain is required to do, regardless of their religious perspectives, is care for everyone. If these chaplains can’t minister to gay and lesbian service members themselves, they are obligated to refer them to another chaplain who can.
*
So where is the threat to religious freedom? And where could their right to free speech be limited? It will no longer be acceptable to speak about fellow gay and lesbian service members in demeaning ways in the workplace and other public settings. The fact that this has ever been acceptable by anyone anywhere, but especially by chaplains, is regrettable.
*
Clearly, ADF and their conservative clients have good reason to send out an S.O.S. — their cause is sinking. As a new generation of Americans join our Armed Forces, a generation that has grown up knowing that LGBT people are no threat to their persons, their marriages, or their religion, the protests of groups like ADF and their clients will seem archaic and totally out of touch. And many will wonder why these groups don’t have a more important religious message to share.

Prop 8 Case Plaintiffs May Seek Attorneys Fees from ADF, et al

Talk about hitting them where it hurts! Ted Olson and David Boise and the legal team representing the plaintiffs who challenged the constitutionality of California's toxic Proposition 8 may petition the Court to award the costs of the plaintiffs' legal fees against the proponents of Prop 8 who defended the California constitutional amendment in court when the Sate of California refused to defend the provision. One never knows what a court will do when an award of legal fees is requested, but given the fact that the State of California conceded the plaintiff's case, it would not seem inappropriate that the non-governmental supporters of Prop 8 who demanded to intervene in the case be saddled with the costs incurred by the plaintiffs because of the intervenors frivolous defense of Prop 8. Whether or not Olson and Boise actually believe that they can secure such an award, it nonetheless adds a huge bargaining chip against the Prop 8 supporters who could likely be facing an award that could push them into bankruptcy. And rightly so. It would be sweet indeed to see the religious extremists at Alliance Defense Fund get hit with a crushing fee award to the plaintiffs. Here are some highlights from the Advocate:
*
Attorneys representing two California gay couples in the federal Proposition 8 case may seek to recoup mounting legal fees from their opponents if an appeals court upholds U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker's landmark decision. In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matter — which they opposed in a Wednesday filing.

"Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten [our] time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."
*
Ted Olson and David Boies has not disclosed how much the litigation has cost, though the organization charged with funding the suit, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, has in recent weeks reached out to the public for donations as the case proceeds to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

Christianist Cat Fight: Liberty Counsel v. Alliance Defense Fund

Nothing is more entertaining than watching the spectacle of Christianist wingnuts going at each other. In this case it is Liberty Counsel attacking Alliance Defense Fund - both are groups that seek to eliminate the Constitution's provisions barring an established religion - for losing Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The whack jobs at Liberty Counsel wanted to intervene in the case and ADF blocked that effort. The reality is that even with Liberty Counsel (which has lost consistently in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian custody saga) had been in the case, there STILL would have been no legitimate science or objective facts to support Prop 8. It is and always has been in the final analysis a legal measure aimed at punishing same sex couples for not conforming to Christianist religious beliefs. The equally theocratic Catholic news service, Life Site News, has coverage of the continuing back biting and blame game. You have to love it when one religious extremist group calls another one to "too extreme." Here are some highlights:
*
In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker’s controversial decision finding Proposition 8 (California’s constitutional amendment protecting true marriage) unconstitutional, an internal spat has broken out between two different Christian legal societies about the manner in which the defense of Prop. 8 was handled.
*
[A]ccording to Liberty Counsel, the ADF kept them out of the Proposition 8 trial because they disagreed over legal strategy - a disagreement that LC says resulted in a radically weakened argument that ignored the central reasons to oppose homosexual "marriage."
*
At the time, the ADF's Andrew Pugno said that Liberty Counsel should not defend the proposition. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pugno has said that the Campaign for California Families (CCF), Liberty Counsel's client, "represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got [Proposition 8] passed." "The proponents believed that intervention by that group would harm, not help, our case," Pugno told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).
*
Matthew Staver, chairman of the LC , denies that that the CCF had worked against Proposition 8, and told LSN that there were two reasons the ADF opposed LC's intervention. "First was a misplaced idea of competition or domination of the case," he said. "And second, a desire to narrow the defense so as not to focus or even address the consequences of homosexuality and homosexual marriage." "We wanted to include that as part of our defense," he continued.
*
According to Staver, the ADF "basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on."
*
Staver believes that addressing the negative aspects of homosexuality is "a very critical component to the case, as to why same-sex marriage would ultimately harm marriage." The ADF nevertheless "completely refused to put on that kind of testimony," he said.

Federal Judge Upholds Dismissal of Counseling Student Who Refused to Counsel Gay Clients

Over the last two days I have commented on the (in my view, frivolous) lawsuit brought in Georgia by Jennifer Keeton, an apparent Christianist Kool-Aid drinker who believes her rights trump all else and who seems Hell bent to become a self-made Christian martyr. Who knows, maybe she's angling for speaking fees before various Uber-Christian group where she can decry the supposed persecution of Christians. Thus, it is ironic that today a federal court in Michigan basically drop kicked Julea Ward, a would be Christian martyr at Eastern Michigan University, who had played the same persecuted victim card now being played by Ms. Keeton. The U.S. District Court in Detroit upheld the university's expulsion of Julea Ward, a student in a high school counseling program, who refused to participate in a course practicum in a university operated clinic where she had to among other things counsel a gay client. What is truly amazing - and indicative of the self-centeredness of such supposed Christians like Ward and Keeton - is that the student who Ward refused to counsel was suicidal. Yet Ward - whose goal, again, was to counsel high school students where she might have done untold damage - refused to do anything to affirm the gay client or address his depression.
*
Apparently, a gay suicide was preferable to Ward than treating the gay student like a human being. As I stated in prior posts, if individuals like Ward and Keeton want to pursue education careers yet refuse to abide by applicable professional ethical rules, they deserve to be expelled. Ward was represented in the lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund, a parasitic organization, that uses cases like Ward's and Keeton's to wring money from the ignorant and gullible. Here are highlights from The Chronicle of Higher Education:
*
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Eastern Michigan University by a student who was kicked out of its graduate program in school counseling last year for refusing, on religious grounds, to affirm homosexual behavior in serving clients.
*
In an order granting summary judgment to the university on Monday, Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit held that the university's requirement that the student be willing to serve people who are homosexual was reasonable, and did not amount to an infringement of the Christian student's constitutional rights to free speech and free expression of religion.
*
The university "had a right and duty to enforce compliance" with professional ethics rules barring counselors from being intolerant or engaging in discrimination, and no reasonable person could conclude that a counseling program's requirement that students comply with such rules "conveys a message endorsing or disapproving of religion," Judge Steeh wrote.
*
To maintain accreditation through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, the program that Ms. Ward was in is required to familiarize its students with the ethics codes set forth by the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association. In refusing to affirm the homosexual behavior of clients, Ms. Ward was accused of violating various provisions of the groups' ethics codes, including prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and an American Counseling Association rule holding that its members should not demonstrate "an inability to tolerate different points of view."
*
Judge Steeh's ruling held that the policy at issue was not a speech code but "an integral part of the curriculum," and that Ms. Ward's dismissal from the program "was entirely due" to her "refusal to change her behavior," rather than her beliefs.
*
The ruling said that "instead of exploring options that might allow her to counsel homosexuals about their relationships," Ms. Ward "stated that she would not engage in gay-affirming counseling, which she viewed as helping a homosexual client engage in an immoral lifestyle." The ruling said, "Her refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

*

I hope the Court hearing Keeton's case in Georgia will be equally logical and make it clear that certain careers require adherence to professional codes and that self-centered students who refuse to comply deserve to be expelled. The Christianists' demand for special rights needs to be defeated.

Yet Another Faux Christian Martyr - Jennifer Keeton

It looks like there may be another Carrie Prejean out to use false allegations of anti-Christian prejudice to boost her celebrity. This time the self-made martyrdom is taking place at Augusta State University in Georgia. One Jennifer Keeton, a graduate student in the school of counseling, is claiming that she was persecuted and threatened with expulsion if she did not sacrifice her religious beliefs and complete a remediation plan that includes diversity sensitivity workshops. Ms. Keeton has been most vocal in braying her view that homosexuality is "immoral and a lifestyle choice." Frankly, if those are Keeton's views, she needs to be expelled from a program that would giver her a graduate degree and unloose her on an unsuspecting public. EVERY legitimate medical and mental health association holds that homosexuality is NOT a choice, is not changeable and the APA has condemned ex-gay therapy as unethical. If Ms. Keeton wants to be a licensed professional in this field, she needs to embrace scientific knowledge or find a different area of endeavor where she will not be likely harming patients. Personally, I am way over supposed professionals wrapping themselves in ignorant religious based bigotry and then playing the martyr. Here are highlights from the Atlanta Constitution:
*
A graduate student has filed a lawsuit accusing Augusta State University officials of violating her constitutional rights by ordering her to change her views opposing homosexuality.
*
Jennifer Keeton, a graduate student in the school of counseling, says in her court filing that the school threatened to expel her if she didn't complete a remediation plan that includes diversity sensitivity workshops. Keeton had said in and out class that, according to her Christian beliefs, homosexuality is immoral and a lifestyle choice, according to her suit.
*
Keeton is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian attorneys. The suit accuses Augusta State officials of violating Keeton's First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
*
Keeton, who is pursuing a master's degree in the education college's counseling program, was told her beliefs are incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession, her attorneys said in a news release. The lawsuit argues those beliefs would not affect Keeton's ability to counsel gays and lesbians.
*
The defense fund has filed similar lawsuits against Missouri State University and Eastern Michigan University.
*
There is no explanation as to why Keeton is in graduate school when a good Christian woman should be barefoot and pregnant and not working outside the home if her alleged religious beliefs were applied to their logical conclusion. Oh, and no word yet on whether Keeton has fake boobs or has made sex videos like Prejean.

"National Day of Prayer" Ruled Unconstitutional

In a decision that will drive the wingnuts berserk, a federal District Court has ruled that the so-called National Day O Prayer is unconstitutional and crosses the line in terms of the separation of church and state. It never ceases to amaze me how the Christianists decry government involvement in religion except for when it comes to the use of governmental power to enforce Christianist views on all or grasping for a handout of public monies that can be manipulated to further sectarianism. Kudos to U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb and her ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional Thursday because the day amounts to a call for religious action. I have no problem if people want to hold religious beliefs. I do have a problem when those beliefs are forced on other citizens and/or laws are enacted or kept in place to further one specific religious belief system - anti-gay laws being a prime example. Here are highlights from WUSA9-TV:
*
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.
*
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic. "In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray," Crabb wrote.
*
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
*
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States. Obama issued a proclamation last year but did not hold public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.
*
Crabb wrote that her ruling shouldn't be considered a bar to any prayer days until all appeals are exhausted. U.S. Justice Department attorneys who represented the federal government in the case were reviewing the ruling Thursday afternoon, agency spokesman Charles Miller said. He declined further comment.
*
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb's ruling flawed and promised to appeal. "It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.
*
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb's ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation's birth.
*
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."

Wingnut Pastors Break Tax Laws

Over the weekend, with the encouragement of various far right Christianists organizations, pastors at nearly three dozen anti-gay churches basically gave the finger to the IRS and other law abiding religious denominations and charities by actively supported political candidates. Why, because they think the laws apply to everyone else and that they can do whatever they want in the name of so-called "religious freedom." Under the tax laws, in exchange for tax exempt status, an organization (be it a church or any other charitable organization) may not endorse political candidates. As I have stated over and over, the Christianists think they can flout the laws that they do not like and/or that they have special rights. They whine about "special rights" for gays, but the truth of the matter is that it is they who want special rights. Hopefully, the IRS will pursue the violations, revoke the churches tax-exempt status and go after them for taxes. In my view, these Christianists and others like them are a clear and present danger to the rights of others and need to be stopped. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund. The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed. Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.

*

Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition. “The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.

*

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line. The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”

*

The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

*

Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”

*

Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

New York Executive Order on Gay Marriage Upheld

The legal gadflies at the Christianist fruit farm Alliance Defense Fund have lost yet another court case in their jihad against gays and gay marriage. No doubt the loss will be attributed by the ADF to "activist judges" (or, since the judge was female, an uppity woman who wasn't at home barefoot and pregnant per the Christianists' biblical dictates) rather than legal precedent and case law. Not to mention ADF lawyers who are great at quoting scripture but not so good when it comes to being lawyers. Knowing the ADF, it will likely appeal the ruling and squander more tax payer dollars in its frivolous anti-gay obsessed agenda. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

(New York City) A New York judge ruled Tuesday that Governor David Paterson (D) did not act illegally when he issued a directive ordering state agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. “To recognize same-sex marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions is consistent with New York’s common law, statutory law, and constitutional separation of powers,” said the ruling by Justice Lucy Billings in Bronx Supreme Court.

*

NYS attorney’s representing Paterson argued that the governor was within his constitutional rights to issue directives to state agencies over which he has legal authority.

*

Neither the ruling nor Paterson’s directive allowed for same-sex couples to marry in New York. Both were limited to marriages performed only in California and Massachusetts and in countries which have legalized gay marriage.

Court Rejects Christianist Challenge to Proposition 8 Ballot Summary

As I previously posted, the enemies of gay marriage in California are apoplectic that California Attorney General Jerry Brown's,office re-wrote the summary of Proposition 8 for the November ballot to correctly describe the amendment initiative as eliminating the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Such an accurate description of the consequences of passage of Proposition is too much for the disingenuous Christianists who prefer to use vague description and euphemisms so that the uninformed can be more easily duped into voting the way the Christianists want without often realizing the full consequences. Yesterday a California Court ruled in favor of Brown's summary and the Christianists are shrieking like a cat with its tail caught in a meat grinder saying they will appeal the ruling.

*

I continually find it ironic that those who claim to be such devout Christians are among the most dishonest and disingenuous people one is likely to ever meet. The push to pass Virginia's "Marriage Amendment" to amend the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights to LIMIT rights is a perfect example of false advertising by these modern day Pharisees. All of the Christianist blather was about stopping gay marriage in Virginia leaving out the inconvenient fact that ALL couples, gay or straight, would be impacted. Since the amendment's passage, many unmarried heterosexual couples - particularly the senior citizen set where re-marriage can result in the loss of medical coverage and/or retirement benefits - have learned to their horror that are total legal strangers to one another and that full sets of legal documentation - often costing more than some can afford - are required to protect their relationships. Duplicity is the one consistent hallmark of the Christianists. Here are highlights from the Los Angeles Times:

*

A Sacramento judge on Friday said state officials do not have to rewrite the ballot summary describing Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban voters will consider in November. The ruling is a setback for the initiative's supporters, who say the title and summary written by Attorney General Jerry Brown are argumentative and could prejudice voters.

*

In his 8-page ruling, the judge said the title and summary is an "accurate statement" of the proposition by saying it would eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. "The court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization," Frawley wrote.

*

Brown wrote a new title and summary after the measure qualified. He said he did so to reflect the state Supreme Court ruling in May that overturned California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The new summary says the proposition would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." Brown responded to Friday's decision by saying the court properly dismissed a lawsuit that "was more about politics than the law." The initiative's supporters said they would appeal.

*

Supporters of Proposition 8 also had asked Frawley to order state officials to modify arguments against the measure that will appear in voter pamphlets, including one saying the initiative will not affect school instruction. He denied that request.

Suit Seeks to Block New York Policy on Same-Sex Unions

The Alliance Defense Fund, the insidious coalition of anti-gay Christianist organizations I described in a previous post, has raised its ugly head again, this time in New York State where it has filed a lawsuit seeking to block Governor David Patterson’s order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside New York State. In league with ADF are five conservatve GOP state legislators (I know, what a surprise), Senator Serphin R. Maltese of Queens, Senator Martin J. Golden of Brooklyn; Assemblymen Daniel J. Burling of Warsaw and Brian M. Kolb of Geneva; and James N. Tedisco of Schenectady. It is amazing what lengths these folks will go to in order further their agenda of marginalizing and denigrating gay Americans, all in the name of their supposedly loving God. One can only speculate on the number of homeless and straving children around the world that could be cared for with the huge amounts of money they spend seeking to limit the secular civil rights of others. Here are some highlights from the New York Times coverage:

*

ALBANY — Five state lawmakers, backed by a conservative Christian policy group, sued Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday, seeking to block the governor’s order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside New York. The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, came as the Senate Republican conference all but ruled out taking any action to try to challenge the governor.

*
The Christian group, the Alliance Defense Fund, based in Arizona, which represents the lawmakers, has fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in several states. In Tuesday’s suit, it argued that Mr. Paterson usurped the Legislature’s authority as the sole branch of government empowered to decide what the state’s definition of marriage is.

*

The suit seeks an injunction against an order that Mr. Paterson’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, issued last month directing all state agencies to review their policies to ensure that they conform to a decision by a state appellate court in Rochester in February. That decision held that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, even though New York does not itself allow gays and lesbians to marry.

*

“This is a lawsuit that’s not going anywhere,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents Ms. Martinez. “The governor is doing what a governor should do, which is direct his agencies to comply with the law. He’s not circumventing anything. He’s not doing anything that violates the law,” Ms. Lieberman said. Lawyers for Ms. Martinez said on Tuesday that the Alliance Defense Fund had failed so far in previous attempts to challenge New York State and local agencies that have recognized same-sex marriages.