Focus on the Family Wants a Special Rights for Christians Amendment in Colorado

Apparently, Daddy Dobson's always foul and hate filled Focus on the Family ("FOTF") has a short memory that omit the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Romer v. Evans which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment which stripped the LGBT citizens of Colorado of non-discrimination protections> Why so? Because FOTF is now pushing a constitutional amendment in Colorado that would give religious groups free reign to discriminate against LGBT people. The proposed amendment is disingenuously called the "Religious Freedom Amendment”even though the amendment's real affect would be to allow Christianists to trample on the religious freedoms of others. It sounds precisely like something that would cause the bitter old men in dresses in the Catholic Church hierarchy to have near orgasms since it would quasi-legitimize the hierarchy's anti-gay jihad. Think Progress looks at this nasty amendment and the bigotry - and bigots - that is the moving force behind it. Here are highlights:

Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund are apparently organizing to again pursue a constitutional amendment in Colorado that would give religious groups free reign to discriminate . . .

The so-called “Religious Freedom Amendment” asserts that a “sincerely held religious belief” cannot be “burdened” by the government:

(1) The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

(2) A burden includes indirect burdens such a [sic] as withholding of one or more benefits, assessing one or more penalties, exclusion from one of [sic] more government programs, and/or exclusion from one or more government facility [sic].

[T]he amendment not-so-subtly demands that religious groups have more power over citizens than the government by essentially giving them veto power over all policy decisions. This language could easily be construed such that the government would be permanently tethered to subsidizing religious groups, no matter how exclusive the policies of that group would be.

For example, after civil unions legislation passed in Illinois last year, the state decided to stop subsidizing Catholic Charities’ adoption services with taxpayer funding because the agencies refused to serve same-sex couples. Were this amendment to pass in Colorado, the state could never back out of such funding if organizations claimed their discrimination was based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

Conservatives failed to place a similar amendment on the ballot in 2010. Ideally, this proposal will meet the same fate

Where Were the "Good Christians" in North Carolina?

In a blog post today blogger friend Pam Spaulding voiced her disillusionment and hurt over the passage of anti-gay legislation that will put a proposed constitutional amendment banning all legal recognition of same sex couples on the ballot to coincide with the GOP primary next May. I have experienced Pam's pain and hurt since I experienced the same feelings back in November, 2006, when Virginia's heinous Marshall-Newman amendment was passed and banned any and all recognition of same sex relationships (in Virginia pets and their owners now have a stronger legal relationship that do same sex couples). Sadly, the proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment - which was drafted with the help of anti-gay hate groups and Christianist extremists - copied the worse aspects of Virginia's foul amendment. The objective, of course, is to denigrate and stigmatize same sex couples and in effect dehumanize us and our relationships. Here's a sampling of Pam's reaction:

For the first time in a long time – I just bawled driving home; I’m not one to cry easily, either. The North Carolina General Assembly has declared that I’m subhuman – but they’ll gladly take my lesbian tax dollars, thank you very much.

I just need some time to grieve for the state that I love, that I grew up in, and decided after many years in New York City to return to because at heart, I’m a southern girl. . . . We need to start on GOTV work if we want to defeat a marriage amendment.

Whether or not Christians want to admit it, this foul piece of legislation in North Carolina is the work of those wrapping themselves in the flag of Christianity. Much of the effort was the result of the work of anti-gay hate groups, Christianist and religious leaders and their followers who inundated the legislature with anti-gay messages and who, if given a free rein, would abolish religious freedom for anyone not subscribing to their intolerant and hate based belief system. I'm sorry, but I cannot help but ask "where were the good Christians" in this fight? As Pam previously noted:

Equality North Carolina today released the names of 242 clergy and faith leaders from across North Carolina who have, in the past two weeks, signed on to a statement publicly denouncing a proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment and calling on state lawmakers to join them in opposing the legislation. The clergy join 526 additional people of faith every corner of the state who have also signed a public declaration against the amendment.

But where were the masses of supposedly "good Christians"? Did they write and contact their legislators in droves as the Christianists and Bible beaters did? By Pam's numbers, seven hundred and sixty-eight Christians and religious leaders went on record in their opposition to the legislation. But how many others did so? Sadly, I suspect very few. It's yet another example of the Christian equivalent of the "good German" phenomenon where people sit by silently and allow evil things to happen. Some will say that I am too strong in my calling out of the "good Christians" for their weakness and tacit hand in allowing evil. If anything, I am probably to easy on them. It makes me sick and it makes me wonder when these people will wake up? When their own freedom of religion is lost?

Another North Carolina blogger who I consider a "straight ally" whether he considers himself as such or not summed up the situation in North Carolina well. Here's highlights from Civil Commotion:

The North Carolina Senate voted 30-16 Tuesday to place on the May ballot a constitutional amendment which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If enacted, the amendment will proscribe same sex marriage, same sex civil unions, and may be construed to proscribe the same sex partner benefits increasingly common amongst Fortune 500 companies.

The backers of this amendment have struggled for years to get it on the ballot, and poll after poll has shown that, though most Tarheels are opposed to same sex marriage, there is little support for actually amending the constitution. For several good reasons, which deserve to prevail, the amendment ought to be defeated.

First, it is morally objectionable. Absent a showing of harm to anybody, neither I, nor you, nor anybody else, has a right to put his hands on his neighbor’s Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

Second, the amendment is being advanced in a fundamentally dishonest way. . . . If the legislature really wanted the let the people “make that decision,” (and remember, polls have repeatedly shown that few of us are interested in such an amendment) they would have put it on the November, or general election, ballot. In the event, they’ve put it on the May, or primary, ballot. Obama is not expected to face a primary challenger, and so few Democrats will have much of an incentive to go to the polls. Which loony should carry the Republican banner is undecided, though, so there will be a lot more Republicans at the polls on primary day. In short, they’ve stacked the deck to enable a minority of activists to amend the constitution — in the name of letting the people “make that decision.”

The overt malice of the amendment, and the dishonesty and effrontery of its champions, is downright staggering — and deserve to be decisively smacked down.

One can only hope that the measure is either defeated or that the federal courts will strike down such bans on civil marriage as unconstitutional.

Iowans Not Overly Motivated to Over Turn Gay Marriage

In a new poll, residents of Iowa are not overwhelmingly motivated to get on the repeal gay marriage bandwagon and, indeed, enthusiasm for such an effort lies generally among the wingnut crowd. Hopefully, as was the case in Massachusetts, the majority of voters will see - if they are not already seeing - that gay marriage is no threat except to the Bible beaters and that it has no negative effect on the lives of other citizens. The Des Moines Register has a report on the poll findings which will probably not be encouraging the Maggie Gallagher and others making a very nice livelihood off of peddling anti-gay marriage lies and animosity (in my opinion Maggie has less integrity than a cheap prostitute - at least the prostitute is honest as to why she is doing what she is doing). Here are some highlights:

*

Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples, according to The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll. Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. The most intensity about the issue shows up among opponents. The percentage of Iowans who say they strongly oppose gay marriage (35 percent) is nearly double the percentage who say they strongly favor it (18 percent).

*

The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. Sixty-three percent say candidates' stands on other issues will be more important in making their decisions in the 2010 elections.

*

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April's unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don't care much or are not sure. Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections. "It's really none of my business what other people do in their lives," said Curt Goodell, 38, a Johnston resident.

*

David Redlawsk, a former political science professor at the University of Iowa, took note of the finding that almost all Iowans say the ruling has had no impact upon their lives. "Given how hard it is to amend the constitution, by the time a vote will happen, this will be the new normal," Redlawsk said. "There's a core that oppose it and always will, but, for most people, they're ready to move on."

*

What I find sad is that most of the sheeple who get manipulated by Maggie Gallagher and those like her are clueless to the fact that these parasites are making many times the typical voters income living off of anti-gay animus. It is truly sick and it is anything but Christian conduct.

Lawsuits to Challenge Proposition 8 Passage

It's hard to get up sometimes after being punched in the gut, but that's what is already happening in California in the form of three lawsuits being prepared to challenge the likely passage of Proposition 8. One suit will challenge the procedure used for the initiative under Article 18 of the California Constitution and at first blush seems to have a viable argument - i.e., that minor changes can be done via simple initiative while those impacting basic rights require a more complex process including action by the state legislature. The more involved process would obviously help protect against the abuse of minorities by a simple majority of voters. Other grounds for the challenge may also arise under the U. S. Constitution's ban on ex-post facto laws not to mention the equal protection clause. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

San Francisco, California) At least three lawsuits are are in the works to challenge Proposition 8, a proposed amendment to the California constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. One of the suits is planned by City of San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera’s office. A second is by the three LGBT groups that won the historic California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in the state. The third is by one of the couples who were married after the court ruling went into effect in May.

*

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, a preliminary move to a suit.

*
The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone, by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.

*

The petition also says that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The groups in the petition say that under the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first. The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works, the groups said in a statement.

*

Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid, the petition said.

*

Generally, the pro-gay litigators have run circles around the Christianist attorneys who often are high on ideology and religious fanaticism, but low on legal skills. I haven't yet taken a look at the California case law that may further elaborate on the constitutional amendment process.

Proposition 8 Supporters May Sue Over Accurate Description of Initiative

UPDATED: In more bad news for the Christianists, the Los Angeles Times is also reporting that Pacific Gas & Electric ("PG&E"" has announced it is donating $250,000 to the effort to defeat Proposition 8. Moreover, the utility also said it will spearhead the formation of a business advisory council that will seek to get other businesses around California to to defeat the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

*

*

*

What a surprise! The folks who claim to be "Godly Christians" and who should, therefore, support telling the truth are all in a dither because the California Attorney General's Office has revised the description of Proposition 8 to accurately describe its legal impact. God forbid that voters accurately understand what passage of the initiative would mean. Here in Virginia, the Marriage Amendment that unfortunately passed in 2006 was advertised by its supporters as necessary to "protect marriage." What they left out was that ALL unmarried couples, both gay and straight, were targeted. Thus, many unmarried straights to this day do not understand the consequences of the Amendment's passage and how it renders their partner a total stranger under the law. It would appear that the Christianist organizations seek to pull the same trick in California. Or at least they did until the new description was released. Here are some highlights from the Los Angeles Times:

*

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.

*

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

*

Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change."What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

*

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed."The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

*

If the Christianists' agenda cannot stand the bright light of day, with voters being able to clearly understand the consequences of a "Yes" vote, perhaps that ought to tell them something. Unfortunately, truth, honesty and integrity are not issues with which these fanatics concern themselves.