Marjory Stoneman Douglas Would be Proud of MSD Students

Social rights and environmentalist activist Marjory Stoneman Douglas

As right wing trolls and NRA apologists (and most likely some Russian bits as well) attack them, the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are living up to the legacy of the woman after whom their school was named.  For those not in the know, Margory Stoneman Douglas was an environmental and social justice activist who lived to be 108 years old.  Wikipedia offers this description of this "take no prisoners" woman:

Marjory Stoneman Douglas was an American journalist, author, women's suffrage advocate, and conservationist known for her staunch defense of the Everglades against efforts to drain it and reclaim land for development. Moving to Miami as a young woman to work for The Miami Herald, she became a freelance writer, producing over a hundred short stories that were published in popular magazines. Her most influential work was the book The Everglades: River of Grass (1947), which redefined the popular conception of the Everglades as a treasured river instead of a worthless swamp. Its impact has been compared to that of Rachel Carson's influential book Silent Spring (1962). Her books, stories, and journalism career brought her influence in Miami, enabling her to advance her causes.
 As a young woman Douglas was outspoken and politically conscious of the women's suffrage and civil rights movements. . . . . She received numerous awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was inducted into several halls of fame.  Douglas lived to 108, working until nearly the end of her life for Everglades restoration. Upon her death, an obituary in The Independent in London stated, "In the history of the American environmental movement, there have been few more remarkable figures than Marjory Stoneman Douglas."

In short, she was a kick ass, make no apologies activist.    A piece in the Tampa Bay Times argues that Marjory Stoneman Douglas would be proud of the #NeverAgain activist students at the school bearing her name.  Here are highlights:

Moments after the AR-15 assault at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School hit the news, emails and social media alerts pinged in my in-box. I wrote a biography of the school’s namesake several years ago, and people were messaging to express their horror over what had happened. A secondary concern of some was that the good name of Douglas, one of our late, great citizens of Florida, would become, like Columbine and Sandy Hook, synonymous with gun violence tragedy.

I have come to see the issue differently. Too many names on too many public buildings either belong to an unsavory or obscure figure of the past. . . . But Douglas, who lived to be 108, had an enduring public life, one that resonates in a positive way with what happened at the school named for her. For one, she never shied from brutal truths.

What shifted my perspective of Douglas’ relationship to events was the cage-rattling "BS" speech Emma Gonzalez gave three days after the shooting. The students had risen up. If Douglas were around today, she would find their response to gun-control complacency inspiring. In turn, whether the students know it or not, their initiative is in keeping with Douglas’ legacy.

Most people remember Douglas as the pearl-necklaced icon of Florida environmentalism, the wicked-smart, take-no-prisoners spokesperson of the original movement to protect the Everglades. But the green matriarch was only one side to her long and complex life, and not the side to which she identified most closely. All her adult life, she was first and foremost a defender of social justice.

The last public speech she gave, in 1989 at age 99, was on women’s rights. For decades, she denounced Big Ag’s practice of subjecting immigrant and migrant labor to concentration-camp-like living and working conditions. When others complained about the Cuban "invasion" of Miami, and fled, she celebrated its Latin transformation. After a communist witch hunt in the city in the 1950s turned anti-Semitic and anti-black, she became a founding board member of the first ACLU chapter organized in the South.

She also knew what it was like to be snubbed by state lawmakers, as were Douglas High students recently when state House representatives voted resoundingly against considering a ban on assault weapons. In 1917, after Douglas and sister suffragists returned from a fruitless lobbying trip to the state Capitol, she remarked: "We could have been talking to a bunch of dead mackerel, for all the response we got."

But Douglas was invigorated rather than dispirited. She returned to Tallahassee many more times to berate lawmakers for their inaction (they did not officially endorse a woman’s right to vote until 1969). She never avoided a showdown with anyone. She could "take the heat," as she said when insults, slurs and lies were cast against her, because she believed deeply in her cause.

The Douglas High students have shown their own resolve. Gun advocates, conspiracy theorists and run-of-the-mill thugs have assaulted and harassed them online. But they are likely to endure. As one tweeted, "You can’t stop us, you never will and you never can, we have the strength and grit to last far longer than these politicians." The student groundswell has lifted beyond a fly-by-night protest to the level of a cause, one showing the potential of expanding into a historic movement for citizens’ rights against gun violence.

When Douglas was sensing her end, she said, the "most important thing is to prepare competent people to follow you." She trusted young people to carry on.

She had inspired many, and believed in their potential. Those at Douglas High are living up to theirs. It was born from tragedy and out of their hearts. Their competence is sure, and their cause just. It is the animating force of their extraordinary initiative. Their inspiration comes from within, but if ever they need a morale lift or guidance from the past, they need only to look at the person behind their school’s name.

I suspect that were she still living, Marjory Stoneman Douglas would not be a Republican or a Trump supporter. 

In Wake of Marriage Ruling, Virginia Code Needs an Overhaul

While the Supreme Court has struck down all state marriage bans and found a constitutional right to same sex marriage, here in Virginia, the Code of Virginia still requires a major overhaul in order to bring it in alignment with the high Court's ruling.  Many provisions as worded still make references to "husband and wife" and will continue to impair the rights of same sex couples.  For example, question about how married same sex couples can hold title as "tenants by the entirety with right of survivorship."  While most of the statutory provisions refer to "spouses,"  One section does not: 

§ 55-20.2. Tenants by the entireties in real and personal property; certain trusts.

A. Any husband and wife may own real or personal property as tenants by the entireties. Personal property may be owned as tenants by the entireties whether or not the personal property represents the proceeds of the sale of real property. An intent that the part of the one dying should belong to the other shall be manifest from a designation of a husband and wife as "tenants by the entireties" or "tenants by the entirety."

B. Any property of a husband and wife that is held by them as tenants by the entireties and conveyed to their joint revocable or irrevocable trusts, or to their separate revocable or irrevocable trusts, shall have the same immunity from the claims of their separate creditors as it would if it had remained a tenancy by the entirety, so long as (i) they remain husband and wife, (ii) it continues to be held in the trust or trusts, and (iii) it continues to be their property

This provision is important because it protects jointly owned property from creditors of only one of the spouses.  A piece in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the need for significant changes to the Code of Virginia.  Here are highlights:

[N]ow, following the final resolution of one of the nation’s most divisive social issues, work already has begun in the state legislature and in the regulatory and administrative agencies to update hundreds of sections and regulations in the Code of Virginia to reflect the inclusion of legally recognized marriages between same-sex couples.

Possibly the biggest challenge — the issuing of marriage licenses to include same-sex marriages — already was implemented nine months ago, when gay marriage became legal in the commonwealth. On Oct. 6, the Supreme Court left standing a decision from lower federal courts that invalidated the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

[L]awmakers and attorneys for the state also must address areas such as tax, inheritance and property laws; medical care; end-of-life decisions; adoption; child custody; and many others.
 

“It certainly will be a massive undertaking in terms of the number of areas of the law that might be affected,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Virginia and the author of the modern Virginia Constitution.

[D]uring this year’s General Assembly session, Del. Marcus B. Simon, D-Fairfax, sponsored legislation that would have revised references to certain gender-specific terms in the code, replacing “husband and wife” with the gender-neutral “spouse.”

“The bill would have simply said that any reference to husband and wife could be read as spouse and references to mother and father could be read as parent, to reflect the new reality that same-sex marriage is permitted and is the law of the land, even in Virginia,” Simon said in an email Sunday.

But Republican state legislators remained leery of adopting regulatory changes ahead of a final Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, blocking attempts by Democrats to update the code.

That changed Friday in light of the Supreme Court ruling, when House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, announced that Republican leadership would no longer stand in the way of updating state laws to reflect legalization of same-sex marriage.

However, in addition to updating existing code sections, gay-rights advocates are asking for new legislation aimed at protecting same-sex couples from discrimination.

“We still are a state where openly gay or transgender people can be fired at work, denied housing and denied services and businesses in restaurants. There are people in the state who will not be putting their wedding photos on their desk because of that,” Parrish said.

The question that remains is what is going to happen with Marshall’s marriage amendment, backed by 57 percent of Virginia voters in 2006, after the highest court in the land has deemed it unconstitutional.

To remove it would require a new amendment, which the state legislature would have to pass twice, with one House of Delegates election in between, before it would be put before voters on a ballot.

Time will tell if the Virginia GOP lives up to its promise to update the Code.

Jeb Bush and Christie Spout Anti-Woman Rhetoric at Wing Nut Gathering

The willingness of would be Republican presidential nominees to prostitute themselves to the Christofascists continues unabated.   And these political whores have shown that they are prepared to trash smart, independent women in the quest to win the votes of misogynists in the GOP base.   Joining such ranks are Jeb "Jebbie" Bush and Chris Christie who made statements that would make the always delusional Phyllis Schlafly proud.   Think Progress looks at the unseemly self-prostitution at the wing nut gathering this week sponsored by Faith & Freedom Coalition and Concerned Bitches Women for America.   The GOP war on women is nowhere close to being over.  Here are highlights:

“It was right here in this room that we celebrated the burial of the Equal Rights Amendment,” conservative Phyllis Schlafly, who led the fight against the constitutional amendment in the 1970s, told a cheering crowd in Washington, D.C. on Friday.

Schlafly has continued her anti-feminism, anti-women’s choice messaging. She has remained in the spotlight by making incendiary remarks, like that women should be paid less than men so they can find husbands. And at the conservative conference co-hosted by the Faith & Freedom Coalition and Concerned Women for America this week, her anti-choice rhetoric was echoed by many of the Republican candidates vying for the presidency in 2016. 

Many of the candidates who spoke discussed their faith and their traditional family values to justify their anti-choice, anti-equality platforms. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who declared his candidacy earlier this week, listed off his anti-choice credentials, including the fact that he signed into law a partial-birth abortion ban and pushed through a constitutional amendment requiring that parents be given notice when their minor daughters seek an abortion. 

Bush also lent his support as governor to “crisis pregnancy centers,” right-wing organizations often posing as women’s health clinics with an explicit anti-choice agenda that use misleading information and deceptive tactics to try to dissuade women from choosing an abortion.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is likely to announce his campaign within the month, also drew loud applause from the conservative audience when he discussed his cuts to Planned Parenthood funding. 

“When [the Democratic legislature] sends me Planned Parenthood funding year after year after year and I am the first governor to veto Planned Parenthood funding out of the budget, there is no room for compromise there,” he said. 

In 2010, Christie eliminated all family planning funding in New Jersey, cutting off $7.5 million that used to support 58 clinics. The action has had drastic effects on the state and its ability to meet the need for family planning services ever since — nine health centers have been forced to close and impoverished residents have suffered.

The biggest irony is that if these Republicans and the Christofascists really wanted to cut the number of abortions, as Europe has shown, the way to do it is through comprehensive, science based sex education in schools and a ready availability of contraception.  The "godly folk," of course strenuously oppose sex ed and contraception, and in the process make the number of abortions higher than they need be. 

What "President Romney" Would Mean for Women

Mitt Romney and most of the GOP have shown themselves to be real enemies of LGBT Americans.  But gays are hardly the party's only targets.  Minorities of all stripes and women remain in the cross hairs of a white patriarchal agenda.   While issues - job numbers, an anti-poor and middle class budget agenda - have distracted the debate, women in particular would be foolish to believe that the GOP war on women isn't real and/or has ceased.  An article in Rolling Stone looks at what a President Romney working with a GOP controlled House of Representatives could mean for American women the vast majority of which do not have the hired help and luxury that Ann Romney experienced as an "at home mother."  Here are article highlights:

Mitt Romney wants you to know that he and his party are "extraordinarily pro-woman" – "pro-opportunity for women, pro-moms, pro-working moms, pro-working women," as he put it on Fox News the other night. .  .  .  .   Ever since Obama opened up a double-digit lead with women voters during the recent controversies over birth control, Republicans from Romney on down have worked hard to steer the conversation away from divisive social issues that make them look like religious nuts and back to more swing voter-friendly territory.

The conservative push to change the subject has basically succeeded, albeit with an assist from lousy job numbers. This is dangerous.  .   .   .   .  the real and continuing Republican drive to set back women’s rights and opportunities – remains very much alive.   And make no mistake: A Romney presidency will only escalate the assault. Let's take a look at exactly how, starting with the issue he says will attract women voters to the Republican ticket.

The Economy

American women earn on average 23 percent less than men – which adds up to an average loss of $383,000 in income over a working lifetime. Romney’s campaign couldn’t say recently whether their man would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act making it easier for women to file pay discrimination lawsuits   .   .   .   .    Democrats are pushing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which directly addresses the male-female pay disparity by putting teeth into the half-century old Equal Pay Act. Republicans oppose it and even deny the facts about wage inequality.

Romney famously declared,"I like being able to fire people," and certainly he got a lot of practice during his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital (where women made up only 10 percent of 95 vice-presidents when Romney was in charge). And a President Romney will be issuing plenty of pink slips to at least one large group of working women: public employees.  .   .   .   (Of the 601,000 government workers thrown out of work since June 2009 due to budget cuts, two out three were women.)

 

All of which is to say: Under a President Romney, expect economic progress for women to grind to a halt. And what about women’s sexual freedom and reproductive rights? On those issues, be prepared for a warp-speed ride in reverse.

Abortion

"Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do," Romney said during one debate, talking about the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. He also has called the decision "one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history."

The next president will almost certainly have the power to determine whether Roe stands or falls. There is currently a 5-4 pro-Roe majority on the Supreme Court. Yet Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court’s most eloquent defender of women’s rights, including abortion rights, is 83 and in failing health, and likely to retire during the next presidency.

Take Romney at his word: If he wins, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, leaving it up to the states to decide whether abortion remains legal.  Romney and other establishment Republicans tout states rights as the way to resolve a contentious issue in a divided country. "I would love the Supreme Court to say, 'Let’s send this back to the states,'"  .   .   .   Republicans would prefer you not look too closely at their platform, which calls for outlawing all abortions, without exception.

 In 2005, Gov. Romney vetoed a bill requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. He justified the move by citing the anti-birth control claptrap of the rightwing fringe that the morning after pill is a form of abortion.

The recent wave of state Personhood amendments and laws suggests this is not a far-fetched scenario. Personhood measures endow fertilized eggs with full legal rights, typically ban abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and open the door to bans on in-vitro fertilization, the IUD, and hormonal contraception.

Contraception
In January, when Romney was cruising to the nomination, he ridiculed George Stephanopoulus for asking him, during a presidential debate, if he thought states had a right to ban contraception. "George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising," he huffed.

Six weeks later Romney had endorsed the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to claim a "moral objection" and exclude potentially millions of women from getting birth control under their insurance coverage.

 Even after Romney had wrapped up the nomination and the Blunt Amendment had been defeated, the presumptive Republican nominee was still campaigning against the contraception mandate.

Romney had also pledged to restore George W. Bush’s so-called "conscience clause" allowing anyone in the health care delivery chain, say a clerk in a pharmacy, the right to refuse to sell contraceptives.

As long as Republicans retain control of the House – a near certainty if the GOP wins the presidency – Romney would have the power to deliver on these promises, and the substantial advances in women’s reproductive rights made under Obama will be reversed.

Ten days ago Romney campaigned in the crucial swing state of Virginia alongside Michele Bachmann and Governor Bob McDonnell. Bachmann praised Romney as the man who could "take the country back."  Back to what? Bachmann didn’t say. Now you know.

 

Woman who want to control their own lives and bodies need to wake up.  Romney and the Republican Party remain the enemy of women's rights even though the short attention span of the mainstream media has moved on to other issues.  The threat, however, remains very real.

Virgil Goode: Romney "Father of Homosexual Marriages"

Once upon a time in the past Virgil Goode, a one time independent,  was considered a semi-rational member of Congress.  Then he "went over to the Dark Side" and joined the GOP and began drinking Kool-Aid by the gallon.  Since being voted out of office, he's apparently continued drinking lots and lots of Kool-Aid.  That said, Goode's lunacy does have a humorous side.  Such as when he describes Mitt Romney as the "father of homosexual marriages."  Goode is running for president on the Constitution Party ticket.  The Augusta Free Press has coverage on Goode's batshitery which makes it very clear that in Goode's mind gays are less than human and undeserving of the rights enjoyed by other citizens.  These are highlights:

Former Fifth District Congressman Virgil Goode blasted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “the father of homosexual marriages” in a statement released to the news media on the eve of Romney’s visit to Liberty University this weekend.

Goode, now running for president on the Constitution Party ticket, referred to Romney’s move as Massachusetts governor to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of a state-court ruling.

“Gov. Romney did not stand fast in favor of traditional marriage,” said Goode, who lost his Fifth District seat in 2008 to Democrat Tom Perriello.  Goode said he has been a “consistent supporter of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

At this point in our country’s history, we need a president who will stand firmly behind traditional marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am suspicious that Gov. Romney, if elected president, could waffle again,” Goode said.

The stakes, to Goode: “If homosexual marriages become normal across the country, the impact on states like Virginia, which prohibit gay marriage, will be huge. State taxpayers will have to pay for the expanded health insurance costs and State retirement costs. At the federal level, the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund and the Department of Defense will be significant when homosexual partners are granted the same monetary benefits that heterosexual married couples have under current Social Security law and provisions covering military spouses,” he said.

It is noteworthy that there have been rumors in the past that Goode is a closet case.  Like Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum, Goode might be well advised to read the recent University of Rochester study on homophobes.  The good news is that if gets on the November ballot, he may siphon some of the wacko vote from Romney.

Microsoft and Major Companies Support Gay Marriage

In sharp contrast to the Commonwealth of Virginia which continues to stigmatize and reduce LGBT citizens to second or third class status, Microsoft and other leading corporations in Washington State have come out in support of the pending same sex legislation in the Washington legislature. Moreover, they say that legally recognizing same sex couples is good for business - a message lost on Virginia Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell who to date has done a mediocre job at best of attracting new jobs and employers to the Commonwealth. The reality is that progressive and innovative companies are not flocking to states where the Republican Party is racing backwards to the 11th Century. Here are highlights from the Seattle Times on the corporate endorse ments of marriage equality:

A letter signed by six prominent companies including Microsoft, was sent to legislative leaders on Thursday stating their support for gay marriage legislation in the state House and Senate.

As letters of support go, it's very short: "We write you today to show the support of our respective companies for SB 6239 and HB 2516 recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples." In addition to Microsoft, the letter was signed by officials from Vulcan, NIKE, RealNetworks, Group Health Cooperative, and Concur.

Microsoft just issued a short statement explaining it's support:

"Microsoft is joining other Northwest employers Concur, Group Health Cooperative, Nike, RealNetworks and Vulcan Inc. in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. This position builds on our history of supporting corporate and public policies that promote inclusion and equality.

"Microsoft's greatest asset is a talented workforce as diverse as our customers. As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, equitable and inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. This legislation would put Washington employers on equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples. Passing the bill would be good for our business and for the state's economy."

Here are some highlights from a more detailed explanation of Microsoft's position penned by Brad Smith, General Counsel & Executive Vice President, Legal & Corporate Affairs:

Every day, the national and global economies are becoming more diverse. The lifeblood of a business is its ability to understand and connect with its customers. We’re no exception. Now more than ever, the most effective workforce is a diverse workforce.

Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.

We also recognize that marriage has meaning as both a civil and a religious institution. Like the marriage equality bill passed last year in New York State with bipartisan and business support, this bill preserves religious freedom in Washington’s churches while ending discrimination in Washington law. Like the New York bill, we believe Washington’s legislation should be passed into law. It will make our state and our economy stronger.

If Taliban Bob truly cared about economic Virginia's future - as opposed to being obsessed with giving political fellatio to the most hate-filled elements in Virginia, including the hate merchants at The Family Foundation - he'd be pushing for a repeal of the Marshall-Newman Amendment and passage of legislation like that passed last June in New York State.

Gay Marriage Isn't Revolutionary No Matter What the Christianists Claim

A short while back, I noted that the true biblical model for marriage would seem to be polygamy - an inconvenient fact ignored by the Christianists and professional Christian set who shill anti-gay hatred to make a buck of of the ignorant and uneducated. Truth be told, marriage isn't a God ordained institution, but rather a man-made institution aimed at controlling property and family members. Now an article in the Washington Post makes the case for same sex marriage being anything but revolutionary. Rather, its a logical next step given a changing society and increased scientific knowledge about sexual orientation and its immutable nature. The article once again demonstrates that an accurate knowledge of history and science is the biggest danger to the Christianists' agenda. Here are highlights from the well reasoned article:
*

Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that allowing two men or two women to wed would radically transform a time-honored institution. But they're way too late on that front. Marriage has already been radically transformed - in a way that makes gay marriage not only inevitable, as Vice President Biden described it in an interview late last year, but also quite logical.
*
We are near the end of a two-stage revolution in the social understanding and legal definition of marriage. This revolution has overturned the most traditional functions of the institution: to reinforce differences in wealth and power and to establish distinct and unequal roles for men and women under the law.
*
For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. Parents arranged their children's unions to expand the family labor force, gain well-connected in-laws and seal business deals. Sometimes, to consolidate inheritances, parents prevented their younger children from marrying at all. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Often, servants, slaves and paupers were forbidden to wed.
*
But a little more than two centuries ago, people began to believe that they had a right to choose their partners on the basis of love rather than having their marriages arranged to suit the interests of parents or the state. . . . Adopting love as the basis for marriage meant other changes, too, especially greater acceptance of the idea that men and women had a fundamental right to marry, even to people of whom their parents - and society - disapproved.
*
Over the ages, marriage enforced an unequal division of labor, wealth and power between men and women. Traditional English and American law gave the husband sole control over all property that his wife brought to their marriage and any income she earned during it. Husbands had the legal right - and the duty - to impose their will by force.
*
Well into the 1970s, marriage was still legally defined as a union that assigned differing marital rights and obligations according to gender. The husband was responsible for supporting the family financially, but he also got to decide what constituted an adequate level of support, how to dispose of certain kinds of property and where the family would live.
*
Over time, people came to view marriage as a relationship between two individuals who were free to organize their partnership and their parenting on the basis of their personal inclinations rather than pre-assigned gender roles. Today, as Judge Vaughn Walker noted in his decision striking down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."
*
The spread of gender-neutral attitudes about heterosexual marriage has also undercut support for limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Although well-financed campaigns against same-sex marriage still generate victories on Election Day, hard-core opposition has steadily eroded. In October, the Pew Research Center reported that for the first time in its 15 years of polling, less than half the public opposed same-sex marriage. That poll also found that 42 percent actively supported it - still less than a majority, but a new high. Two other national polls have found that a small majority of Americans endorse same-sex marriage.
*
[T]raditional marriage has already been destroyed, and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage. . . . . If gay marriage is legally recognized in this country, it will have little impact on the institution of marriage. In fact, the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage - an indication that it's not just the president's views that are "evolving" - is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the profound revolutions in marriage that have already taken place.

NJ Site Loses Tax Exemption After Refusing Civil Unions

I completely agree with the result in this matter (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/09/091807nj.htm): once you take public, taxpayer derived funds, you lose the right to discriminate against others based on your religious views. This is the same principal that has lead to the Boy Scouts losing the free use of public taxpayer supported property. If you want to discriminate, do not take public funds or expect public venues to be provide for free:

(Trenton, New Jersey) A scenic pavilion on the boardwalk in Ocean Grove, N.J. that refuses to allow same-sex couples to have civil union ceremonies has lost its tax exempt status. The pavilion is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group. While it is frequently rented out for marriages, two lesbian couples were turned down when they tried to hold their civil unions there. The association told the couples that the pavilion is a religious structure and the denomination rejects same-sex union ceremonies.

In a letter to the Camp Meeting Association terminating its tax free status Jackson said that "it is clear that the Pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis." "The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has only itself to blame for what will now be the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. "The question is, how much more hell will the Camp Meeting Association, and its national right-wing extremist backers, put the good people of Ocean Grove through?"

By way of background, the church affilate received significant tax payer assistance in the renovation the pavillion and in order to get tax breaks the pavillion was to be open to use by all members of the public.