Archives – April, 2010
Children associated with the Westboro Baptist Church are forced to carry radically offensive signs at funerals of American soldiers and other events.
by Brian Leubitz
Yes, you read that right. But sometimes the right wingers go too far even for Bill O’Reilly. That’s the case for the Westboro Baptist Church (cult?) and their outrageous anti-gay tactics.
You see, one of the recent hijinks was to show up at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder with signs like those to the right as well as the always classy signs like “Thank God for IEDs” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” All this is because the chief cultist at the “Church”, Fred Phelps, is unstable and violently homophobic.
Snyder’s parents didn’t take too well to the offensive protests and sued Phelps and his gang of hooligans. The Snyders won at the trial court, with the jury awarding them $11 million in damages. But, the case was overturned on first amendment grounds, and Mr. Snyder was ordered to pay $16,510 in legal fees by the Court of Appeals. That’s where the people of the Baltimore area and even Mr. O’Reilly step in.
According to the Baltimore Sun, donations to help offset the costs have been pouring in. “I was appalled,” Sally Giannini, 72, who sent Snyder $10, told the paper.
Others have also stepped up, including Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, who has offered to pay the court tab. The court order “is an outrage and I will pay Mr. Snyder’s obligation,” O’Reilly told viewers Tuesday night on The O’Reilly Factor. Snyder told WBAL radio in Baltimore that he was aware that O’Reilly would be making the offer. (OnTop Mag)
Of course, there are some very serious first amendment concerns here. While I despise their message, they still have the right to speak as long as they do so safely without provoking violence. The difference that Mr. Snyder is arguing here is that the people attending the funeral have no way to avoid this hate speech, and that it causes severe emotional distress.
The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court for review. This Court has been extremely broad in their reading of the First Amendment with respect to campaign finance and other matters. Now it will be interesting to see how they construe the historical exceptions to the free speech clause.
April 4, 2010
by Brian Leubitz
While we are approaching 2 years from the date the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, the first marriage ban, Iowa is now getting to their first anniversary. And they haven’t had any plebiscites to strip their constitutional rights.
In Iowa, to get a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, they have a much more considered rational process. Instead of just having anybody who can muster up a couple million dollars put something on the ballot, they actually give it to their elected representatives. And as of right now, the Iowa Legislature has not found any reason to put such a decisive issue on the ballot. But that doesn’t mean the Right-Wingers are just rolling over, and dealing with equality. Far from it:
”There’s two lenses here. One’s a biblical world view and the other is basically more of a secular humanist world view, and that’s why there never seems to be agreement,” said the Rev. Pastor Brad Cranston, of Burlington’s Heritage Baptist Church. “They’re not going to be reconciled with one another.”
Seeing the world through the Bible, Cranston said he’s prepared to continue his agenda even though state lawmakers have so far refused to bring forward a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
“(T)his is going to be a fight for the long haul, that the opposition here in Iowa is relentless,” said Justin Uebelhor, a spokesman for Des Moines-based gay rights advocacy group One Iowa. “We’re going to have a presence here for the next few years, making sure that our stories get told.” (The Hawk Eye)
They certainly aren’t likely to give up soon, so One Iowa’s mission of electing legislators who oppose this divisive ballot measure is key. And then keeping up the pressure on them to ensure that they don’t waiver. It’s a lot of hard work.
In Iowa, they understand that in a representative democracy, you don’t simply vote on everything. And in a constitutional representative democracy, you don’t rush to amend that constitution. And when you are dealing with individual liberty, we should be even more concerned.
The right-wing group is now going by the name “Let Us Vote” or LUV…get it? Are you laughing yet? But the concept of a majority voting on a minority’s rights is totally antithetical to the federal and the constitutions of the state. Eventually, that concept will break through the clutter and the right-wing noise.
We can only hope that the Iowa General Assembly continues their resistance to a vote on our rights. For more information about Iowa marriage equality issues, see One Iowa’s website.
April 3, 2010
By Brian Leubitz
There is a little confusion in the military right now surrounding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell enforcement. By “little confusion”, I mean don’t bet your career on this stuff, because it just might come back to get you:
The secretary of the U.S. Army publicly corrected himself on Thursday about his assertion that there was a moratorium on discharging gays from the military, saying he had been mistaken.
John McHugh, the Army’s top civilian, added he was unable to pursue disciplinary action against the three soldiers who he revealed on Wednesday had admitted to him that they were gay, in an apparent violation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
“I am unable to identify these soldiers and I am not in a position to formally pursue the matter,” McHugh, a former Republican congressman, said in a statement. (Reuters)
Which three soldiers you ask? Well, thsee three soldiers came out to McHugh himself in what they had considered “confidential” discussions. Turns out, DADT allows no such exceptions for confidential discussions.
For purposes of the study, McHugh, it seems, advised personnel that they could, at their option, confidentially disclose their sexual orientation during the interviews. He specifically committed to not disciplining troops who revealed their sexuality during interviews.So, what’s the problem? DADT, in its current iteration and still being enforced, allows no exception for such “confidential” disclosure. The result: active duty personnel who participate in the interview process and “confidentially” disclose being gay or lesbian are not protected from discharge proceedings. That includes three service members who made such “confidential” disclosures to McHugh himself. (Moderate Voice)
So, what’s McHugh doing? Pretending that he can’t remember who these three soldiers are and plugging cotton in his ears. Frankly, it’s complete and total crap that McHugh can’t remember who the soldiers are. If he wanted to get that information, he certainly could, he’s the Secretary of the Army. Yet, instead we hang on to these useful fictions to make the best of an untenable situation.
There is no other answer than ending DADT with a swift kick, and saying that discrimination has no place in our military.
April 2, 2010
by Brian Leubitz
Sometimes, karma does funny things. Like, say, when you want to ban the use of the new hate crimes law that protects the LGBT community in your state, but, well, it turns out differently:
A bill intended to remove hate crime protections from gays and lesbians actually takes away rights from everyone else because of a “legislative error,” according to one lawmaker.
Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, said when the Senate passed Senate Bill 1965 on March 10, it eliminated hate crime protections for race and religion.
The bill states local law enforcement agencies should not enforce any sections of federal law under hate crimes statutes listed under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245 unless they are in correlation with Oklahoma’s hate crimes laws.
But the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes, which passed Congress last year, are not listed under Section 245, but Section 249. (OUDaily)
First things first, really, this isn’t an April Fool’s joke. I thought that might be the case when I first heard of the story yesterday. But, nope, this really happened.
Now, it’s not actually law yet, it only passed the Oklahoma state senate, and can and will be amended if it emerges out of the state house. Then it must go to Democratic governor Brad Henry. Henry would certainly prefer to never have to deal with this issue at all. However, he has been known to veto some right-wing populist bills in his time.
The other issue here is a legal one. Is it really ok to just pass laws saying that you aren’t going to enforce federal laws? Well, maybe. Prosecutors generally have broad discretion in how, who, and why they prosecute crimes. Now, if the state wants to limit their own staff, that might be kosher. But a law banning the use of the law? Well, that opens a whole can of worms regarding the relationship between states and the federal government. The fact that this is potentially dangerous to our community (and all minorities in the abstract) is just a sideline in the legal argument.
But what is a sideline in the legal argument goes to the heart of what it means to be a minority, whether it is a sexual minority or any other. Once you go down the road of purposely excluding one group, it is not that great of a leap down the road to greater and greater exclusions for the sake of the favored groups. But this thought is far better expressed by a poem normally attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller.
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
April 1, 2010
Next page
