Liberty and Justice for All!

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger wrote in a court brief:

A day may come when the people decide to legalize same-sex marriage. But such a social change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary so long as constitutional rights are protected

Hmmm, if we waited on important social change to come from the people instead of the judiciary, I wonder if we would still have separate schools. I guess this legal scholar forgets the necessity of that little ruling called “Brown v. Board of Education“. Does he feel that the Brown ruling was inappropriate? I wonder how long interracial marriages would have been outlawed had it been left to the people instead of being decided by “Loving v. Virginia“? I feel sorry for the people of California if this is the kind of legal representation they have in their DA office.

Anti-gay marriage activists also feel that:

 limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable — not only to uphold tradition but because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago bolstering the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law, they say, would abrogate the rights of all Californians.

So let me get this straight, allowing gay people to marry abrogates the rights of all Californians? That is absurd! If they don’t feel that gay people have the Constitutionally protected right to get marriage, how on Earth do they figure that Californians have a Constitutionally protected right to live in a state where gay people are discriminated against?

How about this. Maybe, just maybe, if people spent more time worrying about their own marriages instead of worrying about other people getting married, we wouldn’t have such an abysmal divorce rate! Just my humble opinion.

So called “pro-majority” protestors marched on Jena today to proudly show how Louisiana still has a long way to go when it comes to race relations. Not only did they re-open the old sore that was created with the Jena Six controversy, they showed that Louisiana still has people that embrace the days of old. I am sure that these people would want slavery reinstated in the name of so called “white civil rights”.

To make these racists look even more ignorant, they brought their own firearms with them (even though a Louisiana law prevents marching when armed).

To complete the show of ignorance, one of the marchers actually stated:

“It’s time for us white folks to start getting some of our rights back.”

News flash, white folks have not lost any rights (unless he feels that owning slaves is a right that a white person should have). I guess the good thing about this march was that they could only find 50 pathetic losers to march. At least that shows that they are unorganized.

Tony Perkins and the FRC have a problem with Homosexuals. Apparently, Tony Perkins cannot live a moral life if homosexuals are treated as people, just like everybody else. There is no other reason I can think of that he is so opposed to two amendments to HR 3685. In his recent press release he states:

House Amendment #1 to H.R. 3685 by Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Calif.) will grant special rights to transgendered people. House Amendment #7 to H.R. 3685, offered by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), is a very limited amendment that purports to protect religious institutions but, in fact, denies protection to most Christian schools and other private groups and businesses.

Tammy Baldwin is not from California (she is from Wisconsin), so someone needs to do some fact checking for Mr. Perkins. Congresswoman Baldwin’s amendment (pdf) does not give “special rights” to anybody. It understands the fact that people who are born with one gender but identify with another gender should be protected when they seek to live their lives as a member of the gender they identify with. Even conservative Louisiana, the state that has banned marriage and civil unions for homosexual couples, allows people to be issued a new birth certificate if they have gender reassignment. I wonder if Mr. Perkins feels that this hurts his family as well.

George Miller’s statement on the bill seems to contradict Tony Perkins as well. According to the statement, the bill exempts religious organizations. So any religious organization that Tony Perkins belongs to will be free to discriminate against all the gay people they want. He need not worry that gay people will infiltrate his little cabal and destroy the hatred that he holds dear.

What ever happned to “hate the sin, love the sinner”?

Let’s see where else Tony Perkins is absolutely wrong.

If this legislation passes, it will mainstream homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism

It will do no such thing. No more people will be gay, bisexual, or transgendered if the law gets passed. The majority of people will be heterosexual and no law can change that.

and provide activists a legal tool for punishing employers who do not approve of these lifestyles

No it doesn’t. An employer need not approve of “these lifestyles” to follow the law. Period.

They will either accommodate these sexual behaviors or face the full weight of federal civil rights enforcement.

Wrong. If they would be required to accommodate those sexual behaviors, they would be required to allow them to commit sexual acts in the workplace. They are clearly not required to do so.

This legislation essentially seeks to silence those with religious beliefs, either through legislation or the lawsuits this bill will create and encourage.

Again, Tony Perkins is incorrect. People with religious beliefs are still free to follow them, whatever they are. And if Mr. Perkin’s religious beliefs tells him to hate gay people he is more than welcome to do so. Preventing businesses from discriminating against gay people would not prevent people from speaking out against homosexuals if they so desired. If it did, the law would be unconstitutional.

Perkins completes his release with: “Thank you and God bless you.”. I guess he should add “unless you are gay”. 
 
As a side note, this post has prompted me to start a new category: “What is wrong with America” to point out the things that are, well, wrong with America. I may go back and update other posts with this tag, but I will hope to make frequent updates to this category. But first and foremost, Tony Perkins absolutely represents what is wrong with America.

Update #1: The bill passed the house. Here is the bill text. The bill does not require quotas and the bill protects religious institutions (even schools that are Christian but non-affiliated). So in those areas, Tony Perkins was dead wrong. Unfortunately, the bill did not include Tammy Baldwin’s amendment. She withdrew it because she felt it would cause the bill to not pass. I don’t quite understand that logic, but it is rather unfortunate if true. I guess Republicans could have voted to pass the amendment to get enough Democrats to vote against the bill as a whole. However, I just don’t think that Republicans would risk having a yes vote on this issue listed on their record.

Jim Brown was discussing this law on his radio show this morning. He was stating that it treat’s Louisiana like 2nd class citizens and that the law is no longer needed. He complained about some of the requirements it places on our states and he believes that because there have been no issues of minorities being unable to vote that the law is antiquated and should be repealed.  I couldn’t disagree more.

While the act may have achieved its goal to ensure that minority voters get registered, there are other issues where intervention is needed. I don’t believe that the overt racism, like people physically being restrained from voting, would occur. However, other forms of institutionalized racism might otherwise take place if it wasn’t for the act. Currently, any change in election laws require approval from the justice department. The state would have a check and balance on any changes it would make in redistricting. And with the possibility that Louisiana will be losing a Congressional seat, redistricting will become a very important issue and I, for one, want to make sure that no attempts are made to redistrict in such a way that would prevent minorities from having adequate representation. 

States with histories of institutionalized racism should have to prove that it is ready to be trusted to treat each citizen equally, regardless of race or any other physical quality. And with the recent events in Jena Louisiana, and the institutionalized racism that was exposed, Louisiana still has a long way to go that it is ready to be removed from the restrictions placed on it by the act. The fact that the Klan is also alive and well on the Northshore doesn’t help matters either.

Republican Hypocrite, State Rep. Richard Curtis, is alleged to have worn womens clothing while seeking sexual favors in an adult bookstore before going to a hotel for another romp with another man. And even though the police report claims otherwise, Curtis claims that he did not have homosexual sex and that he is not gay. Curtis had previously voted against gay rights.

I’d add my two cents but Oyster, over at Your Right Hand Thief, pretty much sums it up as well as anyone could ask for.

Of course, you can help expose Republican hypocricy by buying David Vitter “WWVD” merchandise.

So far today, there have been three rulings that protect the right winged idealism that speech should be stifled when it comes to drugs (but not when it comes to pro-life advocacy groups) and that people can’t sue when the government wants to give your tax dollars to “faith based” groups.

I will start this off by saying that Hillary Clinton is not my choice for President. I think she is a very intelligent woman who goes out and get what she wants. She is a strong person and has the ability to be an effective leader. I wouldn’t want to cross her; that is for sure. So you may be asking “so what is the problem”?

My problem with her is twofold. First, I have a problem with people who move just so they can run for a particular office. Second, I think that she would bring out the conservative vote against her. The right wing absolutely hates this woman with a passion and I think that Hillary Clinton may be the only way a Democrat loses in 2008. I don’t see any Republican in the field that will be able to rile up the conservative base more than a Hillary for President bumper sticker will.

That being said, I really think she did a good job at the debate last night. I didn’t get to watch the first few minutes. However, what I did see made her look really good. The comment I thought was the wisest one was the comment on people who are gay serving in the military. She finished her statement by quoting conservative Barry Goldwater by saying “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”. Goldwater hit it right on the head and Hillary also did the same thing by bringing up that line.

Other comments about gays in the military where spot on as well. Our men and women who serve our country in Iraq are serving along the side of soldiers from other countries that don’t have our restrictive policies on who can serve. The fact that our soldiers can do an effective job not knowing that the people serving next to them from England might be gay proves that the ban on gays in the military is archaic and needs to be removed. And it is absolutely ridiculous that our military fired Arabic translators who happened to be gay when we had a shortage of translators to begin with. Anyone who believes those people should have been fired does not take national security seriously.

But Hillary, by using the quote of a conservative to back her point and to remind people that she used to be a “Goldwater Girl”, was very wise. Not only was it a very well placed line, but it also goes to show how far the Republican Party has moved from actual conservatism.

She has the lead in the polls and it is really her race to lose. Any other year, that would be a good thing. I think our country is ready for a female president and it would be a huge step in the history of our nation. However, with an aging court and the possibility of having another opening on the Supreme Court any time soon, it is absolutely vital that elect someone who won’t put a conservative judicial activist on the bench. We need to make sure that a Democrat wins and I think we have a better shot with other candidates than we do with her.  

If she does get the nomination, I will be supportive of her. But if she does win the nomination, I hope I am wrong about the effect she will have on those conservative voters. I don’t want another 4 more years of suspended habeas corpus, erosion of individual freedoms, and a war that just won’t end.

There are many people in the Democratic Party who are pushing for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I can definitely see the appeal in doing that, since they seem to use the Constitution as toilet paper and fail to view those important rights that we have as being important to uphold in a time of war.  The problem is that we only have to deal with them for a year and a half. Justice Alito has a lifelong appointment on the bench.

One of the checks on the power of the judiciary is the ability of the legislative branch to remove a justice from the bench. It is time that the legislative branch uses that power.