Bloody Kansas, and I don't mean this nicely ...

Note: An earlier version of this post characterized the two boys involved as high school students. That was not correct; the school was a state school for developmentally disabled children. KipEsquire, who blogged about this case late last year, brought the error to my attention. I checked my facts with the ACLU summary and other news reports. I think that the summary below is accurate. KipEsquire's blog on the case is excellent, by the way, and more detailed than this post, and I recommend it for reading if you want to know more about the case.


You may recall when sodomy was a crime for gays and lesbians but not for straights in many states. The same sexual acts, criminal if gays or lesbians engaged in them, but not so for straights.

You may even be old enough to recall when police targeted gay and lesbian bars on New Years Eve, arresting gays and lesbians kissing in the New Year and prosecuting them for "lewd" conduct, while straights were mushy-facing all over town, right out in the open, unhindered.

The bad old days, washed away by Lawrence v. Texas, right?



Nope. A case in Kansas shows that the sexual double standard is alive and well.

Kansas has liberal marriage laws. I'm not talking brothers and sisters here, of course -- Kansas is Bible Belt, but not that Bible Belt. I'm talking about age. Kansas allows children as young as 12 to get married.

The law made something of a stir when a 22-year-old Nebraska man and his 14-year-old lover had sex when the girl was 13, had a baby, and needed to do something about it. So they crossed the border into Kansas and got married. Nebraska prosecutors weren't all that happy about it -- not to mention the girl's parents -- but Kansas holds fast to the sanctity of marriage, even when the marriage resulted from statutory rape.

Lucky, though, that the happy couple was straight.

Let's look at another Kansas case.

According to the ACLU, which is handling the case, Matthew Limon, 18, and another male teenager, 15, were both students at a state school for youth. In February 2000, Matthew performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager. Matthew was charged with "criminal sodomy" and was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Kansas has a so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law that makes the penalty for statutory rape less severe when the case involves two teenagers. The law applies only to straight teenagers, and does not apply to oral or anal sex when performed by gay or lesbian teenagers. Had Matthew performed oral sex on a female instead of a male, he would have served a maximum of 15 months for the offense.

Matthew appealed his case through the Kansas courts. The Kansas Court of Appeals had upheld Matthew’s conviction and sentence, based on the US Supreme Court's Hardwick decision, which had upheld anti-gay sodomy laws.

The ACLU took the matter to the US Supreme Court.

Later that year, the US Supreme Court overturned Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down sodomy laws nationwide.

The next day, the US Supreme Court vacated the decision upholding Matthew’s conviction and sentence and remanded his appeal for reconsideration in light of Lawrence. The Kansas Court of Appeals again turned down Matthew’s appeal in January of 2004.

On August 31, 2004, the ACLU argued the case for a second time before the Kansas Supreme Court. At this point, the matter rests, awaiting action by the Kansas Supreme Court.

So what to make of this?

Well, it is really quite simple.

If you are a 22-year-old man in Kansas, you are more than welcome to have sex with a 13-year-old girl, as long as you marry her. The state will sanction your blessed man-girl union with marriage, and you will live happily ever after, at least until you wake up and realize that you've made your bed and have to sleep in it.

If you are an 18-year-old straight teenager in Kansas, and you have sex with a 15-year-old girl, you might be convicted of statitory rape and spend as much as 15 months in prison.

But if you are an 18-year-old gay teensager in Kansas, and you give a 15-year-old boy a blow job, you might end up serving 17 years doing hard time.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

No doubt there is intelligent design behind this ...

Sodomy Rocks in North Carolina ...

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, courts continue to wrangle over the state's sodomy law.

Greg Whiteley was charged with three sexual offenses, including a "crime against nature" for engaging in oral sex with a woman. Whitely did not deny the oral sex; at issue was whether the sex was consensual.

Whiteley was not prosecuted until after the Lawrence ruling and was charged with first degree rape, first degree sexual offense, and a crime against nature.

Whiteley's lawyers moved to dismiss all the charges against him, contending that the sexual acts had been consensual and thus not unlawful. The trial judge denied his motion, but reduced the first two charges to second degree rape and second degree sexual offense.

But the judge also rejected Whiteley’s demand to instruct the jury that he could only be convicted under the "crime against nature" law if it found lack of consent. The judge instructed the jury that consent was an issue on the rape and sexual offense charges, but not on the crime against nature charge. Whiteley was convicted only on the "crime against nature charge", and he appealed.

Writing for the appeals court, Judge Robert Hunter rejected Whiteley's argument that the crime against nature statute, which withstood numerous earlier constitutional challenges, was invalid as written. Whiteley had argued that after Lawrence a state could not single out oral sex and treat it separately from other kinds of sex, but Hunter focused on language in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion that made clear that the Supreme Court was striking down only the criminalization of private, consensual, non-commercial sex between adults. As a result, Hunter found, the North Carolina law was not on its face invalid.

However, because because the trial judge did not instruct the jury on the issue of consent, the appeals court found the conviction must be overturned based on Lawrence.

So sodomy continues to stand tall in North Carolina, leaving the door open to further erroneous prosecutions on consensual "crimes against nature".

Katrina Relief

Hurricane Katrina, it is now clear, has devastated areas of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Many survivors of the devastation need immediate help.

Please consider a special donation to the American Red Cross or another NGO providing disaster relief to the area.

Dorothy's Slippers Snatched

A pair of ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz" and insured for $1 million was stolen over the weekend from the Judy Garland Museum in Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

Police Chief Leigh Serfling said the someone entered through a window of the museum and broke into the small display case holding the slippers: "There's not a whole lot of evidence. We're hoping that someone in the community has seen something."

Well, yeah. A pair of sparkling ruby slippers, maybe?

A Defining Moment?

I might have been wrong when I predicted a widespread social conservative bail out on the John Roberts nomination after revelations that Roberts had done pro-bono work for GBLT activists in Romer.

Although a number of social conservatives have issued statements of on sort and another indicating that Roberts bears careful watching, the revelation doesn't seem to have gained much traction.

And in response to questions about Roberts' role in Romer, Jerry Falwell, one of the most entertaining tub-thumpers of the Religious Right, actually came out in favor of civil rights for gays and lesbians on "The Situation with Tucker Carlson, August 5", defending Roberts' pro-bono work and saying that he'd do the same thing if he were a lawyer. Even more important, Falwell endorsed "basic" civil rights -- housing and employment -- for gay and lesbian Americans.

The following is a partial transcript of the show (emphasis mine):

CARLSON: ... Earlier this week, we found out that Roberts once did pro bono work helping gay activists win a landmark case before the Supreme Court. That was in 1996, when the court struck down a Colorado law allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Now supporters and opponents of the nominee are wondering what it all means. Well, we don‘t know exactly what it means. We do know this wasn't a case he was paid to take. This is something he did for free, voluntarily. It's impossible believe—believe—to believe he would have done it if it violated his conscience. So, he had to, in some way, agree with it.

...

Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that?

FALWELL: Oh, not at all.

You know, I — if I were an attorney, I'd certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I don't. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our — that part of our constituency.

John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans.

CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And the idea is that...

FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not special rights. I think — I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you're not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a — not a special right.

...

CARLSON: I'm merely saying, this gives us a window into Judge Roberts' thinking and it suggests that he's not nearly as conservative as his critics and his supporters have suggested. And I think that, if he winds up being a Tony Kennedy clone on the Supreme Court, we shouldn't be surprised. I won't be.

FALWELL: Well, Tony — Tucker, I'm very conservative. I think I‘m to the right of most people you know, but...

CARLSON: Not to the right of me, but yes.

FALWELL: But civil — civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.

CARLSON: All right.


You know, if Falwell has had a change of heart on housing and employment rights for gays and lesbians, we might be turning this thing around.

Or maybe not. As Pat Robertson once noted, it is sometimes hard to understand Falwell.

No sooner than Falwell's statements were reported in the press, Falwell was interviewed by the News & Advance, and told them that his support for basic rights does not mean he favors enshrining it in law: "I don’t think homosexuals should be granted a special minority status.” However, he said that gays, including teachers, should not be denied jobs solely because of their sexuality: "As long as a person obeys the law and doesn’t recruit a student to a certain lifestyle, they shouldn’t be prevented from teaching. Every American should be allowed to work wherever he or she wishes as long as they obey the law."

Falwell's sentiments seem sometimes to be a Rorschach glimpse into the confused emotions and anxieties of social conservatives, and his recent statements demonstrate the difficulty social conservatives have when dealing with homosexuality. Social conservatives demonize homosexuality but know homosexuals, and are tugged between the two poles. On the one hand, most social conservatives forcefully oppose any attempts to "legitimize homosexuality" -- any court decisions or laws that recognize that homosexuals exist and have equal rights as citizens. On the other hand, most social conservatives are no longer willing to return to the days when homosexuals were fired and jailed for being homosexuals.

Many social conservatives, as a result, seem to be arriving at a compromise of sorts -- if homosexuals will remain "quiet", we will "tolerate" homosexuals.

It won't work, of course. Gays and lesbians are no longer willing to be "quiet", to live life in a shadow world of non-existence. And that's the rub. Social conservatives, like the rest of us, are going to have to deal with it.

Thirty Questions

Lambda Legal, a national organization working on the legal front of the struggle for GLBT equality, has issued a list of 30 questions that Lambda would like the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Judge Roberts during his confirmation hearing.

Please visit the Lambda Legal website if you would like to sign Lambda's petition to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

To my lawyer's mind, the list is fascinating because it identifies the landscape of legal and Constitutional issues that will be the battlefront of the struggle over the next couple of decades.

Lambda Legal’s Questions to the Senators

Equal Protection (Romer v. Evans)

1. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans that when an enactment targeting a group of Americans sweeps as broadly as Colorado’s Amendment 2, which prohibited all legislative, executive or judicial action designed to protect lesbians and gay men, it can be explained only by animus?

2. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans that a law that can be explained only by antigay animus does not satisfy the requirements of equal protection?

3. Do you agree with the dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans that voters may prohibit all legislative, executive and judicial action to protect gays and lesbians in order to preserve traditional morals?

4. Do you agree with the dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans that moral disapproval of homosexuality is sufficient justification to establish the constitutionality of laws that treat lesbians and gay men differently than heterosexuals?

5. Do you agree with the dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans that the majority in that case, by striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2, inappropriately took sides in a debate that should have been allowed to be resolved exclusively through the political process?

6. In written answers recently submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said, “To the extent the term ‘judicial activism’ is used to describe unjustified intrusions by the judiciary into the realm of policy making, the criticism is well founded." While it’s of course true that if the intrusion is “unjustified,” the criticism would be well founded, what are examples of cases where you believe the intrusion was unjustified? What guideposts do you believe judges should follow in determining when they may be making an unjustified intrusion into the realm of policy making, as opposed to doing their job of enforcing the law as well as the guarantees of the Constitution? Do you believe that the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans constituted such an “unjustified intrusion"? Do you believe that the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas constituted such an “unjustified intrusion"?

7. Recent news reports indicated that you assisted one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Romer v. Evans in preparing for oral argument. Why did you choose not to indicate that you had done any work related to that case in the answers you submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee describing your pro bono work? Did you agree or disagree with the legal arguments advocated by the plaintiffs’ attorneys in that case, including the equal protection argument ultimately accepted by the Court majority? If you agreed with some of the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in the case but not others, please identify each and explain why you agreed or disagreed with them.

Right to Liberty (Lawrence v. Texas)

8. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that, under the U.S. Constitution, religious or moral beliefs cannot be the sole basis for the enactment and enforcement of criminal laws?

9. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that the right to liberty under the due process clause gives individuals the right to engage in private, adult, consensual, noncommercial sex without interference by the government? If so, do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that the right belongs equally to lesbians and gay men as to heterosexuals? Do you believe that lesbian and gay people should be denied “fundamental rights” to which others are constitutionally entitled?

10. Do you agree with the dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, authored by Justice Scalia, that promotion of a majoritarian morality is, on its own, a legitimate state interest? If so, do you agree with the dissenting opinion that this interest is sufficient for so-called sodomy laws to withstand constitutional scrutiny?

11. Do you agree with the dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, authored by Justice Scalia, that it should be left entirely to the political process to decide whether a state may enact laws making it a crime for lesbians and gay men to have certain forms of private, consensual, noncommercial sex with other adult partners?

12. Do you agree with Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that, when a law exhibits a desire to harm a politically unpopular group like lesbians and gay men, the Supreme Court has applied a more searching from of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the equal protection clause?

13. Do you agree with Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that moral disapproval of gay people is not a sufficient state interest to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause?

Right to Privacy

14. Do you agree that there is a right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution and that this right limits the ways in which government can restrict individual rights?

15. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade that the constitutional right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy?

16. Do you agree with Justice Douglas’s opinion for the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut that laws prohibiting the sale or use of contraceptives violate the constitutional right to privacy for married couples? And with the Court’s decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird that this right belongs equally to those who are not married?

17. Does the amicus brief you helped author in Rust v. Sullivan reflect your judicial philosophy regarding whether Roe v. Wade was decided correctly?

18. Does the amicus brief you helped author in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic reflect your judicial philosophy regarding the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1871?

Federalism

19. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane that Congress acted within its power in providing disabled individuals the right to sue in state courts under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

20. What limits does your judicial philosophy place on Congress’ power to enact laws to address important national interests like protecting civil rights? How does your dissent from the denial of en banc review in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton shed light on your judicial philosophy?

Disability Discrimination

21. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Bragdon v. Abbott that HIV infection is a disability that limits one or more major life activities, and therefore HIV discrimination is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act?

22. Do you agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Bragdon v. Abbott that decisions about having children, whom to marry, where to live and how to earn a living are not major life activities under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

23. Do you agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Bragdon v. Abbott that conditions like HIV, which affect reproductive and other important personal decisions, are not disabilities that entitle affected individuals to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Gender Discrimination

24. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that treating employees differently in the workplace based on whether they conform to sexual stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

25. Does the amicus brief you helped author in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools reflect your judicial philosophy about the availability of damages as a remedy for sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?

Separation of Church and State

26. Do you agree with the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman and its approach to analyzing whether a challenged government action violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution?

27. According to your judicial philosophy, what if any limitations does the U.S. Constitution impose on government funding and government sponsorship of religious activity?

Congress’s Power to Strip the Federal Courts of Authority

28. Opponents of the federal courts’ decisions in politically controversial areas have sometimes suggested they might be able to change substantive law through a change in procedural rules referred to as “court stripping” or “jurisdiction stripping,” whereby the legislature would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in regard to specific controversial areas of law.

a. According to your judicial philosophy, does Article III, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states “the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” authorize Congress to preclude the Supreme Court’s review of certain controversial topics?

b. According to your judicial philosophy, does Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the discretion to create lower federal courts, authorize Congress to preclude the lower federal courts’ review of certain controversial topics?

Stare Decisis

29. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court listed several basic factors for determining whether or not a prior case can be overturned. These factors were:

a. whether [the decision’s] central rule has been found unworkable; Americans with Disabilities Act?

b. whether the rule’s limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by the question;

c. whether the law’s growth in the intervening years has left [the decision’s] central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society;

d. and whether [the decision’s] premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing [years] as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed.

Do you agree that each of these factors is necessary for determining whether to overrule a prior case? Would you add any additional factors for consideration of whether or not to overrule precedent?

Approach to Constitutional Interpretation

30. The approaches that judges and scholars take to constitutional interpretation have been described in various ways — for example, constitutional “originalism,” “interpretivism” and “noninterpretivism,” among others.

a. Which schools of constitutional jurisprudence best describe your approach to the federal Constitution, and why?

b. Some in the press have referred to your constitutional approach as “minimalist.” Do you agree that this term accurately describes your approach to interpreting the Constitution? If so, what does “minimalism” mean to you? Why do you believe that this is the best approach to constitutional interpretation, if you do? If you depart in some ways from minimalism, in what ways do you depart and why? Whatever you describe as your approach to constitutional interpretation, why do you believe it is the best approach?

c. Former judge and constitutional scholar Robert Bork is often called an originalist in his approach to the Constitution. Which aspects, if any, of Bork’s constitutional philosophy do you agree with, and disagree with, and why? What are the principal ways in which Bork’s approach and yours are similar and different?

d. Even if no one scholar’s or judge’s approach to constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence more generally is identical to yours, whose do you believe comes closest and why? There may be more than one. What do you admire about these scholars or judges? Which of their decisions, legal texts or analyses do you find particularly persuasive?

Finally, Robertson knows what he is talking about ...

America's social conservative carnival includes more than enough fascinating acts to go around.

Pay your money, and you can watch blow-dried preachers prancing, weeping and screaming, queenie Catholic bishops decrying homosexuals in the priesthood, religious leaders of all stripes proclaiming God's love by dismissing whole segments of the human race as evil, any number of the righteous shaking down congregations and television audiences for donations to self-aggrandizing projects, and faith healers bopping men and women in the head to heal cancer.

Pat Robertson is one of the sideshow's longer-running acts, an elfish, Jesus-on-the-dashboard, self-proclaimed "man of faith" who keeps adding to his repertoire of ignorance, bigotry and recklessness, freely spreading religious offal right, left and center.

He'd be laughable except for a few facts:

Fact #1: The President of the United States recieves him in the Oval Office, takes his calls, and listens to him.

Fact #2: He is one of America's most influential clergymen, sitting atop a powerful media empire and a lucrative fundraising machine, the Christian Broadcasting Network. His "700 Club", carried by the ABC Family Channel, reaches 1 million viewers a night.

Fact #3: He made a credible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 and is influential in Republican Party politics. He claims credit for having elected the President of the United States, and he might well be right.

Robertson, as we all know, put his foot into his ample mouth earlier this week:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Yesterday, he tried to deny it:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

When enough people asked "Pat, what do think it means, anyway?", Robertson issued a written clarification acknowledging that he had, in fact, used the word "assassination": "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

Robertson, by the way, is no stranger to calling for assassination. Six years ago, Robertson said the United States could send agents to kill Osama bin Laden, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein. "Isn't it better to do something like that ... to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?"

And Robertson has a long history of stupid statements.

Robertson declared that feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Roberston contended that liberal judges appointed by Democrats are a bigger threat to America than terrorists: "I think (federal judges) are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together. ... The gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than, than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

In 1993, noting that one Justice was 83 years old and that two others had serious medical problems, Robertson prayed: "We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court."

Robertson, like his TV purr-mate Falwell, has long maintained an obsessive interest in things gay and lesbian - "self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle."

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he appeared to agree with the Rev. Jerry Falwell on a "700 Club" broadcast that the attacks were God's punishment for feminists, gays, lesbians and liberal groups. But Robertson later said he had conducted the interview with Falwell over a studio monitor and had not fully understood what Falwell was saying. (Join the crowd, Pat, because it is hard as hell to figure out what Falwell is saying half the time, but the rest of us don't appear on television with him.)

In 1993, Robertson suggested that an end to a ban on gays in the military would lead to the rise of Nazism in the United States: "When lawlessness is abroad in this land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two seem to go together."

In 1998, Robertson warned Orlando: "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face." Robertson added that widespread gay activity "will bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

Thankfully, God and Osama had more sense than he did.

Well, I would have thought that the Chavez flap would have shut him up for a bit, but it hasn't.

As most people know, Muslims view themselves as descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael.

Tuesday night Robertson speculated about biblical roots for Islamic terrorism: "The Bible talks about Ishmael as being 'a wild ass.' He's just uncontrollable, and it's almost like this seed of rebellion and uncontrolled anger has, you know, filtered into these people." He added that Islamic terrorists seem to be motivated by "a spirit of murder."

A spirit of murder? Now there's a subject Robertson actually understands ...

The Perfect Storm

"Many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation. If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility.” - Reverend Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, evangelical leader, on scientific proof that homosexuality is a predisposition and not a choice, quoted in the Boston Globe, August 14

Schenk is right about that, of course (see "Queer by Choice? Why Not?"), but I'm not sure that the rest of us have thought about the issue enough, either.

The question of the nature of human sexuality intersects with two other questions roiling our culture wars at the moment, abortion and stem cell research. Stem cell research has raised questions about the possibility of human genetic engineering, and the availability of abortion in our society has presented questions concerning the morality of aborting "defective" fetuses. At present, the two issues are not on the front burner, because human genetic engineering remains a possibility rather than a fact, and the number of "defective" fetuses that are aborted remains miniscule.

Although we do not yet have a definitive answer, a growing and consistent body of evidence suggests that same-sex orientation is genetically linked -- either directly to a gene cluster in the gay person or indirectly through a gene cluster in the gay person's mother that triggers a different embryonic development path -- and that a person is "born straight" or "born gay".

I think that solid evidence that sexual orientation is genetically determined may well bring the intersection of homosexuality, genetic engineering and abortion to a "perfect storm", presenting difficult, fundamental moral questions to our society.

Genetic or not in origin, it is no picnic being gay or lesbian in our society. Although our society is increasingly accepting of gays and lesbians, gays and lesbians continue to face a life "outside the mainstream", often isolated and estranged from family, facing disdain and discrimination in many aspects of life.

I don't think that is likely to change for generations - the experience of African-Americans suggests, very strongly, that legal rights do not lead to social equality as a matter of course, even over a span of decades - whether or not gays and lesbians eventually stand on an equal footing, legally, with straights. If nothing else, the overheated rhetoric of social conservative "leaders" - political and religious alike - almost ensures that a significant minority of our population will continue to feel empowered to "gay-bash" for years to come.

Over time, that will change, but I think that it is unrealistic to believe that we will see a time, any time soon, when a significant portion of our population would welcome the prospect of a gay or lesbian child.

And, given that, what will prospective parents of gay and lesbian children do if genetic testing reveals that a fetus has a genetic predisposition to homosexuality?

Looking first at abortion, I suspect that a significant number of parents would choose to abort the child. Not a majority of parents, but a significant number. And, given that abortion in our country is, from a legal perspective, a matter of choice, no legal impediments can or will stand in the way of parents who chose to abort a fetus with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

In February, Maine state Representative Brian Duprey proposed a law that would prohibit termination of a pregnancy based on the sexual orientation of a fetus. Other lawmakers viewed it as a disingenuous attempt to force them to choose between supporting gay rights and abortion rights.

Maybe so. But I think that Duprey's proposed bill anticipates what may be an inevitable conflict in our society.

Will a significant number of parents choose abortion over a gay or lesbian child?

Abortion foes do not seem to be worried about that prospect. It may be that they have not connected the dots yet, or it may be that they believe that the problem will be "resolved" short of abortion, because the ability to identify fetuses with a predisposition to homosexuality is likely to be followed on my genetic "therapy" designed to reduce or eliminate that predisposition.

But that only moves the dots.

Will a significant number of parents choose genetic "therapy" over raising a gay or lesbian child?

I don't think that the question is as farfetched as it might seem. Many social conservatives speak of homosexuality as a defect, something gone terribly wrong, a disease. Almost all social conservatives consider homosexuals a danger to themselves and a threat to society. Why wouldn't such people seriously consider "solving" the problem before birth if the technology exists?

The question of homosexuality is not, of course, the only question involved at this intersection, particularly when it comes to human genetic engineering. Numerous diseases and many behavioral predispositions appear to be linked to gene clusters, and each will, in turn, raise the issue. But few have been the subject of the overheated rhetoric that has been dumped on the gay and lesbian community by social conservatives, and most do not raise the level of cultural bias that homosexuality seems to raise.

It is axiomatic that scientific and technological advances bring moral and ethical dilemmas. I think that our society is approaching that point with respect to the origin of human sexual orientation, and we need to begin a thoughtful discussion of the implications of unlocking the mystery of human sexuality.

California Update

California's Domestic Partnership law survived a frontal challenge to the law's validity earlier this summer, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the law did not violate the state's ban on same-ex marriage. Having lost the legal war, California's social conservatives appear to have changed tactics, attacking specific provisions of the law in hopes of removing it's bite one tooth at a time.

Republican tax assessors from Orange, Shasta, Sutter and Tehama counties have joined in a lawsuit challenging the law as it applies to real property assessments in the event of the death of one of the domestic partners.

Under the partnership law, as interpreted by the State Board of Equalization, who is the defendant in the lawsuit, if one partner dies without a will his or her real property is inherited by the surviving partner, and is not reassessed for county tax purposes.

The lawsuit challenges the rule on reassessment. Sutter County Assessor Mike Strong, who initially filed the suit, was not available for comment, apparently. But in February, after he filed a similar suit that was thrown out of court, he said: "I cited various sections of both the Probate Code and the Family Code, and I asserted that there was no legal evidence, justification or implication that warrants equal consideration of domestic partner and inter spousal property rights and interests for property tax purposes."

If nothing else, California's experience suggests that the United States is not going to have to worry about full employment for lawyers during the next decade or so.

Meanwhile, a court ruled in the ballot initiative battle last week, sustaining the California Attorney General in a dispute over the official summary that will appear on the ballot.

Sponsors of the proposed state constitutional amendment argued that the Attorney General stacked the deck against the measure with an official description that exaggerated and distorted its effect on domestic partners and underplayed its effect on marriage.

But Sacramento Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei said the formal title - "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" -- accurately reflected a principal effect of the measure: nullifying recent state laws that granted registered domestic partners many of the same rights as spouses.

The summary details some of the rights of domestic partners that the initiative would restrict or abolish, in areas such as adoption, child custody, health and insurance benefits, hospital visitation and property ownership. Cadei ordered a few tweaks in the wording - for example, specifying that the initiative would affect only a couple's community property rights, not all property rights - but left the structure of the summary undisturbed.

You know he's a Christian by his love, by his love ...

Pat Robertson, on Venezuala's President Ceasar Chavez, according to press reports this morning:

""You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop. ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Monday Morning Comics

There are days when you just wonder ...

Robertson, host of the 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, had this to say on a August 16 broadcast: "I had interviewed a lady who was a sociologist who says "I am a lesbian," but she described homosexuality in this term, she said, "They are self-absorbed narcissists." I want you to put that down -- self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle. You go back to the various laws that took away the difficulty of getting a divorce, and the people leading the charge were homosexuals, way back in the '70s. So we have no-fault divorce. Who are leading the charge for abortions? So often, you'll find people who are lesbians leading the fight for the destruction of human life. Now they want to destroy marriage.

The first no-fault divorce law in the nation was signed in California in 1969 by then Governor, later President, Ronald Reagan. I've heard the snickering about President Reagan's son Ron Reagan, but really!. The man's dead, Pat.

But I'm delighted to know that he was on the right team.

What a difference culture makes:

“I don’t feel oppressed at all. We have more freedom here than straight couples. After all, they can’t kiss in public like we can, or stroll down the street holding one another’s hands.” - a gay Saudi, commenting on how restrictions on interaction by members of the opposite sex has created a social space for gays.

In Saudi Arabia, as in most Arab countries, men often kiss each other in public and routinely hold hands as a sign of friendship and family ties. Public displays of affection in Saudi Arabia are so common, in fact, that nobody thinks twice about them -- the pictures of President Bush holding hands with Saudi leaders don't even raise an eyebrow in the Arab world.

So gay men can easily operate under the radar in Saudi Arabia and most Arab countries.

On the other hand, homosexuality is grounds for capital punishment under Saudi law.

There is that to consider ...

Speaking of holding things:

“Are you cool with me bringing naked chicks in here?” - Tommy Lee, interviewing a prospective roommate on his new pseudo-reality show “Tommy Lee Goes to College”.

“Well, I’m gay, so are you cool with me bringing naked guys in here?” - the roommate candidate’s reply.

Well, I don't know about the room, but not on the net:

“This is a short note to inform you that we had to remove one or more of the images from your LeathermensDungeon.com profile because we do not have a scanned copy of your Photo ID on file, and due to new regulations by the United States Government we need to have such documentation on file for any sexually explicit images on the site. If you wish to continue displaying sexually explicit photos in your profile you’ll need to first upload a scanned copy of your Photo ID, such as your drivers [ sic ] license or passport. ...” — An example of the effects of new rules added to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 ( 18 U.S.C. §2257 ) that took effect June 23. Cruisy gay Web sites are among those where users can no longer post pictures of themselves that show such things as two people naked, a naked person with a pet, a hand touching genitals, a hand down one’s pants, a hand spreading apart buttocks, bondage or sadomasochistic abuse—unless the Web site has documented proof the people depicted in the photos are over age 18.

And as for the White House ...

A picture they say, is worth a thousand words ...



I really don't mind if President Bush wants to hold hands in public, or even smooch with the Saudis if that is what he wants to do, but some things should be kept from public view.

It can't be what it looks like. It just can't be.

The President is the Top Gun. He can't be ... he simply can't be.

So I am sure that Scott McClellan will come up with an entirely innocent explanation ...

... but then, who is that guy on the left, and why is he laughing?

Maybe he's a Democrat ...

Making Sense

My brother sent this along this question and answer from a town meeting in which President Bush was trying to explain his Social Security reform plan:

Q. "I don't really understand. How is it the new plan is going to fix the problem?"

A. "Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- ! changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

Well, good, Mr. President. Now that we have that explained, how about explaining why you think a constitutional amendment federalizing marriage and banning same-sex marriages is going to "protect marriage".

Meanwhile in Michigan

Michigan's constitutional "bait and switch" battle got to court last week.

The ACLU sued Governor Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox and the city of Kalamazoo, asking Michigan courts to rule that Proposal 2, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that defines marriage does not bar governmental entities from providing domestic partner benefits to employees. The suit was brought to clarify the meaning of Proposal 2, which reads: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Last fall, when Proposal 2 was put to the voters of Michigan, the amendment's proponents made a point of telling Michigan voters that the amendment was intended to ban same-sex marriage, but was not intended to affect domestic benefits or other rights granted to gays and lesbians in Michigan. The ink was no sooner dry on the amendment after passage, when the proponents changed their mind, bringing a number of lawsuits in Michigan to force governments and public agencies to rescind existing domestic partner benefits.

In oral arguments on the case, ACLU attorney Deborah Labelle detailed arguments against applying the anti-family amendment to domestic partnership benefits. Labelle said: "Benefits are part of an employment agreement, not dependant on marital status." Labelle stressed the variety of ways in which a marriage is different from a domestic partnership, and warned that, if the court should choose to interpret the amendment broadly, the consequences could reach as far as voiding Michigan's domestic violence laws.

Labelle also referred to literature by the proponents of the amendment which told voters that the amendment was just about protecting marriage, not about benefits. LaBelle argued that Michigan voters were voting to do what the amendment's drafters themselves said that the amendment would do - restrict marriage to a union of one man and one woman - and not to take away health insurance benefits from families.

Eric Restuccia, who appeared on behalf of Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, stressed the text of the amendment, ignoring the words of its drafters and supporters, arguing that the amendment's language was clear: "That language — ‘or similar union for any purpose’ — has meaning. The way we know the will of the people is by the language," Restuccia said. "It’s plain on its face — there is no other construction available."

Arguing on behalf of Governor Granholm, State Attorney D.J. Pascoe asked the court to consider "what would the voters have understood," and "the circumstances and context of its [Proposal 2's] passage." Pascoe told the court: "We have to assume that the proponents were being genuine [in contending that they weren't trying to take away benefits from LGBT-headed families] and that voters took them at their word".

A ruling is expected next month.

As Goes Maine ...

"As goes Maine, so goes the nation ..." was once a political axiom. "As goes the nation, so goes Maine ..." seems to be the modern version.

Maine is in the midst of the third referendum campaign in eight years to remove civil rights protections for gays and lesbians.

The dispute began after Governor John Baldacci signed a law in March that extended the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

A conservative church-led alliance led a petition drive to demand a "people's veto" to reject the law. A referendum is on the ballot for November.

And while the referendum has nothing directly to do with same-sex marriage -- in fact, the law expressly says that it "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry" -- social conservatives are warning Maine could go the way of Massachusetts if gays are granted rights with respect to employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

"Absolutely," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, embracing the gay marriage connection. "This vote in November either sends us toward it or points us away from it." Heath says granting more civil rights could open the door to more sweeping interpretations when it comes to marriage: "That's the argument that's been used by judges in support of marriage rights."

Heath is, of course, right.

The courts have looked at state laws when assessing legal arguments opposing same-sex marriage. The courts have looked at adoption laws allowing single men and women to adopt children or act as foster parents, for example, as evidence that a state's argument that marriage is essential for raising children is, well, hollow. The courts have looked at laws that permit infertile men and women to marry as evidence that a state's argument that the purpose marriage is procreation is, well, somewhat at odds with the facts. And so on.

And the courts look at laws affecting gays and lesbians, as well.

And that creates a problem for social conservatives. Social conservatives understand that the only way, in the long run, to prevent gays and lesbians from realizing legal equality with straights is to construct a social order that is draconian in its suppression of gays and lesbians -- passing laws that permit gays and lesbians to be fired at will, prohibit gays and lesbians from raising children, natural or adopted, restrict or prohibit public and private employers from offering benefits to domestic partners, and so on. To work, the social order must be as consistent and harsh as Jim Crow. Every chink in the armor of suppression -- every concession to gay and lesbian equality -- erodes the legal case against same-sex marriage.

But unlike social conservatives, most citizens are men and women of good will who are not obsessed with homosexuality. Unlike social conservatives, most citizens do not look at gay and lesbian family members and friends with repulsion, but with sympathy. Like social conservatives, most citizens see gays and lesbians as "other", but unlike social conservatives, although uncomfortable with and about homosexuality, most citizens do not believe that it is essential to remove gays and lesbians from public sight and public life.

I don't know how the referendum in Maine will turn out. It seems clear, from reading Maine newspapers over the last few months, that voters are unlikely to pass the referendum on its own merits -- too many Maine citizens understand that granting gays and lesbians basic civil rights amounts to basic fairness, and nothing more -- and so the question is whether or not Maine voters will buy into the social conservative argument that any concession to GLBT rights will, inevitably, lead to same-sex marriage.

But however the Maine vote turns out, the problem confronting social conservatives will not go away. Americans will not put up with a Jim Crow social order in the long run, and that is the reason, ultimately, that social conservatives will lose the battle for the hearts and minds of America on the issue of GLBT equality.

Dog Days

The "Justice Sunday" telecast turned out to be the dog that didn't bark.

The broadcast was originally set up to promote Judge John Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court. But that was before social conservatives learned that Roberts had done pro-bono work on the Romer case in 1996.

So, as it turned out, the featured speakers (Tom DeLay, Zell Miller and James Dobson) blanketed the airwaves with prayers for deliverance from liberal judges and denounciations of Supreme Court rulings on gay rights, religious expression and abortion.

But none of the speakers explicitly called for Roberts to be confirmed. The closest anyone came was Zell Miller's request that social conservatives "cover this confirmation process with a blanket of prayer."

The others, like Tony Perkins, conveyed their "concern" about Roberts to the Almighty: "We pray for Judge Roberts that he would, in fact, be a justice who would honor the Constitution."

Is anyone surprised?

I'm not. The dog didn't bark but I suspect that we are about to see the dog bite.

The telecast focused on how to limit or remove federal court review of Congressional action on issues important to social conservatives from our Constitutional system.

Tom DeLay questioned the Supreme Court's power to strike down federal laws it deemed unconstitutional. While the Constitution assigned Congress the power to make laws but limited the federal courts to applying and interpreting those laws, according to Delay. And, Delay went on, "this fact, understood by every high school civics student, has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself." Citing Supreme Court decisions about abortion, sodomy, obscenity and government support for religion, Delay lamented: "That's not judicial independence. That's judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."

Delay's remedy is to use Congressional authority under the Constitution to regulate the Judiciary by removing cases involving issues of importance to social conseratives from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. He has forcefully argued that the federal courts should have no right to review same-sex marriage cases. It looks to me like he is headed toward expanding the areas which are removed from court review.

William Donohue, who heads the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had a more novel solution -- give the courts jurisdiction, but make it almost impossible for them to overturn an act of Congress. Donohue argued that a unanimous vote of all nine Supreme Court justices should be required to overturn as unconstitutional any law passed by Congress, instead of the simple majority of five now required.

Social conservatives are nothing if not dogged.

But the dogs are silent right now with respect to Judge Roberts. It is dawning on them that Roberts is not what they were promised -- a judge who would allow social conservatives to remove Constitutional protections from our citzens without judicial oversight. In fact, I think that social conservatives are finally figuring out that it will be impossible to appoint enough judges who will acquiese in destruction of the Constitution to allow them to have their way with the country.

Accordingly, social conservatives are going to have to restrain the judiciary by removing its jurisdiction, if social conservatives are going to impose their form of morality and conformity on society at large.

It will not, however, be an easy thing to accomplish. The judicial branch, beginning with Marbury v. Madison, has insisted on remaining independant of the executive and legislative branches, and has carefully preserved the judicial role of measuring executive and legislative actions against the Constitution.

Even judges who are "movement conservatives" display a disconcerting streak of judicial independance -- the two justices on the Supreme Court, for example, who have voted most often to overturn Congressional action on constitutional grounds are not the "liberals", but instead Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. Neither is likely to look kindly upon attempts to restrain the courts' jurisdiction.

We may be headed for another confrontation on the order Marbury v. Madison.

Speaking of Plants ...

I am not making this up.

Fred Phelps, you will recall, runs the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and -- working under the flag of "God Hates Fags" -- has regularly picketed gay-friendly churches, gay funerals and other gay-related events for years.

Not a word from social conservatives about any of that ...

In recent months, Phelps and his gang have begun picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.

And mainstream newspapers started picking it up ...

All of a sudden, social conservatives are in full cry, falling all over each other to denounce Phelps, backpedaling away from Phelps as fast as they can.

The latest is Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera, who wonders if Phelps is actually a gay plant:

"Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion."

"Of all the potential targets for their protests, they have chosen funeral services where the bereaved are mourning the loss of loved ones. It is hard to conceive of a more inflammatory presentation of a false Gospel than his."

"Politically and culturally speaking, Phelps and his protesters serve as a crude caricature of pro-family traditionalists who oppose the normalization of homosexuality. Fred makes an easy target for the media and secularists who are tempted (partly by their own prejudices) to paint any opposition to 'gay rights' as hateful. For this reason, I have sometimes wondered if Phelps and his lawyerly clan are 'gay plants.'"

Yeah, no doubt, Pete. Speaking of plants, if you were any dumber, we'd have to water you twice a week.

You, of course, are a big friend of gay and lesbian equality. The Illinois Family Institute has been pushing a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in Illinois, fought tooth and nail against legislation to end workplace discrimination in Illinois, and most recently demanded that the Illinois Bureau of Tourism refuse to give public funds to the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.

You don't need Phelps to give you a bad name.

A New Low for Focus on the Family

Focus on the Family has hit a new low.

FOTF has an article titled "Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women: Is My Child Becoming Homosexual" in the "Focus on Your Child" section of the FOTF website, aimed at parents with children between the age of 5 and 11 years old.

The following is the text of the article:

Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women
Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?
http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000684.html

Before puberty, children aren't normally heterosexual or homosexual. They’re definitely gender conscious. But young children are not sexual beings yet — unless something sexual in nature has interrupted their developmental phases.

Still, it’s not uncommon for children to experience gender confusion during the elementary school years. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports, “In one study of 60 effeminate boys ages 4 to 11, 98 percent of them engaged in cross-dressing, and 83 percent said they wished they had been born a girl.”

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are "different" from other boys.
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them "queer," "fag" and "gay."
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.

"By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager," warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience "great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution."

If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.

Why do I think that this is a new low?

It is not the utter stupidity of the list of "pre-homosexual tendancies", so much. I have a hard time understanding why a father of a boy who is being being bullied and "teased unmercifully" wouldn't raise hell with the kid's teachers and school administrators, not to mention the parents of the other boys, instead of thinking that his boy might be "pre-homosexual", but I don't expect better. Social conservatives bitterly fight efforts to reduce bullying aimed at gay and lesbian students in the schools, assuming, I guess, that gay and lesbian kids should be bullied.

The problem I have is that the link to "professional help" recommends that parents take their children to Exodus International and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, both ex-gay ministries offering reparative therapy. I think that is beyond nuts.

FOTF is talking about children who are 5-11 years old -- children who are in a period of their lives when sexual development is clearly incomplete. The article is clear about the recommendation that pre-pubescent children be subjected to ex-gay therapy -- "It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty."

Ex-gay therapy might -- just might -- be a responsible choice for parents of teenagers, but recommending ex-gay therapy for pre-pubescent children is recommending child abuse.

Be clear about what James Dobson is recommending. He is not talking about teenagers or young adults. He is talking about young kids.

I've never made a secret of the fact that I think James Dobson is a lying snake in the grass -- among other things, he uses the FOTF website to promote the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles -- but even for Dobson and FOTF, the idea that parents should send children off to ex-gay therapy before they've reached puberty is a new low.

I am appalled.

Protecting Straights

The battle is being waged because social conservatives have managed to certify not one, not two, but three proposed "protect marriage" amendments, and a fourth is pending certification.

According to the California Attorney General's initiative summary as of August 11, the following initiatives are in process:

SA2005RF0077, Amdt. #2-NS - Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative

TEXT:
Section 1: Title This amendment shall be known and cited as the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. Section 2: Declaration of Findings and Purposes The People of California have a compelling responsibility to protect the essence of marriage by ensuring that the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman is not abolished or diminished. The People find that marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government bestows statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons or when government requires private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons. The People further find and declare it is in a child's best interest to have a mother and a father, and that marriage rights for one man and one woman should be protected for the well-being of children, families and society. Section 3: Marriage Protection Section 1.1 of Article I of the Constitution is added to read: SEC. 1.1. a) Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. b) Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.

BALLOT DESCRIPTION:
Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 07/25/05 Circulation Deadline: 12/22/05 Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponents: Larry Bowler, Ed Hernandez, and Randy Thomasson (916) 265-5643
Summary: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. Voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations, for certain same-sex and heterosexual couples, in areas such as: ownership and transfer of property, inheritance, adoption, medical decisions, child custody and child support, health and death benefits, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, employment benefits, and recovery for wrongful death and other tort remedies. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations.

SA2005RF0082 - California Marriage Protection Act

TEXT:
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only a man and a woman in a lawful marriage shall have the legal status of married spouses in California.

BALLOT DESCRIPTION:
Marriage. Invalidation of Domestic Partnerships. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 07/27/05 Circulation Deadline: 12/27/05 Signatures Required: 598,105Proponents: Gail Knight, Natalie R. Williams, Mark A. Jansson, and Philip W. Kell, c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065
Summary: Amends the California Constitution to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in California. Amendment bars domestic partnerships from being valid or recognized as legal unions in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations.

SA2005RF0083 - California Marriage Protection Act

TEXT:
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only a man and a woman in a lawful marriage shall have the legal status of married spouses in California.

BALLOT DESCRIPTION:
Marriage. Exclusive Legal Status for Married Spouses. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 07/27/05 Circulation Deadline: 12/27/05 Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponents: Gail Knight, Natalie R. Williams, Mark A. Jansson, and Philip W. Kell, c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065
Summary: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only a man and a woman in a lawful marriage shall have the legal status of married spouses in California. Makes same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations.

SA2005RF0093 - California Marriage Protection Act

TEXT:
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

BALLOT DESCRIPTION:
Submitted for Title and Summary

Needless to say, if all four of the initiatives make it on the ballot, all hell is likely to break loose, something that a lot of us have been predicting for California for years. So the various "protect marriage" groups are in a full-fledged cat fight, each claiming that their initiative is the best way to screw over gays and lesbians in the state. It is a bit like a bad divorce, but social conservatives seem to have a lot of those, so I suppose that they are used to it.

At issue is the precise wording of each initiative and the legal effect of the wording. The question is whether the wording of the various initiatives merely kills California's domestic partnership law, enacted this year by the California legislature, or kills the law and drives a stake through gay and lesbian rights to boot.

Backers of SA2005RF0077, Amdt. #2-NS - Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative are in a real frenzy, denouncing the other initiatives as deeply flawed, limp-wristed, sissy-assed assaults on gay and lesbian rights. According to this gang, no initiative is sufficient unless it accomplishes all of the following:

(1) Bans laws and court decisions creating same-sex marriage;
(2) Bans laws and court decisions creating same-sex domestic partnership, civil unions and other laws that grant any of the rights granted to married couples;
(3) Bans laws and court decisions that allow gays and lesbians to enter into private contracts that grant any of the rights granted to married couples;
(4) Bans laws and court decisions that require private business to grant any of the rights granted to married couples; and
(5) Bans laws abolishing marriage (e.g., a law that eliminated marriage in favor of civil unions).

As Randy Thomasson, one of the organizers of VoteYesMarriage.com put it: "The only thing that ultimately matters is the legal effect -- what an initiative will accomplish once the courts have looked at it. Despite its good intentions, the amendment by the Protect Marriage group is fatally flawed and legally unsound; it won't protect marriage rights. California pro-family voters cannot in good conscience support this counterfeit marriage initiative. Fortunately, voters have a choice and can support the true-blue marriage amendment sponsored by VoteYesMarriage.com. The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative will protect everything about marriage – marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage – for one man and one woman.

Yup, that's right -- "the true-blue marriage amendment".

And, quoting Thomasson again, what the catfight is all about is not "protecting marriage", but "protecting straights": "This creation of homosexual "marriage" by yet another name would reduce marriage for a husband and wife to a mere word without exclusive legal value."

And that's right -- "... a mere word without exclusive legal value ....

Social conservatives live in a twisted world, I think.

Crimebusters

I like to ridicule cheerleaders. I probably shouldn't, after all, because the President of the United States was a cheerleader before becoming the Top Gun. And Trent Lott. Not to mention Damien Scott. And, of course, a large percentage of male cheerleaders are gay, so ridiculing cheerleaders is, well, suspect.

Well, my bad. It turns out that cheerleaders may be uniquely equipped as crimebusters.

At least, that's what the news from Ann Arbor, Michigan, suggests.

A hit-and-run driver was tracked down with the help of the Lincoln High School varsity cheerleading squad, who witnessed the crash and turned his license plate number into a cheerleading chant, according to police.

According to the squad's coach, Patricia Clark: "I knew I was going to not remember it because there was too much going on. So, when I ran down the street and got the plate number, I yelled to the girls: 'Remember this!'"

The cheerleaders put their skills to work, chanting the license number. "The coach just said it and we were saying it over and over, and then it just turned into a big chant since we kept repeating it," according to Kimmie Ostrowski, a senior captain for the squad.

The hit-and-run driver may face a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of an accident. We don't know whether the cheerleading squad distracted him from his driving, causing the accident.

Bailing on Roberts?

Social conservatives are beginning to squirm on the John Roberts nomination.

Groups that were demanding speedy confirmation are now calling for tough questioning in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The change of heart followed news that Roberts had worked for on the Romer case pro bono in the mid-1990's.

Now, some social conservative leaders say they, and the President, may have been mislead by "by a liberal in conservative robes".

Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a legal group fighting GLBT equality across the nation, said that Roberts' involvement in the case is "something to certainly be concerned about". Staver wants Republicans to ask Roberts direct questions about his positions on gay marriage, sodomy laws, and other GLBT equality issues:

"We need more information to find out the facts behind what Judge Roberts did when he was working on the case. But if in fact the story is true, it is clearly concerning because, according to the story, Judge Roberts did not hesitate to get involved to work on this case pro bono. ... If in fact he did this, this would be contrary to everything I've read about him thus far. This was a state constitutional amendment passed by the people. For the court to strike that down, I felt, was judicial activism."

Focus on the Family also is raising alarm bells. James Dobson was one of the conservative leaders who says that he received assurance directly from President Bush that Roberts would be a "strict constitutionalist" and "rule on the law not make it" at the time of the nomination.

But Dobson's group is now also calling upon Republicans to question Roberts about his role in the Romer case, although Focus on the Family appears to understand, at least, that positions taken in legal representation do not always reflect a lawyer's personal views: "While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts' personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case."

The involvement of Roberts in the gay rights case has also been a hot topic on conservative talk shows and among conservative columnists.

Faux News' Sean Hannity, who should give up his day job and work full time on Comedy Central, says he has "some" doubts about Roberts: "It's the first sign I've seen where his conservative judicial philosophy ... may not be as solid as what I thought."

Ann Coulter, the puff-kitten of the far right, is in an absolute frenzy about Roberts. She has written about nothing else, as far as I can tell, since Roberts was nominated, and she is mad as hell. In her most recent column "Read My Lips, No More Liberals", Coulter says: "In retrospect, I deeply apologize for all the nasty things I've said about the people responsible for putting David Souter on the Supreme Court. Compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee."

As far as I know, the only social conservative group to bail out in public is Public Advocate of the United States. Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the group, hopes his stance will prod other social conservatives:

"I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They're just not going to act. But once I've done it, then they can't claim that no one's opposing Roberts. We can't take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is."

Delgaudio said his group had planned to send out more than 1 million pieces of direct mail for Roberts, as well as work telephones, poll and conduct petition drives, but would not now, of course.

Don't You Just Love It?

The Reverend Louis P. Sheldon’s new book, "The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan To Change America", is on the market.

Reverend Sheldon, who heads the Traditional Values Coalition, purports to outline the "homosexual agenda" and proposes a "plan of action" to counter that agenda, including "education and mobilization of churches and people while, at the same time, encouraging individual intervention in a neighbor or relative’s family where a male role model is lacking."

Sheldon's plan of action to restore moral values to America involves making sure that there is a daddy or daddy surogate in every home in America.

Don't you just love it? Sheldon must adore homes in which there are two daddies.

Don't Call ME a Sissy ...

A new study by researchers at Cornell University has found that men whose masculinity is threatened respond by adopting more macho attitudes, including increased homophobia.

Cornell researcher Robb Willer put to the test the theory that men insecure about their masculinity overcompensate with macho attitudes.

Willer gave more than a hundred Cornell undergraduate students a gender identity survey and then randomly told them their responses indicated they had a masculine or feminine identity.

Then the subjects were interviewed about political opinions, car preferences, and feelings toward gay people.

Willer says men who were told they were feminine gave much more homophobic responses. They were also more likely to support the war in Iraq and to be interested in buying an SUV. Willer didn't comment on whether or not the men told they were feminine developed a sudden interest in NASCAR.

But here's a word of advice: Don't call Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or James Dobson or Rick Santorum or Gary Bauer "sissies" or comment on the fact that their Hummers have a, uh, decidedly pink cast.

They'll feel threatened and get even worse.

Connor Coyne and Jessica Jalbrzikowski

Connor Coyne and Jessica Jalbrzikowski join in holy matrimony today at Saint Nicholas Catholic Church in Zanesville, Ohio.

You are blessed, Lord our God, the sovereign of the world, who created joy and celebration, bridegroom and bride, rejoicing, jubilation, pleasure and delight, love and brotherhood, peace and friendship. May there soon be heard, Lord our God, the sound of joy and the sound of celebration, the voice of a bridegroom and the voice of a bride, the happy shouting of bridegrooms from their weddings and of young men from their feasts of song. You are blessed, Lord, who makes the bridegroom and the bride rejoice together.

Suffer Unto Me the Children

If you attend the funeral of a son or daughter, brother or sister, or friend killed in Iraq, this is what you will see:



Fred Phelps and his congregants at Westboro Baptist Church are protesting at the funerals of our fallen servicemen, confronting mourners with signs praising the improvised explosive devices that killed their loved ones.

Worse, the protestors are children. Phelps and his band of torch carriers for Baptist use the children to carry signs, knowing full well that even those most outraged by their odius behavior are unlikely to harm kids.

I'm not kidding. Westboro is travelling around the country these days, as I reported on June 17 in Odius, dishonoring our war dead.

Westboro's schedule is posted on Westboro's website:

• WBC to picket funeral of Army Spc. Adam J. Harting - 10 a.m., Fri. Aug. 5, Edmonds & Evans Chapel, Portage, Ind. Killed in Iraq July 25 by an IED - like the IED used to bomb Westboro Baptist Church, in a terroristic move to stop WBC's anti-gay preaching. God is now America's Terrorist.


• WBC to picket funeral of Army Spc. Edward L. Myers - at noon, Fri. Aug. 5, Grace Evangelical Church, 5103 S. 50th, St. Joseph, Mo. Killed in Iraq July 27 by an IED - like the IED America used to bomb Westboro Baptist Church, in a terroristic move to stop WBC's anti-gay preaching.


• WBC to picket funeral of Army Sgt. Christopher J. Taylor - (2 p.m., Sat., Aug. 6, Opelika, Ala.) - killed in Iraq on July 24 by IED - like the IED America used to bomb Westboro Baptist Church, in a terroristic attempt to stop WBC's anti-gay Gospel preaching. God is now America's Terrorist.


• WBC to picket funeral of Army Pfc. Ramon A. Villatoro Jr. -- at 9 a.m. Aug. 6, at Our Lady of Sodom Church, 601 E. California Ave., Bakersfield, Cal. He was killed July 24 by an Iraqi IED - like the IED used to bomb our church, in a terroristic move to stop WBC's anti-gay preaching.


• WBC to picket funeral of Army Sgt. Jason T. Palmerton - (9 a.m.. Mon., Aug. 8, Arlington National Cemetery) - killed in Afghanistan July 21 by IED - like the IED America used to bomb WBC in a terroristic attempt to stop WBC's anti-gay preaching.


• WBC to picket the Memorial for Marines killed in Iraq - 7 p.m., Mon. Aug. 8, at the International Exposition Center, Cleveland, Ohio - and, WBC to picket the Marine Base - 9 a.m., Tues. Aug. 9, at 5572 Smith Road, Brook Park, Ohio. - In religious protest & warning: "God is not mocked!" God Hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates the Marines, and God is killing them with IEDs and casting them into Hell.

I oppose the war in Iraq. I think that it is a mistake on the order of Vietnam.

I believe in the right of free speech. I believe that Baptists have the right to spread hate in the public forum, whether the hate is expressed the raw, ugly signs of Fred Phelps or the modulated and sanctimonious tones of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

I believe in the freedom of religion. I believe that Baptists should be free to distort the love of Christ into a message of hate, if that is where their religious lights lead them.

And I believe in the right of parents to teach their children, even to hate.

But I am a veteran who buried my own during the Vietnam war.

And it angers me to see our war dead dishonored.

About to hit the fan ...

The shit is about to hit the fan for John Roberts.

The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that Roberts worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Roberts worked for Hogan & Hartson, a Washington law firm, at the time, specializing in appellate work. Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of the firm's pro bono work. While Roberts did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, Roberts was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who was the lead lawyer on the case, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the Supreme Court presentation, Roberts gave her advice in that was "absolutely crucial" to the successful outcome.

The case was Romer v. Evans, which sought to have struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing. The coalition won the case in a 6-3 decision.

While Robert's work on the case appears to have resulted from his dedication to the legal profession rather than personal sympathy with the struggle for GLBT equality, the Times article indicates that his decision to work on the case was willing: The lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

Roberts did not mention his work on the case in his response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, released Tuesday. The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them. The questionnaire did not ask Roberts to list all instances of his pro bono work, but you can bet that the omission is going to feed the paranoia of social conservatives.

Why?

Romer, like Lawrence and Goodridge, is an anathema to social conservatives, and Robert's role in the case is almost guaranteed to frighten and enrage the so-called "religious right". Already nervous because President Bush picked Roberts, a lawyer who seems to be a legal technocrat, over other potential nominees who are "movement conservatives" and could be counted on to throw bombs ala Justice Scalia, social conservative bloggers have been raising the question of whether Roberts is another Souter, a lawyer who rules on the basis of law rather than politics.

And any real suspicion that Robert will be a Justice who rules on the basis of law rather than politics will be the death knell of social conservative support.

And the evidence is building, brick by brick.

It will an interesting couple of months, I think.

Creation is SO G-y

During his press conference on Tuesday, President Bush endorsed the idea that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. ... You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Intelligent design disputes the idea that natural selection fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.

Intelligent design is different than creationism -- the idea that the Genesis creation accounts are factual -- and does not posit the identify the designer, but the theory is, despite more than a bit of slight of hand of its proponents, a thinly disguised argument for the divine creation of the universe.

The core of "intelligent design" theory is that life is so complex -- for example, the existence of the appendix in human beings -- that it must be the product of a "higher intelligence". The theory, such as it is, is advanced as real science. Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design theory, for example, says: "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs."

Intelligent design theory is not, according to Behe and other proponents, based on religion because the theory does not require that the "higher intelligence" be God. As Behe puts it, "Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its proponents, the "higher intelligence" responsible for "intelligent design" could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life -- space aliens, for example.

Or possibly, of course, God. But just possibly. The premise behind "intelligent design" seems to be that as long as the "higher intelligence" is not named as God -- so long as theory permits the possibility that a natural creature, such as a space alien, could be the "higher intelligence" -- then intelligent design theory is not inherently religious in character.

I think that this is, to be blunt, a load of bullwinkle. Without a leap of imagination that defies reality, intelligent design theory requires a supernatural "higher intelligence" -- God to anyone other than an intelligent design theorist.

Not so?

Let's test my statement. Let's assume that we discover other intelligent life in the universe, and as we get to know them, we discover that our space alien friends are super-bright with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer" in playpen earth?

It could not. In fact, a natural being with the level of "higher intelligence" posited by intelligent design theory would itself be sufficiently complex to require its own "higher intelligence" as designer, and so on, ad infinitum. By the very nature, intelligent design theory cannot be satisfied with a designer that is part of the natural creation. A natural designer would not answer the basic question intelligent design theory raises, because a natural designer would not explain biological complexity as such. As long as the "higher intelligence" is posited as originating from a creature that is part of the natural creation, intelligent design theory, like Hericlitus' arrow, cannot arrive at its logical destination.

At some point, as each level of designer is unpeeled in turn, the quest has to stop at a "higher intelligence" that is not part of the natural creation, a designer that transcends nature -- in short, a supernatural designer. Intelligent design theory has no other resting place.

In fact, despite the slight of hand practiced by intelligent design theorists on this score, the leading intelligent design theorist, Micheal Demski, concedes, while trying to deny that intelligent design theory is a quest for the supernatural, concedes that "if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence."

The insistence of intelligent design proponents that intelligent design theory is "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a bait-and-switch. The idea that the "higher intelligence" behind the design is part of the natural order -- something that can be studied by science -- is groundless.

Intelligent design theory is nothing more, and nothing less, than a religious theory, ultimately untestable, that posits a supernatural designer.

In itself, that doesn't bother me. The Catholic Church posits that while evolutionary processes may be the means by which human beings and other creatures of the natural order came into being, it makes no bones about the fact that God is the force behind


The Catholic Church is, in a sense, a proponent of intelligent design theory. The Church has no quarrel with the idea that evolution may be the means of creation, but opposes the idea that materialist forces alone are the hand behind evolution. As John Paul put it in 1986, discussing the Genesis creation account:

"This text has above all a religious and theological importance. There are not to be sought in it significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm.... Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis.... It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings." (John Paul II, General Audiences, January 24 and April 16, 1986).

Social conservatives, like President Bush, who are the driving force behind intelligent design theory, do not display a similar level of honesty about the nature of intelligent design theory. And that is where I get off the boat. The question posed by the President was "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." A noble-sounding idea, but wrongheaded. We should not use the public schools as a platform for deception, for religiously-motivated "bait and switch".

I'll leave the jokes about why intelligent design stopped at the White House door to others.