Tuesday, April 21, 2015


A Guide to How It's Done

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a fascinating post about the minutia of how oral arguments proceed in the Supreme Court. Ostensibly, it is a “A reporter’s guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court” but anyone interested in how the Supreme Court works (and wants to listen to the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges) would be well advised to read it, as it is full of much detail.

I have argued, certainly, more than a dozen cases before the appellate courts of New York and it's nothing like this. For one thing, very few last more than about 15 minutes for both sides and there is, only in the rarest of cases, any reply by the appellant. The prospect of spending 30 minutes, as Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who will represent the appellants on the main issue, whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires that LGBT people be afforded an equal right to marriage, being peppered by the highest judges in the land (including bright but nasty Justices like Scalia) is simply beyond my comprehension. Worse yet, this is Bonauto's first time arguing before the Supreme Court, I was terrified the first couple of times I argued before the much less intimidating New York courts.

Now it is routine for me and, truth be told, there is no point to the oral arguments. The judges have all made up their minds and it would be a miracle if anything you said changed that. It's more a ritual now than anything.

But your first time before the Supreme Court …!

Fortunately, perhaps, she is a a MacArthur “genius” award winner and may be better equipped than I to take on the challenge.

Sunday, April 19, 2015


Not Getting the Whole “Civil Law” Thingie

One of the stranger Amicus Briefs filed in the same-sex marriage cases now before the Supreme Court (collectively known as Obergefell v. Hodges), is the one filed on behalf of the Public Advocate of the U.S. [despite the name, not a government agency], Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

One of the brief's big arguments is that:
Inevitably, a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will usher in an unprecedented coarsening of community moral standards, spawning an aggressive impulse to force the American people not just to tolerate all forms of sexual misbehavior, but to embrace and encourage pagan practices that threaten to “defile” the land, and risk God’s judgment. …

Should the Court require the States and the People to “ritualize” sodomite behavior52 by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the Nation. Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is “defiled,” the people have been cast out of their homes. See Leviticus 18:22, 24-30. Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: “For if God ... turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample [sic] unto those that after should live ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:4-6. The continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 7
Now, I've seen appellate briefs quote the Bible before … in much the same way as Mark Twain is sometimes quoted … but never as a legal authority that a court should follow.

Don't forget that the oral arguments are scheduled for April 28, 2015 and that, in a rare move, the Court will be releasing the audio of the oral arguments, along with an unofficial transcript, both of which should be available no later than 2 p.m. on the same day. They will be found here.

I'm taking bets that none of the attorneys will be arguing the Bible as a legal authority.


Republican Janus!

The Republican party has a problem.

It doesn't like to look as homophobic as it is. The Roman god Janus somehow comes to mind.

This was recently on display in Indiana and even Arkansas, home of the ultimate “bubba” store, Walmart, which came out strongly on the side of LBGT equality. The “economic” wing of the party knows that the majority of Americans are now in favor of equality and that no political advantage can, in the present day, be wrung out of bigotry, as it was once was in 2004. Instead, firestorms descend on Republican politicians who try to write bigotry into law or even try to, ever so slightly, side with that bigotry.

A case in point is the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, run by the Centennial Institute, which refused the “Log Cabin Republicans,” (“LCR”), a group of gay Republicans (why that isn't an oxymoron is beyond me!) request for a booth at the convention.

The Colorado Republican Party has now invited the LCRs to share its booth at the convention, which the organizers said was fine but not before decrying the LCR's “shaming and bullying” tactics. Those “shaming and bullying” tactics amounted to nothing more than a complaint on its Facebook page and a press release to the effect that its payment for a booth at the WCS had been “rescinded.”
But the Centennial Institute said it wasn’t a case of disinviting because it never specifically invited the Log Cabin Republicans. It said in a blog post Wednesday its practice is to decline exhibit space to groups whose policy goals conflict with its own, “whether it be higher taxes, climate extremism, disarmament, marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, abridgment of religious freedom, or the like.” …

“We’ve got a biblical article of faith, and marriage is one man, one woman,” Andrews told me Thursday, explaining why he declined the Log Cabin Republicans’ application. “They have chosen to turn it into a national protest movement raining down on me and my staff.”

In what he calls an orchestrated “bully movement,” Andrews said he’s gotten a barrage of phone calls and online comments from people calling him a “hypocrite,” a “bigot,” or a person “from the Dark Ages.”

“Several people have called us the Taliban. … Where is the tolerance they talk about toward us?” Andrews said. “It really doesn’t seem fair that if we respect their sexual freedom they can’t respect our religious freedom.”
What's the saying? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … Phil Robertson will want to shoot it anyway!

If, as most court observers expect, the Supreme Court this June finds a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment for LGBT people to marry, this is only going to get worse for the Republicans. The Religious Right is already losing its collective mind about the prospect, even suggesting secession (and didn't that turn out well the last time it was tried?).

The Republicans have tied their fate to the Tea Partiers, those descendants of the John Birch Society that William F. Buckley had ousted from the Republican mainstream in the 1960s. They chose to ride the tiger and, as everyone knows, the hardest part of that is the dismount.

The Religious Right, which holds such sway in Republican primaries, will insist on nominating an outright bigot this time around … something that, whoever the candidate is … Cruz, Huckabee, (please God!), Santorum, just won't be able to run away from in the general election. If, perchance, the Republican establishment manages to nominate a Bush or Rubio or Christie, can they hide the bigots under their skirts? And just how long will the Religious Right continue to be a reliable Republican resource, especially if Hillary beats whoever the Republicans nominate … because he “wasn't conservative enough”?

I'm old enough to be philosophical about this. I won't be around in 20 years when this all plays out (or if I'm still around I probably won't know/care what's going on).

But, in the meantime, it's beer and popcorn time!

Thursday, April 16, 2015


The Confluence of All Cranks

Well, well, well …

At last, the connection between my two great obsessions … creationism and same-sex marriage!

I bet you didn't know that Darwin, along with engendering Nazism, Communism and just about every other political evil in the world, also is responsible for same-sex marriage!

Fortunately, we have Nancy Pearcey, Discovery Institute fellow, to set us straight:
Secularists claim that their view of same-sex marriage is an expression of respect. But surprisingly, the underlying worldview is actually a disrespectful view of the human body.

In an earlier age, nature was recognized as God's creation, expressing God's purposes. Because our bodies are part of nature, the human body has a purpose too. The biological correspondence between male and female in reproduction is part of the original creation that God pronounced "very good" — morally good — which means it provides a reference point for morality.

What changed this purpose-driven view of nature? Darwin's theory of evolution: It was proposed expressly to eliminate the concept of purpose or design in nature.

This not only changed biology, it also caused a monumental shift in moral thinking. For if nature no longer bore signs of God's good purposes, then it no longer provided a basis for moral truths. Nature was just a machine, churning along by blind, material forces.

The human body too was reduced to a morally neutral mechanism. Our sexual identity no longer provided clues to how we were intended to live. And if nature did not reveal God's will, then it became a morally neutral realm where humans may impose their will and preferences.

This background is crucial for understanding the impact of homosexuality. Think of it this way: Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. That's how the human sexual and reproductive anatomy is designed.

As a consequence, engaging in homosexual practice requires individuals to contradict their own anatomy — to override the obvious design of their physiology, to act in opposition to their own biology.

The implication is that biology does not matter.

We need to help people see that this is a profoundly disrespectful view of their own body. It treats the body as having no intrinsic purpose or significance — giving no clue to who we are as whole persons. Thus homosexuality has a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.
A “disrespectful” view of the human body? What our bodies do is supposed to tell us how we were intended to live? We shouldn't impose our will and preferences on our bodies? We can't override the obvious design of our physiology or act in opposition to our own biology?

So, if God's good purpose was to make you shortsighted, it's “disrespectful” to wear glasses or contacts? If it was God's good purpose to have your body develop cancer, it's “disrespectful”to take chemotherapy? If it was God's good purpose to make a couple sterile, it is “disrespectful” to use technology to try to have children? The list is endless, of course. That doesn't even get to to the question of whether God, for his own “good purposes,” made you attracted to members of your own sex, whether it is “disrespectful” to love the people you love?

Talk about a “self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality”!

Saturday, April 11, 2015


About Petards ...

Peter Montgomery at Religion Dispatches notes:
Mormon Church: High officials slam ‘counterfeit’ gay families

Not long after winning praise from Utah LGBT activists for a compromise in which the church supported legislation opposing discrimination in employment and housing, Mormon officials reaffirmed Church teaching against, in the words of apostle L. Tom Perry, “all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God himself established.”
“Despite what much of media and entertainment outlets may suggest, however, and despite the very real decline in the marriage and family orientation of some,” he said, “the solid majority of mankind still believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman.”
This is amusing on a couple of levels. First of all, a solid majority of humankind doesn't believe in or, at least, doesn't live under liberal democracies that value freedom of religion as we do here in the US. Why should we care what a majority opinion across the world is, especially when we are constantly told, particularly by the Religious Right, of “American Exceptionalism”?

Furthermore, a majority of humankind here in the US and the rest of the world still believe that Mormonism is a “false religion.” Does that mean we don't have to protect Mormons' religious freedom … anymore than we have to protect the 14th Amendment rights of LGBT people to due process and equal protection under the law … simply because a majority of people disagree with their beliefs and practices?

Guys, you might want to rethink this ...

Wednesday, April 08, 2015


The Mind of Theists

When in danger,
When in doubt,
Run in circles
Scream and shout!

Al Mohler is running in such tight circles he is in danger of disappearing up his own ass.

It seems:
The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed just if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that couldn’t be true, and now the entire nation knows.
What's changed? The Indiana “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was shot down … big time. But according to Al, it was just the same law that has been on the Federal books since 1993 and almost unanimously passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton himself!

Except it wasn't the same law ... but why be picky?

But according to Al:
The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.
How does he come to that conclusion? Why because the New York Times Editorial Board had the temerity to say:
The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.
To Al, that's not enough:
There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, a mosque, a temple or a synagogue. That editorial represents religious liberty redefined right before our eyes.
But, perhaps not strangely for a Southern Baptist, Al doesn't mention the next paragraph in the Times editorial:
But religion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation.
What more does Al want, anyway?

His other evidence of this is a couple of columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni at the Times. The first, back in January, where Bruni said “churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish,” and another recently where he says “debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

The problem here is that, as part of the vast “secular Left” conspiracy against religion, I don't agree with Bruni. The “ministerial exception” is entirely appropriate to our constitutional scheme and necessary to keep government out of the freedom of religion of our citizens. And, while Bruni has every free speech right to talk to theists about freeing religion from past superstition and prejudice, government (to the extent he even suggested it did) has no role in that conversation.

To try to attribute to a large movement like liberalism and secularism the motives of the New York Times Editorial Board or of Frank Bruni is rather like me saying that all Christians want to kill gays because some Christians advocate stoning gays to death.

Is Al willing to take the views of a few as if they are his own?

I didn't think so!

Monday, April 06, 2015


Muncie ... We Agree

More fallout from the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act debacle in Indiana …

Up to now, 28% of the population of Indiana has been protected by local laws from discrimination based on sexual orientation and 21% from discrimination based on gender identity.

As a direct result of the RFRA flap, more local communities are considering extending anti-discrimination protections to LGBT people.

Tonight, Muncie, Indiana joined in and another 70,316 people were added to those in Indiana protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

It turns out the Indiana RFRA is having quite an effect … just not the one its sponsors expected.

And that's a good thing!

Thank goodness for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Friday, April 03, 2015


Of Fans and Shit

As noted before, the state of Indiana was enduring a storm of criticism after its Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law. It got so bad, that the state's Republican legislative leaders and governor promised to come up with a “clarification,” even though they kept insisting that none was necessary.

Well, this is what they came up with:
This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;

(2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services,facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service; or (3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.[…]

As used in this chapter, “provider” means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include: (1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)). (2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society.
Gov. Mike Pence has now signed the revised law, despite being urged by Religious Right leaders, such as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, to veto the clarification:
"On the eve of Good Friday, Big Business is encouraging elected leaders to take the silver over religious freedom.

"This new proposal guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their beliefs about marriage.

"Religious freedom should not be held hostage by Big Business. Big Business is now putting religious freedom in a worse place than before RFRA was signed into law. Gutting RFRA in this manner would put people of faith in the crosshairs of government discrimination as never before. Far from being a 'clarification,' this would gut religious freedom in Indiana. Religious freedom doesn't need a 'fix.'

"This proposal would force religious businesses and even nonprofits deemed 'not religious enough' to participate in wedding ceremonies contrary to their owners' beliefs. If the government punishes people for living their faith, there are no limits to what government can control.
Oh, good! A split between the social conservative wing and the economic wing of the Republican Party? Unfortunately, I doubt it will last through the 2016 elections.

But it sure brought out the bigots and the crazy in force: Mike Huckabee (gays won't stop until there are no more churches); Ted Cruz (preventing discrimination against gays is like forcing a Rabbi to eat pork); Glenn Beck (gays are Nazis who will instigate a Christian Holocaust); Mat Staver (gays are just like Hamas terrorists); Mike Farris (Nazi Germany would be proud of efforts to roll back Indiana's RFRA); Pat Robertson (gays will force you to like anal sex, bestiality); and my personal favorite, Scott Lively (gays are like Star Trek's 'Borg' attacking America).

Well, as long as they are going to be calm and rational about it.

Wednesday, April 01, 2015


A Tangled Web


Indiana Governor Mike Pence has stepped it it big time! What's more, he seems to have dragged the bigots elsewhere in the country in with him.

Last week, he signed into law a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that has ignited a firestorm of protest, including an editorial by the CEO of Apple, Angie's List CEO putting a $40 million expansion of its headquarters in Indiana on hold and the Commissioner of the NCAA questioning whether its student-athletes and fans were safe from discrimination in the state.

He didn't help himself by going on ABC News’ “This Week With George Stephanopolous,” that you can see above. Among other things, he melted my irony meter and sent it on a China Syndrome journey to the center of the Earth when he said (07:15) he is working hard to clarify the law but repeatedly … six times ... refused to answer the straightforward question: 'Does this law allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians?'

Although Pence repeatedly compared the Indiana law to the Federal RFRA, legal experts, such as Garrett Epps of the University of Baltimore disagree.

While Pence wouldn't answer the question directly, he repeatedly tried to poo-poo the notion that anyone in Indiana had any intent to discriminate against gays. Unfortunately for him, the supporters of the law, like Micah Clark, head of the American Family Association of Indiana, who was present at the private signing ceremony with Gov. Pence, said otherwise. On Tim Wildmon's radio show Clark said that going back and “clarifying” the law to say it is not about discrimination “could totally destroy this bill.” Wildmon agreed, saying that states have to defend “these Christian business owners against this kind of persecution.”

What kind of “persecution” are we talking about? Why, of course, something like this from Liberty Counsel:
Today, the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is being lived out by bakers, photographers, florists, ministers, county clerks, and owners of wedding venues who have lost their businesses, been forced to pay exorbitant fines, been threatened with jail, and made to choose between the natural created order of marriage between one man and one woman and judges who side with same-sex couples.
Others have been even more explicit.

Naturally, no one has been threatened with jail; no persons have have “lost” their businesses (though one bigot choose to close his/her business rather than serve LGBT people, I believe); no ministers have been threatened even with fines; and county clerks have simply been told to do their jobs under the law. But unreasoned fear is all the bigots have going for them.

Clearly the Religious Right fully expected the Indiana law to protect them from local anti-discrimination laws in the state, such as in Indianapolis. And why not? Pence kept reiterating that the law doesn't involve disputes between individuals but only applies to government “interference” with religious freedom. It doesn't take a genius to see that a local anti-discrimination laws are government action and when asked if he'd support adding LGBT to the state-wide anti-discrimination law, he responded that it wasn't part of his “agenda.”

The Republican politicians in Indiana have finally figured out which way the wind is blowing all over America and Pence has asked the legislature to “clarify” the law to assure everyone that it will not allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. Whether they will or not will have to await whatever “clarification” they come up with.

In the meantime, Arkansas had passed a RFRA with all the bad features of the Indiana law but adding an even greater bar to enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Where Indiana's law said that to “burden” a person's or corporation's religious freedom, the government or a private party trying to enforce an anti-discrimination law had to prove that the government had a “compelling governmental interest” in doing so, the Arkansas law required proof that the government's interest was an “essential” one. It's a bit of a moot point in Arkansas, however. In Indiana, as noted above, a number of local governments have passed anti-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. Arkansas recently enacted a law that prohibits local governments from doing so and there is no statewide laws protecting gays.

Still, the brouhaha in Indiana and the opposition of Walmart, the largest nongovernmental employer in the world, which happens to be headquarted in Arkansas, has spooked the Republican party there. The governor, Asa Hutchinson, who had previously announced that he would sign the bill has now asked the legislature to either recall the law and change the wording or else to pass supplementary legislation achieving the same effect. Otherwise, he won't sign it.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council keeps trying to put on a brave face to the effect that marriage equality is not inevitable based on one outlier poll. If anything is certain, the last few days ought to dash any such false hopes.

Sunday, March 22, 2015


Puerto Rico Sees the Light

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has filed its brief in the appeal of the District Court decision (one of only three, IIRC) that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. In it it says:
To the extent that Commonwealth law does not afford homosexual couples the same rights and entitlements that heterosexual couples enjoy, the Commonwealth recognizes that equal protection and substantive due process guarantees mandate application of heightened scrutiny in this case. Under said heightened standard, the Commonwealth cannot responsibly advance before this Court any interest sufficiently important or compelling to justify the differentiated treatment afforded so far to Plaintiffs.
The brief essentially concedes that the Supreme Court's 1972 summary dismissal of the appeal in Baker v. Nelson, from the Minnesota Supreme Court that had ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution, on the grounds that the case did not raise “a substantial federal question,” is no longer controlling. It then goes on to state:
Once Baker’s jurisdictional barrier is removed, it follows from recent doctrinal developments in this area of law that government regulations that affect people based on their sexual orientation cannot withstand constitutional attacks under the Equal Protection Clause unless they seek to further, at the very least, an important state interest by means that are substantial related to that interest. Since Puerto Rico’s Civil Code distinguishes based on sexual orientation and/or gender, and Plaintiffs meet all of the criteria that make up a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, we believe that judicial precedent compels this Court to apply some form of heightened scrutiny under which the Commonwealth cannot prevail.
I don't think any legal scholar believes that same-sex marriage bans can survive a heightened scrutiny examination under the Fourteenth Amendment. For all intents and purposes, the Commonwealth is conceding its ban is unconstitutional.

The Commonwealth does request, “in light of the fact that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated cases [where the Sixth Circuit upheld such bans],” that the First Circuit postpone “oral argument in this case until a decision on the merits has been reached on the cases before the highest court,” in the interest of saving judicial resources, since it is reasonably certain that “the dispositive issue or issues [may] have been authoritatively decided” by the Supreme Court at that time. It will be interesting to see what the First Department will do with that request. It would be hard pressed to hold oral arguments and have a decision issued before the end of June, when the Supreme Court is expected to rule. But the Circuit Judges might just want to their 2 cents worth in before then.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015


Venus Di Wacko

It's a “press release” for a self-published book. The title just about tells it all: “New Book Reveals Venus as Location of Hell - Science and Religion Join Together with Compelling Evidence.”
Rev. Dr. Michael T Santini’s work as an Aerospace Engineer and Pastor has given him unique authority to access both sides of the religion vs. science debate. In “Venus: Don't Go There: What Science and Religion Reveal about Life after Death,” Santini calls on unambiguous evidence that points toward Venus as a prime candidate for hell (the lake of fire); urging all readers to accept the provision made by Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
I haven't a clue what the last clause of the last sentence is supposed to mean … but does it matter?
For most, heaven, Hades, and hell are nothing more than abstract ideas that exist outside the space-time continuum. However, fusing his experience in Aerospace Engineering with his passionate work as a Pastor, Dr. Santini has discovered that these places actually exist in material form – and are shocking close. ...

Where do the unrighteous go after death? What is the plight of the guilty after the Day of Judgment? Are places like heaven, hell, and the lake of fire physical locations in the universe? Biblically based and scientifically reasoned answers to these questions, and more, lead to uncovering the planet Venus as the final place for perdition. ...

Correlation between the Holy Scriptures and the sciences can work together to provide reasonable and meaningful truths. Through interdisciplinary study, the author determines the ultimate destiny for unsaved humanity to be within the solar system, while providing a unique perspective to life after death. …

"My book makes public, for the first time, the huge amount of scientific and scriptural evidence that exists on similarities between Venus and perdition as described in the Bible. I spent three years diligently researching, writing and editing this volume, and it presents a new perspective on life after death, particularly for the plight of the guilty. We now need to consider the Bible as truthful, and use these new discoveries to better shape and understand the future."
Uh huh!

Friday, March 13, 2015


Sometimes Persistence Is No Virtue

Well, Kent Hovind has done it again.

He's been convicted of one of the four Federal charges brought against him. Appropriately enough, the charge was “contempt of court.” It might just as well have been contempt of law.

Hovind was already in this mess because he had contempt for the law in the form of refusing to pay taxes for a completely insane reason. Not merely content with finagling on his taxes, he refused to pay any tax because, he claimed, he took a vow of poverty as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and, therefore, owns nothing and receives no income and all of his needs are taken care of by the ministry. Along the way, he filed a bogus bankruptcy case in an attempt to keep the IRS from levying on some of his property, in the course of which he threatened to sue an IRS agent for doing her job and claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belongs to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he receives for doing God's work.

Hovind continued to refuse to pay taxes and the charges were brought that he was convicted of in 2006 that eventually got him a 10 year sentence. That was a rather heavy sentence but probably came about because, while he was in jail awaiting sentence, he somehow failed to notice signs on the phones he was using to make eight hours of calls a week that warned that the conversations are recorded. The tapes were played for the judge at Hovind's sentencing hearing. During those calls he not only displayed no remorse whatsoever but vowed to "make life miserable" for the IRS and to keep suing the government to promote his “theory” that he's tax-exempt.

That brings us to the latest charges against Hovind, which involved his filing legal documents calling into question the IRS' right to sell some of his real estate (after he had been ordered by a court to stop doing so) in an attempt to stop or delay the sale.

At every step of this sorry tale, Hovind has shown utter contempt for American law and courts. At his sentencing this June I suspect he will get near the maximum allowed under Federal guidelines.

As his wife said during one of those phone calls "I'm sorry, but I don't get it."

Update: I don't do criminal law, much less Federal criminal law, but Peter Reilly, who blogs on tax matters for Forbes, posted on his personal blog, Your Tax Matters Partner, that the guidelines indicate a sentence of 21 to 27 months and a possibility that they could go as high as 31 to 37 months. The criminal law expert Reilly consulted felt that, although the judge is not bound by these guidelines, under the circumstances of this case, she probably would adhere to them.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015


Triffids Are Easy!

Wow! This is really “The Day of the Homophobes!” Right Wing Watch is dripping with the anti-gay legion, including “End Times preacher Jonathan Cahn [who] believes that if the Supreme Court strikes down the remaining state bans on same-sex marriage, America will experience tremendous calamities”; Ted Cruz (not once but twice) touting his anti-LGBT bona fides; and Peter LaBarbera predicting the “fall” of the Republican party unless it gets all hot and bothered [cough] about a kiss between two teenage boys on a recent episode of the TV show “The Fosters.”

But my favorite was from good ol’ reliable Mike Huckabee, who complained about how the left seeks to “impose” its “secular values” on conservative Christians while, on the other hand, conservative Christians do not want to impose their views on anybody [boggle!]:
“We’re never going to be fully understood by people on the secular left,” Huckabee said. “They don’t want to understand us, they want to ridicule us, they want to hold us in contempt, they want to hold us up to scorn and so they’re going to because we represent a direct threat to their worldview. If there really is an alternative to the secularist’s mind and we can articulate it, defend it and do it in a way that even can be intellectually defensible, then that’s a direct threat to their worldview.”
Considering that, after all these years, you still haven’t been able to articulate an intellectually defensible argument for denying marriage equality, you don’t pose much of a threat to our “worldview,” do you? In fact, it’s your lame in the extreme attempts to articulate such an argument that gets you ridiculed, held in contempt, and held up to scorn.

But the best is yet to come:
The potential GOP presidential candidate went on to rail against groups like Right Wing Watch for quoting remarks he makes on conservative media: “Every time I’ve come on this radio show, as you know your show is monitored by the secular left, they listen to every word that is uttered on AFA…. Every time I’m on this show there is something I say that will just end up getting picked up by the secularists and they’ll blow it up and it will go viral.”

“So let me go ahead and give them one just so they’ll have something that they can write down and Twitter out right now,” Huckabee continued. “The second reason that a lot of this reaction comes against believers is because of the New Testament principle of ‘don’t cast your pearls before the swine.’
Imagine that! Someone who is running for the most powerful office in the world is surprised that people might listen to his words, expect him to choose them carefully and report them verbatim when he doesn’t! Has this guy ever run for political office before?

And it’s a good thing that he and the religious right are above ridicule, contempt and scorn because otherwise someone might get the idea that comparing “the left” to swine was meant to disparage people!

The real complaint, of course, is that he can’t blow all the dog whistles he wants the religious right to hear without those pesky kids and their dog pulling off his cheesy mask. He and his ilk want to use modern technology to get out their message but can’t stand that the rest of us “swine” can listen in too and point and laugh.


A Consummation Devoutly to be Wished

On Thursday, End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles invited John Price, a onetime failed Republican Senate candidate from Indiana and author of “The End of America,” to discuss his decision to move to Costa Rica three years ago in order to follow God’s call to “flee from the daughter of Babylon and not stay and participant in her sins and not be around when the nation is destroyed.”

Price told Wiles that other Americans should consider leaving the U.S., which he said is “truly is the daughter of Babylon” as a result of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.
Religious Right theocrats fleeing America in droves?

Oh, please, oh please, oh please!

Not that I wouldn't feel a bit sorry for wherever they decided to go to but ... don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Thursday, March 05, 2015


April Flowers

Mark down this date!

The Supreme Court has announced the date for oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases: April 28, 2015, from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.

What's more, the Court has also announced that, in a rare move, it will be releasing the audio of the oral arguments, along with an unofficial transcript, both of which should be available no later than 2 p.m. on the same day. They will be found here.

This is the civil rights issue before the Court in the 21st Century so far. It will be remembered (whether in glory or in infamy) for as long as the United States survives, right up there with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia or right down there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.

And you will have the chance to hear the arguments made before the Court almost in real time.

Be there or be square.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015


On "Loving" America!


Update: Boehner threw in the towel and brought a "clean" funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security to the House floor that did not include a provision attempting to defund President Obama's Executive Order that would provide limited deportation protections to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants, where the bill passed with the support of a minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. Of course, to the Teabaggers, such as Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), "grassroots Republicans have been "double-crossed by the establishment" and "the Constitution was finally surrendered to the left." If only!


That's Precious!

Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is exercised about the report in the Chicago Sun-Times that, in the last year that same-sex marriage has been legal in the state of Illinois, "Same-sex spouses have been as young as 17 and as old as 93 ..."

Al opines that he "can understand how a 93-year-old could get legal permission to marry whether same-sex or otherwise in Cook County, Illinois, but how in the world are we now living in a situation in which at least one 17-year-old was legally married in a same-sex union in Cook County, Illinois in the last year."

You see,
From time to time one of the things we have to demonstrate about a false worldview is that it allows itself to have the phenomena of conflicting absolutes. That's one of the things that is very important about the Christian biblical worldview, we believe in absolutes but we don't believe in the possibility of those absolutes being in conflict with one another.
Absolutes ... in conflict? Like when Moses, barely off Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, including "Thou shalt not kill," ordered the cold-blooded murder of, if the text is to be believed, some 30,000 young boys and male infants among the Midianite "little ones"?

Nope, no moral absolutes in conflict there! But Al insists:
[W]hen you're looking at the modern secular worldview there are conflicting absolutes and there's no question about it. And it comes up in a situation like this.

Where are the child protection advocates crying out against the crime -- or at least the abuse --of having a 17-year-old, according to their worldview, entered into a same-sex union by some kind of legal means in Cook County, Illinois in the year 2015? Most of those very same advocates point to some kind of marriage age such as that, even in a heterosexual union, as the evidence of some kind of social problem.
Well, the small problem is that, in Illinois, irrespective of whether it is a straight or gay marriage, the age of consent to marry is ... wait for it ... seventeen!

So, it is "child abuse" to allow "children" under eighteen to marry? Well, let's look (see link above) at some of the "godly" states:
Alabama: sixteen ...

Arkansas: sixteen ...

Georgia: sixteen ...

Kansas: sixteen ...

Kentucky: sixteen ...

Mississippi: sixteen ...

Oklahoma: sixteen ...

South Carolina: sixteen ...

West Virginia: sixteen ...
To be fair, a number of "Blue States" also set the age of marital consent at sixteen or seventeen and some "Red States" put it at eighteen.

The point is that Al Mohler, in his high "moral" dudgeon, can't be bothered to know what he is talking about.

Saturday, February 14, 2015


Out Assholing Alabama

The Arkansas legislature gave its final thumbs-up Friday to a bill that will block cities and counties from enacting antidiscrimination laws that protect LGBT people.

The Arkansas House of Representatives voted decisively, 57-20, for SB202, with seven members voting present. Having already cleared the state Senate Monday, the bill now heads to the governor's desk.
In an act of political courage unmatched since Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee allowed a Discovery Institute "teach the controversy" bill to become law, neither signing it nor vetoing it:
Gov. Asa Hutchinson told BuzzFeed News in a statement he will let the bill take effect. By neither vetoing nor signing the legislation, he said, "I am allowing the bill to become law." ...

I recognize the desire to prevent burdensome regulations on businesses across the state. However, I am concerned about the loss of local control. For that reason, I am allowing the bill to become law without my signature."
A bit of background:
The city council of Fayetteville, Arkansas, passed an LGBT antidiscrimination bill last summer that voters narrowly repealed in December. When politicians there suggested reintroducing the law, [Republican State Sen. Bart] Hester, who supported the repeal campaign, introduced his bill to override Fayetteville and other jurisdictions that attempt to pass similar laws.
As for the state legislature's interest in this:
As the bill's sponsor, Hester told BuzzFeed News earlier this week that religious business owners should be allowed to fire employees for being gay.

Hester also said no businesses requested the measure "I just chose to do this bill on my own will," he said — and could not name any business associations supporting the bill. "In our world if they are not opposing you, that is almost a sign of support," he explained.

Not only preempting antidiscrimination laws for LGBT people, the bill covers any local expansion of civil rights not covered under state law. "In targeting LGBT people, they have cast a wide net and prevented protections for a wide variety of groups," Holly Dickson, the legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas, told BuzzFeed News earlier this week. That net, for example, could ensnare students and veterans.

She said the bill is "designed to permit as much discrimination as possible in the state."
So, there was no "ground swell" for this law, it was just his own idea to make sure that bigotry is enshrined in state law and his fellow legislators, either out of their own bigotry or political fear, went along.

Of course, he has just bought the state a lawsuit. Luckily for Arkansasans, it won't cost them much money because it will be overturned on a summary judgment motion under Romer v. Evans, where the Colorado legislature tried to pull the same stunt. Hester act wasn't as explicitly aimed at LGBT people as in Romer, but he has left a trail that a blind pig could follow.

But the bigots aren't stopping there:
Also on Friday, the Arkansas House passed a religious freedom bill, which now advances to the state Senate. The act would prevent any state action, including a law, from burdening a person's religious belief, even if that belief is indirectly connected to the person's faith.

While some proponents argue the religious-freedom measure is needed to prevent government from trampling people's moral conscience, LGBT advocates say it would let businesses turn away customers — a trend becoming more commonplace when LGBT customers attempt to buy floral arrangements or cakes for same-sex weddings.

Rep. Mary Bentley seemed to confirm an interest in refusing service when she explained her support for the discrimination bill.

Bentley told lawmakers she is worried about "little businesses out there, a baker or a pastor … that hold a conviction that says gay marriage is wrong." She added, "That is what we are talking about today."

"We should be honest and truthful -- we like to beat around the bush up here," she said. "I am concerned about things happening across our state."
That would be a change from the religious right ...
After emphasizing that LGBT stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender," Bentley said from the lectern, "A baker who loves the word of God … should not have his or her business destroyed if someone who is transgender is trying to marry somebody else."

"I am a Christian in the United States of America," she continued. "It's time to stand up and say enough is enough. They can do what they want to do, but we don't have to destroy a business. I think it's time that business owners have rights as well."
While it is less certain what the courts will do with such exceptions to antidiscrimination laws, especially in the wake of the Hobby Lobby case (that I suspect Justice Kennedy will come to regret), the fact that it was passed on the same date as Hester's bill cleared the legislature certainly won't help Hester's law when it is challenged.

What was the line ... oh, yes, ..."Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding."


And Now It Starts to Get Interesting ...

I thought it was "As stubborn as a Missouri mule." Well, maybe we can make it "As stubborn as an Alabama ass"!

There has been, as they say, "developments" in the Alabama same-sex marriage situation. On Thursday afternoon, February 12th (Darwin Day!), Judge Callie V. S. Granade, after some technical legal maneuvering that I won't bore you with, made an Order imposing a Preliminary Injunction requiring Probate Judge Don Davis of Mobile County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Judge Davis, facing possible contempt citations, wisely complied promptly and some licenses were issued by the end of the day and marriages held.

More importantly, at the time of the hearing, only 23 of the 67 counties in Alabama were issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The majority of the rest were either not issuing any licenses or giving same-sex couples applications but refusing to process them. By late today, as the New York Times reports ("U.S. Orders Alabama to License Gay Unions"), all but 15 counties have begun issuing same-sex licenses or said they will begin to do so early next week.

Funny how that conservative icon, "the rule of law" thingie, works.

But (or is that "butt"?) here's where the asses come in. According to al.com ("While most Alabama counties now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, holdouts prepare for legal battle"):
At least eight probate judges still refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and have no plans to start. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the conservative group Liberty Counsel, said his organization has agreed to represent those eight probate judges if they face lawsuits. One of the probate judges represented by his organization is Nick Williams of Washington County.

"We believe the order only applies to Mobile County and not to other counties in the state," Staver said.

Staver said Granade's rulings only apply to the Southern District of Alabama, where she presides as judge. It would take a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage, he said. The Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court already denied requests to extend the stay on Judge Granade's original decision.
Now they have a point. Federal District Court decisions are only binding precedent within their district. Kitzmiller v. Dover, rightfully famous as it is, only barred the teaching of Intelligent Design Creationism in public schools in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

They have a little problem, though ... the Southern District of Alabama includes Montgomery, the state capitol (which, of course, is why the plaintiffs brought it there).

In the Times article linked above, Ronald Krotoszynski, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, puts it nicely:
... Chief Justice Moore's legal position had some merit, but ... "it takes a kind of willful blindness to seriously make this argument." He pointed out that the decision of the higher courts to refuse the stay requested by the State of Alabama showed how they would have most likely ruled had the case been appealed.

"There's a technical argument that her order and her opinion are not binding on state court judges or state executive officers," Professor Krotoszynski said of Judge Granade's ruling, "but they would be binding before you can say 'Jehoshaphat' if someone named a state court official or state executive officer as a defendant in another suit."
That "state court official" would, of course, be Roy Moore and the "state executive officer" would be Gov. Robert J. Bentley, who has been desperately trying to stay out of this by saying, despite Moore's order that placed the onus on the Governor to enforce it, that he wouldn't take any action against probate judges, whether or not they issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. I'm sure that Moore would relish his "martyrdom" if he was held in contempt (again) by a Federal court ... especially if he was once (again) removed from the Alabama Supreme Court ... his speaking fees on the Religious Right rubber chicken circuit would, no doubt, increase exponentially.

But Bentley could find himself between the rock of the wingnuts and the hard place of the business interests who want no part of this echo of Alabama's past ... the same position that Jan Brewer of Arizona found herself in not long ago over Arizona's irrational immigration legislation, that she was forced to veto, no doubt to her political disadvantage. That has always been the problem with the Republicans dependence on the religious right as their base ... the hardest thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.

As I said before, the best thing to do now, for us folks fortunately unaffected, is to heat up the popcorn popper, crack open a beer and settle back to watch the show.

Thursday, February 12, 2015


A Little Bit of History

The Human Rights Campaign is asking ordinary Americans to be part of the historic Supreme Court case, DeBoer v. Snyder, which will decide whether or not LGBT people have the constitutional right to all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage that straight people enjoy.
This week, HRC launched an historic effort to give every American a chance to share their support of marriage equality with the Supreme Court of the United States.

By signing onto your name will go down in history, and on this landmark document, as a supporter of marriage equality.
I have read the brief and it is well written, cogent in its arguments and effectively counters the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal that upheld state bans of same-sex marriage or the recognition of same-sex marriages even if they were entered into in states that allowed them.

In signing it, you do have to swear that you have read the brief, which is 47 pages long, but it is not so onerous as that may sound. You can skip or skim the preliminary matters (the meat begins on page 13) and, of course, you do not have to read or check the numerous case references.

I thought the brief was particularly effective in its refutation of the Sixth Circuit's claims that states have a right to "wait and see" and the argument from "tradition." I thought this bit was particularly good:
Referring to the fact that marriage for gay people has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, the Sixth Circuit asserted that "[e]leven years later, the clock has not run on assessing the benefits and burdens of expanding the definition of marriage." But under this logic, when would the clock have run? In 2054, after 50 years? In 2104, after a century? ...

These relationships and families have not sprung up overnight, as if they were somehow the abstract creation of political activists. Rather, gay couples have been supporting each other, raising children together, and facing the same quotidian joys and burdens ("in sickness and in health") faced by other married couples for many years. ... States and local governments, in addition to private employers, have been formally recognizing such relationships since at least 1984. ... No state may excuse its failure to respect the equal dignity of its gay citizens on the ground that it has been caught unaware or that it needs an unspecified amount of additional time to see what might hypothetically happen in an imaginary world where straight couples' stability and sense of self-worth and commitment somehow depend on the continued existence of de jure discrimination against gay couples and their children. [Citations omitted]
But the brief, literally, saved its best shot for last.
Finally, it is not insignificant that petitioner James Obergefell from Ohio merely seeks to have the state correct the facts asserted on the death certificate of his late spouse, John Arthur. The two men were, in fact, married under the law of Maryland where their marriage was performed. It is absurd to contend that refusing to certify that a decedent was "married" to his spouse at the time of his death could possibly influence child rearing, or the willingness of straight couples to marry, or even offend tradition. But actions speak louder than words. Ohio insists that there must be a blank space on Mr. Arthur's death certificate where Mr. Obergefell's name should be. Not content to deny these men the equal protection of the law in life, it also seeks to deny them dignity even in death. Ohio's decision to reject this reasonable request to correct a factually inaccurate death certificate speaks volumes about what is really going on, leaving no doubt that the true motivation behind these laws is constitutionally impermissible animus against gay people.
I was proud to put my name to that brief and I hope that every person of good will do the same!


... Or Is That "Season's Greetings"?

Happy Darwin Day!

Tuesday, February 10, 2015


Who's That Man In the Door?

Why ... it's Judge Roy Moore standing in the courthouse door trying to stop same-sex marriage in Alabama!

Oh, wait a minute, maybe I'm mixing up my bigots!

It's been an interesting 24 hours in Alabama. As mentioned in my last post, a Federal District Court judge, Callie V. S. Granade (incidentally a George W. Bush appointee), ruled on January 23, 2015 that Alabama's ban against same-sex marriage and against recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in other states violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Judge Granade later granted a stay until February 9, 2015 of her ruling to allow the state to appeal and seek a further stay from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. Alabama's Attorney General sought that stay from the Circuit Court, which was denied. The Attorney General then, last week, petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay pending its decision in the Sixth Circuit's cases that it had granted certiorari on and which it should decide by the end of the term in June.

Moore had previously written an "advisory opinion" to all the probate judges (who handle issuance of marriage licenses in Alabama) telling them that they didn't have to obey the Federal Court order, a position that the attorneys for the Alabama Probate Judges Association had previously taken. In response to the APJA's statement, Judge Granade was asked to clarify her ruling which she did by quoting from the Federal judge in Florida ruling on a similar suggestion (which Florida officials, wisely, decided not to challenge):
As Judge Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida recently stated when presented with an almost identical issue:

History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds. There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney's fees. ...

The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk's obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the preliminary injunction.
In short, the District Court warned that there is a relatively easy way for people denied marriage licenses to enforce the court order against individual probate judges (and Judge Roy Bean Moore) and get all their legal costs back. Also, a government official who knowingly violates a well-known decision concerning the constitutionality of a law can lose his or her limited immunity and become personally liable for those damages.

The APJA quickly backed down, saying it was clear that probate judges would be required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But Moore is made of sterner stupider stuff.

By Sunday night, when the Supreme Court had still not acted, Moore upped the ante by issuing an order forbidding probate judges, who apparently fall under his jurisdiction as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, from issuing same-sex marriage licenses or recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Amusingly, after claiming he has jurisdiction over the probate judges, Moore stated that, if any of the judges disobey his order, "it would be the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley, ... to ensure the execution of the law." I'm not sure if Machiavelli would admire the low cunning of Moore or be appalled at his stupidity.

Anyway, on Monday morning the Supreme Court denied the stay, with Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissenting. Thomas got at least one thing right:
[T]he Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court's resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question.
I think we all have seen that coming for quite some time, Justice Thomas.

Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, Gov. Robert Bentley, not wanting to be riding in the back seat as Moore once again plays "chicken" with the Federal courts, announced that he won't take any action against probate judges who issue licenses for same-sex marriages. This has resulted in a patchwork of availability of same-sex marriage licenses, with some of the state's largest cities — including Birmingham, Huntsville and Montgomery — issuing them but many other counties either refusing to issue them outright or temporizing because the probate judges are caught between the rock of the Constitution and the hard head of Roy Moore.

The best thing to do now, for us folks fortunately unaffected, is to heat up the popcorn popper, crack open a beer and settle back to watch the show.

Thursday, February 05, 2015


Eleventh Circuit To the Rescue

Update: Oops ... I shouldn't post late at night! It appears that the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision to put off the appeals in Alabama and Georgia does not stay the implementation of the Federal court order. If so, same-sex marriage should begin in Alabama on Monday, February 9th. Roy Moore's and other wingnut head explosions will proceed unless SCOTUS issues a stay.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal has pulled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's chestnuts out of the fire.

Moore issued a memo on Tuesday telling the state's probate judges that they're not required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even though a federal court has ruled they must. The Federal court decision was to take effect on February 9th. Previously, the Eleventh Circuit had refused to delay the decision. The Alabama Attorney General had petitioned the Supreme Court for a delay in the implementation of the order. All previous petitions for similar stays have been denied by the Supremes.

Shades of 2003, when Moore refused to obey a Federal court order to remove a 10 Commandments monument he had installed in the Alabama Supreme Court building. That eventually led to his being ousted from the Alabama Supreme court by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

I don't know if the rather unusual decision of the Eleventh Circuit to stay a case (along with another) that it had specifically refused to stay just days before ... and where it had previously allowed same-sex marriage to proceed in Florida ... was an attempt to avoid a clash again between a nutcase like Moore and the Federal government ... but I honestly can't think of another reason.

Sunday, January 25, 2015


Bearly Funny

From Matthew Cobb at Jerry Coyne's not-blog comes this bit of outdoor humor from the Fort Steele (British Columbia) Campground::

Sunday, January 18, 2015


Even Faux News Isn't Homophobic Enough!

It seems that "Fox News' pro-homosexual bias continues," according to the rabidly anti-LGBT "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality" and its foaming-at-the-mouth president, Peter LaBarbera.

According to LaBarbera, Fox anchor Bret Baier pulled out as a speaker at a Legatus event because "the 'conservative' network push[ed] Baier to pull out."

Legatus is a self-described "international organization of practicing Catholic laymen and laywomen, comprised of CEOs, Presidents, Managing Partners and Business Owners," founded by Tom Monaghan. You remember Monaghan ... you know ... the guy who also founded the Thomas More Law Center, that went down in such spectacular flames in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case!

He may not be doing much better here. Again according to LaBarbera, not only Baier but Gary Sinise and even conservative icon Peter Coors have pulled out of the event, supposedly because of a blogger saying that Legatus is a "very anti-gay organization of Catholics." Well, Jeremy Hooper did say that, but he also quoted and linked to articles on Legatus' website that demonstrated that point rather well. Indeed, it goes well beyond just homosexuality, as in this piece by Fr. John Trigilio:
Any and all human sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is considered seriously and gravely sinful. Masturbation, adultery, promiscuity, fornication, artificial contraception, pornography, and homosexuality pervert the original intention that God has for marriage, namely love (unitive dimension) and life (procreative dimension).
Once nominally Catholic, I would offer Fr. Trigilio a hearty middle finger but it and its four friends are busy not engaging in procreative activity. To be lectured on the proper usage of sex by a church that, for decades, if not centuries, aided and abetted child molesters is too ironic for words!

But back to the main subject: if the bigots feel abandoned by Faux News, how long is it before they take up the status they have been so avidly seeking? ... right alongside the Ku Klux Klan.


To the Moaning and the Groaning of the Bells!

The latest teapot the Religious Right has tempested in is the decision of Duke University (since reversed) to allow the Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast (at moderate amplification) from the bell tower of its chapel.

Done well, the adhān, or azān, is quite as beautiful as any Gregorian chant or rendition of Amazing Grace.

But Christian Privilege demands that it can't be done. For example, Albert Mohler said:
As I noted yesterday on The Briefing the real issue here is that Muslim students were given a religious accommodation that clearly wasn't available to other students – including evangelical Christians.
Really? As the L.A. Times noted, "The bells at the Neo-Gothic chapel ring twice on Sundays for Christian services." That isn't a call to prayers?

Oh, sorry, the wrong prayers!

Saturday, January 17, 2015


It's Time!

Sorry for the long hiatus. I had a terrible December ... a bout of the flu, a car accident (no injuries but a lot of paperwork with insurance and getting a new car), another couple of days in the hospital with my still mysterious gastrointestinal ailment and then trying to catch up at work for all the time lost.

On to some more hopeful news.

The issue of marriage equality will be definitively decided, it is now all but certain, by the end of June. On Friday, January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases, from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, in which the Sixth Circuit court of Appeal upheld the state bans on same-sex marriage and/or on recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages validly entered into in other states:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1.

A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2.

The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015.
While the decision did not set the date for oral arguments, it is believed that they will be heard during its final session of oral arguments from April 20 through 29. If all goes as expected, that means the Court should issue a decision by the end of this term in late June. It would not be surprising if it was the last decision it issues.

The Justice Department has announced that it will file an amicus curiae brief in favor of marriage equality.

SCOTUSblog, which is an excellent source of news and commentary on the Supreme Court, its workings, and its decisions has been busy over the last day.

David B. Cruz, Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, lays out the reasons why it is not overly optimistic to believe that the Court will strike down the Sixth Circuit's decision and find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:
And, while predictions are always risky, the couples appear likely to prevail on those claims. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court let stand earlier marriage equality decisions from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits and denied stay requests from Florida, for example. If there had been a solid five votes on the Court to reject the constitutional arguments for marriage equality, such five Justices likely would have granted a stay of those rulings to preserve states' prerogatives regarding marriage. This suggests that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito – all of whom voted to uphold the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor – did not think they could count on Justice Anthony Kennedy (or any of the four more "liberal" Justices) to vote against marriage equality. Since the Court let untold numbers of same-sex couples marry in states across the country by rejecting many states' cert. petitions and has now taken up four cases presenting the same issues, it would seem difficult from a fairness issue to let residents of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky enjoy less constitutional protection than residents of many other states. It is unthinkable to me that the Court would now turn around and tell the people who married only after it cleared the way for them to do so that the Court was wrong to do that and their marriages were void.
On the whistling past the graveyard side is Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who seems to think that the Supreme Court was just waiting for a decision to allow "the people's freedom to debate this issue of marriage as a community." He actually titles his article "Cert. grant signals promising vehicle to affirm marriage" (which in fundie-speak means "limit marriage to people I like"). I agree to the extent that it is just like the Supreme Court was waiting to affirm the people's right to debate "separate but equal" as a community. And he seems to think that the fact that, at the time of Loving v. Virginia "only" sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws somehow matters. Apparently, there is a "magic" number of states where constitutional rights are denied where the Court can step in and say the people's freedom to debate is over. Bottom line: "Yeah, we lost this fight ... but keep those donations coming!"

A somewhat more rational response comes from Andrew Brasher, the Solicitor General of Alabama, who is concerned that the Supreme Court might find "that man-woman marriage laws serve no legitimate state interest and fail even the lowest form of constitutional scrutiny – the rational basis test." I have speculated that Chief Justice Roberts might assign himself the majority decision to rule exactly that way, as a way to make it easier to discriminate against LGBT people (and other disfavored minorities). For example, is there a "rational basis" to pass laws to keep transgender people out of bathrooms and locker rooms assigned to people of different "biological" genders? That might be a closer question.
It is one thing for a court to find that a state law affects a suspect class or fundamental right, impose a high level of scrutiny, and hold the state to its burden to justify the law. It is another thing entirely for a court to hold that a state policy is so wrongheaded as to be beyond reason, even though it infringes no fundamental right and affects no suspect class. The former kind of ruling justifies itself by reference to constitutional principles that are, by definition, more important than whatever good-faith reason the state had for its countervailing policy choice; the latter kind of ruling indicts the state's decision-making process itself as dysfunctional at best and, perhaps, malicious.

... [T]he Court should at least reject the argument that these laws serve no legitimate state interest. The rational basis test is easy to meet. It is thus no coincidence that the Sixth Circuit is the first appellate court since Windsor to apply the rational basis test to state marriage laws and, also, the first appellate court since Windsor to uphold them as constitutional. Even the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued that DOMA was unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, defended DOMA as rational. ...

... [S]tates are in the marriage business "not to regulate love," but because of "the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse." Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that many states' marriage laws reflect an "awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children the same way as couples of opposite sexes." The Sixth Circuit also acknowledged the state's legitimate interest in adopting a wait-and-see approach "before changing a norm that our society (like all others) has accepted for centuries." Are these compelling state interests narrowly served by traditional marriage laws? Debatable. Are they legitimate interests that are rationally related to traditional marriage laws? Of course they are.
While there is something to be said for this argument, it ultimately fails on his admission that it is "debatable" that "compelling state interests [are] narrowly served by traditional marriage laws." In case after case that examined such claims, it was found, as a factual matter, that the arguments that were advanced for such a state interest had no relationship, whatsoever, to denying same-sex marriage.

Lastly, Steve Sanders, who teaches constitutional law at the Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Bloomington, has a nice discussion of why the thirty-one state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage enacted between 1998 and 2012 were, in fact, the products of constitutionally repugnant "animus" – that is, a desire to disparage or injure gays out of fear, misunderstanding, or dislike.
An inquiry about animus does not require that we "indict" citizens who voted for a law, or that we probe their psyches or individual motives. It simply takes seriously the principle that every law is proposed and approved for some purpose (sometimes more than one), and it is a judicial task to identify and assess the purpose(s). When evidence of gratuitous or irrational intent to harm a group outweighs a law's purported legitimate justifications, the law betrays an improper purpose and violates equal protection. As the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed in Hunter v. Underwood, the same law can be valid or not under the Equal Protection Clause depending on whether it was "motivated by a desire to discriminate."
Well, the storm looms on the horizon. If the Supreme Court does as it has been signaling it will do for the last two years, the Religious Right will lose whatever collective minds it still has. There will be attempts by state legislatures to somehow hold back the rising tide and King Canute will stalk the land. There will be hysteria (which will generate much amusement) but, it is devoutly to be wished, LGBT people will, at last, have a chance to settle down, raise families in peace and enjoy all the rights of other people.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education