October 30, 2008

Video: Brad Dacus, Persecution Projection Poster Boy, Says Defeating Gays = Defeating Hitler

Invoking Godwin’s Law (and suiting to a T the bonus criterion of “inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations [or one’s opponent] with Hitler or Nazis or their actions”) is only the tip of the iceberg here.

Brad Dacus is the president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a Citrus Heights, California, organization devoted to pro-Christian, anti-gay activism through the legal system (I guess forcing one’s “agenda” through the courts is A-OK as long as those “activist judges” agree with you). Dacus is also one of the increasingly-visible talking heads for the anti-marriage equality Yes on 8 campaign; his focus is on Mentira Numero Uno on the Six Big Lies Hit Parade — that the defeat of Proposition 8 will mandate “teaching gay marriage” in California public schools — despite the fact that Dacus, “a chief architect of their movement … promotes California’s broad opt out law, which allows parents to pull their child from any school activity that violates their religious or moral beliefs.”

With that, take a look at Brad’s latest shark-jump at an official Prop 8 rally in Sacramento on October 28, 2008 (transcript follows):

“There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler.

“You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend [Niemoller] made his way to the front and (inaudible) said ‘Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany.’

“Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, ‘The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me.’

“And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!”

O-kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Does anyone need me to point out the obvious, like the irony of a Yes on 8 spokesman, working to strip existing rights from a minority group by instating the modern-day equivalent of anti-Semitic legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany — in which Jews were stripped of existing legal rights, one by one, until they were finally herded aboard trains to the death camps — comparing the victims of his anti-equality attack to the Nazis?

Or the fact that along with Jews and Gypsies, homosexuals were the target, not the instigators, of Nazi genocide? (And for much the same flawed reasoning inherent in the Yes on 8 campaign’s emphasis on procreation: “The Nazis believed that male homosexuals were weak, effeminate men who could not fight for the German nation. They saw homosexuals as unlikely to produce children and increase the German birthrate. The Nazis held that inferior races produced more children than ‘Aryans,’ so anything that diminished Germany’s reproductive potential was considered a racial danger.”)

Do I need to even touch upon this bizarre delusion of “Christian persecution” at the hands of a smaller, weaker minority?

And as for Brad Dacus comparing himself and his fellow oppressors to Rev. Martin Niemoller (”First they came for the Jews…”) …!

In a most readable piece called “Persecution Complexes,” Elizabeth A. Castelli discusses Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and Robertson’s attempt to “clarify” his remarks in a subsequent press release:

Critical to this clarification was Robertson’s invocation of the figure of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian pastor who was executed by the Nazis for his participation in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler and who has subsequently been commemorated by many Christians as a martyr…

Whereas Robertson’s initial call for a state-sponsored assassination of another country’s political leader drew well-deserved protest and outcry, his invocation of the memory of Bonhoeffer went largely unremarked, and perhaps understandably. After all, the analogies he sought to draw, between Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler, on the one hand, and between himself and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, on the other, might simply and easily be dismissed as so much absurdist theatre. Bonhoeffer’s theology could not be more diametrically opposed to that of Pat Robertson, from Bonhoeffer’s notion of the church as “the church for others” and his critique of Hitler’s illegitimate attempt to usurp the place of Christ in the Christian community, to, perhaps most importantly, the notion of “religionless Christianity,” which he articulated very powerfully at the end of his life. Even the most cursory knowledge of Bonhoeffer’s theology would make it clear just how thoroughly incompatible it is with the project of right-wing Christianity in the contemporary United States. I doubt, however, that such an empirical comparison had much to do with the widespread silence on Robertson’s comments about Bonhoeffer; I suspect, rather, that Robertson was dismissed by many people on the simple grounds of rhetorical excess.

Yet, I believe that Robertson’s rhetorical excesses are more than mere theatre: they are an example — albeit an extreme and even ridiculous example — of a broader and growing trend in political discourse as it emerges from certain branches of right-wing political Christianity. This trend mobilizes the language of religious persecution to shut down political debate and critique by characterizing any position not in alignment with this politicized version of Christianity as an example of antireligious bigotry and persecution. Moreover, it routinely deploys the archetypal figure of the martyr as a source of unquestioned religious and political authority. In the case of Robertson’s invocation of Bonhoeffer, the martyr functions in two distinct but related ways: first, the citation of Bonhoeffer diverts attention from Robertson’s original call for covert, state-sponsored violence while seeking cover from the moral authority that comes from aligning oneself with anti-Nazi resistance; and, second, the hagiographical reference aims to silence Robertson’s political critics by suggesting that opposition to his point of view aligns one with those who were responsible for Bonhoeffer’s death and, by extension, with all those who make martyrs of Christians. Such a move is an increasingly frequent and important one in the repertoire of the Christian right wing in the U.S., linked to a broader set of discursive practices that construct the religious majority in the country (Christians as a group) as a persecuted and threatened community.

There are many examples of this rhetorical project, a small sampling of which will suffice to make the point…

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Christianity, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Judaism, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos

---

October 28, 2008

So, How Did Frank Schubert Get the Idea That Child Exploitation Was the Key to Destroying Civil Rights?

Marcos Bretón explains:

… So why is there a good chance Prop 8 will pass on Nov. 4, thereby striking down gay marriage in California?

Because the anti-gay marriage message in television ads has pushed hot buttons without directly demonizing gays. And it has changed the subject of a civil rights fight to a question focusing on children: Do you want 6-year-olds to be taught about gay marriage in public schools?

The man molding this message is a master mover of public opinion — a product of liberal UC Davis promoting a cause sacred to social conservatives.

Also a graduate of Jesuit High School, Frank Schubert is the one guy who could stop gay marriage in California and other states by winning the Prop. 8 fight.

At 52, Schubert is the Oz behind what could end up being a $60 million Prop. 8 campaign. He is a deadly combination for same-sex marriage supporters: a true believer whose opposition to gay marriage is rooted in his Catholic faith and a veteran of many campaigns that he always wins.

Schubert also is sitting on a ton of money to spend, much of it from Mormons.

He is quietly relentless. …

In August, Schubert was excited at the subversive idea of using gay people in his ads — gay people who he claims oppose same-sex marriage. But he decided that was too risky.

Instead, Schubert found his inspiration at a Southern California focus group meeting in early September when an African American man — and Barack Obama supporter — reacted angrily to the idea of gay marriage being taught to kids in public school.

Ever since, Schubert has hammered at that idea in slick commercials with ominous music. “The things that people in politics don’t always appreciate is the power of human emotion,” he said.

No on Prop. 8 organizers point out that schoolchildren can’t be forced against their parents’ will to be taught anything about health and family issues.

But can reason overcome the raw emotion engendered by the idea of children being “indoctrinated” into gay marriage in schools paid for by your taxes? Or the unspoken implication that exposure to gay marriage leads to homosexuality?

These are preposterous ideas, subtle fear-mongering. But political campaigns, like wars, sometimes become excuses to justify prejudice. …

More at the link.

And there you have it: Schubert knows he can’t win without lying and baseless fearmongering.

It’s times like this I wish I were still a Catholic — I’d love to be watching from behind the Pearly Gates as Frankie “Smokestain” Schubert was personally frogmarched by Sts. Gabriel and Michael to the express elevator to Hell.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Catholicism, Christianity, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right

---

October 27, 2008

Prop 8 Camp Doesn’t Want You to Know They Know About Parents’ Opt-Out

“No state statute forbids parents from opting their children out of a class where the teacher’s comments violate the convictions and trust of the parent.”

— Brad Dacus
Pacific Justice Institute
Legal counsel, Protectmarriage.com

Educators Condemn New Prop 8 Ad

Reveal Opt Out Connection of Key 8 Architect, Call Portrayal of California Superintendent of Schools “Disgraceful and Outrageous”

SACRAMENTO — October 25 — Today a leading education legislator and teachers attacked the latest deceptive TV ad by the Prop 8 campaign which focuses on a school field trip and continues a pattern of lying about their measure. In fact, a chief architect of their movement, Brad Dacus, promotes California’s broad opt out law, which allows parents to pull their child from any school activity that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

“Prop 8 is not about field trips, added Jim Groth, a sixth grade teacher in San Diego.

“It’s about taking away the fundamental rights of people and treating them differently under the law.”

The educators also took issue with the misleading portrayal of California’s opt out law. In fact, on the Web site, pacificjustice.org, where Brad Dacus is President, there are the following instructions:

“What is an ‘opt out form’ and how can I obtain one?”

“An opt out form is a parent’s written request to their child’s school principal and teachers, to ensure that their children are opted out of curriculum that violates the religious beliefs or convictions of the child’s parents. To obtain an opt out form, click here to fill out the appropriate form.” (Source: Pacific Justice Institute Web site: www.pacificjustice.org/aboutus/QA)

(Click here to view sample output from the opt-out form.)

“Educators know the opt out law works. In fact, Prop 8 proponents promote it on Web sites and drive parents to use it,” said Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. “This campaign of distortion and name calling has to stop. What I find particularly objectionable is the continued misuse of children in weaving this fabrication.”

Dacus, the President of Pacific Justice Institute, is legal counsel to protectmarriage.com. He has been unequivocal about the right of parents to opt-out their children in school. In fact, here is what Dacus, as president of PJI, said to Insight on the News, in March of 2001:

“No state statute forbids parents from opting their children out of a class where the teacher’s comments violate the convictions and trust of the parent.”

“Prop 8 has no affect on schools or field trips,” said Lynette Henley, an elementary school teacher in Vallejo, Calif. “Each district or local school board with input from parents sets the field trip policy for its school district. And all parents decide if they want their child to go on the field trip.”

Virtually every major newspaper in California has editorialized against Prop 8, stating that “the state constitution shouldn’t be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote “no” on Proposition 8.” (Fresno Bee) For a complete list of NO on 8 endorsements, visit www.noonprop8.com.

Related:

Yes on Proposition 8: First Lies, Then Blackmail, Now Child Exploitation
October 27, 2008

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

Video: Parents Demand Prop 8 Ad Be Taken Down

Backstory:
Yes on Proposition 8: First Lies, Then Blackmail, Now Child Exploitation
October 27, 2008

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Media, Parenting, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos, Youth

---

Yes on Proposition 8: First Lies, Then Blackmail, Now Child Exploitation

“Our children are being exploited and used as pawns to further a political cause…

“Prop 8 claims to be about families, but we’re here to say you can’t be for families by attacking our families. You can’t be for families and take these children’s innocent images and flash them not only on television statewide, but on your fund raising page. This must stop right now.”

Another Monday, another batch of ugliness and deceit from the Proposition 8 camp.

First up: The “lesbian wedding field trip ad.”

As I’ve already noted, “the Proposition 8 liars have backed off on most of their thoroughly-debunked anti-equality ‘arguments’ in favor of concentrating on the lie that the failure of Prop 8 will mandate ‘teaching homosexuality in schools.’”

The latest pro-8 TV ad uses footage of a lesbian wedding at San Francisco City Hall, with an ominous voiceover:

“Proposition 8 opponents claim gay marriage has nothing to do with school instruction. But then a public school took first-graders to a lesbian wedding calling it a teachable moment and now a liberal politician claims schools aren’t required to teach about marriage.”

Then the ad claims that teaching about marriage is required in 96% of all California schools.

Let’s take the second lie first:

The “teaching marriage in schools” lie has already been debunked countless times. In short, the only time marriage is “taught” in California schools is within the context of a broad comprehensive health education program — which is elective for each school district, not required by the state, and mandates “the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies” before such a program is ever introduced into the curriculum — and which is far more concerned with preventing drug abuse, suicide, and unwanted pregnancies than with marriage.

Marriage is practically an afterthought, mentioned just once in the California Education Code (and again, only if a school district chooses to include a comprehensive health program):

(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: …

(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

And, of course, nothing in the California Education Code will change based on the defeat or passage of Proposition 8.

(You can read my lengthier dissection here.)

Now, about that lesbian wedding:

First, you need to know about the school involved. Mormons for Marriage, in “Of First Graders, Field Trips and Weddings,” reveals many interesting details the Yes on 8 camp does not want you to know (bold emphasis mine):

Creative Arts Charter School is a K-8 school that focuses on an arts-integrated, project-based curriculum. Children in grades K-5 spend two years with the same teacher. Parent and family involvement in the school is “critical to school success.”

One of the guiding principles of the school is, “Respect for all community members defines our actions and our attitudes; it must never be compromised.”

The school is non-sectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, does not charge tuition, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Admission is for children whose ages meet the current California Education Code requirements and who reside in California. …

When children enroll at the school, families commit to volunteer 40 hours per year at the school. In addition to volunteer expectations, “every family attends Community Meetings, celebrations and social events. … Many important tasks are completed due to each family’s commitment to volunteerism. …The rich programs provided by CACS would not exist were it not for a very high level of family involvement and support.” …

Part of the Social Studies focus for first-graders includes: “In 1st grade, the students build on concepts of community explored in kindergarten, such as interdependence, group responsibilities and individual responsibilities. Concepts of cultural difference and acceptance of those differences are highlighted for each child in the classroom and families are invited to come in and share their personal traditions.”

About the Wedding Field Trip:

With all of the above in mind, take a moment to re-consider the students’ field trip.

First, the children and parents were well-acquainted with their teacher because she’d been with them throughout all of Kindergarten and because of the high level of parental involvement required at the school.

Second, the field trip was organized by a volunteer parent who wanted to surprise the teacher. Even though it was organized by a parent, permission slips were required. No children were forced to attend the wedding, in fact, at least two children remained at the school.

Third, attending such a field trip and any resulting discussions could easily be seen as a way to help the students understand cultural differences, personal traditions, interdependence and community building.

Finally, these parents chose this school for this children, and all of the parents who allowed their children to attend the wedding chose to educate their children in this way. If we don’t want schools to teach our children things we don’t believe, we shouldn’t be removing the option for other parents to teach their children things they believe, either.

Well, that certainly shoots to hell the idea the Yes on 8 camp is trying to plant in your head — that a bunch of unwitting six-year-olds were forcibly bused to a lesbian wedding in order to fulfill some insidious “homosexual indoctrination” program mandated by the state of California since the legalization of same-sex marriage.

So, what do the parents of the first-graders think about all this?

Here’s what four parents have to say, in a press release issued last night:

Outraged Parents of Children Featured in Latest Prop 8 TV Ad Demand that Commercial be Taken off the Air Immediately

Latest Campaign Gimmick Termed Exploitative and Shameless by Parents

SACRAMENTO — The parents of the two children most prominently featured in the latest multi-million dollar Prop 8 political spot today termed those ads “distasteful and exploitative” and demanded that the ads be taken off the air immediately. Both sets of parents — Laura Hodder and Matt Alexander and Jen Press and James Moore, sent two hand-delivered letters this morning. The first letter is to the Prop 8 Campaign demanding the ad be removed from its television and its Web site where it is being used as a fund raising tool. The second letter to the San Francisco Chronicle asks them to intervene on their behalf. The Prop 8 campaign manipulated video that the Chronicle has posted on its Web site.

In their letter to the Prop 8 campaign, the parents wrote: “We are absolutely outraged that you have chosen, without permission, to shamelessly hijack the images of our innocent children to promote a cause that we in no way, shape or form support. It is even more maddening that you have willfully and calculatingly edited the images of our children, with menacing music in the background, in a way that is completely contrary to their nature and harmful to them.”

The footage manipulated by the Yes campaign, without authorization from either the parents or the Chronicle, was originally captured on Oct. 10 when the children took a field trip with their classmates and several parents to share the moment of their teacher’s wedding to her longtime partner. All parents were notified well in advance of the trip which was organized by some parents, and, in fact, two families chose to have their children not participate under California’s broad opt out law.

“I’m a school principal so I know something about education and parents’ rights,” said Matt Alexander whose son, Ben, is featured in the ad. “And the opt out law is something we readily apply all the time. So, let me join every other educator in the state and ask Prop 8 to also stop lying about the opt out law.”

“This field trip was about sharing a special moment with a teacher these kids love,” said Jen Press whose daughter, Lucy, is prominently featured in the political ad. “To turn around and distort images of our children is outrageous. We’re opposed to Prop 8, but irrespective of our position, it’s wrong to use any image of children without their parents’ permission. And we think every parent in California would agree with us.”

In the letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, the parents wrote, in part:

“Our children are being exploited and used as pawns to further a political cause… We ask that you intervene immediately on our behalf and issue a cease and desist letter to the Yes on 8 campaign. If the campaign does not remove the ad, we ask that you pursue legal action against them.”

Added Jen Press: “Prop 8 claims to be about families, but we’re here to say you can’t be for families by attacking our families. You can’t be for families and take these children’s innocent images and flash them not only on television statewide, but on your fund raising page. This must stop right now.”

Click here to read the letter to the San Francisco Chronicle.(pdf)

Well, Prop 8 backers? What’s your next move? Busting kneecaps? Busting the kneecaps of six-year-olds? Nothing would surprise us now. When it’s “all for the children,” what’s a little child exploitation in the course of a such an all-encompassing, soul-winning crusade? Just a a little collateral damage in your war, that’s all.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Media, Parenting, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

October 24, 2008

UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau: NO ON 8

Chancellor Birgeneau informs campus
of likely impacts of Proposition 8

As Chancellor of UC Berkeley, I am writing to inform you of the likely impacts on our campus of the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage in the State of California. Of course, all members of the Berkeley community must exercise their own best judgment in deciding on how they wish to vote on this ballot measure.

In June of this year, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples. This ruling supports UC Berkeley’s commitment to equity and inclusion by recognizing the family relationships of all members of our campus community, including lesbian and gay faculty, staff and students.

Proposition 8 is in conflict with the principles of equity and inclusion to which our campus is committed. Berkeley supports the full inclusion and equal treatment of all members of our community and we have affirmed the position that any treatment of individuals that is not equal and inclusive is discriminatory. In denying a fundamental civil right, passage of Proposition 8 would undermine these principles, not just for our LGBTQ community, but for all racial, religious and cultural minorities and would harm the university as a whole.

Inclusion provides the rich diversity of intellectual life and creative learning that are at the heart of this great university. Inclusiveness is a specific strategic advantage that allows us to attract and retain talented people who could easily choose to move to other parts of the country. For example, in Massachusetts, home to Harvard and MIT, who are among our greatest competitors for faculty, same-sex marriage has been legal for some years. It is recognized in states such as New York, home to Columbia and Cornell, who are also major rivals for top faculty. The constitutional right to marry in the State of California enhances UC Berkeley’s ability to attract and retain the very best students, staff and faculty, with the promise of equal treatment under the laws of our state. Social theorist Richard Florida has shown that the economic success of American cities is based on their ability to attract a “creative class” of “talented people who seek an environment open to differences.” Proposition 8 will harm the social conditions in our state that promote creativity, justice, and prosperity.

Although you must judge for yourselves how to vote, as you consider your ballot on November 4, 2008, I would urge you to take into account the impacts that passage of Proposition 8 would have on our campus community.

Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor, UC Berkeley

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8

---

California Assemblymember Calls Proposition 8 “Full of Lies”

SACRAMENTO — October 23 — Today, Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) attacked the continuous failed strategies of lies and misrepresentation that the Proposition 8 campaign continues to push to the public.

Proposition 8’s most recent press release and letter, directed at the highest-ranking educators in the state, relies on baseless accusations made not by credible public educators, but by its paid campaign spokesman and attorney.

“There is no single education authority that condones Proposition 8,” said Assemblymember Jones, a legislative education champion. “Prop 8 campaign is full of lies and is a shameful use of children.”

Last night the No on Prop 8 campaign launched a tough, new advertisement highlighting the strong condemnation of the lies contained in the proponents’ own ads. The ad features California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell voicing his strong opposition to Prop 8 advertising, which lies about the public education system.

The NO on Prop 8 TV ad exposes the lies of the Prop 8 advertisements with O’Connell stating, “… our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.”

Every education authority in the state has rejected the lies surrounding the Prop 8 campaign. The California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association both maintain that Prop 8 has nothing to do with teaching in public schools. In addition, education leaders across the state have endorsed the NO on Prop 8 campaign, including Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education President Monica Garcia, Davis Joint Unified School Board President Sheila Allen and San Francisco Board of Education Vice-President Kim-Shree Maufas.

Virtually every major newspaper in California has editorialized against Prop 8, stating that “the state constitution shouldn’t be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote “no” on Proposition 8.” (Fresno Bee) For a complete list of NO on 8 endorsements, visit www.noonprop8.com.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Democrats, Education/Schools, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

October 23, 2008

Richard Peterson, the Face of Proposition 8 Lies, PWNS Himself

By now you’ve probably realized that the Proposition 8 liars have backed off on most of their thoroughly-debunked anti-equality “arguments” in favor of concentrating on the lie that the failure of Prop 8 will mandate “teaching homosexuality in schools.” (If you didn’t realize that, I’ll have more to say about it shortly, so stay tuned.)

Now it’s clear that Richard Peterson, the Pepperdine University “law professor” who is the face of the Prop 8 lie campaign, has been backed into a corner, and is scrambling to prop up one, lone, completely irrelevant case in Massachusetts to justify the bull he’s peddling.

From the tiny, easily-overlooked KPCC (89.3 MHz FM) public radio station (broadcasting from Pasadena City College):

In campaign ads, supporters contend that if Prop 8 fails, teachers will instruct schoolchildren about gay marriage. Kate Kendell is executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. She told KPCC’s Larry Mantle that children are already learning about families with two moms or two dads.

Kate Kendell: “Nothing about Prop 8 will change what children are taught in schools, whether Prop 8 passes or whether it fails. Of course, there is diversity education in schools now; California’s the most diverse state in the country.”

In an ad opposing Prop 8, state education superintendent Jack O’Connell says schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage. Law professor Richard Peterson told KPCC that’s beside the point.

Richard Peterson: “See, what they say is that it’s not mandated. And if you hit me in the head, the fact that you’re not required to do so doesn’t make me feel it any less. And this is the absurdity of the argument that Proposition 8 has nothing to do with that.”

Peterson, a supporter of Prop 8, says its failure at the polls would make it harder for parents to object to such a discussion. He and other supporters point to a legal decision in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. Courts there ruled that a public school district did not have to notify parents ahead of time when a teacher read a children’s book about a prince who marries another prince.

Did you catch it?

“Richard Peterson told KPCC that’s beside the point.“

He admitted it. He can’t refute the fact that California schools “aren’t required to teach anything about marriage,” so he said it was “beside the point.”

Again, folks: Massachusetts law has nothing to do with California law. Richard Peterson knows this, and yet insists on relying on the most spurious, ridiculous, and unfounded “IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!” projection — because he ain’t got nothin’ else.

“Professor” Peterson, I ask you:

Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

Have you left no sense of decency?

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Media, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

Video: California’s Top Educator Exposes Proposition 8 Lies in Tough New TV Spot

“Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids.

“Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.

“And using kids to lie about that is shameful.”

SACRAMENTO — October 23 — Today, the NO on Prop 8 campaign released a tough new television ad featuring California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who voiced his strong opposition to Prop 8 and the lies about the public education system.

“Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids,” said Geoff Kors, NO on Prop 8 executive committee member. “The Prop 8 campaign continues to use scare tactics and lies to bolster their campaign. It’s despicable that children are being used for political gain.”

The television ad exposes the lies of the Prop 8 advertisements with O’Connell stating, “Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.”

In fact, every education authority in the state has rejected the lies surrounding the Prop 8 campaign.

The California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association both maintain that Prop 8 has nothing to do with teaching in public schools.

In addition, education leaders across the state have endorsed the NO on Prop. 8 campaign, including Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education President Monica Garcia, Davis Joint Unified School Board President Sheila Allen and San Francisco Board of Education Vice-President Kim-Shree Maufas.

Virtually every major newspaper in California has editorialized against Prop 8, stating that “despite what proponents say, its defeat would not change what California’s schools teach.” (Los Angeles Times)

For a complete list of NO on 8 endorsements, visit www.noonprop8.com.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Media, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Videos, Youth

---

October 20, 2008

Jim Brosnahan Rips Proposition 8 Liar Richard Peterson A New One

A Debate With Myself on Proposition 8

This is a one-sided debate that is addressed to you, Richard Peterson. You have listed yourself as a faculty member of Pepperdine University School of Law and you have, as is your right under the First Amendment, broadcast your views throughout the state in a pro-Proposition 8 advertisement.

I wrote you a polite letter and I asked you to debate the measure but I have heard nothing and I take it you’re not going to respond. Therefore, if you don’t mind, I would like to express to you and anybody who reads this my thoughts on the points that you make and what’s wrong with them. In my view, your points are deeply flawed, misleading and, at times, an attempt to play on the fear of the viewer unfairly. …

In support of Prop 8, you have falsely suggested that churches would have a tax problem if the initiative were not passed. Prop 8 should be defeated and its defeat will not cause any problem to churches. Churches have the protection of the First Amendment. They are free to marry or not marry anyone they wish and they would not lose their tax-exempt status as you suggest. Your point is unworthy of a law professor.

In a similar vein of attempting to frighten people, you have suggested that somehow, if Prop 8 does not pass, little children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school, and that this will be bad for them. As others have pointed out, there is no requirement that schools have to teach anything about marriage, and furthermore, whatever is taught will be determined by the local school boards. …

You have presented yourself as a law professor and indeed you are, but the courses you’ve taught seem to have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are not, as far as I can determine, a person who has studied the constitutional law of this country, taught it, or litigated it in cases involving it. Perhaps I am wrong, but your school Web site’s biography does not show it. Therefore, as you present yourself as an expert in the California Constitution, I would seriously question your credentials to do that.

Your commercials attack the judges of California. This is despicable for a number of reasons. … [T]hey cannot fight back because it’s against the rules that govern judges and you know that. More important is the fact that those judges did what they thought was right under the law and they deserve your respect and the respect of the people of California. …

[T]he suggestion that the majority should be allowed to oppress a minority or to deny a minority equal protection is one that you ought to know is not governed by the California Constitution and should not be.

Further, you should know that U.S. Supreme Court authority says that you can not write discrimination into a state constitution. There are cases that have held exactly that, which would mean that Prop 8 would be a dead letter. …

Much more at the link, well worth the full read, and well worth passing along to everyone you know.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Church-State Separation, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Media, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

Teacher Calls Out Proposition 8 Lie #1: “Teaching Gay Marriage in Schools”

LTTE, Napa Valley Register:

Schools unaffected by Proposition 8

Dear editor,

Wow, the people who support Proposition 8 are getting desperate! As a teacher, I am amused at their argument that if Proposition 8 is defeated, then gay marriage will be discussed in schools. I have never discussed marriage in the classroom. We are far too busy trying to cram in enough time for language arts and math to discuss topics such as marriage. Marriage is also something that is not focused on purely out of sensitivity to our students who come from divorced families — divorced heterosexual families.

Lindsey Lewis
Napa

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Heterosexuality, Homophobia, Marriage, Proposition 8, Youth

---

October 18, 2008

Classically Liberal Meets the Yes On 8 Drones

I meet the Prop 8 people today — Halloween came early.

I was out shopping earlier today and ran into some Yes on 8 people standing at the shopping mall with their signs for this proposition to strip gay people of marriage equality. The one sign said “Protect Parental Rights”. So I parked and walked over to asked them how gay marriage violates parental rights.

The man pulled out a campaign brochure and I said: “No, I’d like to hear why you think gay marriage violates parental rights.” He looked dumbfounded for a moment, having to think for yourself is hard work especially when you’re not used to it.

He then started to repeat what the Yes on 8 people told him. He started with: “In Massachusetts….” I interrupted and pointed out that we live in California and Massachusetts state law doesn’t apply in California.

He responded with a claim that in sex ed classes in California kids will be taught gay marriage. I pointed out to him that under California law all parents are free to remove their children from sex ed classes if they wish and thus no child will be taught this without parental permission. His reply was: “Well, that won’t be the case of Prop 8 doesn’t pass.”

Actually 8 does nothing about parental permission for sex ed courses and, while gay marriage is legal now, the law still stands. Obviously the legalization of gay marriage had no impact on that law at all. Just because Jewish marriage is legal that doesn’t mean kids are taught Judaism at school. The whole argument is absurd.

At this point another Prop 8 person came over to play interference. …

He started complaining how “one federal judge” could over rule millions of voters and how that was unfair. Of course there were no federal judges involved at all. This was purely a ruling of the California Supreme Court based on the California constitution. He insisted it was federal interference, even the old guy interrupted him and corrected him. …

This guy doesn’t like gays, but then he doesn’t like immigrants, free trade and a host of things. We discussed them briefly. I asked him what happens with the US dollars that go to China for the shoes we buy here (he was worried about American produced shoes for some reason). Don’t those dollars have to come back to America eventually if someone wants to spend them? He seemed convinced that some of it does come back to Hillary Clinton and Diane Feistein. Really, I’m not making this up. …

At this point he accused me of wanting to take away his guns! …

The old guy chimed in again and told me that allow gay marriage rewrites the Bible. I asked him how and he couldn’t explain but he said gay marriage is against the Bible. I pointed out that the United States is not a theocracy and that US law isn’t based on the Bible. His response said it all: “It should be.” He very explicitly said it was his right to impose Biblical law on America.

Angry White Chimed in and pointed out that Leviticus wants gay men killed but said he was surprised lesbianism wasn’t covered. …

I said: “I won’t say, it’s been fun.” Old Guy said, “We’ll at least we’re friends.” I said: “No, not really.” I can’t be friends with someone who wants to use state power to take away rights from people.

My second encounter with Prop 8 supporters was on line. …

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Church-State Separation, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Random Stupidity

---

October 16, 2008

Illinois School Bus Driver Incites Gay-Bash on 10-Year-Old

Some things are just too disgusting for words. Russell A. Schmalz is one of those things.

Via 365gay.com:

Bourbonnais, Illinois — An elementary school bus driver has been charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student passenger.

The Kankakee Sheriff’s Police Department said that the boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other students to chase and beat the child. …

[Chief Deputy Ken McCabe] said the driver repeatedly called the boy “gay.”

”When the boy got off the bus, the driver encouraged several other students to go after him and tackle him. Our investigation shows that occurred,” McCabe told The Daily Journal.

He also said the driver is under investigation for joining the students in chasing the boy and grabbing him.

Bourbonnais School District officials would only say the driver has been terminated.

Charged with mob action, endangering the life of a child and battery is Russell A. Schmalz, 46.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Education/Schools, Hate Crimes, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Illinois, Youth

---

October 15, 2008

No on Proposition 8 Campaign Demands Misleading Ads Be Taken off the Air

The NO on Prop 8 campaign today released a memorandum from their law firm to stations throughout California citing the lies contained in the Yes on 8 advertisements currently running statewide, asking them to take the ads down. The memorandum to station managers from Karen Getman of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, is attached [PDF].

“Their ads are full of lies and this memo makes that clear” said Steve Smith, Campaign Manager for No on 8. “There is nothing in Prop 8 about teaching children in our schools, nothing that would affect religion or religious institutions in any way, and Pepperdine University has made it clear they aren’t involved in the Yes Campaign in any way.”

“Lots of campaigns stretch the truth,” continued Smith, “but these ads go way beyond that. The Yes on 8 Campaign ads are false and misleading and are meant to scare the public. These ads go way beyond what we’ve ever seen in past campaigns. They must come off the air.”

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Marriage, Media, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right

---

October 8, 2008

Human Rights Campaign Campus GOTV Events, Northern California

Events aim to educate students raise awareness on Proposition 8

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, will participate in a number of events on college campuses across California this week to get out the vote on Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state.

The events will take place at the University of California Davis, Sacramento State, San Jose State University and Stanford University. HRC Youth & Campus Outreach Senior Manager Candace Gingrich will offer remarks.

The HRC California Marriage PAC has donated $2.3 million in cash and resources to Equality for All, a coalition of LGBT civil rights groups, to defeat Proposition 8.

WEDNESDAY

UC Davis
Get Out the Vote on Prop 8 rally
Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008, at 12:00 pm PST
UC Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616

Sacramento State
Get Out the Vote on Prop 8 rally
Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm PST
Sacramento State, 6000 J St., Sacramento, CA 95819

San Jose State University
Get Out the Vote on Prop 8 panel
Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008, at 7:00 pm PST, reception to follow
San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San José, CA, 95192

THURSDAY

Stanford University
Get Out the Vote on Prop 8 rally
Thursday, Oct. 9, 2008, at 12:00 pm PST
Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305

San Jose State University
Get Out the Vote on Prop 8 rally
Thursday, Oct. 9, 2008, at 1:30 pm PST
San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San José, CA, 95192

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Election 2008, Events, LGBT Organizations, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8

---

Get Ready to Pay for More Schools That Teach What an Abomination You Are

Americans United Blasts Bush Administration
for Report Urging More Tax Aid to Religious Schools

Keep Emphasis on Public Education, Says Church-State Watchdog Group

WASHINGTON — October 7 — Americans United for Separation of Church and State today criticized the White House for issuing a report calling for massive new forms of tax funding of religious schools.

The 164-page report, “Preserving a Critical National Asset: America’s Disadvantaged Students and the Crisis in Faith-based Urban Schools,” was produced by the White House Domestic Policy Council. It calls for a sweeping plan of public subsidy of religious education through vouchers, tax credits and other forms of tax aid at both the federal and state levels.

“Government officials should focus on improving public schools, not subsidizing religious education,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The American people want programs that boost public schools, not a bailout for private schools that are unaccountable to the public.”

The report calls for more voucher plans, blithely ignoring the fact that there is little public support for them and that objective research shows that existing voucher plans do not boost student performance.

Going further, the report also calls for “faith-based” charter schools that would advance religion. It offhandedly notes that such schools “would likely require a number of changes in Federal and State law” but fails to point out that rewriting the First Amendment would be among them.

“This report is the last gasp of an administration stubbornly convinced there is a ‘faith-based’ solution to every problem,” Lynn remarked. “Given the state the Bush administration is in, I expect the report to be quickly forgotten and that’s for the best.”

Lynn pointed out that 90 percent of American schoolchildren attend public schools. He said the next administration should stop obsessing over private education and return the focus to public education.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Church-State Separation, Education/Schools, Free Speech, George W. Bush, Press Releases

---

October 4, 2008

“Today, boys and girls, we’re going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry”

Via today’s L.A. Times, Meghan Daum had Buffy and me practically in tears with her funny-’cause-it’s-true dissection of the “indoctrinating our tender youth” lie.

You’ve got to read the whole thing — you’ll love it (and the anti-marriage brigades will hate it):

Prop. 8 and teaching to the marriage test

A television ad supporting Proposition 8 implies that gay marriage would have to be “taught” in California public schools unless the right of same-sex couples to marry is overturned. It makes me wonder: What exactly do you teach when you teach gay marriage? How to get same-sex weddings announced in the New York Times?

And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say “Today, boys and girls, we’re going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry”? Are there workbook exercises called “Ten things I’m accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities”? And don’t those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?

As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Moreover, it’s only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.

In other words, no matter what happens with Proposition 8, “Secrets for Meeting and Marrying the Same-Sex Partner of Your Dreams” won’t make the syllabus, at least not because of the education code the ad references. …

As for the Proposition 8 supporters who apparently fear that such discussions would be tantamount to promoting gay marriage — how can I say this without hurting your feelings? Perhaps your invitation to the popular culture’s collective and ongoing celebration of same-sex matrimony has been lost in the mail, because I don’t see how you could think that kids haven’t already been “indoctrinated.” …

As inundated as young people are with superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about sex, they’re barraged with equally superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about marriage. Don’t believe me? Watch the Wedding Channel for just five minutes. …

More at the link. Enjoy.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

October 2, 2008

“Kill Gays!” Mom-Battering Dominionist Tells Students — and a Once-in-a-Lifetime “Teachable Moment” is Lost

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

— Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

It’s one thing when a crackpot with a Bible says outrageous things — goodness knows, we have more than our share in the U.S. (and too many virtually indistinguishable from Canada’s David Popescu are running for elected office) — but it’s another to enable said crackpot through silence.

First: Who — or rather, what — is a David Popescu?

A Sudbury man will be able to visit his mother in hospital even though he pleaded guilty Friday to breaching a probation order to stay away from her. David Popescu, 58, has been an unsuccessful candidate for political office in Greater Sudbury. He runs on a platform of Bible study. Because his mother will be undergoing surgery Tuesday, his sister has been added to a list of people who must be in attendance when Popescu visits the woman. In 2003, Popescu was found guilty of assaulting his mother and his sentence included three years of probation where he’s can’t visit her alone. Court heard Friday Popescu visited his mother alone last summer which prompted his sister to phone police. Popescu breaches probation NorthernLife.ca April 21, 2006

Wikipedia’s got the backstory down correctly and fairly succinctly, so I’ll be lazy and just quote from there:

J. David Popescu is a perennial candidate in Sudbury elections at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. He is currently running in the 2008 Canadian election as a independent federal candidate.

Popescu worked at Inco in his twenties, but quit in 1972 after embracing fundamentalist Christianity. He has said that he does not campaign to win votes, but rather to warn citizens of the judgement he believes will be visited upon them by the Christian God if they do not live their lives in accordance with Biblical commands.

Popescu believes that decisions made by elected officials have made it difficult for citizens to avoid sinful activity. “The casino, pornography and undoing the Lord’s Day are opening the door for sin that destroys,” he said in the 2000 municipal election. “If we violate (God’s) standards, we’re doomed from the start.” On other occasions, he said that popular music stores should be closed because they “promote Satanic music”, and has likened Sudbury’s annual Dragon Boat races to the devil. Popescu has also argued that natural disasters and other catastrophes are divine judgement for earthly sins.

He has used his campaigns to distribute a self-produced video, which features a series of his sermons. In 2003, the Sudbury Star noted that this recording contained messages directed against homosexuals. In one sermon, Popescu says, “God burnt five homosexual cities alive, including women and children, as an example of what we are supposed to do to them. Instead, our evil government gives them rights.”

Popescu was charged with assault against his elderly mother in 2003, after a family member reported seeing a large bruise on her arm. Testifying at a bail court hearing, Popescu said that he had given his mother a “small swat and a light shake” to get her attention when she was not paying attention to him. He expressed remorse for his action, but argued that it was not serious and did not constitute assault. He also testified that he had been violent toward his mother in the past, but that this abuse had ended more than 25 years earlier. Under cross examination from the assistant crown attorney, Popescu said that he had lived with his mother for his entire life, and became her primary caregiver after his father’s death in 1969. He added that he had not worked in the community since 1972, and that he considered looking after his mother to be his full-time job.

Popescu lived at a Salvation Army men’s shelter after being released on bail, and was found guilty of assault after a day-long trial. He was sentenced to three years probation, and required to report for a psychological assessment. He subsequently received part-time work at the Salvation Army, and has continued to protest his innocence.

2008 Election

At a candidates’ debate staged for Sudbury Secondary School students on September 29, 2008, Popescu stated in response to a question on same-sex marriage that “homosexuals should be executed”. The comments angered students and teachers alike, and led to YouTube videos, Facebook groups and death threats all protesting what Popescu said.

Following these statements, the Greater Sudbury Police Service announced that Popescu is now under investigation for violating Canada’s hate laws. The case will then be forwarded to a local Crown prosecutor and then to Ontario’s Attorney General for a decision on whether or not criminal charges will be laid.

Now, watch as the Christofascists down our way start screaming about the “dangers” of Christian “free speech” being stifled by hate-cimes laws, and citing Popescu as a martyr for their ever-so-righteous cause in Radical Religious Right rags like Lifesitenews and Christian Newswire. Never mind that there’s a difference between “free speech” and inciting violence; that never matters to the perpetually “oppressed” CINOs.

The next day, Popescu repeated his previous statements, arguing they were was based on Biblical passages. He stated: “I said I believe homosexuals should be executed . . . when I say homosexuals should be executed, I am speaking in terms of government actions. That is the way the Bible puts it.”

On October 1, the four major party candidates in the riding — Liberal incumbent Diane Marleau, Conservative Gerry Labelle, New Democrat Glenn Thibeault and Green candidate Gordon Harris — announced in a joint statement that they would not participate in any further debates in which Popescu was included.

So, that’s what a David Popescu is. Now that you know the story, here’s the problem: The supposed grown-ups at the school — including the other candidates — did nothing.

Edmonton Sun:

Candidates and teachers looked on in silence as students called for him to be “cut off.” Despite their outrage, the discussion moved to other topics. Paul Camillo, principal of Sudbury Secondary, emphasized the school’s inclusiveness in his closing remarks but did not condemn the statement.

“We’re here today to hear what the candidates have to say,” he said in an interview. “As an inclusive school, we respect all other opinion although we may not agree with them — and I know there were definitely some things said today that we don’t agree with.”

That’s a noble ideal, but it’s also downright cowardly. Mr. Camillo could have easily expanded on his closing remarks and used the moment to guide the students through an invaluable lesson. But he didn’t.

“That’s enough of Popescu’s bile“:

Those who have watched Sudbury riding candidate David Popescu over the years might not be surprised by his outrageous comments concerning gays, but now is the time for his public reckoning.

And it will likely come at the hands of high school students who questioned him, heard what he had to say and outright rejected his vile comments. …

The students jeered him and requested he be cut off, while the other candidates sat in silence.

It almost seems as if the candidates have an unspoken protocol not to respond to Popescu’s routinely offensive remarks, else practically every debate could be derailed. …

It is an understandable approach, but it risks being misinterpreted by the public as an unwillingness to speak out on the issue. …

School principal Paul Camillo was likely astonished to find that what should have been a valuable lesson in democracy for his students turned into such a spectacle. He chose not to condemn Popescu’s remarks, but instead explained to students how the democratic process allows all voices to be heard. He also stressed the importance of researching candidates before casting a vote. We cannot take issue with that stance. No one should be forced to condemn others, but it didn’t matter. The students knew what to do. They were the bright spot in all this. They expressed themselves in a reasonable, measured fashion — they did not sit on their hands or hurl insults.

The episode was an astounding lesson for them, but they showed that young people can make a difference with their voices.

“Teachable Moment Lost“:

I am a high school teacher. Initially, when I read that “teachers looked on in silence as students called for him to be ‘cut off,’ I understood that to mean that they weren’t reprimanding their students and were allowing them to protest.

As I continued to read though, I realized that the staff did nothing, literally. They heard the comments made by the candidate and heard the students’ protests, but allowed Popescu to continue speaking and kept their students in the auditorium. I considered for a moment what I would have done in their place and realized that I would not have been willing to stay and listen to anymore of Popescu’s twisted philosophies myself, never mind expecting my students to do so.

To me, this was a teachable moment. The staff could have used this opportunity to teach their students that it is their social responsibility to defend the rights of minorities and that their voices would be heard when they spoke out against hatred. …

I suspect the school equivalent, a suspension, would have been handed to a student who said something similar within the school. …

Instead, Popescu was allowed to continue responding to questions. With this, the students learned that the world will accept intolerant speech, disguised as freedom of expression or political views.

What’s more, they learned that standing up against such hatred is pointless because their attempts will be ignored or thwarted by higher authority.

I hope that the students of Sudbury Secondary School follow his story and see justice served to Popescu and that this prevents their passion from being extinguished.

The children, as the hackneyed old saying goes, are our future.

It’s just a damned shame the “adults” in charge failed to lead the students through such a real-life, shock-and-awe lesson about hatred and bigotry.

Fortunately — or sadly, depending how you look at it — it took the kids to teach the adults about right and wrong.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Canada, Education/Schools, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Radical Religious Right, Youth

---

ACLU Sues School District for Punishing Kindergarten Student Because of Family’s Religious Beliefs

Needville Independent School District Violates State Law
With Suspension of Five-Year-Old

HOUSTON — October 2 — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas today filed a lawsuit against the Needville Independent School District (NISD) for punishing a five-year-old American Indian kindergarten student for practicing and expressing his family’s religious beliefs and heritage by wearing his hair long in violation of school rules.

School officials have forced Adriel Arocha into isolated in-school suspension because he and his family refuse to abide by a district mandate that he stuff his long hair, part of his American Indian religious and cultural heritage, down the back of his shirt while at school — a requirement that would cause Adriel shame, embarrassment and physical discomfort.

“Adriel Arocha’s parents have raised him to practice and be proud of his religion and culture as an American Indian, which includes wearing his uncut hair in two long braids,” said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director for the ACLU of Texas. “NISD recognized that Adriel’s religious beliefs exempt him from its dress code requirement that boys have short hair, but the alternate policy they adopted for him is still unlawful.”

Adriel’s parents, Kenny Arocha and Micelle Betenbaugh, have raised their son according to his father’s American Indian religious beliefs. Kenny and Adriel Arocha believe that one’s hair should only be cut for life-changing occasions, such as the death of a loved one. They believe their long hair is a sacred symbol of their own lives. The five-year-old’s hair has never been cut.

Nearly eight months after Adriel’s parents first requested an exemption from the district’s dress code, and only after the family appealed the Needville School Board’s initial denial, the district finally conceded less than a week before school started that Adriel’s long hair is part of his religious heritage and that he cannot be forced to cut it.

But instead of simply exempting him from that part of the dress code, NISD officials are requiring that Adriel keep his thick, foot-long hair “tightly woven” into a single braid and stuffed down the back of his shirt at all times, and to re-prove his religious sincerity to NISD officials every school year.

Adriel’s parents have refused to subject their son to this degrading and impracticable policy. His mother, Michelle Betenbaugh, said, “Asking a five-year-old to keep a foot of hair shoved down his shirt is not just humiliating, it is impractical and unhygienic in Houston’s sweltering climate.”

As punishment for non-compliance with its dress code policy, NISD has segregated Adriel from his kindergarten class and assigned him to in-school suspension every school day since Sept. 3. In-school suspension is the harshest discipline the law permits for a child his age.

“NISD is trying to force Adriel and his parents to choose between practicing and expressing his religion and identity, and obtaining a public education,” said Fleming Terrell, staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “But Texas law and the First Amendment both prohibit the district from forcing parents and students to make this choice.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, charges that NISD’s actions violate Betenbaugh’s and Arocha’s rights to raise Adriel according to their family’s religion, heritage and identity, as well as Adriel’s constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of religion and free expression. Courts have held that the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect students’ rights to dress in conformation with their religious beliefs. Texas’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides additional protections.

“The Constitution protects the right of all people in this country to express their religious beliefs as they see fit,” said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “The same law protects Catholic students who wear a rosary, Christian students who wear a cross or Jewish students who wear a Star of David. Yet the school board has ignored this basic principle by punishing this young child’s expression of his faith and heritage.”

A copy of the lawsuit is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion/schools/37019lgl20081001.html

Additional information about the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief can be found online at: www.aclu.org/religion/index.html

Additional information about the ACLU of Texas is available online at: www.aclutx.org

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Press Releases, Religion & Spirituality, Texas, Youth

---

September 29, 2008

Prop 8 Crusaders Haul Out One of Their Biggest Lies in First Attack Ad

I haven’t watched the ad yet — Firefox hangs on videos when one has dozens of tabs open — but per the No On 8 camp (the good guys), the first anti-marriage ad by the Yes On 8 camp (the bad guys) includes the big (and I mean Radio-City-Music-Hall-big) lie that “school children will be taught about same-sex marriage unless Prop 8 passes.”

Frankly — or rather, Frank-Schubert-ly — I’m surprised the rabid radicals would resort to one of the most easily debunked lies in their arsenal of propaganda — especially after (by many accounts, none of which I have handy to link to at the moment) the Prop 8 camp was expected to avoid any overt anti-gay attacks, and instead soft-sell “traditional” marriage, with images of happy heteros and their perfect children.

But then, when truth is not on your side, all you can do is lie some more, and hope nobody notices. Isn’t that right, Frankie?

Today’s announcement from No On 8 (the good guys):

This morning, the proponents of Prop 8 turned to their only real weapon when they began their ad campaign to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples — fear and lies.

Their ad claims that the California Supreme Court “mandated” the right to marry for same-sex couples and, as a result, school children will be taught about same-sex marriage unless Prop 8 passes.

Of course it’s a blatant lie.

What the Court did was uphold the Constitution’s promise of equality.

And the proponents know that their claim that the law requires that children be taught about same-sex marriage in school is also a lie, just like the other false claims in their misleading ad.

But honesty clearly is not a value that the proponents of Prop 8 believe in.

We must respond to their ad. Please make a donation today.

Unfortunately voters may believe their lies unless we can raise the significant money needed to do our own ads telling the truth.

It is now very clear: the proponents of Prop 8 will stop at nothing to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

They will even use children as a political tool to mislead voters.

And they are spending millions of dollars to get their misleading message out to voters throughout California.

We can’t let this attack go unanswered. We must tell Californians the truth.

Help us respond to their ad — make a donation.

We know that a growing number of voters are beginning to see Prop 8 for what it really is: an effort to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

While we might be slightly ahead in some polls, we are still behind in dollars.

And money will be a major factor in whether we win or we lose — because this election will be decided on the airwaves. Whoever has more to spend — and is most effective in their ads — is more likely to win. It is that simple.

In the next four weeks, you can expect the proponents attack ads to get even uglier. The only way we can win is to match them dollar-for-dollar in ad buys — and then respond to their untrue attacks.

We cannot let their ads go unanswered!

Will you help us win the critical battle of the airwaves? Donate now!

Sincerely,

Dale Kelly Bankhead
Campaign Manager
No On 8

Donate today! Click to contribute

Me, I don’t get paid again until October 15th — but I did get some money for my birthday… and I know what I’m going to use it for.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Education/Schools, Homophobia, Marriage, Media, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right

---

September 10, 2008

Gotham Awards to Fete “Milk” Director Gus Van Sant, Donate Video Cameras to Harvey Milk High

IFP also announces initiative with Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk HS, to support emerging LGBT filmmakers

NEW YORK — September 10, 2008 — In recognition of his pioneering career which has helped break down the barriers between independent and mainstream film, IFP announced today that director Gus Van Sant will be presented with a Gotham Awards Tribute at the 18th Annual Gotham Awards on Tuesday, December 2, in New York.

Presented by IFP, the nation’s oldest and largest organization of independent filmmakers, the Gotham Awards is one of the leading awards for independent film and the first major honors of the film awards season. The awards provide critical early recognition for worthy independent films, such as past winners Juno (2007), Half Nelson (2006), and Junebug (2005), all of which went on to earn numerous awards and Oscar® nominations for their stars Ellen Page, Ryan Gosling, and Amy Adams, respectively.

This year, Van Sant has directed the highly anticipated film Milk, about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major public office in the United States. Starring Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna, and James Franco, the film will be released by Focus Features in select cities on Wednesday, November 26th, 2008 and then expand in December.

In recognition of Van Sant’s fearlessness in using film to explore LGBT issues, IFP announced a new initiative aimed at inspiring the next generation of LGBT filmmakers. IFP is teaming with the The Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk High School in New York City. IFP, courtesy of Deloitte Financial Services LLP, is donating 45 video cameras to the school. IFP hopes to work with the producers of NewFest, The New York LGBT Film Festival, to create a series of training and mentoring sessions. Select works by youth members from The Hetrick-Martin Institute and students from Harvey Milk School will be invited to screen during the next edition of NewFest (June 4 - 14, 2009). Additionally, school administrators and students will be on hand for a Q&A following a special screening of The Times of Harvey Milk, Rob Epstein’s Academy Award-winning 1984 documentary that received early support from IFP. The documentary will be screened as part of To Save and Protect: The 6th MoMA International Festival of Film Preservation on Thursday, November 6th.

As part of its tribute to Van Sant, IFP will also team with the Museum of Modern Art to present a public screening of Milk at the Museum on Wednesday, December 3rd.

“Gus is that rare director who has achieved a steady balance between his independent roots and mainstream filmmaking, excelling at both while continuing to push the envelope with the same boundless creativity, curiosity, and passion on display in his earliest films,” said Michelle Byrd, executive director of IFP.

Van Sant first earned critical acclaim with his 1985 feature film debut, Mala Noche, which won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association award for Best Independent/Experimental Film. Since then, he has directed some of the most acclaimed independent films of the past two decades, including Drugstore Cowboy, My Own Private Idaho, To Die For, Elephant, and Paranoid Park. In 1998, he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Director for Good Will Hunting, which received eight other Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. His major studio credits include Finding Forrester and a controversial shot-for-shot remake of Psycho.

IFP announced last month that Penélope Cruz will also receive a Gotham Awards Tribute. Additional honorees will be announced in the coming weeks.

Nominees for the 18th Annual Gotham Awards will be announced on October 20, 2008, and winners will be honored at a star-studded ceremony at Cipriani Wall Street on December 2nd. Submissions are now being accepted in five of the six competitive categories, including: Best Feature, Best Documentary, Breakthrough Actor, Breakthrough Director and Best Ensemble Cast. Applications are available at http://gotham.ifp.org. The deadline for submissions is 5pm EST on Monday, September 22, 2008.

Sponsors of the 18th Annual Gotham Awards include Premiere sponsors The New York Times and Nokia and Presenting sponsors A Diamond is Forever and Stella Artois. Additionally, the awards will be promoted nationally in an eight-page special advertising section in The New York Times this November.

About IFP

After debuting with a program in the 1979 New York Film Festival, the nonprofit IFP has evolved into the nation’s oldest and largest organization of independent filmmakers, and also the premier advocate for them. Since its start, IFP has supported the production of 7,000 films and provided resources to more than 20,000 filmmakers–voices that otherwise might not have been heard. IFP believes that independent films enrich the universal language of cinema, seeding the global culture with new ideas, kindling awareness, and fostering activism. The organization has fostered early work by leading filmmakers including Charles Burnett, Edward Burns, Jim Jarmusch, Barbara Kopple, Michael Moore, Mira Nair, and Kevin Smith. For more information: www.ifp.org.

About the Gotham Awards

The Gotham Awards, selected by distinguished juries and presented in New York City, a home of independent film, are the first honors of the film awards season. This public showcase honors the filmmaking community, expands the audience for independent films, and supports the work that IFP does behind the scenes throughout the year to bring such films to fruition.

About The Hetrick-Martin Institute

The Hetrick-Martin Institute, Home of the Harvey Milk High School, believes all young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential. Hetrick- Martin creates this environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth between the ages of 12 and 21 and their families. Through a comprehensive package of direct services and referrals, Hetrick-Martin seeks to foster healthy youth development. Hetrick-Martin’s staff promotes excellence in the delivery of youth services and uses its expertise to create innovative programs that other organizations may use as models. For more info: http://www.hmi.org

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Education/Schools, Events, Harvey Milk, Milk Movie, Movies, New York, Press Releases

---

August 30, 2008

Six Big Lies the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8

Feel free to distribute this post in its entirety, anywhere and everywhere, as long as you include a link back to The Lavender Newswire.

Chino Blanco suggested Googling “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” — “the six totally false talking points that the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign is trying to use to fire up their target voters.”

I found it, and, after I stopped laughing, grabbed it off a Wrong-Wing blog, and decided to answer each “consequence” here.

Six Consequences Big Lies
If the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading
About Proposition 8 Fails
 

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

This is a lie. The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat (or passage) of Proposition 8.

The entire text of Proposition 8 (PDF) reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The anti-gay forces are counting on voters not to read the California Education Code for themselves — so we’ll be happy to read it for them.

The section of the California Education Code (§51890) cited defines a long list of terms as used in Chapter 5.5. Comprehensive Health Education, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977.

Citing the need for “an adequate health education program in the public schools,” this chapter focuses on education about, and prevention of, “the abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; emotional instability; forced marriage; self-medication; dental caries; nutritional disorders; suicide; and accidents,” as well as “fostering in students an understanding of their role in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding themselves from other health and safety dangers which may be posed by hazardous substances.”

There is only one reference to marriage in §51890, and it is this:

(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: …

(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

In addition, a section of the Code the pro-8 forces conveniently neglect to cite, §51914, specifically prohibits arbitrary changes to the comprehensive health education program without extensive input and review:

51914. No plan shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.

And: §51890 itself mandates “community participation” — defined in §51891 as “the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies” in “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system”:

(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in the community.

Yet all of the above is moot, because the California Education Code already requires schoolchildren be taught respect for all committed relationships.

You read that right. It’s in yet another chapter and section the anti-gay forces fail to cite, §51933, Chapter 5.6. California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act, Article 2. Authorized Comprehensive Sexual Health Education:

51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. …

Not “must,” mind you, but “may.” Note also the word “elects” in the first sentence quoted immediately below; whether or not to “offer comprehensive sexual health education” is left entirely to the discretion of the school district:

(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:

(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.

(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.

(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code.

(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.

(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.

(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

Thus, the California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat of Proposition 8. The Code already includes the very thing the anti-gay forces are trying to make you think looms on the horizon.

On a related note, the anti-gay forces really hope you won’t read Chapter 5.6 in full, because it annihilates the argument that comprehensive sex education (including accurate information about contraceptives) cannot exist in harmony with “abstinence-only” teaching:

(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. …

Dropping down past points 9 through 12(a)-(c) (which deal with accurate information about pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, what to do with an unwanted baby, and the age-appropriateness of materials used for grades earlier than 7), we come to 12(d):

(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following:

(1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.

(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.

Note the “if” and “elects” again.

(Also note the prohibition of religionist materials — another reason the anti-gay forces don’t want you to read this chapter.)

Section 220 cited above reads:

220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

In other words, you can’t promote bias against anyone in public schools — including, but not limited to, gay people… and religious people.

The radical religionists really hate the fact that we’re legally protected from hatred here in California, just like they are.

They also hate the fact that California prohibits forced religious instruction on public school students — while claiming that California is forcing pro-gay “instruction” on those same students, which it doesn’t.

Also of interest is §221 (same link as the last one above), which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:

221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

 

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

This is a two-fold lie. There are two issues here: 1) allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in church-owned facilities, and 2) religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.

They want you to think your “pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi” is going to be forced to perform marriages that are in direct conflict with your church’s beliefs.

Issue 1: Same-sex marriages in church-owned facilities.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: It’s highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights — just as, say, a Muslim couple would want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil. Which is probably why we’ve never heard of a Muslim couple suing a Christian church for denying access to a church hall (or a Christian couple suing a synagogue, or a Jewish couple suing a mosque, etc., etc., etc.).

Now, to the point: If the facilities are “open to the public,” then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples — or anyone else for that matter.

A Press-Enterprise article from late July (linked below) sums it up:

David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public. There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said.

If a court does rule there is a requirement, it would be based upon long-standing state law that prohibits public-accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, he said. A religious group that does not rent out its facilities to the public would not be affected, because the facilities would not be considered “public accommodations,” he said.

The solution: Don’t rent your church hall to the public.

The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.

Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.

To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional — that is, it violates the United States Constitution.

No church can be forced to perform any marriage. The Catholic church will not, and cannot be forced to, perform a marriage for a non-Catholic couple, nor for a divorced Catholic (a Catholic whose previous marriage was annulled by the church, yes, but not a civilly divorced Catholic). The same goes for every other church — and applies to secular officiants as well (i.e., an atheist officiant cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony).

Here’s one of many examples of such empty fearmongering, and the facts that render it an utter lie:

Group warns Inland pastors about same-sex weddings

A Sacramento-based conservative legal group arrives in Corona this week to warn local pastors that they might be sued for refusing to host same-sex weddings, and to advise them on how far they can go in supporting a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.

Constitutional-law experts say the state and federal constitutions’ guarantee of religious freedom clearly allows clergy to decline requests for same-sex matrimonies. Supporters of same-sex marriage accuse the group of misleading pastors to increase support for Prop. 8, the November ballot initiative that would bar same-sex marriage, and to raise money for the organization. …

[The Pacific Justice Institute] is using the specter of pastors being forced to perform same-sex weddings in its fundraising appeals.

“If you believe, as I do, that no government should be allowed to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict God’s Word, I’m asking you to say ‘I do’ by offering PJI a one-time, tax-deductible gift,” a June 25 letter says.

The letter says that same-sex couples have already threatened two pastors with lawsuits for refusing to marry them. [PJI president Brad Dacus] declined to identify the churches.

Well, that’s convenient. Why not identify them? Why not show us all proof of their “persecution”?

Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead counsel in the case that led to the May 15 California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, said any lawsuit against pastors for refusing to perform same-sex weddings would be futile. He said he strongly supports the right of clergy to decline to perform same-gender weddings.

“They’re trying to scare people,” Minter said. “There’s not a shred of truth in their assertion. It is so clearly established in law that clergy and religious organizations have absolute discretion on which marriages to perform and what is within their religious faith. That is one of the most solidly established principles in law.”

Some religions have strong restrictions on divorce, second marriages and interfaith marriages, and — just as with same-sex marriages — government cannot interfere with those teachings, Minter said.

Jennifer Rothman, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on constitutional law, said the state has always allowed clergy to choose whom to marry, and will continue to allow clergy to adhere to their religious teachings on the matter.

Of course, right-wing “scholars” — like John Eastman (see the full P-D article) — still warn that that it “it is unlikely that a court would force clergy to marry same-sex couples,” but it “isn’t impossible.” Nothing is “impossible” — but it would take a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What’s more (and before the righties start whining about “activist judges”), that little thing about “free exercise” was clearly explained in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — yet declared, in a broader context, that the Free Exercise Clause “withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”

The only way to “force” any clergymember to do anything against the tenets of his or her church is by way of a consitutional amendment to strike the Free Exercise Clause from the First Amendment, or to repeal the First Amendment altogether.

That isn’t going to happen, and the righties know it.

The bottom line: Religionists don’t want the government running their churches (which the government can’t do anyway, and the religionists know it), yet think churches have the right to run the government.

Now, if you want a real slippery slope that will threaten religious freedom in the United States, then a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (state or federal) is the way to go.

First, forcing the government to declare which marriages are legal and which are not based on the religious ideology of any one group restricts the religious freedom of every other religious group. That means if, say, Catholics could force the government to abide by Catholic doctrine, all non-Catholic marriages would be null and void. (Sure it’s a stretch, but according to the radical righties, nothing’s “impossible”… right?)

Second, if the righties want to argue that marriage is a “sacred” religious institution, they run the risk of invalidating their own authority to perform legally-recognized marriages.

In a discussion of a 2004 proposed (and failed) “compromise” amendment that would ban equal marriage in Massachusetts while providing for same-sex civil unions, Emory University law professor John Witte pointed out that “the debate could raise questions about whether it’s appropriate for the clergy to continue to act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriages (’Under the authority vested in me…’). They could be in a difficult posture to say they can do that but can’t act as agents of the state in performing civil unions.”

If the religionists are willing to give up their right to have their church marriages legally recognized by the state, then we can talk.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

This is a multiple-pronged lie. Starting with the second sentence first:

Catholic Charities of Boston did not “close its doors” at all; it is still very much in existence. See for yourself. Its Web site boasts:

As one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year.

Catholic Charities of Boston chose to end its adoption work (and only its adoption work) in 2006 — and not “because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” but because it refused to “comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.”

That law — passed by the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1993 — had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (Nor did the ruling in Adoption of Tammy, in which the court ruled that a lesbian couple could adopt a child, based on the fact that “[n]othing in the provisions of the adoption statute, G. L. c. 210, precludes the joint adoption of a child by two unmarried individuals.” Not “two gay individuals,” but “two unmarried individuals.”)

Gay couples didn’t “win” the right to adopt via marriage in 2004; they were recognized as equal to all other unmarried adoptive parents, in 1993 — a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.

What’s more: In reality, it was not pressure from the state but from the Vatican that triggered Catholic Charities’ decision to end its adoption work:

The controversy began in October when the [Boston] Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.

That day, [Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston] and [Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley] met with [then-Governor Mitt Romney] in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O’Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O’Malley realized it would cost “too much time and energy” — without any certainty of victory.

“It became clear our options were narrow,” Hehir said.

Dale Carpenter puts the entire matter into perspective:

The most egregious abuse of [examples of the ‘collision’ of … ‘equal treatment for same-sex couples’ and ‘the freedom to exercise religious beliefs’] to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

As for California, all unmarried prospective parents are subject to the Uniform Parentage Act — the scope of which is far too complex to detail here (as we always say, we’re not lawyers), but which is summarized nicely here and here.

You can read the entire California Family Code (particularly §7600-7606), or get up to speed with the HRC’s summary of California adoption law as it pertains to gay and lesbian parents:

Permits single GLBT individuals to petition to adopt? Yes.

California law states that an adult related to the child, a person named in a deceased parent’s will, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption is permitted to petition to adopt. CAL. FAM. CODE § 8802.

California Family Code §8802

Permits a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt? Yes.

Permits a same-sex co-parent to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship? Yes.

In 2003, the state Supreme Court affirmed that a same-sex co-parent can petition to adopt his or her partner’s child or child of the relationship. (Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 554 (Cal. 2003))

“[P]rior to adoption of the current domestic partnership law, the California Supreme Court had permitted a child to have two female parents, upholding the adoption by one woman of her female partner’s biological child in Sharon S. v. Superior Court.” [Joanna Grossman, “The California Supreme Court Considers Three Broken-Up Lesbian Partnerships, And Finds, In Each, That A Child Can Have Two Mothers,” FindLaw, September 6, 2005]

“Petitioner Sharon S. and her former domestic partner, Annette F., had a child by artificial insemination, and both women reared the child. Annette F. was the biological mother. When the couple parted ways, the Sharon S. petitioned for independent second-parent adoption, but the Annette F. petitioned to block the proceedings. Last month, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the Sharon S. See 73 P.3d, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699. It held that (1) termination of a birth parent’s rights is not a prerequisite to adoption; and (2) second-parent adoptions are valid under California’s adoption laws.” [Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association]

Registered domestic partners can use the state’s stepparent adoption laws to adopt each other’s children or children of the relationship. (CAL. FAM. CODE § 9000(b))

California Family Code §9000-9007

Details: The state regulations do not address whether sexual orientation is a considered factor in adoption decisions. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 35181.

Bottom line: Gay couples (and singles) are already eligible to adopt in California. There’s nothing in Proposition 8 — pass or fail — that would change that, or increase the potential for lawsuits against adoption agencies (religious or secular) that violate state law by discriminating against prospective parents solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

This is unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection. Since the benefits of California’s domestic partnership law were expanded in 2003 (and went into effect in 2005), unmarried couples (gay and straight) registered as domestic partners gained the right to family student housing on public campuses. The question is this: Since this new benefit went into effect, has any private religious school in California been “required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine” in the past three years?

In all the research I’ve done on this subject, I have yet to find a single case of a private religious school (in California or elsewhere) being “forced” to house a legally-married same-sex couple.

As for the possibility of a religious school (or any other religious institution) losing its tax-exempt status because of discriminatory practices, that would be wonderful (there’s a good reason Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for denying admission to applicants who dated outside their race: BJU was wrong, no matter how “deeply held” BJU’s religious beliefs, and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize discrimination) — but in reality, the chances of that happening are remote.

To the religionists I say: Go talk to your California tax attorney if you’re worried about losing your right to leech off the taxpayers in California — or, better yet, move to a state where anti-equality discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged. Virginia is rather pretty, and well-suited to religious bigots.

Finally, you won’t lose your federal exemption — the IRS doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages any more than you do, so it doesn’t care if you discriminate against us. (You’ll have to worry about that only after we’ve achieved full marriage equality on the federal level, or when Congress finally includes “sexual orientation” in federal antidiscrimination law.)

In any case — and this is really getting old, fast — the bottom line is that Proposition 8 will have no effect one way or the other on existing state law (which already prohibits discrimination based on both sexual orientation and marital status) or federal law (which offers no protections for LGBT Americans, and does not recognize same-sex marriages).

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

This is a lie, combined with irrelevant fearmongering. I could sue Pat Robertson for hate speech right this minute (anybody can sue anybody for anything, especially in California), but I wouldn’t win. His hate speech (and everyone else’s) is completely protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are yelling-fire-in-a-theatre exceptions (e.g., inciting violence), but Fred Phelps will still be free to scream “God hates fags” all he likes.

In fact, ministers will still be free to tell their congregations how to vote on ballot initiatives like Proposition 8, without worrying about losing their federal tax-exempt status. (The only kind of politicking preachers can’t do in an official capacity is promote specific candidates. That’s why bully-pulpiteer James Dobson spun off “Focus on the Family Action” from Focus on the Family; Dobson is quite open about its purpose: “Focus on the Family Action is a new cultural action organization that is completely separate from Focus on the Family, legally. It has been created by separating out of Focus on the Family those activities which constitute lobbying under the IRS code…”)

Next, what happens in Canada is irrelevant — so irrelevant that I’m not going to bother trying to figure out which case(s) are being cited (or if they ever existed). Canadian law has zero effect on U.S. law. And, as evidenced by the United States’ overwhelming refusal to catch up with its northern neighbor in the civil-rights department, the U.S. isn’t even influenced by Canada.

But, again — no matter how many times I have to repeat it — Proposition 8 has no impact on existing hate-crimes laws (there are no specific “hate speech laws”).

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

This is a lie, combined with unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection.

We’ll gladly get to “the money” in a moment. But first: Nobody’s redefining marriage except the anti-gay forces.

The California Constitution was interpreted correctly — and anyone who claims it wasn’t is just plain wrong. I’ve quoted Glenn Greenwald’s plain, simple, and excellent explanation of the facts before, and it’s well worth quoting again:

California’s marriage ruling —
what it means and what it doesn’t mean

No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.

As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?

To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”

Second, this “activist judges” line as the anti-gay crusaders use it is utterly meaningless, and always has been. Circuit and federal-court judges are appointed by officials elected by the majority of voters to represent the people. They are representing the people.

Ditto state legislatures.

Greenwald:

Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.

As Greg said recently (regarding a survey gauging the mood of California voters): “If you don’t trust your representative, then find someone else and vote them to represent (notice the similarity between the words) your interests!”

If you want an example of a real activist judge, let’s talk about Roy Moore.

Third: The California marriage ruling was not made by a bunch of “activist judges,” but by an overwhelmingly conservative court — which did its duty properly, without attempting to inject the personal ideology of any of its members into its majority opinion.

Frank D. Russo, in discussing Republican legislator Robert Villines’ astoundingly ignorant reaction to the ruling — “I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22. … I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench” — blows Villines (and the “activist judges” idiocy) out of the water:

Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republicans, appointed by Republican governors — including 3 of the 4 in the majority, this is either ignorant or just demagoguery. What is the partisan agenda of the Republican Chief Justice [Ronald] George who wrote the court’s decision and who was appointed by Republican Pete Wilson? Or that of Kathryn Werdegar, another registered Republican, also appointed by Wilson? Or that Republican Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by that Republican Governor George Deukmejian? Or are these remarks directed at the sole Democrat on the Court, Carlos Moreno who voted with his three Republican colleagues for the decision?

The Court was doing its job in our system of government. They were interpreting the California Constitution. They had no more choice to decide this case the opposite way — or to duck it (judicial restraint as Dan Weintraub characterized one of the dissenters in this morning’s Bee) than they could have or should have in deciding that California’s laws 60 years ago against interracial marriage were unconstitutional or throwing out the repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Law that the voters approved in a ballot referendum in the 1960s.

The fact that Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by 61% to 39% is not controlling as to the Court’s proper decision on the constitutional questions the court had to decide this last week. It wasn’t when the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 14 to make it legal to discriminate on the basis of race in deciding who to sell one’s house to — a very emotional and politically risky move for the court back then — for those who remember.

It’s a basic principle of law that when the state’s constitution conflicts with a statute — even one passed by the voters — that the constitution trumps the statute. Proposition 22 was a statute and the court would be shirking its duty if it followed an unconstitutional statute just for political reasons or expediency.

Maybe Villines and company are trying to make this into a partisan political issue — to throw red meat out to their base and whip up the vote in November. He probably spoke before reading the decision — as have most of those expressing an opinion — but at least he should get his facts right. And what he is pushing is not particularly the kind of rebranding our Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has in mind for his party. He is urging voters to reject any ballot proposition to overturn the Court’s decision. And he supports the Court. A position I believe most Californians will take in November.

As one of Russo’s readers commented: “When it’s a decision people like, they say the court is doing the right thing. When it’s a decision they do not like, suddenly it’s judicial activism from the bench.”

Fourth: Anyone who’s worried about lawsuits must be thinking of filing his own, since there is no historical precedent that the legalization of same-sex marriage has ever caused a “cascade” of any negative consequence — other than hysterical fearmongering from the anti-gay brigades.

Since the anti-gay folks want you to believe that using Canada as an example is relevant, let’s use a more realistic example, closer to home: Massachusetts. Has there been “a cascade of lawsuits” against religious institutions since marriage equality was legalized in 2004?

Well? Has there?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for someone to show me this “cascade.”

Fifth: If you’re worried about “your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees,” then perhaps it’s time to find a new church, one that won’t be using your tithing to file any frivolous lawsuits.

Finally, we’ll show you the money: The fiscal-impact estimate of Proposition 8 is clear. Passing Prop 8 would initially result in “potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.”

On the other hand, defeating Prop 8 will save you money. Every tax dollar that flows into Sacramento from sources other than your income is one dollar less you have to pay in taxes used to run the state’s business.

Aside from the additional revenue from sales taxes, same-sex marriage is a boon to business and employment (you hear me? I said “jobs!”) — and our critically fragile economy needs the regular and ongoing adrenalin injections same-sex weddings provide.

We’re not talking millions here — we’re talking billions.

You can read lots of different articles about all that nice green stuff pouring into California’s coffers — here are just a few to get you started:

Experts see windfall from marriage ruling
Matthew S. Bajko, Bay Area Reporter, May 22, 2008

News Analysis: Gay Marriage Could Be Worth Billions For California
Peter Greenberg, May 30, 2008

Gay marriage a gift to California’s economy
Business is up for hotels, bakers and photographers as same-sex couples prepare to wed.
Alana Semuels, Los Angles Times, June 2, 2008

But I like the way Allan Acevedo, a sophomore at San Diego State, says it:

For many people who do not support marriage equality, one factor might help change their minds. In a speech given in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the newly attained rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community would lead to an economic boom to California’s troubled economy. A recent study issued by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimated that gay and lesbian couples would spend close to $684 million in the next three years on wedding expenditures such as cakes, photographers, invitations, dresses, limo rentals, hotels and more.

Researchers estimate that more than half of California’s 100,000 same-sex couples will exchange vows during the next three years. Unlike Massachusetts, the only other state that issues same-sex marriage licenses, there is no residency prerequisite in order to be issued a license.* That means out-of-state dollars will be flowing into the California economy, which has in effect created a monopoly on same-sex marriages, an ideal economic condition for the state. Added on to this, New York has recently announced that it will recognize all out-of-state marriage licenses, further encouraging couples to take the plunge.

It’s estimated that 68,000 out-of-state couples will come to California specifically to wed. The researchers state that same-sex weddings will generate $64 million in tax revenues for the state, $9 million in marriage-license fees from all the counties in the state and create and sustain about 2,200 jobs. By some estimates, weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples generate $1 billion a year in revenue. PlanetOut, a media and entertainment company that conducts surveys, states Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender consumers earn 20 percent more than their straight counterparts on average, and spend about 10 percent more on nuptials.

These are no small numbers. Even conservatives who oppose marriage equality should stop and consider these figures when heading to the polls on November 4. …

Arguments focusing on fairness and equality might not tug on your heartstrings, but this estimated economic boost might reach your purse strings. Voting “no” on this unjust initiative will mean more than improving an unstable economy, it will mean furthering our society in allocating freedom to all facets of our civilization. Come November vote “no” on limiting marriage equality. It seems like a win-win situation to me.

(You want to know how much we spent on our wedding? Well, I won’t tell you, because it’s nobody else’s business — but I will say it was considerably more than we ever imagined it would be. Even “off the books” expenses were significant; for example, it was late into our reception when it dawned on me that we hadn’t thought about tipping the wait staff — so I emptied the contents of my wallet into the hands of a grateful [and gracious] banquet captain. While we didn’t come anywhere near the $35,000-average mark estimated by various observers, I know that if all gay couples spent what we did, we could singlehandedly bail California out of its economic crisis, with enough left over to fix all the potholes on the Bayshore Freeway.)

Since the anti-gay forces have proved their ignorance, and in many cases their pathetic lack of reading comprehension, let’s end this in a way they’ll be sure to understand: with the Bible.

It would be easy to merely repeat the 9th Commandment — “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16) — but there’s another, far more appropriate “false witness” passage I like even better… and I’d like to send it to the anti-gay brigades on a great, big, gay greeting card:

Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

. . .

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

. . .

Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

— Exodus 23:1-3,6-7,9

* Massachusetts is in the final stages of repealing its 1913 law prohibiting the marriage of nonresident same-sex couples.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Election 2008, Focus on the Family/James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Free Speech, Hate Crimes, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Marriage, Massachusetts, Parenting, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Random Stupidity, Republicans, SCOTUS

---

August 4, 2008

Who’s Who in the Oral Roberts Lawsuit: The Juicy Witness List (And Just Wait ‘Til You Get to the Politicians!)

The heart of this scandal has never been Lindsay Roberts’ personal life or whether the Roberts enjoyed a lavish lifestyle at university expense while it careened towards financial ruin.

It is about the state and federal felonies of tax fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, violations of the RICO statutes and obstruction of justice.

John M. Wylie II, Publisher
Oologah Lake Leader, November 29, 2007

Oh, the tangled web…

First, make sure you’re caught up on the details:

Everything You Need to Know About the Oral Roberts Scandal… So Far
October 9, 2007

Oral Roberts U Scandal: Exit Richie, Enter “Convicted Sexual Deviant”
October 17, 2007

Oral Roberts Battles the Devil for ORU
October 26, 2007

There Is A God! Oral Roberts Lawsuit Still On; Televangelism Nearly Extinct
April 20, 2008

Oral Roberts U. Suit: Witness List Makes for Fascinating Reading
August 1, 2008

Now…

Before we get to The List, let’s get something straight: At first, you might be tempted to sympathize with Tim and Paulita Brooker, who are filing suit against Oral Roberts University and its regents, simply because the Brookers’ action is bringing to light decades of more-than-questionable activity by a stalwart institution of far-right extremism — and who (but other far-right extremists) doesn’t simply relish the vision of Oral “900-Foot-Tall Jesus” Roberts and his entire clan of the freedom-hating homophobes, misogynists, and other miscreants going down in flames?

But don’t be fooled: The Brookers, and their former co-plaintiff, John Swails, are — in our opinion — as despicably corrupt as any of the defendants named in their lawsuit.

Bear in mind that (in our opinion) the plaintiffs went public only because they were fired from their jobs (wrongfully terminated, in our opinion):

Do not forget that John Swails dropped out of the suit once he got what he wanted out of ORU: his job back (plus full benefits).

Do not be fooled into believing the plaintiffs took action out of any altruistic motive — which is possible (with God, all things are possible!), but highly unlikely. In our opinion, if any of the plaintiffs were possessed of something remotely resembling a conscience, they would not have been willing participants in this incestuous — and, in our opinion, illegal — marriage between a religious college and the world of politics — or, at the very least, they would have blown the whistle on ORU long before last fall.

As you learn more through the linked sources here, and through your own Googling, keep your eyes peeled for minutiae that flesh out the scantily-limned portraits of the plaintiffs.

For just one of many examples: Tim Brooker “said in the suit that under pressure from university officials he gave inaccurate information to the Internal Revenue Service in an investigation of the political activities last year.” Sorry, Tim, but there’s no way we’re going to believe “pressure from university officials” involved bright lights, starvation, or confinement in a bamboo cage. (Frankly, we doubt the cock crowed even twice before you denied your master.)

All this is not a defense of the defendants; it is simply a caveat: The plaintiffs — in our opinion — are just as slimy as the defendants.

The lesson to be learned isn’t grand, but quite simple: Don’t f—k with people who know where the bones are buried. With no recourse left, they’ll sue your ass off. And no matter who wins, the exposure you suffer will be irreparable.

That said, let’s get to Who’s Who in the Oral Roberts Lawsuit:

All named below are only witnesses, unless noted as plaintiffs or defendants.

The Plaintiffs

Tim Brooker: Plaintiff.

Paulita Brooker: Plaintiff.

Big Fish

Richard Roberts: Defendant. See the backstory in the links at the beginning of this post.

Lindsay Roberts: Defendant. See the backstory in the links at the beginning of this post.

Granville Oral Roberts: Defendant. The Big Kahuna.

ORU Regents Named as Defendants

Karen Arutunoff: Wife of super-rich car nut Anatoly (”Toly”) Arutunoff of Tulsa, OK. May or may not still own BMW of Tulsa; still has part interest in a Tulsa Honda dealership. Occasional guest on cable show “Make My Day Count with Lindsay Roberts.”

Don Bullard

Michael Cardone, Jr.: ORU graduate. President & CEO of Cardone Industries, “world’s largest privately held remanufacturer of auto parts,” co-founded with his self-made old man, Michael, Sr. (who poured money into Assemblies of God, and founded Christian Life Center, Bensalem, PA); board, Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association; board, EMERGE Ministries, Inc. (”full-service Evangelical Christian mental health outpatient center dedicated to helping churches minister to the needs of Christian believers”), Akron, OH; board, Center of FaithWalk Leadership (runs “Lead Like Jesus” prison program). Longtime (& big-time) Republican donor (Rick Santorum has been a favored recipient) who sometimes hedges his bets by pitching a few bucks toward Democratic candidates as well. Regular contributor to RNC & other GOP PACs; history of donations to English-only movement.

Kenneth Copeland: “Prosperity Gospel” televangelist, Kenneth Copeland Ministries; ORU regent; former ORU student; former pilot and chauffeur for Oral Roberts. Subject of Chuck Grassley’s Senate investigation.

Scott Cordray: ORU graduate. Otolaryngologist (ear, nose and throat doctor/head and neck surgeon) in private practice, Tulsa. Founder, Master Solutions, LLC; developed, distributes Oasis Nasal Spray & Oasis Nasal Wash. Author, Staying Healthy on the Missionary Field. With wife Rochelle (also an ORU grad), very active in church, Victory Christian Center, Tulsa.

Creflo Dollar: “Word Faith” (a.k.a. “Prosperity Gospel,” a.k.a. “Name It and Claim It,” a.k.a. “Blab-It-and-Grab-It”) pastor & founder, Christian World Changers Ministries, College Park, GA (of which wife Taffi Dollar is co-pastor; she’s also the CEO of gospel music producer Arrow Records). Subject of Chuck Grassley’s Senate investigation.

Jesse Duplantis: Founder, Jesse Duplantis Ministries; ex-Catholic; ex-rocker (as “Jerry Jackson” with band “Summer Wine”); co-founder, Christians United For Israel (see John Hagee, below). With wife Cathy founded Covenant Church, Destrehan, Louisiana.

Richard Fenimore: ORU grad; co-founder, Trinity Chemical Industries, Tulsa. With wife Shelley, members, Victory Christian Center, Tulsa; two sons attend Victory Christian School; daughter Whitney is a freshman at ORU.

Charles Green: Pastor, Faith Church; president, Harvest Ministries to the World, Baton Rouge, LA.

John Hagee: Televangelist whose far-right views are so extreme, even John McCain disavowed his support. President & CEO, John Hagee Ministries; senior pastor, Cornerstone (mega-)Church, San Antonio, TX; CEO, Global Evangelism Television; co-founder, Christians United for Israel.

Michael Hammer: Chairman & CEO, Armand Hammer Foundation & Hammer International Foundation; chairman & president, 8-31 Holdings, Inc.; owner, Hammer Galleries, Knoedler Galleries, & Knoedler Publishing, New York; board, Dream Center, Los Angeles; president, Hammer Productions, Los Angeles; founder & chairman emeritus, Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center (L.A.); founder & director, Christian Communications Association, Cayman Islands; ex-director, Avenue Entertainment Group.

Former chair, Long-Range Planning Committee of the Western Los Angeles County Council of the Boy Scouts of America; former member, Development Committee of the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank; former overseer, Columbia University School of Business; former executive & director, Occidental Petroleum; also worked for Kidder Peabody.

With wife Dru (née Mobley): founders, Grace Christian Academy, Cayman Islands; former directors, Armand Hammer United World College of the American West, Montezuma, New Mexico.

Marilyn Hickey: Pentecostal “Seed Faith” televangelist. With husband Wallace, pastors, Orchard Road Christian Center, Denver, CO.

I.V. Hilliard: Founder, pastor, New Light Christian Center Church, Houston, TX.

Benny Hinn: Televangelist, faith healer who claims to be able to cure everything from AIDS to death itself (see the Conservative Babylon entry for Paul Crouch for some of Hinn’s “miraculous” claims), and false prophet who predicted God would destroy all gay people in 1995. Subject of Chuck Grassley’s Senate investigation.

Barry G. Hon: Obscenely wealthy real estate developer, Hon Development Company, Foothill Ranch, California. Former chairman, ArmenTel and DirectNet; chairman, Trans-World Telecom; president, Trans-World Telecom Caribbean Ltd., a Caribbean telecommunications company whose Web site has disappeared. (Here it is, cached.) More about TWT here. Interesting sidenote: Seems Barry’s TWT leveled some nasty — and false — accusations against a rival company in 2006. Republican. Lives in Dana Point, California.

Scott Howard: ORU grad; president, Commercial Roofers, Inc., Las Vegas. Trustee, Las Vegas Franklin Graham Festival; trustee & treasurer, Trinity Life Center church.

Myles Munroe: Founder & president, Bahamas Faith Ministries International; author; motivational speaker.

George Pearsons: Pastor, Eagle Mountain Church, Newark, TX, an offshoot of Kenneth Copeland Ministries (Pearsons is Copeland’s son-in-law).

Henry Penix: Henry A. Penix Ministries (d/b/a Accelerate Your Destiny), Tulsa.

Jerry Savelle: Kenneth Copeland protegé; televangelist; (”Chariots of Light,” Daystar network); president, Jerry Savelle Ministries International; founding pastor, Heritage of Faith Christian Center, Crowley, TX.

Bill Scheer: With wife, Sandy, founding pastors of GUTS Church in Tulsa.

Bill Shuler: ORU campus pastor & Dean of Spiritual Affairs.

Peter Sumrall: President & CEO, LeSEA Broadcasting Network (Christian network); on father Lester’s death, took over Lester Sumrall Evangelistic Association (LeSEA), a.k.a. Sumrall Ministries International.

Charles Watson: Owner, Charlie Watson Enterprises.

Former Defendants

(Plaintiffs were forced to drop suit against all but current regents)

Mark Lewandowski: ORU professor; ex-ORU provost; ex-EVP for Academic Affairs.

Carlton Pearson: Former ORU regent; Bishop, United Church of Christ; considered a heretic by the Roberts-Hagee-Hickey crowd for his “gospel of inclusion.”

Other ORU Faculty & Staff

Marty Crossland: Acting Dean, ORU School of LifeLong Education.

Dan Grimes: Associate Professor of Church Ministries, Department of Theology, School of Arts and Sciences, ORU; director, Tulsa Hope Academy; trustee, Central Christian College of Kansas, McPherson, KS; pastor, church consultant, Free Methodist Church of North America, Mid-America Conference Elder.

Mark Hall: English professor.

Jerry Isaacs: ORU Head of Campus Law Enforcement. “In November, the Brookers subpoenaed Sam Douglass, a pilot, for aircraft records involving ORU and the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association; Jerry Isaacs, ORU’s security director, for records of who entered the on-campus presidential housing compound; and Lee Belmonte, a private investigator, for documents and materials related to a report of the president’s family’s alleged wrongdoing.” [”Legal claims in ORU case going forward,” Tulsa World, April 2, 2008]

Ruby Libertus: Political Science professor.

Linda Littrell: Update, August 5, 2008: “Linda Littrell is the Secretary of the History Humanities and Government Department.” Thanks, “former student”!

Jeff Ogle: Defendant; ORU Associate Provost.

Felipe Ornelas: Humanities professor. Attended policy conference for American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C., March, 2007, with Tim Brooker & John Swails.

Glenda Payas: ORU trustee, secretary; former regent. Received DMD (Doctor of Dental Medicine) degree from Michael Cardone, Sr., School of Dentistry (see Michael Cardone, Jr.), at ORU. Private practice: Payas Laser and Cosmetic Dental Care of Tulsa.

Jan Render: Administrative Secretary, ORU “School of LifeLong Education”; assistant to SLLE chair Mark Hall.

Wendy Shirk: Defendant; ORU Dean of the School of Arts and Cultural Studies.

John Swails: Former plaintiff with the Brookers; dropped suit when ORU re-instated him as tenured professor.

Current and Former ORU Students

Danielle Appledorn

Caleb Becker: Works in ORU’s college & career guidance center.

Jessica Clark

Jacob Dawson: ORU College Republicans president

Glen Disher

Laneice Goodwin Brooker: Class of 2004.

Calandra Vargas

The above students were involved in at least one political campaign pushed by ORU:

“Earlier this year [2005], Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune announced a new $250 million general obligation bond package that … included $32.8 million for flood control improvements, with $15.25 million of that amount earmarked to fix the infamous Fred Creek problem. …

“As voting day drew near, ORU assistant professor of government Dr. Tim Brooker recruited a fearless team of students from his classes who proceeded to flood south Tulsa with their efforts to get the vote out — not just for Proposition 3 (flood control), but for the entire package.

“The bond was approved by voters on April 5.

“Dr. Brooker’s operation involved long evenings of ‘phone-banking,’ as students went through a list of roughly 38,000 names to zero in on the yes-vote base. Then, he had about 20 teams of student volunteers canvassing two precincts each, so that on any given Saturday students were making an impact on up to 40 precincts at a time.” [”Fred Creek Flooding?,” ORU, 2005]

“About 100 ORU student volunteers enjoyed the fruits of their labors when Tulsa’s $250 million general obligation — ‘GO’ — bond package was passed on April 5…” [”Student Volunteers Help Get GO Bond Passed,” ORU]

Lawrence Bombac

Carla Brown: Probably a former ORU student: “Meeting a Command Sergeant Major as part of a volunteer event recently was a thrill for Carla Brown, 24, who is a graduate of Oral Roberts University. Brown’s platform is domestic violence awareness and she hopes one day to do intelligence work for the government.” [”Miss DC Pageant to be Held this Month,” OnTap, 2007]

James Burr

Amanda Beth Chesser

Cornell Cross: Plaintiff in separate suit against ORU, one of several which “claim some students can’t finish their degrees because their professors were fired. Cornell Cross is one of those students.” [”Additional Lawsuits Filed Against Oral Roberts University,” KOTV, December 18, 2007]

You can read Cross’s suit here (PDF) — and it’s quite an entertaining read as lawsuits go. In a nutshell, Cross claims that ORU’s actions “devalued and ruined” his ORU degree, and basically screwed up his fast track into government; “due to the illegal and tortious conduct” of ORU, “the Internal Revenue Service blocked all campaign involvement by ORU students until after the 2006 campaign season. As a result,” Cross lost his internship with Martha Rainville, Republican candidate for Bernie Sanders’ vacant congressional seat, and Rainville lost her ORU interns. (She also lost the race, but that had more to do with a nasty little habit of plagiarism than anything else.)

Cross also claims that when he tried to dig into ORU’s financial information, he “became a target of the Administration for explusion.”

Kara Dixon: 2003 sophomore chaplain.

Abraham Dominguez (misspelled “Dominquez” in list): Homepage as of 2005: http://www.xanga.com/handsomelatin

Rebecca Griffin

Elizabeth Higgins: Update, August 5, 2008: “Elizabeth Higgins is Gov and History graduate and former president of the Hebrew Culture Club and secretarial assistant in the Government Department.” Thanks, “former student”!

Lainna Hubbard: Update, August 5, 2008: “Laina Hubbard is also a graduate of the government department and participated on many campaigns.” Thanks, “former student”!

Shannon Kendrick: “AIPAC Campus Activist.” “‘I commit to AIPAC because it is the one place where both parties - Democrat and Republican party are united.’” — Shannon Kendrick, Oral Roberts University” (Is being an “AIPAC Campus Activist” a bad thing? You decide. Mixed with our disgust is a tad of pity for young Christians who get themselves mixed up with AIPAC, because they think AIPAC supports Israel for the same reason they do — and they couldn’t be more wrong. But that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish for a whole ‘nother day.)

Kelsey Laird

Will Needer Neder: Update, August 6, 2008: “Will Neder is a former student, studied government/law — married to Libby Needer, whose birth name is Dollar, most likely a relative of Creflo Dollar.” Thanks, anonymous reader! Update, August 18, 2008: Libby (Dollar) Neder is not related or connected in any way to Creflo Dollar. Thanks to another anonymous reader!

Myron Randall: Class of 2008.

Anna Scott: Class of 2006; ORU Student Association Officer; one of a group of Tim Brooker’s Student Government Association who went to Washington to lobby against “the proposed elimination of the Federal Perkins Loan program, which currently provides financial aid for numerous ORU students.” [” ORU Students Take Financial Aid Concerns to ‘The Hill’,” ORU]. Former Research Associate, Capitol District Information, Inc.; currently: Program Development at American Society for Public Administration, Washington, D.C. [LinkedIn]

Anna Siebring: Former student; one of anywhere from 150 to 400 students to leave ORU in 2008 because of the scandal. [various news sources]

Heather Thomas

Albert Thompson: Government major.

Jen Thompson: Update, August 5, 2008: “Jen Thompson (Jennifer Thompson) is Albert Thompson’s wife and Gov department Graduate.” Thanks, “former student”!

Trey Tucker: ORU grad (Class of 2007); Student Association president; member, Student Development Panel; marketing major. Owner, Premium Mobile Detail, Dallas/Fort Worth. One of four ORU alumni behind religious social-networking site ROOV.com. Picture.

Ginsey Varghese: Government major.

Johnny King: Probably Johnny King, Secretary/Treasurer of the ORU Hebrew Club.

Liz Wray

Politicians

Bob Beauprez: Ex-Rep, Colorado Dist. 6; failed Republican gubernatorial candidate (2006); very, very rich businessperson, involved in numerous interesting dealings, from banking to political dirty tricks.

“In October 2002 … [Tim] Brooker recruited 30 ORU students to volunteer during fall break in three Colorado campaigns. He said most were international students who couldn’t go home for the break anyway. The students worked as paid volunteers for the Republican National Committee, which paid all their expenses, Brooker said. They worked in the congressional campaign of Bob Beauprez and the re-election bids of Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard. All three won, although Allard and Beauprez had not been favored to win.” [Tulsa World, October 14, 2007; see also “ORU Students Campaign in Denver,” ORU]

Tom Coburn: Rabidly anti-gay Republican U.S. Senator from Oklahoma; member, Promise Keepers.

“With its 60-foot-tall, 30-ton bronze of praying hands and an even taller prayer tower capped by a billowing eternal flame, Oral Roberts University is a strong symbol for Christian conservatives.

“But the university’s rules forbid mixing religion with politics. So when Dr. Tom Coburn, the Republican Senate nominee in Oklahoma, addressed students recently, the professor who welcomed him refrained from making an endorsement.

“‘But I don’t think we would violate anything,” the professor, John W. Swails, told the students with a bit of a nod and a wink, ‘by saying to you, “We can pray for Dr. Coburn in this race.”‘ …

“Afterward, Professor Swails, chairman of the department of history, humanities and government, said he and many of the students would work to help elect him. While he likes Dr. Coburn’s stand on fiscal matters, Professor Swails said, the abortion issue was the most important.

“As he explained, ‘It’s a matter of faith.’” [”A Senate Race in Oklahoma Lifts the Right,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, September 19, 2004]

Coburn’s ties to ORU run deep: Coburn’s father was O.W. Coburn, who donated some $10 million to open the O.W. Coburn School of Law at ORU, which was dedicated in 1979; in 1985, ORU “donated” the law school to Pat Robertson’s private Christian college, CBN University (later renamed Regent University):

“Oral Roberts University’s O.W. Coburn School of Law in Tulsa, Oklahoma, an ABA-accredited law school. In November, 1985, students at O.W. Coburn were informed that the law school was being ‘donated’ to CBN University in Virginia, a university which did not previously have a law school. The transfer occurred in June, 1986… Although O.W. Coburn ended active operations at that time, the law school remained technically open as an ABA-accredited law school until June, 1987…

“At the time the transfer to CBN University was announced, students in good standing at O.W. Coburn were informed that they could automatically transfer to the new law school in Virginia. In March, 1986, O.W. Coburn and CBN University jointly applied to the ABA for transfer of O.W. Coburn’s accreditation to the new law school. Representatives of the ABA made site visits to both O.W. Coburn and CBN University in April, 1986, and met with students at O.W. Coburn. The ABA representatives were frank concerning the unlikely prospects for transfer of accreditation and encouraged the students to look for options to assure that they would receive law degrees from an ABA-accredited law school. Based on the April site visits, the ABA Section on Legal Education denied the joint application for transfer of ABA accreditation to the new law school in August, 1986, and instead preserved O.W. Coburn’s accreditation for the purpose of awarding degrees to its second-year students who completed their studies at other ABA-accredited schools. CBN University did not appeal from this decision. The ABA also denied CBN University’s request for waiver of the rule requiring one year of operation before a new law school is eligible for accreditation. …” [”In the Matter of Michael J. Tocci,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, September 9, 1992 - October 8, 1992]

“More than at most such institutions, admission to Oral Roberts University’s two-year-old O.W. Coburn School of Law is a matter of faith. All students must be avowed Christians. Once on the Tulsa campus, they are required to sign pledges to ‘yield my personality to the healing and maturing power of the Holy Spirit’ and ‘exemplify Christlike character’ through prayer. As a result, the American Bar Association threatened to deny the school its coveted accreditation, a condition for admission to the bar in many states. Reason: the requirements seemed to violate A.B.A. standards forbidding religious discrimination in admissions.” [”Christlike Counselors?,” Time, July 27, 1981]

The school finally “received full accreditation in 1996. The Law Library received the bulk of its collection after Oral Roberts University School of Law closed and donated its library to Regent University.”

Jim Inhofe: U.S. Republican Senator from Oklahoma (ranked 8th most conservative Senator in 2007).

Per John M. Wylie of the Oologah Lake Leader:

…Inhofe was a key player in the scandal that dethroned Richard Roberts at Oral Roberts University.

In fact, Inhofe may well have sown the seeds and then let Roberts take the fall.

Randi Miller got into the race for Tulsa mayor at the urging of Inhofe and Roberts. According to a lawsuit filed by three professors, Roberts then freely used university resources to promote her candidacy in direct violation of federal law.

Inhofe, according to e-mails published by the Tulsa World, also was part of Roberts’ clumsy effort to become a political kingmaker and the even clumsier efforts by Roberts’ sister-in-law Stephanie Cantees.

One e-mail from Cantees to Roberts said Roberts should urge Inhofe and other Republican leaders to steer federal agencies into leasing space at ORU’s CityPlex Towers.

She specifically suggests getting Inhofe to arrange for FEMA to become a CityPlex tenant.

What would politicians get? Cantees told Roberts to use chapel services to force students to register and vote as he instructed, reminding them that he could check records to make certain they were registered the right way.

She also said, “You have what they want — voters and influence. Not one big donor in this state has what you want, yearly new crop of ready made voters (18 years old out of state).” …

If the disovery process in the Nov. 21 suit filed by former ORU senior accountant Trent Huddleston produces links to Inhofe, it could be a true disaster for Oklahoma’s senior senator and sleazemeister.

That’s because Huddleston directly accuses ORU, Oral Roberts Ministries, Richard and Lindsay Roberts and other defendants of an ongoing conspiracy to “cook the books” of the institutions to hide a series of state and federal crimes.

Gary Jones: Probably the Gary Jones who is the Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman.

William LaFortune: Mayor of Tulsa, 2002-06. Oil family filthy rich, owns or paid for numerous Tulsa buildings & institutions. Alleged to have used ORU students to work on his mayoral campaign(s).

Tim Brooker “said ORU students also worked in the campaigns of other Tulsa mayoral candidates including Chris Medlock and Bill LaFortune.” [Tulsa World, October 14, 2007]

Richard Roberts was “part of newly elected Mayor Bill LaFortune’s transition team in 2002. LaFortune met with Roberts during the campaign and promised the city would begin ‘a new relationship’ with ORU. … LaFortune [made] sure the city fixed another issue for Roberts and ORU in 2003. The city ordered installation of two traffic lights in key areas near the campus without the usual traffic studies. … In 2005, LaFortune appointed Roberts’ sister-in-law, Realtor Stephanie Cantees, to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

“But near the end of [2005], the mayor had fallen from favor with Roberts, who urged him not to seek re-election. LaFortune said he could not comment because the law firm where he works is defending ORU in a lawsuit brought by three former professors. That suit claims, among other things, that Roberts ordered government professor Tim Brooker to use his students in the mayoral campaign of Randi Miller. Miller, a county commissioner, was running against LaFortune in the GOP primary.” [Tulsa World]

“Richard Roberts, once a backer of LaFortune, gave his personal endorsement to [Randi] Miller shortly after she joined the race” (which she lost).

Following the arrests of Soulforce Equality Ride participants at ORU, one Tulsa blogger wrote: “It is no secret that ORU president Richard Roberts has Tulsa mayor Bill LaFortune in his back pocket. Roberts publicly supported LaFortune, a devout Roman Catholic, in the last election, and LaFortune has made sure the school received certain perks, like additional stoplights on the streets around the campus without going through the normal red tape for such things. Now LaFortune makes sure his goons are sent out to protect the delicate student population from these horrible homos.”

Lulie Maumenee: Senior Legislative Assistant to Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK-5th); former employee of Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY-19th).

Randi Miller: Incompetent, if not thoroughly corrupt, Tulsa County Commissioner who “got clobbered in [the July 30, 2008] District 2 Republican primary.”

The original Brooker-Brooker-Swails lawsuit claimed that Richard Roberts “directed Professor Tim Brooker to mobilize students and university resources to support the 2006 mayoral campaign of County Commissioner Randi Miller. Brooker says that he advised against involvement as a violation of the university’s tax exempt status and as contrary to his personal policy for political science students getting practical campaign experience: ‘We don’t do local politics because it turns neighbors into enemies.’ Roberts overruled his objections. The suit alleges that Roberts’ order violated the school’s articles of incorporation and the faculty and administrative handbook and policy statement.

“When the IRS came calling a couple of months later, Brooker was told he was to be the fall guy (the suit alleges), to accept responsibility for the school’s involvement in the Randi Miller campaign and to shield President Roberts and the school from any repercussions. He also would have to suffer disciplinary procedures for his violations of school policy, even though those violations were ordered by the administration.

“Brooker later came into possession of an internal document — a ‘compendium itemiz[ing] numerous and substantial acts of misconduct and improrpieties by Defendants ORU and ROBERTS.’” [”ORU, Richard Roberts sued over involvement in Randi Miller campaign,” Michael Bates, October 2, 2007]

James Traficant: Ex-Democratic U.S. Representative from Ohio; convicted of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, & more; currently serving eight years; due for release September, 2009.

John Wright: Could be John Wright, Oklahoma State Rep., District 76 (R).

Other Witnesses

Ole Anthony: Head of “watchdog ministry” Trinity Foundation & publisher of The Wittenburg Door (”The world’s pretty-much-only religious satire magazine”) who was “behind Senator Charles Grassley’s current investigation of six prominent televangelists” (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Bishop Eddie Long and Creflo Dollar).

Lee Belmonte: Private investigator, “believed to be the man who allegedly photographed Lindsay Roberts and an underage male socializing alone late at night on numerous occasions.” [”Three ex-professors seek expansion of ORU lawsuit,” Oklahoman, November 10, 2007]

Stephanie Cantees: Richard Roberts’ sister-in-law, “paid by the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association as a community and government liaison.” See the details for Jim Inhofe and Bill LaFortune. In it up to her ears.

John Culbertson: Lecturer at ORU; self-described journalist; former Congressional aide; one-time consultant on 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and subject of 2004 raid at his home in Centreville, Virginia, after a “federal judge ordered authorities … to return nine computers and hundreds of disks confiscated from a consultant thought to have images relevant to the trial of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.” [”Search in Bomb Case Called Broad,” Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2004] Of all the names on this list, Culbertson’s is the most curious.

John Dodge: Attorney. Along with Tim Brooker, involved in at least two different lawsuits against Benton County, Arkansas, Sheriff Andy Lee (see here).

Sam Douglass: “In November, the Brookers subpoenaed Sam Douglass, a pilot, for aircraft records involving ORU and the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association…” [”Legal claims in ORU case going forward,” Tulsa World, April 2, 2008]

Ron O’Dell: ORU Class of 1973; now Tulsa police officer.

Jerry Sholes: Former Oral Roberts employee; wrote a scathing exposé, Give Me That Prime-Time Religion: “Here is a portrait of the real Oral Roberts, the man not too many of his admirers know. He dresses in Brioni suits that cost $500 to $1000; walks in $100 shoes; lives in a $250,000 house in Tulsa and has a million dollar home in Palm Springs; wears diamond rings and solid gold bracelets employees `airbrush’ out of his publicity photos; drives $25,000 automobiles which are replaced every 6 months; flies around the country in a $2 million fanjet falcon; has membership, as does his son Richard, in `the most prestigious and elite country club in Tulsa,’ the Southern Hills (the membership fee alone was $18,000 for each, with $130 monthly dues) and in `the ultra-posh Thunderbird Country Club in Rancho Mirage, California’ (both father and son joined when memberships were $20,000 each–they are now $25,000); and plays games of financial hanky-panky that have made him and his family members independently wealthy (millionaires) for life. When his daughter and son-in-law were killed, they left a $10 million estate!”

Unknown (so far) Witnesses

If you can I.D. any of the following, we’d love to hear from you!

Zolotka Atanasova
Kweku Boafu
Jacob Bonsu
Junior Bontemps
Joseph Caswell
Ben Cowan
April Dabney
Lacey Davis
Matt Donati
Lawrence Favlora
Allison Field
Kevin Good
Nathan Harvill
Brian Jones
John KayKay (misspelling?)
Nathan Mangsen
Anthony Mitchener
Anthony Moreno
Surran Petit
Tom Petit
Kahlea Porter
Ken Ramey
Monique Rogers
Patricia Rogers
Andrew Said
Fladimer Sambieu
Ashlee Satterwhite
Deborah Thomas
Tyson Uselmann
Jenny Wish
Ashley Wright
Debbie Wright
Unnamed “Former nannies of Richard and Lindsay Roberts”
Unnamed “Private Investigator”
Unnamed “Security guards”

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Christianity, Corruption, Crime, Education/Schools, Oklahoma, Radical Religious Right, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans

---

July 21, 2008

Digesting the News

I haven’t finished the first part of project mentioned here, but it’s getting there. In the meantime, while I continue to dig into the ugly depths of the anti-gay movement, here’s a quick rundown of what’s happening in our world:

Freaks on the Family Grand Poobah James Dobson is flip-flopping — again — on whether or not he’s going to vote for John McCain… because, of course, in Dobson’s diseased mind, Barack Obama is a baby killer.

Speaking of The Presumptuous Nominee, Queerty notes that Florida’s gay Democrats are disappointed with the Obama campaign, and quotes a report from Florida Capital News: “The leader of the Florida Democratic Party’s gay caucus, declaring that ‘I’m sick and tired of getting table scraps,’ complained Saturday that Sen. Barack Obama offended a large and faithful voting bloc by not sending his wife or another top campaign surrogate to the group’s annual meeting.”

Now, before anybody resorts to the tired old argument that ignoring gay groups is consistent with Obama’s refusal to pander to any single “interest,” we say: If Saint Barry can find the time to pander to hard-right Christian fundies — like he’ll be doing (again, and this time along with John McCain) at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church — then he can at least send his compulsive gum-flapper of a wife to talk to the Florida Democratic Party’s gay caucus. This isn’t like ignoring local gay press; this is an official caucus of the Democratic Party.

(You do still belong to the Democratic Party, don’t you, Barry? It’s so hard to tell these days. Or maybe the confusion stems from the fact that the Democratic Party — which now resembles the anti-gay right wing — belongs to you.

Speaking of McLame (and we were), hear tell Americans are tired of the blogosphere. This, from the guy who just last week admitted he’s “an [Internet] illiterate who has to rely on his wife for any assistance he can get,” and is only now “learning to get online.”

Back in the reality-based world, we’re happy to hear that activists in San Diego aren’t taking Doug Manchester’s campaign of anti-equality lying down — especially in one of Manchester’s beds. (Backstory here and here.) Just before San Diego Pride Saturday, between 150 and 200 people rallied in protest outside the Manchester Grand Hyatt (and were countered by about 75 bigots).

It’s probably true, as noted by the LAT’s Jessica Garrison, that last year’s sudden epiphany of bad-guy-turned-good-guy Mayor Jerry Sanders had something to do with mobilizing the anti-gay brigades. But then, it galvanized the good-guy Christians, too, into coming out against mindless bigotry. So there.

As for the San Diego pridefest itself, while Wendy Fry was bemoaning the fact that straight men just can’t wear boas and sequins the way gay men can, the “internationally renown anti-Scientology activism group Anonymous” was marching in its own contingent in the parade. If I were Anonymous, I’d remain anonymous, too. Those zany Xenuists scare the bejeebers out of my quivering little body thetans.

Further afield, Buffy’s got an update on the “South Carolina is So Gay” dust-up: South Carolina Will be So Gay–Whether They Like It Or Not.

Tourism experts are “puzzled” since five grand is such a measly price to pay “for such a lucrative niche market.” We’re not puzzled at all; hysterical homophobia always trumps common sense. Look at Jamaica, where they’d rather murder us than prop up their own barely-on-life-support economy with our Big Gay Dollars. We say: Screw ‘em — both Jamaica and the Jamaica of the United States, South Carolina. Let them eat dirt.

(Backstory: Amro Worldwide and Out Now Have an Advertising Lesson for Heinz: So Gay? So What. and You Can Cross South Carolina Off Your Vacation Destinations — They Don’t Want Us Nasty Homos (Or Our Money) There)

Also, my dear Gaytheist shines the light on yet another example of masking bigotry behind “deeply held religious beliefs,” in the case of a gay-hatin’ British cop: What’s the Matter With the UK Lately?

(Speaking of dumb cops, one of the San Diego Harbor Police shot to death a go-go boy who fell off a pride-cruise boat, and got physical with his rescuers. I don’t care what the guy did — when you’ve got one suspect surrounded by a bunch of armed police officers, there can’t be any excuse for failing to subdue him without killing him.)

Elsewhere on the international front: We’re glad that Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister, and Ignorant, Sour-Lemon-Faced, Mad Old Cow whose sunken, empty eyes are only accentuated by a criminal sense of makeup application (see the picture at the link), lives half a world away from us, so we don’t have to listen to her vile nonsense about how much worse homosexuality is than child sexual abuse.

And here are the rest of the headlines that caught my eye today — I’ll leave you to them while I get back to the dirty work of digging into the incestuous circle of money and hate behind the Proposition 8 campaign:

Young, Gay and Murdered
Kids are coming out younger, but are schools ready to handle the complex issues of identity and sexuality? For Larry King, the question had tragic implications.

Man flees Turkey after “honour killing” of his gay activist boyfriend

Catholics for Choice take on the Catholic League

Eric Waugh: Pope boxes clever in Anglican’s gay-row

Online Adoption Agency Denies Service to Gays

75% of Americans want to allow gays in the military

Gay-only retirement village to be built for £12.7 million in Australia

Showtime orders new series with gay content

Bachelorette Party Planning Tips for Summer
Trends for 2008 Include ‘Green Girl’ and Same-Sex Marriage Pre-Wedding Parties

Must-read of the day:

Gay marriage to be legal in America within 200 years

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Age & Ageing, Anglicans / Episcopalians, Barack Obama, California, Catholic League, Catholicism, Christianity, Democrats, Education/Schools, Election 2008, Europe, Events, Focus on the Family/James Dobson, Hate Crimes, Homophobia, John McCain, Law Enforcement, Marriage, Military/DADT, Parenting, Radical Religious Right, South Carolina, Travel, United Kingdom & N.I., Youth

---

July 12, 2008

Slamming Gay Parents, McCain Slams (Straight) Single Parents, Too

Doddering twit, via the NYT:

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he said.

Never mind that a gay couple raising a kid is “both parents” — the message here is that single parents, gay or straight, suck, too. Better to have a man-parent and a woman-parent, even if one is an abuser. Or a serial killer. Or dead. Or a Republican. (Oops, that last example was redundant.)

McLame also said the decision to teach evolution only in schools should be up to local school boards, and that same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

As I said: Doddering twit.

Tweet This Post!

Filed Under: Education/Schools, Election 2008, John McCain, Parenting, Random Stupidity, Youth

---