August 30, 2008
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.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
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 26, 2008
It seems eight-gold-medal winner Michael Phelps is estranged from his dad. That’s too bad — but here’s what’s really too bad: Mike’s father is named Fred. Fred Phelps.
You know, no matter how proud I might be of my family, if my dearly departed dad had been named, say, George Bush, I’d not only change my own name, but get a posthumous name change for my old man, too.
Speaking of the MSM’s obsession with delving into the personal lives of Olympic stars, why is NBC ignoring Aussie diver Matthew Mitcham’s sexual orientation? Observes Outsports:
The only openly gay male athlete in Beijing pulled off one of the great upsets at the Olympics in a spectacular fashion. If he had had cancer, or if his parents had been killed in a car crash when he was 2, or if he had just proposed to his girlfriend, they would have mentioned it. But they never showed him hugging his boyfriend, never mentioned it. They referred to “personal problems,” but I’m afraid they decided Matthew’s sexuality was off limits. A real shame.
More at the link.
Further reading:
NBC defends not saying Mitcham is gay
Outsports, August 25, 2008
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Fred Phelps, Media, Sports & Recreation
August 3, 2008
Flames engulf Phelps garage
Members of the Phelps family awoke to flames early Saturday.
Topeka firefighters were dispatched to Westboro Baptist Church, 3701 S.W. 12th St., at 1:05 a.m. A fence and garage were engulfed in flames. …
Topeka fire marshal Greg Bailey said Saturday afternoon the cause of the fire hadn’t been determined. Bailey said it didn’t appear that accelerants were used to ignite the fire, but that the blaze remained under investigation. …
Fire investigators said the flames originated outside the detached garage, near two large trash can totes. The fire destroyed both cans and their contents as flames spread to the exterior of the garage and an adjacent privacy fence, Bailey said. …
Firefighters removed several of the Phelpses’ anti-homosexual picketing signs from the garage as family members and neighbors watched.
Shortly afterward, family members began filming footage of the fire, taking photographs and documenting what occurred. Several carried signs as they watched. …
In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Phelps Sr. requested an investigation regarding “Civil Rights Hate Crime Complaint vs. Unknown Criminal Arsonist(s).” …
Oh, it’s a hate crime when it happens to you, eh, Freddie?
Well, I hope it wasn’t arson. Seriously. And I’m glad no one was hurt.
Yes, seriously! Freddie and Co. hate me, but I don’t hate them, and I don’t wish harm on them.
Besides, PhelpsCo is the best advertisement for the need for sanity and acceptance among the radical anti-gay whackjobs. I hope the whole damned family lives forever. 
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Fred Phelps, Hate Crimes, Kansas
July 14, 2008
You know Godwin’s Law. You may have heard of Poe’s Law.
Now, there’s Buffy’s Law.
Learn it. Know it. Use it.
You’ll find many, many opportunities to cite it — trust me.
Like, f’rinstance, when the CEO of a Web portal providing insurance information insists on promoting the hateful lies of Paul Cameron, debunked, discredited, disgraced, and disgraceful “researcher,” as fact (and insisting he has no political agenda in mind, despite his far-right-wingnut activism*).
Like, f’rinstance, one Robert Bland, of Insure.com, Lifequotes.com, and Quotesmith.com, whose outing as the worst sort of religious extremist** is now in progress at Box Turtle Bulletin:
Insure.com’s Anti-Gay Propaganda
Timothy Kincaid, July 11, 2008
Insure.com’s CEO Bob Bland Responds
Timothy Kincaid, July 11, 2008
Insure.com CEO Defends Paul Cameron
Timothy Kincaid and Jim Burroway, July 14, 2008
Do be sure to read the comments on each article as well, in full. (Even Warren Throckmorton chimes in.)
But before you do, promise me you’ll learn Buffy’s Law first. Believe me, it will come in handy. (Oh, and Buffy will also give you a quick, painless refresher on Godwin’s Law and Poe’s Law, too.)
Further reading:
Dr. Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute
Queer Resources Directory
Operation: Falafel
DailyKos, November 11, 2005
O’Reilly’s Advertiser: The CEO Responds
Ad Nausea, March 9, 2006
Insure.com, Inc. Inks Sponsorship Deal with Rush Limbaugh
January 10, 2007
Robert Bland’s Federal Campaign Contributions
1992-2007
* Serving on the board of Illinois Right to Life alone qualifies one as a far-right, radical-extremist, wingnut activist.
** The worst sort of religious extremist is the one who denies his bigotry, cloaks his radical activism in the name of Jesus, and then cries persecution by those he is persecuting. Frankly, we have more respect for Fred Phelps and Co.; Freddie and Shirley hate us with a passion &mash; but they’re honest about it. Phelps may be mean, hateful, and crazy as a loon, but Fred Phelps is not a hypocrite. Robert Bland, on the other hand…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Business/Economy, Family Research Council, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Health & Wellness, Homophobia, Insurance, Radical Religious Right
June 15, 2008
Well, I doubt we’re going to meet him, or even meet him — Freddie doesn’t appear at too many of his own protests anymore, opting instead to let his mad cow of a daughter, Shirley Phelps Roper, lead the “God Hates Fags” klan around these days.
But one thing’s for sure: I’m a big fan of Fred Phelps! No, really, I am: After years of allowing the crazy old coot and the rest of his Filthiest Family Alive to fill me full of anger, disgust, and hate, I realized that Fred Phelps is the best advertisement for Teh Homosexual Agenda there is — he’s the poster boy for religious extremism, the perfect cartoon illustration of the dangers of corrupting, twisting, and perverting “The Good News” (and then swallowing it, vomiting it up back, and flushing it down the toilet) to suit one’s own religious psychosis. He is the Bogeyman of the Radical Religious Right (even though he’s a Democrat — did you know that?), The Thing from Another World that shoves the hypocritical insanity of ultra-fundamentalism smack in the gobs of the general public, forcing John and Jane Q. Public to see the anti-gay crusaders for the hate-filled nutbags they really are. (Oh, you think the “mainstream” anti-gay brigades disagree with Phelps? Hell, no! They just don’t have the guts to say what they’re thinking, out loud, like Freddie does. But believe you me, the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for them.) If Fred Phelps didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.
That said, Buffy and I were delighted to learn that Insane Phelps Posse will be performing (for two days only!) right here in our own backyard, to protest marriage equality in California. Buffy has the details; in short, they’ll be in both Monterey and San Francisco tomorrow, Monday, June 16th (do they even know how far apart Monterey and SF are?), and in Martinez (don’t get too close to that refinery, Freddie! it blows up a lot!) Tuesday, June 17th.
And you bet your buttons Buffy and I will be there in SF, to give Freddie a warm, Golden State welcome.
Speaking of buttons, The Buff and I had a ton of “Can I Vote on Your Marriage Now?” buttons made to give away at San Francisco Pride next weekend, which we’ll now be giving away tomorrow. If you want one, come find us amidst the crowd at San Francisco City Hall tomorrow afternoon — we’ll be the vertically-challenged, long-haired Italian and the taller blonde with the baby-blue bedroom eyes, wearing our “Can I Vote on Your Marriage Now?” T-shirts.
Whatever you do, my fellow Californians, come to one of these Phelps protests if you can possibly make it! This is going to be fun, fun, fun!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: California, Events, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Marriage
April 5, 2008
Fred Phelps and his hateful, attention-seeking clan are learning that despite their legal wrangling, there are some predicaments they just can’t get out of.
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral.
…..
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church’s principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members.
The senior Snyder contended the picketing caused emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
…..
One of Snyder’s attorneys, Sean Summers, of York, Pa., said Thursday that based on financial information supplied during a hearing on the case, paying the $5 million penalty likely would force the church and the three named officials of the church to file for bankruptcy.
However, he said, even bankruptcy wouldn’t let them out from under the $2.1 million punitive damages part of the judge’s order. They would still be obligated for that amount under federal bankruptcy rules.
The Phelps family might go bankrupt because of their hateful, abominable behavior? Awwwww.
In addition, the judge on Thursday required Shirley Phelps-Roper to post a $125,000 bond and Rebekah Phelps-Davis to post a $100,000 bond by May 5 or he will rescind a stay ordered by the court to prevent confiscation of their property.
But Phelps-Roper, an attorney, called that meaningless. She said the only property she and Phelps-Davis own are their homes and courts are forbidden from confiscating a person’s home.
“I have nothing at risk,” she said.
In February, Bennett ordered Phelps-Roper, Phelps-Davis and their father, Pastor Fred W. Phelps Sr., to provide detailed financial information about their interests.
The records showed the church property to be worth $442,800 and the law office building to be worth $233,000. Summers said the lien could be placed on the law office building because it is owned by Phelps Sr.
“He (the judge) looked at my tax returns and saw that we give money to the church, and he didn’t like that,” Phelps-Roper said.
The Judge didn’t like that you give money to the church, which is owned by your family and comprised mostly of family members, as a means of essentially legally hiding your money away–tax free? I wonder why. 
I suppose now the Phelps clan will have another reason to blame gays. Thanks to us, they’ll claim, they may very well be bankrupt and may have to discontinue their holy crusade–if only for a while. I don’t expect they’ll consider the possibility that their own behavior had anything to do with it. People like them seem incapable of such insight.
Posted by: Buffy
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Kansas, Law Enforcement, Maryland, Radical Religious Right, United States
March 30, 2008
Unfortunately we weren’t able to make it to the event due to financial constraints, but we’re excited nonetheless. About 400 people marched on Topeka to protest the nasty, homophobic Phelps clan and their practice of picketing funerals across America. The event was such a great success they hope to make it an annual event.
They came with signs of love, respect and tolerance in all different races, sexual orientations and age groups, to show members of the Westboro Baptist Church that they too have first amendment rights.
“Standing up is the right thing to do,” said JD Stottlemire, march participant. “I think it’s exciting it’s the million fag march today, not because it has anything to do with homosexuality but because it dis-empowers the Phelps.”
…..
Chris Love is the organizer of the march, but you didn’t have to be homosexual to participate.
So what’s behind the name?
Love said it has to do with the church’s use of the word.
“Generally it seems to be the case with them that anybody who’s not apart of their church gets called a fag, so in that situation everybody here is a fag,” Love said.
…..
The Phelps have been around for 17 years and have done more than 34,000 pickets.
They were invited to the march to express their views but didn’t show up.
…..
With police protection on the ground and in the air participants peacefully walked the streets of Topeka.
And though the demonstrators know they won’t change the minds of the Westboro members, Love had this to say.
“You can at least have your voice heard,” he said.
Topeka police say there were no problems with the march.
Because of the large turnout, organizers are planning to make the protest an annual event.
Maybe next year we can be there!
Posted by: Buffy
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Christianity, Fred Phelps, Homophobia, Kansas, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, United States
March 10, 2008
Lauren Burk (left) and Eve Carson
|
|
With the South reeling from the apparently unrelated murders of two college co-eds (and now a third, Katharine Wood, of the University of Arkansas), the Freddie Phelps Road Show, a.k.a. Westboro Baptist Church, found reason to protest the young women’s funerals.
Why? Well, you might guess because the suspected murderer of one is an Iraq vet presumably with PTSD (his mother apologized immediately, saying that Courtney Lockhart “hasn’t been the same after serving 16 months in Iraq”) — and the Phelps Klan is happy to see anything (especially death) befall a U.S. soldier. In this case, however, it sounds like they’ve got a new protest meme going; i.e., God hates everybody.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. First, the murders:
Auburn, Alabama police are investigating the murder of an 18-year-old Auburn University student from Marietta, Ga. School officials say Lauren Burk was shot to death last night. Her body was found on Alabama Highway 147 ( North College Street) near Farmville Baptist Church.
Police say they got the call to a woman injured about 9:08 p.m. and found Ms. Burk suffering from a gun shot wound to the chest. She was taken to the East Alabama medical Center where she died from her injury.
Police say at approxiamately 9:27 p.m. Auburn Campus police received a call of a vehicle on fire in the Hinton Field parking lot located on Lem Morrison Drive on the University campus. The car was a 2001 Black Honda Civic that was registered to Ms. Burk. The car was in flames and was extinguished by personnel from the Auburn Fire Department.
Burk’s death came just hours before Eve Carson, the 22-year-old student body president at the University of North Carolina, was gunned down near the school’s Chapel Hill campus about 500 miles away. No suspect has been named in Carson’s death. Her vehicle was stolen in the crime.
Carson had been shot several times, including at least once in the head. A medical examiner found that she had not been sexually assaulted.
. . .
The fatal shooting at UNC occurred hours after 18-year-old Lauren Burk was shot and killed just off the Auburn University campus in Alabama.
In that case, Burk was found by police Tuesday night a half-hour before her car was discovered in a campus parking lot on fire. The fire was extinguished but no one was in the car.
Auburn police and authorities in Chapel Hill, where Carson was killed, said there does not appear to any investigative link between the two crimes, which were separated by 500 miles and seven hours. The tie instead is the similar shocking impact the killings have had on the respective campuses.
. . .
Auburn police have beat back speculation that Burk’s slaying might be connected to the unsolved disappearance in June 2006 of 24-year-old Auburn University graduate Lori Ann Slesinski. In that case, the woman’s car was found ablaze less than a week after she was reported missing along a road.
(You can get the basic facts on the Lori Ann Slesinski case here.)
Now, about Phelps: The Westboro Baptists announced that they would be protesting both Burk’s and Carson’s funerals — and then, they did:
MARIETTA, Ga. — A line of American flags was visible on Sunday as mourners arrived at the funeral of Lauren Burk, the Auburn freshman who was shot and killed Tuesday.
Dozens of Patriot Guard Riders stood vigil, each holding a flag, across the street from Temple Kol Emeth, in Marietta, Ga., to block the Burk family and mourners from Westboro Baptist Church protesters whose signs read “God is Your Enemy,” “God Sent the Killer” and “You Eat Your Kids.”
The Westboro protest group was alloted 45 minutes to protest and had approximately four people present.
Timothy Phelps, a member of Westboro Baptist Church, and a relative of its founder, Fred Phelps, said that God sends people to do terrible things because Americans are involved in “rampant sin.”
“Everyone ignores us and things just get worse,” he said.
On Saturday, the group traveled from Athens, Ga., where earlier in the day they protested at services for Eve Carson, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill student who was also gunned down earlier in the week.
“You won’t obey me so I am going to do things to get your attention,” Phlelps said, referring to God. “Well, maybe if you weren’t involved in rampant sin, God would stop sending these killers.”
To block mourners from the protesters, the Patriot Guard Riders, a group who attends at the funerals of soldiers to help block the view of protesters who may upset funeral-goers, held flags and formed a long line. …
Oh, I see: The meme is now “God sends killers.” Got it.
You know what would be fun? When Freddie dies, to protest his funeral with signs reading: “God sends massive strokes.”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Crime, Education/Schools, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, United States
March 6, 2008
This is your chance to take part in an historic event. Give Fred Phelps and family a taste of their own medicine. Join the Million Fag March!
Contact: Chris Love
Tel. (785) 783-4730
Email: sansphelps@yahoo.com
Website
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“MILLION FAG MARCH” PLANS TO PROTEST FRED PHELPS
Group Hopes For Large Numbers Outside Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS.
TOPEKA, Kans., February 7, 2008 – March 30th is the date one small group is hoping one large group will take a stand against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Beginning at 11:00AM on that Sunday, a planned protest will take place outside of the church in Topeka, KS. “A million people may be aiming a little high, but we’re hoping for a large turnout,” said Chris Love, one of the March’s organizers. “This isn’t a ‘gay-only’ event. Anyone who would like to express their displeasure with the Phelps family and their continuing message of intolerance and hate is welcome.”
The virulently homophobic Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), based in Topeka, Kansas, has gained notoriety by picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to protest what the group sees as America’s acceptance of homosexuality. The group has used this and similar tactics at a variety of events nationwide.
Some wonder if the march will only draw more attention to the Phelps’ message. Love noted, “Up until now, the only media-mentioned protests against the WBC were footnotes to stories about the Phelps’ publicity stunts. We don’t think we’re going to change the Phelps’ minds, but we hope they realize that there is an opposing voice that is equally as powerful as their own. Or at least, as powerful as they perceive it to be.”
And if that doesn’t work? “Well, for one day we’ll bring homosexual and heterosexual people together for a united cause. In Kansas, no less.”
To find out more about the MFM, visit our Website.
If you’d like more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with Chris Love, please call (785) 783-4730, visit our Website, or email sansphelps@yahoo.com
Posted by: Buffy
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Events, Fred Phelps, Kansas, Press Releases
January 25, 2008
A few (quite a few) dumb-butts keep insisting that nobody other than “a few fringe gay activists” know, much less give a hoot, about Barack Obama’s continuing association with the anti-gay religionist brigades.
Well, listen up, dumb-butts: If you thought Obama’s hypocritical, two-faced, double-dealing, under-the-table, behind-the-scenes, low-down, dirty crap-o-rama was flying under the “mainstream” radar (how’s that for the most mixed metaphor in history?), here’s some news for you: You’re wrong. Again. And so’s your Saint Barry.
From CBS News, which found Carrie Budoff Brown’s piece from The Politico “valid” enough to pick up this morning:
Gay Community Still Wary Of Obama
. . .
“If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community,” Obama told 2,000 worshippers Sunday at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King once preached. “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.”
. . .
Yet … At the same time as Obama’s Sunday speech, gay bloggers were digging into the background of the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a spiritual adviser to President Bush who endorsed Obama a day earlier.
. . .
The twin developments appeared to encapsulate the tension inherent in Obama’s embrace of what he calls a new style of politics, his belief in forging alliances even with those who hold fundamentally different views.
In this case, he has spoken out against homophobia in front of black audiences while embracing some black religious leaders who are resistant to gay rights.
“People are confused,” said Wayne Besen, a gay activist and founder of Truth Wins Out, a New York organization aimed at countering the “ex-gay” movement. “We see one report of him saying powerful words. Then he is hanging out with some shady characters. People don’t know what to make of that.”
Wayne, darlin’, we love ya, we really do, but what “people” are you talking about when you say, “People are confused”? Obama cultists, perhaps, are confused, as they should be — but not one clear head that’s been following this stroke-Peter-while-screwing-Paul game Obama’s been playing has ever been “confused” in the least.
I’ve known “what to make” of Obama since the day he told us gay folks to STFU — no matter how long and loud and hard we protested, that self-loathing faux-”ex-gay” Donnie “Gays Are Trying to Kill Our Children” McClurkin was going onstage to woo the homophobes, no matter what (and woo he did).
By Monday, Caldwell’s church, Windsor Village United Methodist in Houston, scrubbed its Web site of any reference to the gay conversion program, Metanoia Ministry.
. . .
“I got to tell you, this is going to sound real stupid, but I didn’t know it was on our website,” Caldwell said. “I was surprised and embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed from the standpoint that I should have known. We have 120 ministries at the church. You can’t be on top of everything.”
When asked if he opposed such programs, Caldwell said: “It’s not a ministry of the church. It is not supported financially by the church. It is not located at the church. That is pretty much where I am with it.”
. . .
But blogosphere skepticism has persisted, in part because of this connection: Barbara Hicks, a church staff member and treasurer of the church’s Prayer Institute, is listed as the contact for Metanoia Ministry. She uses a church phone number and email address.
“That is my ministry,” Hicks said Tuesday when reached at her church office.
She directed further questions to Caldwell, who said Hicks “does it on her own.”
How stupid do these people think we are? Caldwell and Hicks are playing the “Go ask your mother / Go ask your father” game. And it stinks — to high heaven. If either of them were so secure in the rightness of their “ministry,” neither would try passing the blame off on the other.
And neither would disgust me half so much if they would accept responsibility for their hateful, anti-gay brainwashing “ministry.” I’ve got more respect for Fred Phelps — at least that crazy old bastard stands by every vile word he’s ever spat out of his brittle old chapped lips, and doesn’t blame his sickening actions on anyone else.
I’ve said the same about Huckabee and Romney and all the rest of the screw-the-gays Republican candidates: At least they make no bones about where they stand — and about what they’d like to do to me.
Or, to quote Duane Wells yet again: “I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Obama’s duplicitous stance on gay and lesbian rights circa the Donnie McClurkin controversy has given me something of an appreciation for George W. Bush’s no-nonsense approach to politics. I may not agree with a thing that comes out of curious George’s mouth, but at least he doesn’t piss in my cornflakes and tell me that he filled the bowl with whole milk. No sir. If there is a good thing to be said about President Bush it’s that he will tell you he’s going to piss in your cornflakes, then he will actually piss in your cornflakes and then he will hold a press conference defending his right to piss in your cornflakes. There’s no deception. It’s honest and clear… whether you like it or not. With Obama that is unfortunately not the case.”
“It matters who you are endorsed by because these are the people who are going to be calling in favors,” Besen said. “The gay and lesbian community has the right to be disturbed when such individuals are standing up beside Obama.”
Read those words again: “It matters who you are endorsed by because these are the people who are going to be calling in favors.”
Damn right.
You hear that, all you Obamaites who keep whining like a bunch of little girls: “Obama’s not responsible for the views of everyone who endorses him!” Take off your blinders: If you believe that a candidate’s backers don’t expect — or get — anything in return for corraling votes and money for that candidate, then you don’t know the first thing about politics. That’s the way it works: You wash my back, I’ll wash yours. Why the hell do you think the Bushites have been courting the Radical Religious Right all these years?*
If you don’t understand that, then you’re too naive — or just too stupid — to vote this time around. Learn something about the world, and maybe by 2012 you’ll be ready to come join the grown-ups back in Realityville.
* And why do you think the RRR came thisclose to abandoning the GOP altogether? Because the GOP didn’t deliver, that’s why.
Now, don’t you Obamaites use that as an excuse to sing that old song that goes: “Obama’s just courting conservative Democrats. When he gets in office, he’ll lead the fight for gay equality!” That’s a pile of crap, and you know it; it’s the same damned song we hear every election cycle. And consider this: If Obama is making promises — to any group, including the Radical Right — that he has no intention of keeping, what does that say about his honesty?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: "Ex-Gays", Barack Obama, Donnie McClurkin, Election 2008, Fred Phelps, Homophobia, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Radical Religious Right
January 24, 2008
|
“Beauty is only skin deep,
but ugly goes clean to
the bone.”
— Dorothy Parker
|
|
A. Fred Phelps doesn’t wear glasses.
Otherwise, we can’t see much difference.
Matt at Think Progress has been following the story of Faux News Talking Schmuck John Gibson, and his revolting mockery of the death of Heath Ledger:
John Gibson Mocks ‘Weirdo’ Heath Ledger’s Death: ‘He Found Out How To Quit You’
with audio clip
January 23, 2008
Morning Joe Hosts Blast Gibson’s Ledger Comments: ‘Sick,’ ‘Unconsciable,’ ‘Mean-Spirited’ And ‘Hateful’
with video clip
January 24, 2008
Gibson Defends His Mockery Of Ledger’s Death: ‘No Point In Passing Up A Good Joke’
with audio clip
January 24, 2008
Gibson: ‘To anyone offended by my comments, I’m sorry.’
with video clip
January 24, 2008
More:
Complain to FOX about John Gibson’s mocking of Heath Ledger’s death
NewsHounds
January 23, 2008
Fox News Host John Gibson Cruelly Mocks Heath Ledger’s Death and his Role in Brokeback Mountain
GLAAD
January 24, 2008
Dan Abrams calls out Fox News’ John Gibson and his anti-Brokeback, anti-Heath comments
with video clip
January 24, 2008
Heath Ledger: Fox Newsman Apologizes After Controversy, More Updates
TV Guide
January 24, 2008
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Celebrities, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Media, Movies, Random Bigotry, Random Stupidity
Not like that’s any big surprise. Joke’s on Freddie & Co., ‘though — the Westboro Asshats— er, Baptists have no idea where Ledger’s funeral is to be held, although it would make sense that it would be in the actor’s hometown of Perth… Australia. (Go ahead, Fred! Take the whole damn klan overseas — we’d bet money your psychotic bunch will never get past the good folks of the Australian Customs Service.)
Here’s the story from ABC News:
A fundamentalist church whose members demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and believe God hates gays will protest the Academy Awards and the funeral of Heath Ledger, because the actor played a gay cowboy in the 2005 film “Brokeback Mountain.”
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., are trying to find out where the 28-year-old actor’s funeral will be held and have already made signs to hold outside the Oscars that read “God Hates Fags and Fag Enablers,” “Heath in Hell” and “Mourn for Your Sins,” Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the church’s controversial founder Pastor Fred Phelps, told ABCNEWS.com.
Though Ledger was not gay, the church believes he “misused the giant megaphone given to him by God Almighty to speak the truth about fags,” Phelps-Roper said, and instead “used his position of prominence to say God is a liar and that homosexuality is not an abomination.”
The time and location of the Ledger’s funeral remain unknown, but it is widely believed it will take place in the actor’s native Australia.
“They are going to try and hide the body like a bunch of ghouls so we can’t protest. The only thing in this country people worship more than filthy sex acts is the dead,” Phelps-Roper said.
She said members of the church had already purchased plane tickets to picket outside the Oscars, scheduled for Feb. 24 in Hollywood.
A press release posted to the church’s Web site, godhatesfags.com, reads: “Heath Ledger is now in Hell, and has begun serving his eternal sentence there — besides which, nothing else about Heath Ledger is relevant or consequential.”
We like what the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok had to say:
“The group is made up of people who are almost literally out of their minds” … “I doubt there is anyone in America who thinks more about gay sex than Fred Phelps,” Potok said.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Australia/NZ, Celebrities, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Radical Religious Right
September 11, 2007
Evangelist Tammy Faye Messner was remembered Monday night as a compassionate, forgiving child of God and a “bold witness for the Lord.”
About 300 people filled the Victory Christian Center to bid farewell to Mrs. Messner, whose ties to the Inland area date to the 1980s when she and her then-husband Jim Bakker made the desert a favorite getaway. They bought their first desert house in 1984.
Mrs. Messner served as choir director, church organist and special soloist at the church. A color picture of her adorned a podium at the front.
Mrs. Messner died July 20 in Kansas City, Mo., after a long battle with inoperable cancer. She made her final appearance on “Larry King Live” a few days before her death, telling viewers that she couldn’t swallow food and weighed only 65 pounds.
At the service, many remembered Mrs. Messner for making the flea market circuit in the Coachella Valley, where she invariably stopped and prayed for everyone who came to her and said they were troubled.
. . .
She was also remembered for always having a kind word for a harried waitress or anyone she encountered on her famed shopping sprees in local department stores.
Sadly, Tammy Faye was picketed by you-know-who, too:
“Before the service, about 10 protesters from a Baptist church in Kansas stood at an intersection on Bob Hope Drive carrying placards criticizing Mrs. Messner because of her personal life and her well-known acceptance of gay people.
“About 18 people staged a counter-protest across the street.”
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Celebrities, Fred Phelps, R.I.P., Religion & Spirituality
September 10, 2007
Phelps to Picket Sen. Craig
Senator Larry Craig has come under fire for hypocrisy from the GLBT community; the Idaho Republican, who has a long record of voting against GLBT Americans, was arrested, then pled guilty to, lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport mens’ room sex sting operation. But now Craig has come under fire from an entirely new quarter: the church of right-fringe anti-gay reverend Fred Phelps.
In a press release dated Aug. 28, Westboro Baptist Church, located in Topeka, Kansas, exhorted followers to “Thank God for revealing a bit of truth about Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho; and, by a logical extension [sic], about the United States Congress.”
Said the church’s press release… “Every member of Congress is either a fag or a fag-enabler. God Almighty has now drawn back the curtain of hypocrisy and lies for all the world to see how fags and fag-enablers run the government at every level–starting at the top.”
. . .
The press release went on to say that the church would picket Senator Craig’s offices in Boise and in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 10 and Sept. 11, respectively, “in religious protest and warning” with the message that, “God Hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates Sen. Craig, and ldaho, and America.”
Let’s pray/chant/hope for a long, happy life for Fred Phelps and his Moronical Mystery Tour — he’s the best advertisement against fundy insanity we could ever hope for, and if he didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, Idaho
Friday, November 14, 2008
So do I, Shirley. So do I.
