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
Filed under:
Fred Phelps,
Hate Speech,
Homophobia,
Kansas,
Law Enforcement,
Maryland,
Radical Religious Right,
United States
March 6, 2008
There is a great deal of activity right now across America in the ongoing battle for LGBT Equality. I’d like to say that most of the news is positive but unfortunately that’s rarely the case. Nonetheless there have been some strides forward, and that is something for which to be grateful.
The Washington Senate just passed a Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill that will substantially increase the number of benefits and protections same-sex partners are eligible for.
After already passing the Washington State House 62-32 back in February, the Senate today voted to 29-20 to pass a bill that would add roughly 160 rights, responsibilities and protection to same-sex couples and their families.
Washington’s existing Domestic Partnership bill currently consists of about a dozen rights and responsibilities.
The attempt to provide same-sex couples in Maryland any type of unions is proving difficult. Legislators have been forced to water things down repeatedly, and now are reduced to providing very limited benefits that they don’t even know what to call. Why? Because many bigots can’t handle the notion of same-sex couples having Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions as they “would weaken the institution of marriage”. I myself would like to suggest an institution for those people…
Concerned that they won’t be able to muster the votes for a comprehensive bill on same-sex unions this year, state lawmakers are considering a tactical shift toward legislation that would grant a number of rights to gay and lesbian couples but stop short of full-fledged marriage or civil unions.
…..
The same-sex marriage debate has divided the State House, hampering efforts to build a coalition behind one legislative approach. Many lawmakers say they are uncomfortable with equating same-sex relationships with marriage but that they could back a piecemeal approach to grant some protections to those couples.
…..
Some lawmakers contend that civil unions are tantamount to marriage and would tarnish the institution. Sen. Bryan W. Simonaire, an Anne Arundel County Republican, said he would not support legislation that grants rights based on sexual orientation, though he would consider some rights for unmarried couples regardless of gender. He noted that two elderly people might be in a committed relationship but decide not to marry.
“If we’re going to start down this path, we need to make sure we’re making a comprehensive policy that affects everyone,” he said. “Why would we carve out rights for one single group if we’re concerned about equal rights.”
What do you mean “carve out rights for one single group”? If same-sex couples could get married (and do all of the other things you take for granted) there would be no need to “carve out rights” for them in the first place. Did you ever think of that?
The Maryland Court of Appeals, in its opinion, identified nearly 340 Maryland laws that provide for benefits and rights conditioned on marital status.
Equality Maryland, in a separate report, has identified 425 Maryland statutes that rely on the definition of marriage or a legally recognized family relationship, including the right to make burial decisions, mutual responsibility for debts, the right to file joint income taxes and protections for children.
It is unclear which rights and benefits would be included in the alternative bill and what the same-sex relationships would be called, if anything. Raskin said some suggestions that have been floated are domestic or household partners and mutual or reciprocal beneficiaries.
Strides have been made in Texas politics as four openly gay candidates are now advancing past the primaries to their runoff and general elections.
Lupe Valdez, known for being the first female, Latina and lesbian sheriff to ever hold the office of Dallas County Sheriff, took a big step toward re-election by defeating three opponents in her Democratic primary. More impressively, she won more than 50 percent of the vote, avoiding a potential runoff election.
Rosemary Lehmberg earned the most votes in the Democratic Primary in her bid to become Travis County District Attorney. Lehmberg got 35 percent of the vote, while her nearest opponent received 31 percent. Outgoing District Attorney Ronnie Earle, known for his prosecution of Tom Delay, has endorsed her. Lehmberg faces a runoff election for the Democratic nomination.
Additionally, two of Victory’s judicial candidates–Steve Kirkland (215th Civil District Court) and Andres Pereira (190th Civil District Court)–won their Democratic primaries and will advance to the Nov. 4 general election.
In Iowa an attempt to force a vote on a same-sex marriage ban failed. Although the measure had failed to gain approval in a House committee this year, Chris Rants (R) thought requiring a vote on it would achieve his desired results. He was wrong.
Rants tried a procedural vote that would have moved the measure, House Joint Resolution 8, out of committee and before the full House for a possible debate.
Rants’ maneuver failed on a 46-49 vote, with majority Democrats defeating it.
Rants said he was disappointed some Democrats, seven by his count, who have supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the past did not vote along with him this time.
“If those seven had voted with us, it would have passed, but I guess they will have to explain to their constituents why they flip-flopped on this issue,” Rants said.
Because the vote was a procedural vote, no debate was allowed, although the rhetoric surrounding the gay marriage issue has grown more heated in recent weeks at the Statehouse.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said Democrats felt the issue should be settled in the courts before the Iowa Legislature might take action.
“It was primarily done to generate press, which I think it certainly served that purpose,” McCarthy said after the vote.
The issue currently is before the Iowa Supreme Court.
My, my, my. Some people are so anxious to enshrine bigotry into their state constitution that they have to grandstand in order to do it. Would it really kill Rants to wait for the Iowa Supreme Court to make the decision, or is he afraid the court might decide against bigotry?
So that’s the state of affairs across the nation for the present. It’s no surprise in my opinion that the debate over same-sex unions seems to be coming to a crescendo all at once. After all, we have a presidential election in a few months. Should the Democrats lose this one again, it can be conveniently be blamed on the LGBTs, as usual. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: Buffy
Filed under:
Iowa,
Marriage Equality,
Maryland,
Texas
January 17, 2008
All hell is breaking loose, this time in Montgomery County, MD. The problem is Bill 23-07.
First some background. Montgomery County laws already prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service, and taxicab service on the basis of age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, national origin, or marital status, except for discounts for the elderly and handicapped. Bill 23-07 would add gender identity to that list, Enter the hysterical RRRW bigots.
(Italics and bolding theirs)
No longer will women and girls be able to feel completely safe in the most private and personal bathroom and locker facilities of schools, public pools, malls, stores, health clubs, restaurants and other such public places throughout the county. County Executive Ike Leggett signed Bill 23-07, the outrageous legislation that may result in forcing even religious schools to hire transgender teachers; and then also allow cross-dressing but biological males in your daughter’s school locker room.
OMG!!! The world is going to come to an end!!!
Anyway, to help defeat this nefarious bill you’re entreated to join Team 777. I’m sure you know that 777 is the number associated with God. So of course Team 777 is just chock full of holy righteousness.
Of course there’s this banner at the top of the page that knows all the right buttons to push:
Bill 23-07, CIVIL RIGHTS?
A resident, Lisa G., wrote to the Council: “From what I’m reading, the person with gender identity confusion is being protected by what she or he FEELS he or she is. So, if I’m in a bathroom all by myself late at night, and a man walks in, I am supposed to be okay with this? This is truly unbelievable, and I’m embarrassed that Montgomery County is even spending its time on this piece of nonsense.”
OR SPECIAL RIGHTS?
Now let’s turn this around.
Christians have full freedom of religion under the US Constitution. This gives them a multitude of privileges in school, the workplace and pretty much everywhere.
Christians have federal and state protections from hate-crimes perpetrated against them because of their religion.
Christians can give up to half of their adjusted gross annual income to a church or religious institution and deduct it from their income taxes.
They can do this and more all because they claim they are Christians (and no proof of their Christianity is ever demanded). What exactly is this love they say they feel for God and/or Jesus but a feeling? We give them rights and privileges based on feelings?
Are these, then, Civil Rights or….
Special Rights?
Civil Rights are not “special rights” except in the narrow, bigoted minds of people who have all of their civil rights and want to keep others from having them. If more people would start living by The Golden Rule (Christians should know that considering Jesus said it), the world would be a much better place.
Posted by: Buffy
Filed under: Maryland, Radical Religious Right, Transgender
October 4, 2007
“Ex-transgender”? 
What a maroon…
Dr. Discrimination
Montgomery Co. [Maryland] Council hears testimony on transgender bill
While presenting her testimony to the Montgomery County Council Tuesday, Oct. 2, against the passage of a bill that would protect transgender people by adding the words “gender identity” to the county’s anti-discrimination policy, Dr. Ruth Jacobs, an infectious disease and allergy specialist, wore a white lab coat — completing the look with a stethoscope around her neck. Looking like she had just walked off the set of Grey’s Anatomy, Jacobs, the only person to offer testimony against the bill at the public hearing, warned that passage of Bill No. 23-07, sponsored by Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), would discriminate against “ex-transgenders.” These are, she claims, people who have “stepped out of” being transgender.
Bandying the technical term “gender identity disorder,” a controversial diagnosis generally required in the United States before gender reassignment surgery may be performed, Jacobs asked the Council to “be true to biology.”
Trachtenberg, who holds a master’s degree in social work and once maintained a private practice in adolescent addiction, said she found Jacobs’ testimony biased and lacking in merit because of Jacobs’ lack of experience and training in dealing with the transgender community.
. . .
Lois Hackey, compliance program manager for Montgomery County’s Office of Human Rights, spoke on behalf of Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, who also supports the bill.
. . .
“Discrimination is happening in Montgomery County, as much as we’d like to pride ourselves in having a progressive jurisdiction,” Furmansky told the Council. “I hope we can all be able to agree that people should be able to live their lives free from discrimination and should be judged on the basis of their ability to do a job.”
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Maryland,
Random Stupidity,
Transgender
September 25, 2007
From WaPo:
Lisa Polyak, one of the plaintiffs on the losing side of last week’s Court of Appeals ruling upholding Maryland’s same-sex marriage ban, has some not-so-nice words for Gov. Martin O’Malley (D): He betrayed us.
. . .
“You are most welcome, Lisa,” began the then-mayor’s response to an October 2004 email from Polyak thanking him for his support for same-sex marriage. “However, I’m just supporting something I strongly believe in. I wish you and your family nothing but the best.”
Polyak also released an exchange with O’Malley from August 2005, in which she quotes an interview he gave to the CBS affiliate in Baltimore.
“I’m certainly not opposed to it. I don’t see how we can deny governmental protection to those sorts of contracts. I know that churches will certainly have different views. And that certainly is their right and no one should infringe on that. But … I’m not opposed to civil marriages.”
After last week’s ruling, the governor said he backs civil unions, not marriage, as a compromise.
“It is time to shed a bit of truth about the depth of the hypocrisy this guy displays to our families,” Polyak wrote yesterday in an email to supporters.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Marriage Equality,
Maryland
September 18, 2007
Reports the Washington Blade:
Court upholds Md. gay marriage ban
Maryland’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, ending a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples who claimed they were being denied fundamental rights.
Maryland’s 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, the Court of Appeals ruled. It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.
The decision left open the possibility that the Legislature could still take action on the issue.
“Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex,” Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.
The Blade will be updating this story as it develops throughout the day.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Marriage Equality,
Maryland
