DriveThru – Get What You Need

I’ve mentioned here and here the legal efforts to protect citizens who sign petitions or donate money to protect marriage in connection with voter initiatives and referendums. Recent efforts by lawyers in Washington state and Maine to protect these folks against disclosure of their names are based on the violence and intimidation experienced in California over Prop 8 when the names of that proposition’s supporters were posted on the internet by LGBT organizations.

Well, the Heritage Foundation has catalogued the Prop 8 incidents in its backgrounder entitled “The Price of Prop 8.” Here’s a piece:

Support for Proposition 8, the democratically established marriage amendment in California, has come with a heavy price for many individuals and institutions that think that marriage should remain the union of husband and wife. Publicly available sources, including evidence submitted in a federal lawsuit in California, show that expressions of support for Prop 8 have generated a range of hostilities and harms that include harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.

Here’s a thought: When your major talking point is calling supporters of traditional marriage “haters” and “bigots,” you should probably refrain from behavior that actually fits those terms.

Those trying to protect man-woman marriage in Maine have repeatedly cited the Massachusetts court decision Parker v. Hurley as a timely warning. In the decision—rendered after gay marriage was legalized in that state–a federal judge denied parents the right to opt elementary-age children out of lessons about same-sex marriage. 

But Maine’s Attorney General, Janet Mills, recently issued a statement brushing aside those warnings because, she claimed, the Parker case didn’t “turn on any provision of state law relating to marriage or education.”

But that’s simply untrue. Let’s examine the facts:

For instance, I wonder if the Attorney General took the time to read the first few paragraphs of the decision.  If so, surely she would have noticed the clear references to “Massachusetts law” granting special protection to “sexual orientation.”  The opinion specifically explained that, because of this law, the “Massachusetts Department of Education has issued standards which encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade students concerning different types of people and families.” (In other words, teaching about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.) So this obviously did “turn on state law”—and keep in mind that Maine also has at least one state law giving special protection to “sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the Massachusetts judge clearly and repeatedly connected the dots between what is being taught in the classroom and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, which mandated the legalization of gay marriage. “Students today must be prepared for citizenship in a diverse society. .. As increasingly recognized, one dimension of our nation’s diversity is differences in sexual orientation. In Massachusetts, at least, those differences may result in same-sex marriages,” said the judge [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, the judge concluded that parents cannot opt their kids out of instruction promoting gay marriage because “under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

And in Massachusetts those “goals” now include teaching “respect” for homosexuality and gay marriage. “It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents…”

Clearly, Maine is in danger of taking a path that leads to almost exactly the same scenario—one that robs parents of their parental rights and religious freedoms in public schools.

An amazing story broke this week highlighting the rescue of 50 children trapped in sex trafficking rings. The three-day sting involved the FBI and local law enforcement officials working under the Innocence Lost Initiative. Check out these numbers:

• 36 cities targeted
• 50 children rescued
• 60 traffickers arrested
• 631 other people arrested

Two points to consider:

1) Some experts who fight human trafficking estimate that the AVERAGE age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14–years old. Do you get this? The “Pretty Woman” is a mirage. The adult women in prostitution who are supposedly making an “employment choice” very likely are where they are today because someone preyed upon them as children.

2) Not all children will be saved, but some will be lost through political muddleheadedness. Professor Donna Hughes of the U. of Rhode Island makes a startling point about this nationwide sting: “No cities in Rhode Island were included in the investigation and crackdown.  Rhode Island has been left out of this national FBI initiative—Innocence Lost–because we don’t have a prostitution law.”

Donna and others have been fighting to close the loophole in Rhode Island law allowing for indoor prostitution. Local police are unable to enter known brothels without probable cause of illegal activity. Without going inside, they can’t save children. It is a perfect cover for human trafficking. State lawmakers are duking it out in hearings as I write. Until such a law is passed, children being molested for money in Rhode Island have little hope of escape.

It may surprise no one that a Girls Gone Wild event in Yulee, FL. led to 16 arrests on charges of indecent exposure, obscenity and operating a sexually-oriented business. For years, this multi-million dollar porn franchise has encouraged young women to take off their clothes and/or engage in sexual activity on camera.

Hidden behind the films’ popularity is a great deal of unsavoriness—and I mean apart from the actual pornography. Trouble seems to follow the GGW tour bus like a bad groupie. Here are just three of the many, many news stories revealing these problems:

“Girls Gone Wild” founder charged with sexual battery
“Girls Gone Wild” founder fined $500,000
Spitzer Call Girl in ‘Girls Gone Wild’ Archives Was 17 (Did that act encourage her further into a world of pornography and prostitution?)

For the definitive behind the scenes story, read this one from the LA Times in 2006. But, be prepared. I have rarely been as angry as I was when I finished reading this article. Not for the faint of heart.
The man behind the “Girls Gone Wild” soft-porn empire lets Claire Hoffman into his world, for better or worse

The students who attended the first Ruth Institute marriage conference in August (students learned from speakers about the personal and civic importance of marriage) were the highlight of the weekend. 

Here’s what one student said about marriage and her peers.

“A lot of young people are fed up with the culture,” said Madeline Klem, a student at the University of Dallas. “They know there’s something better out there. There’s this hunger — especially among kids whose parents have been divorced or were never married — to have something better.

“A lot of people our age are very open to things that will help them to achieve that. But they just aren’t receiving the information or guidance to know what is going to get them there.”

Read the entire Citizen article here.  You can order Citizen magazine online here.

This is one of those “life imitates art” posts. The quotes are real. The game show is where they belong.

Host: “And the answer is: The constitutional provision that allows Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance.”

Buzzer.  “Yes, Senator Leahy.”

Leahy: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?”

Host: “No, I’m sorry. Not what we’re looking for here.”  Buzzer. “Yes, Speaker Pelosi?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Host: “No, I’m sorry. And yes, I’m serious.  Mr. Leahy, I see you have your hand up. You’ve already had your turn.”

Leahy: “Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

Host: “You’re excellent at phrasing your answer in the form of a question. But you’re still not responsive.”

Pelosi: “I’ll have my assistant respond.”

Assistant: “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Host: “Doesn’t anyone here want to answer using a constitutional provision?”

Leahy: “Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on federal highways?”

Host: “I give up.” To producer: Could we just re-air Kareem Abdul Jabbar?

UPDATE: The Washington Times has a much better analysis of this question than our elected representatives here. Exit question: Could the federal government force us to buy broccoli because it would theoretically affect healthcare insurance markets and, by extension, interstate commerce?

Sometimes, when I’ve failed to respond to a coworker’s email and I’m called out on it, I’ll say, “Oh, shoot. I wrote the email in my head but never sent it.”

Anyway.

Remember when the President told a joint session of Congress that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”? And remember how we were like—ohmygoodnessdidhejustsaythat? Because it sounded like great news.  ::: cue the trumpets :::

Well, he took a page out of my book and apparently wrote a health care proposal in his head and never produced it.  And, according to the president, that’s the bill in which no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.  Get it?

Because when Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak called the president after the joint session speech to explain to Obama that—ahem—the House bill actually did include federal funding for abortions, the president explained that he wasn’t talking about the House bill.  He was talking about his own plan.

What plan? The plan that he hasn’t produced yet.  The one we haven’t seen. The one that’s nowhere to be found. The one that’s apparently different from the 5 other versions that House and Senate committees have considered?

So, Mr. President, if you really do have your *own* health care proposal that specifically excludes federal funding of abortion, we’d love to see it.

Michigan, the neighboring state to one of the more noisy atheist organizations when it comes to complaining about celebrating Christmas in the public square, is the scene of this year’s first “atheists-complained-so-you-can’t-have-a-crèche” brouhaha. Story  here, and the lawsuit is here.

Seems to me that local governments are way too skittish when it comes to complaints from folks with official sounding names like “Freedom from Religion Foundation.” The knee-jerk reaction of this Michigan county to deny a permit for what has become a yearly Christmas tradition is sadly typical. The only thing worse than a bully is a person who cowers at the first sign of a bully.

Kudos to the Christmas crèche defenders who didn’t join the county in its unconditional surrender, but decided to see if perhaps the First Amendment might just dictate a different result.

The constitutional issues are rather simple, despite the huffing and puffing in FFRF’s letter to the county. If the county in this case grants permits for residents to put all types of expressive materials in county-owned medians, then it can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination and bar a religious message from what is, for First Amendment purposes, a “public forum.” If the totality of the facts indicate that the county’s medians don’t rise to the level of public forums, then this particular crèche may ultimately have to end up on private property somewhere. 

On the flip side, the “public forum” scenario works in favor of the FFRF folks as well as for anyone else. They should be able to put up a “Bah, Humbug” display under the same terms and conditions as anyone else. If they’re going to disapprove of Christmas, they might as well do it out in the open where we can all take note, rather than hiding behind a threatening letter.

It’s come to our attention that President Obama will “commemorate” the enactment of the hate-crimes bill this Wednesday, October 28th.

Let’s all pause and listen to the sound of a little more of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet.

Because let’s be honest. This bill was never about addressing the “epidemic” of hate crimes against homosexuals that advocates claimed it was.  There was and is no epidemic — as my colleague Bruce made very clear in this post.

The hate-crimes bill is, at its heart, about ensuring that those who believe in God’s design for male-female sexuality are scared into silence and coerced into acceptance.   Gay rights activists—emboldened by an ally in the White House and Democrat majority in Congress—are pushing for the complete normalization of homosexuality in every arena of society.

And they’re not done yet.

They want private employers to be banned from making hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions about homosexuality (note to for-profit, Christian business owners and employers: beware).  They’re also demanding more benefits for homosexual partners of federal employees, even after President Obama extended benefits by executive order.  And let’s not forget their holy grail: repealing the longstanding military policy of preventing homosexuals from serving in the military.  Or perhaps their holy grail is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.  (You know, that pesky thing that defines marriage as – oh my goodness! – between one man and one woman).

So when Wednesday rolls around and President Obama and his gay activist allies are celebrating their victory over religious liberty in the White House, do a little pondering on this: elections matter.

As you’ll recall from an earlier post, the dispute is over the release of the names of 138,000 petition signers in Washington state who wanted to see Ref 71 (repeal of a domestic partnership law) on a state ballot in November. Gay activists want the names released so they can be published on websites, similar to what was done in California and other states with regard to marriage and domestic partnership issues.

Although gay activists say they just want to encourage polite discussion between petition signers and their “friends,” we know, as the LA Times has reported, the results of such publication can be devastating:

Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that’s always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of “for” and “against” donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The district court judge agreed with petition signers’ arguments that signing one’s name to a petition is classic anonymous political speech (which is strongly protected by the First Amendment) that would be “chilled” if  signers expected to be subjected to reprisals like the one described above. The 9th Circuit, however, reversed the district court  and ordered the release of the names, only to be temporarily stopped by a Supreme Court order found here. That will be the status quo until we hear whether the Supreme Court decides to hear the full case on appeal or not.