OneAngryCultist: Love Thy Neighbor

In a recent article on the Catholic Lane, retired schoolteacher and fellow, Seattle OCCUPY activist and writer Robert “Bob” Struble, Jr. writes about the ongoing problem of institutional child abuse. In his recent articles, Paterno, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, and Cowards; and Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation? Struble explores the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal in which assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had been found guilty of sexually assaulting or having inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys as indicative of the moral decline of society due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

In the first article, Struble writes:

“Cultural commissars in the West urge citizens to worship at the altar of a much-touted triune ethic – tolerance, diversity and choice. This secular trinity militates against the influence of righteous indignation. It demands that people who express disgust at sexual sins be reprogrammed. Teach them to reconsider their negative attitudes. Show them that a tendency to look down on homosexual sex is wrong in itself. Brow beat them with the notion that such a critical attitude is condescending and judgmental.”

Putting aside any snarky reference I could make by invoking Matthew 7:1-5, there is a tendency in our culture to censor language that is perceived to be intolerant or that doesn’t respect the current values of diversity and choice and with good reason –this kind of language kills people!

 In a free society we do have the right to speak our minds, however the point at which this language and dialogue infringes upon the lives and liberty of others, I take serious concern.

In specific regards to Catholic social teaching, of which Mr. Struble should be well aware, sexual minorities, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Quoting the controversial archbishop of the airwaves, Fulton Sheen, Mr. Struble writes in agreement:

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil…, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment…. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles.”

Immediately following, in his own words, Bob additionally calls for an end to, “the prevailing idolatry about inclusiveness. We need, rather, to exhibit the militancy and intolerance that Jesus modeled when he cleansed the temple.”

So, Bob, tell us what you really think about the teachings of Jesus who enjoins all Christians to, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31). Thousands of Catholics struggle on a daily basis with deep-seated problems related to being faced with having to choose between being true to themselves or their faith – I for one think they are owed at least a modicum of tolerance.

In his second article, Bob attempts to make the case that the child abuse case at Penn state is not only a moral problem, with which I fully agree, but correlates homosexuality to pedophilia – clearly something I cannot endorse. Pedophilia cannot in any way be related to homosexuality.

Pedophilia, as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” and has nothing to do whatsoever with homosexuality even in cases where the abused are of the same gender of the abused.

In essence, pedophilia is a profound psychological and emotional disorder that cannot be correlated in any way to homosexuality in which relationships formed between same-sex partners are most often consensual in nature, as with heterosexual relationships, and based on positive regard for partners and are not typified by power-dynamic disparity as in the case of pedophilia.

Continuing, Bob predicts:

“That if social mores continue their downward trajectory, and society reaches such a level that NAMBLA’s agenda gets mainlined into the culture (as was its equivalent in ancient Greece and Rome); then the social climate will be about as libertine as we read about in pagan antiquity, when there was not much about pedophilia that scandalized people… 

At that point, homosexuals and homosexualists (their heterosexual backers) will not be compelled to conjure up so much anger or indignation whenever someone associates them with pedophilia. To the extent that all sex is considered good sex, no stigmatizing of deviant sexuality will exert enough social suasion to make people feel guilty about sexual relations with children.”

With all due respect, Bob, NAMBLA represents a socially deviant organization that I can guarantee the majority of the LGBTQI community along with the rest of society views with equal disdain as you yourself hold. Also, as something of a lay-historian myself, I’m profoundly disappointed in Bob’s anachronistic reading into the fall of ancient Rome which most historians now assess as being due to extreme economic pressures brought about by territorial expansionism and not about sexual excess and moral denigration. 

Historically speaking, same-sex attraction as understood in the ancient world was understood differently than it is today. While the cultural practice of pederastry as practiced to a small extant in Ancient Greece and Rome may be to some extant equitable with hebephilia – a related but different disorder from pedophilia and something against which Paul rails in Romans – there are cultural contexts which separate making such a drastic comparison to NAMBLA.

These two articles fail to pass biblical and intellectual standards of editorial excellence and are indicative of a small-mindedness that should not be confused with the great academic and loving religious values present in Catholicism, instead they appear to regurgitate the same old “gays are bad because the pope says so” arguments that contribute to a strong social stigmatization of the Church.

I humbly, yet frankly, ask the author to look deeper into the issues at stake as well as inform himself better on the Spirit of the Gospel as opposed to the letter of the law and enjoin him to make a sincere and loving inventory based on love of his sisters and brothers and cease depriving what he likely would not appreciate having deprived himself – the right to love their partners as themselves.

In Dedication to Ss. Sergius and Bacchus
(Aren't they cute?!)

OneAngryCultist: The Spirit of Occupy - Witness Under Fire

Tuesday was a day in which I witnessed first-hand the Occupy community of Seattle undergo a rebirth, a baptism of sorts, as well as possibly one of the most atrocious acts of brutality against demonstrators during which many non-violent demonstrators were indiscriminately pepper-sprayed including a blind woman, a priest, a non-denominational chaplain, a pregnant woman as well as friends and acquaintances caught in the cross-fires.

Although I was blocked off from being able one of those caught in the fray due to an ill-timed restroom break, when I was able to catch up to the group the first thing I saw was people corralled between Battery and Wall Street on Third Avenue and the first person I met coming out of that was Reverend Rich Lang of University Methodist Temple in the University District; the same man I had been walking alongside earlier as an individual clergy person representing my own gnostic, religious tradition of Thelema. His face was red and tears were coming from his eyes and he was still determined. It was later that I would find out exactly what happened, but seeing his dedication and witness made a very clear impact on me.

The next morning, I woke up and read the following missive that he had written in response to the events that transpired that day, A Pastoral Lament For My Country:

“I praise the courage and compassion, the discipline and the decency of the Occupy Movement. Out of the rag-tag mob came help, grabbing my hands, leading me (I was blind by then) to the wall and administering care and concern for my well being. The protesters were assembled around all the wounded, and maintained the discipline of nonviolence (granted the nonviolence was in behavior but not language). And they were not afraid. The spraying had been a baptism sealing them into the security of knowing that their prophecy of repentance was indeed the Spirit-Word through them --- it is as if they did not prophecy their very bones would melt within them. Against the wall in increasing pain and burning I realized I was in the midst of church.”

Reverend Rich is but one of the chaplains and religious who were pepper-sprayed that day, the other being Tsukina Blessing, amidst many others of varying religious and non-religious stripes gathered as a community to demonstrate against this country’s grave social and economic inequalities. In the course of that baptism by pepper-spray, Occupy ceased being a group of rag-tag demonstrators and transformed into an ekklesía - a community of believers – indeed, a church.

Although some may object to my overt use of religious language in describing Occupy, the fact is that we are all here in faith that we can restore some level of sanity to this country that has for too long strayed away from its true course and which we are all determined to bear witness to and restore to the brightness and wholeness that is capable of being – in Christian terms, “a city on the hill” for all to see and share in its blessings. In Occupy I have seen proof that in this movement there are many mansions to be found in every tent and every committee meeting and there is room at every table. This is what America can look like and what we are all fighting for.

Rev. Rich and Tsukina are true spiritual warriors, among the many participating in Occupy across the country. They are inspirations of endeavor and I admire them and all clergy, chaplains and participants in Occupy. Their demonstration of peace under fire is something, I think, all occupiers can learn from and put into practice and something that will make the movement succeed and prosper even more.

OneAngryQueer: Photos from Yesterday

A very big shout-out and special thanks for bystander and donator of coffee, Casey E., who took these amazing photos yesterday at the #OccupySeattle demonstrations.

OneAngryQueer: Sunday Occupy Report

OneAngryCultist filling in for Ian Awesome who is still down in Westlake this morning.

Yesterday OccupySeattle experienced a number of successes, not the least of these being the largest turnout of demonstrators for the afternoon march down to Pike's Place Public Market. Q13 Fox reports:

"Thousands of protesters took to the streets downtown Saturday afternoon as part of the continuing Occupy Seattle movement. At three p.m. the protesters marched peacefully from Westlake Park to Pike Place Market, and then back to Westlake for a concert and rally. When protesters returned to Westlake Park, some protesters burned and cut up their debit and credit cards from Chase and Bank of America. The crowd has spilled out of the confines of the park."

Turnout estimates approximately 3,000 at the peak of the demonstration, but no official estimates have been released by OccupySeattle or affiliated groups at this time.

Around 5PM demonstrators started setting up tents in preparation for the Occupy "Global Day of Action + Night of 500 Tents!"which was advertised throughout the city through leaflets, posters and social media.

Demonstrations were peaceful and SPD presence was reduced in comparison to previous nights to around thirty officers around midnight who were very proactive about not allowing demonstrators to sleep in accordance with orders from Mayor McGinn's office and keeping with policies of Seattle Parks and Recreation which was also on standby to help with waste removal.

As of this morning, no arrests have been reported and occupiers were allowed to stay overnight in Westlake Center under the condition that tents were to be taken down by 7AM. Demonstrations are expected to continue throughout the day. Pictures and updates will be available later in the day.

Donations are still being accepted by OccupySeattle for the benefit of demonstrators.

Urgent Needs:

• PEOPLE!!!
• Sleeping bags
• Water
• Extra large ziploc bags
• Maalox
• Blankets!
• Canned tomatoes
• Heavy socks!
• Eye wash
• Paper bowls
• Snack foods
• Hot water deliveries late at night
• Hand warmers
• Portal Power Source - Sherpa 50 Adventure Kit

  http://www.goalzero.com/shop/p/57//1:1/

• Charging equipment
• Deep Cycle Batteries

Also, other food items and bottled water can be delivered near the south side of the plaza at Pike and 4th Avenue.

Setbacks For Dan Choi: Judge Denies Use Of Selective Prosecution

A new development has sprung up in the ongoing case related to Dan Choi's arrest in the November 15th, 2010 demonstration at the White House fence, as Judge Lamberth today ruled on the government's attempt to block his legal counsel's proposed defense of selective or vindictive prosecution.  Prosecutor Angela George had previously filed a writ of mandamus barring the defense's use in this case, which Lamberth today acceded to and disallowed the defense in court.

Oh yeah, and I was there too.

From the National Law Journal (via Legal Times):

U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, in issuing a writ of mandamus (PDF) to the presiding magistrate judge in Choi's case, ruled that such a defense theory should have been brought up pre-trial. Lamberth also clarified for the first time that a district judge can issue such a writ to a magistrate in the same court, in the same way an appellate court can issue a writ to a district court. 

Choi, a former Army lieutenant who was discharged in 2009 after publicly announcing he was gay, was arrested with 12 other demonstrators outside the White House in November 2010. Choi has been a vocal opponent of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military’s former policy barring openly gay servicemembers.
The other protestors resolved their cases through a deferred-sentencing agreement with the government. Choi declined the offer. 

U.S. District Magistrate Judge John Facciola has been presiding over Choi’s trial, which began on Aug. 29. It was halted, however, after prosecutors objected to Choi and his attorneys presenting a defense of selective or vindictive prosecution. 

According to the petition (PDF), Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George learned shortly before the trial that Choi’s legal team planned to present a selective or vindictive prosecution defense. Such a defense theory, according to briefs, would point out disparities in how Choi’s case was handled compared with his previous arrests for protesting, and also how protestors who had gathered outside the White House were treated in the past.

This ruling represents a significant need for restructuring of the defense's strategy and I can't help but think that Judge Lamberth has acted in collusion with the government to hamstring an important court case with far-reaching implications on issues of free speech.  It is seemingly clear to many that he (and the rest of the protesters present by association with him) were victims of selective prosecution, and Lamberth's ruling provides a disturbing precedent for the government to prosecute demonstrators with extreme prejudice.

How Troy Davis Changed My Mind

I have long hemmed and hawed over the death penalty.  Everyone who reads this blog knows that I am, without a doubt, one of the most liberal people you could possibly know.  I support a woman's right to choose in regards to both abortion and her right to dress anyway she wants without fear of rape, I support full equality for LGBT citizens, and I stand firm in the idea that America became great because of immigrants and will continue to become great by allowing foreign nationals to become Americans.  I think unions are the backbone of our workforce, and I think social programs are necessary for the continued functioning of a free society.

The death penalty, however, is something I've never really decided on.  It seemed to be a big black mark on my progressive "resume."  You see, I have long felt that there are people who just deserved to die.

It is true that there are people who commit despicable, heinous crimes.  Many of these criminals most likely had nothing left to contribute to society aside from lasting harm, death, and horror.  The death penalty, I thought, provides a solution to the Jeffrey Dahmers, Charles Mansons, and John Wayne Gacys of the world.  These people were irredeemable and seemed not only a drain on our nation's resources, but a genuine danger to its citizenry.  Should they not be put to death?

Troy Davis changed that for me.

If you haven't heard of Troy Davis by now, you likely live under a rock.  His story, marked with tragedy and heartbreak, is a long one I won't repeat in full here, save for some few salient points.

He was first arrested in 1989 for the shooting of an off-duty police officer, Mark MacPhail, in the idyllic city of Savannah, Georgia.  He was given what many called a fair trial, though it seemed marked by inconsistencies.  Evidence was barred due to alleged police brutality in its gathering, conflicting testimony was given, and a lack of murder weapon seemed to throw the proceedings into doubt.  However, it took a jury of his peers only two hours to decide his guilt and an additional seven to sentence him to death.

He maintained his innocence the entire time.

His conviction started a long-drawn out saga that stretched decades.  He, of course, appealed his sentence numerous times on numerous terms.  All of his appeals were denied, and he was scheduled for death.

His first execution date was set for July of 2007.  At the last minute, a stay of execution was ordered, as there had been several key witnesses who recanted their testimony, stating that they did not believe Davis committed the crime for which he was convicted.  All of these recantations and considerations were discarded, clemency was denied by the state of Georgia, and Troy Davis was scheduled to be executed in September of 2008.  Once again, just two hours before he was due to be put to death, a stay of execution was ordered in order to examine pertinent facts.

Those pertinent facts, however, weren't deemed pertinent enough, and his third execution date was for October 2008.  Once again death was averted, as his lawyers won a third stay in order to examine further documents proving his innocence.  The evidence was barred, as the judge ruled that recantations that late in the game were highly suspicious.


And so on and so on.  For years Davis was brought to the brink of death and snatched back, a traumatic process that many exclaimed was cruel and unusual.  The case went to the Supreme Court and back, with Justices Scalia and Thomas declaring that Davis' claim of innocence was "a sure loser."  The court case dragged on and on, with the defense repeatedly attempting to have evidence examined that could exonerate Davis and the State dismissing it out of hand.

He maintained his innocence the entire time.

His fourth execution date was September 21st, 2011.  He once again sought clemency and was denied.  He once again waited to die.  The White House refused to intervene and he filed a petition for the US Supreme Court to hear his case.  This gave him scant few extra hours as his execution on the 21st was delayed, waiting to hear whether the highest court in the land would deign to sit for the case.

It refused.  At 11:08 on September 21st, Troy Davis was put to death.  Witnesses to his execution reported that his last words were simple appeals maintaining his innocence, one last time.  He then prayed to God that He would bless his executioners.  He was injected with a fatal dose of drugs, he yawned, and then he died.

Troy Davis has changed my mind.  This is... more than a disappointment in our judicial system.  It is a genuine, tragic, and murderous failure of Justice.  It is one of the cornerstone tenets of our court system that we cannot put a man to death unless we are sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is guilty.  His guilt, while asserted as fact by that first jury, countless judges, and the Chatham County prosecutor, was called into question dozens of times in the last twenty years.

He maintained his innocence to the last, and the evidence piled up, sky-high, indicating that he actually might be.  It was disregarded and he was executed, and I have unease.  I believe we may have executed an innocent man.  That is unacceptable.

How is it that his evidence, over and over again, was discarded as irrelevant?  I can't help but think that the people who put him to death through their refusal to hear his story are now guilty of the worst sort of callousness.  Perhaps, after so many stays and so many delays, they just looked at this human being and said "Oh, kill him already.  He's wasting our time."

Is this bloodlust?  Or just a lack of concern for the life of one man?

That is why I now can firmly say that I am against the death penalty.  Do I think some people deserve to die?  Yes.  I do.  I think some people's crimes are heinous enough that they should no longer be on planet Earth.  Do I think our system is perfect enough to judge whether or not a person should die?  No.  No way.  Clearly, miscarriages of justice can and will occur.  Our methods of prosecuting criminals are imperfect, and when the lives of men and women are at stake we cannot use imperfect means to consider their deaths.

Troy Davis maintained his innocence to his last minutes, and we didn't listen.  He asked God to forgive us that sin, but we are as yet unabsolved.  The only way that we, as a society, can excise this stain on our collective conscience is to ensure that this does not happen again.  In order to safeguard the lives of the innocent, we must cease to slay the guilty, or Troy Davis' last words, asking God to bless us, his executioners, may fall on deaf ears.

DADT Repeal Countdown: Day 4

Michael passed along this historical curio this morning, a newspaper clip reporting on Leonard Matlovich's court case.  When Leonard came out, he sued the government for a wrongful discharge, and though he ultimately was not successful, his court case laid the groundwork for the ensuing decades of struggle for LGBT equality in the military.

Michael adds:

On September 16th, 1975, the Administrative Discharge Board Hearing for TSgt. Leonard Matlovich resulting from his having purposely outed himself that March began at Langley Air Force Base. Two "prosecution" witnesses upset the hearing when they said they'd eagerly work with him again and two board members were dismissed after saying the prosecutor was doing a bad job.

It's odd the parallels that military LGBT people are facing today in the court-- Dan Choi's recent ongoing criminal trial related to our arrest in November also includes farcical elements, to include a prosecutor refusing to use Dan's rank and referring to him as "Mister Choi" in order to denigrate the defendant.  Will such selective treatment of gay servicemembers end in four days?  Only time will tell.

Attacker Sentenced To 5 Years In McDonald's Trans Assault

April 18th, a 19 year old woman attacked a transwoman in the restroom of a Baltimore area McDonald's in an incident that was captured on a cell camera by an employee and was posted online.  The attacker was sentenced today to 5 years in prison in the beating of Chrissy Lee Polis:

The video shows Teonna Monae Brown and a 14-year-old female, whom authorities have not identified, repeatedly punching and kicking Chrissy Lee Polis, 22, in the head and body while dragging her by her hair across the floor of the restaurant. 

Mark Scurti, Polis’s attorney, said Polis planned to attend the sentencing hearing on Tuesday but was unable to do so after experiencing recurring symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, for which she was diagnosed following the beating. 

Scurti said Polis checked herself into a crisis counseling facility last Friday, which has provided assistance to Polis since the incident occurred in April. 

“I continue to suffer seizures, bouts of crying, mental anguish and anxiety,” Polis said in a victim impact statement submitted to the judge prior to Tuesday’s sentencing. “I fear being alone. I have flashbacks about the attacks. I have twice now been admitted to a crisis center, and I am having extreme mental difficulty.”

While I am glad justice has been served, it breaks my heart to hear of the continued mental anxiety suffered on the part of Polis as a result of the attack.  OAQ wishes her well and hopes she has a speedy recovery.

VICTORY: Dan Choi Update-- Amid Technical Difficulties

While I would love to give you the news today, I'm having connectivity problems and can't, I'm very sorry to say.  However, I've been able to find this on Facebook from Dan Choi's lawyer, Robert Feldman:

Near as I can tell, the judge has acknowledged that the government is unfairly prosecuting Dan Choi and targeting him for his activism.  Thank God that Judge Facciola has a sense of fairness, even if the government does not.

Yesterday, Choi was on the stand for three hours, as reported by MetroWeekly:

On the stand, Choi said the First Amendment provides for the right of people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which also, he said, is a moral responsibility of patriotic Americans. Choi responded under questioning by Feldman that he believed his actions were a form of speech, and that the government did not have a right to censor them by arresting him.

At times, Choi raised his voice and spoke in such a tone that he almost seemed close to shouting, especially when asked about his arrest. Under cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, he compared the various protests against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the 1960 sit-in by students in Greensboro, N.C., at a Woolworth’s department store and said he was “insulted” by his prosecution on federal charges. 

“The November 15th arrest is surprising in my mind,” Choi said, comparing the tactics used by police officers to remove him from the fence and transport him to the police wagon to procedures taught to soldiers in war. Choi said his left arm had been twisted and he could not feel his index finger for two weeks afterward, statements he said were reinforced by videos showing his arrest.

 I'm not a legal expert, but when I looked up "writ of mandamus" I found the following definition:

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court,corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

I'm not entirely certain what this means as pertains to the case but I'll take Robert Feldman's word for it:  Congrats to Dan Choi on this legal victory.

Can Bryan Fischer Please Just Move To Africa?

Bryan Fischer stated again on his radio show that homosexuality should be a felony.



I wonder if he's a fan of Uganda's Kill-The-Gays Bill? Is this the kind of compassion we can expect from God's gentle people?

DC: Police Inaction Could Lead To Firings In Lesbian-Bashing Case

Last week OAQ reported an incident in Washington DC in which officers in the DCPD ignored a gay-bashing incident and refused to file a report regarding the slurs and attacks on a group of lesbians in the Columbia Heights area.  After the incident was brought to the attention of the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit, a report has since been filed and an investigation begun into the actions of the seven officers that responded at the scene.

DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

It's clear that some measure of lazy policing had taken place in the incident, and department spokespeople are warning that it could have dire consequences, to include termination, for the officers involved.  This response is largely at the prompting of the organization Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, headed by AJ Singletary.

"'I was appalled when I heard about the incident and the conduct of the officers,' [DC Police Chief] Lanier said in a statement she released on Aug. 5. 'Obviously, this is not the kind of service that the Metropolitan Police Department provides,' she said. 'I have spoken with victims in this case and I want to assure them and the public that the incident and the conduct of the officers are being investigated thoroughly.'

"Singletary said that while GLOV officials don’t dispute Lanier’s characterization of the officers’ conduct as lazy policing, he and former GLOV Chair Chris Farris asked Lanier to look into whether anti-gay sentiment on the part of the officers played a role in the case.

"Singletary said Lanier also told GLOV officials at the Aug. 4 meeting that police were close to obtaining warrants for the arrest of the two suspects and that arrests would be made possibly within days."

I'll be watching the story with interest.  Washington DC is one of the gayest cities in the world, and the idea that some of their police officers might be engaging in anti-gay sentiment is not only surprising, but exceedingly abhorrent.

Porno Pete's Hate Group Has Lost Tax-Exempt Status

Pete LaBarbera (you know, the guy who thinks Fox News is homosexy) heads the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a bona-fide SPLC certified hate group that seems more obsessed with gay sex than I am.  The group is well known for spreading lies and misinformation about the gays, so imagine our glee upon the news that the hate organization has had its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS.  From Ex-Gay Watch:

"According to the IRS, the tax-exempt status of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) was revoked on 5/10/2010 (PDF). The reason for this action is listed by the reporting organization Guidestar as a 'failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years.' These forms are required of legitimate non-profit organizations for review by the IRS and the public.

"While the current incarnation of AFTAH appears to have been active since 2006, we found only one form 990-EZ on file — for the year 2009 (PDF). In this, total receipts are listed as $110.000, out of which Peter LaBarbera received a salary of $75,000. For perspective, this is approximately the same salary plus benefits claimed by Exodus president Alan Chambers. Exodus lists eleven employees and a million dollar budget."

While this is good stuff, I wish there were other justifications that the IRS could have used, for instance, "Tax-exempt status revoked due to organization being comprised of douchebags," or maybe "Tax-exempt status shouldn't be available to liars and grifters."

Rock 'N Roll Loser Sues Maddow

Bradlee Dean, a preacher who heads his own brand of punk ministry in Minnesota, has in the past been associated with such conservative "luminaries" as GOP frontrunner Michele Bachmann (is anyone else horrified that the words "frontrunner" and "Bachmann" are in the same sentence?), as the anti-gay candidate headlined a fundraiser for him.

Bradlee can't afford his Aquanet!

He made headlines when he went on his radio show and praised the Muslim execution of homosexuals in the Middle East, a story which was featured prominently on the Rachel Maddow Show. Skip ahead to the 1:20 mark on the video below:




The Southern Poverty Law Center, which brought it to everyone's attention:

"On a May 15 radio show, the ministry’s front man, Bradlee Dean, applauded the call of some Muslims for violence against gay people. 'Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,' Dean said. 'This just shows you … they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians… . They know homosexuality is an abomination.'"

Now he can't get a job to save his life, so he's falling back on that great American pasttime that all broke skeazebags rely on: suing someone.

He's decided to sue Maddow for defamation, claiming he never supported the execution of LGBTs, despite the glaring evidence from his own radio show. He is asking for $50 million:

"Despite the very clear disclaimer by Bradlee Dean on his ministries website and elsewhere regarding the false accusation that he was calling for the execution of homosexuals, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and others seized on and accused Dean on her show of supporting the killing of homosexuals, as is the practice in some radical Islamic countries. This seriously has harmed Dean and the ministry, who pride themselves on respect and love for all people."

Recently, Dan Savage referred to the Bachmanns as scumbags and grifters. Clearly, they prefer their associates to be grifters as well. Have fun in losing in court, Bradlee!

Trial Watch: Prosecutor Asks Jury To Disregard King's Orientation

As previously reported, the defense for Brandon McInerney is attempting to paint the defendant as a victim of sexual harassment on the part of the slain Lawrence King.  Broadly referred to as the "gay panic" defense, McInerney's lawyers are hoping to downgrade his charge to voluntary manslaughter with the excuse that shooting King was a crime of passion perpetrated by a humiliated and harassed teenager.

I personally find that defense disgusting.  Just because I hit on a straight man is no reason to end my life.

The prosecution is attempting to use laws enacted since the murder of Gwen Araujo, in which her killers won a mistrial after the panic defense was used.  The statutes prevent the gay panic defense from being used.

"Ventura County Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Maeve Fox this week said she would invoke the Araujo law when the case is sent to the jury, asking that the panel of nine women and three men be instructed not to let biases toward the victim's sexual identity influence their deliberations.

"Legislators and advocacy groups that pushed hard to see the law passed say they are gratified to see the jury instruction invoked.

"'We can't restrict the free speech rights of the defense and the ability of a defendant to mount their defense,' said Sally Lieber, the former assemblywoman who wrote the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act. 'But the judge should instruct juries that a person's gender or sexual ID is not an invitation to assault or murder.'

I hope this gross defense falls flat.

Ghana Orders Arrest Of All Gays

The Western Region Minister in Ghana began a witchhunt today, urging landlords and tenants to snitch on their gay neighbors in order to arrest them.  Who knows what is going to happen to these poor people.

From a Ghanaian anti-gay website:

'Mr. Paul Aidoo minced no words at all in his dislike for the practice. He stated that 'all efforts are being made to get rid of these people in the society.'

"He said once they are arrested they will be hauled before court to test the strength of the law which frowns upon homosexuality in the country.

"But a Lawyer at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology has challenged the legitimacy of the minister's action.

"Ernest Kofi Abotsie told Joy News’ Dzifah Bampoh that no person can be arrested for breach of morality, explaining that the law on 'unnatural canal knowledge' in the criminal code is still ambiguous and cannot necessarily be said to be the same as homosexuality."

This is horrifying, and I will assert that our administration should and must condemn this action.  

9th Circuit Court Is Kinda The Administration's Bitch

The 9th Circuit Court was kinda my hero last week, so imagine my dismay when they got totally zero over the weekend and weakened their own injunction against DADT at the request of the government.

The administration filed an emergency motion asking the court to reverse its decision, with Justice Department lawyers stating that halting gay discharges at this juncture would inappropriately interfere with the orderly repeal of the discriminatory policy.

Hwat?

"Justice Department lawyers said in Thursday's motion that ending the ban now would pre-empt the 'orderly process' for rolling back the 17-year-old policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.

"Congress made quite clear that it believed the terms of the transition were critical to the credibility and success of this historic policy change, and to ensure continued military effectiveness," according to a statement from the Justice Department.

"'Any court-ordered action forced upon the military services so close to the completion of this repeal policy pre-empts the deliberate process established by Congress and the President to ensure an orderly and successful transition of this significant policy change,' the department said."

Yes.  Any court-ordered action to stop gay discharges correctly pre-empts the slow-ass efforts to end discrimination against gay soldiers.  How do I read this?  Congress and the President slapping activists and advocates in the face, not to mention gays and lesbians currently seeking to serve.   

When I saw that particular headline, I expected the court to stand firm on the issue-- after all, what's the fucking point of taking a firm stance against discrimination if you're going to cave because the administration gets persnickety?  Well, I was sadly very very wrong, as the court weakened their position by saying that while currently serving servicemembers would be protected from investigation and discharge, gay applicants could continue to be turned away.

"The order from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judges Kim Wardlaw and Richard Paez notes the additional information provided to the court in the government's most recent filing -- specifically, 'the declaration of Major General Steven A. Hummer, Chief of Staff of the Repeal Implementation Team of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the representation that only one servicemember has been discharged under 10 U.S.C. § 654 since the passage of the Repeal Act; the representation that the Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chiefs of the Military Services, and Commanders of the Combatant Commands have recently submitted their written advice regarding the status of their preparation for repeal and ability to satisfy the certification standards set by Congress; and the representation that repeal certification will be presented to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a matter of weeks, by the end of July or early in August.'"

Newt Gingrich Thinks The Supreme Court Should Just Go Away

Newt Gingrich stopped off in Iowa this week and got RULL CRAZEEE by providing baseless reasons for a even crazier sentiment: stripping the Supreme Court of its power.

Right.

He states the Constitution of the United States does not give the Supreme Court final say in matters constitutional, and that Congress should have the ability to control what cases the highest court in the land are able to hear:

"In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote 'A Nation Like No Other' — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches.

"There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong."

Yes, Newt.  Article III of the Constitution does indeed state that there is a Supreme Court of the United States.  Furthermore?  While Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, you can't simply block it from hearing cases you fear won't go your way.  Any fifth grader can tell you that the system of checks and balances is there for a freaking reason, and your sad excuse of an attack on that hallowed document is really not going to get you the Republican nomination.

Asshat.

Edie Windsor Vs. Boehner's Lawyers-- I'm Thinkin' The Old Lady Is Gonna Win

Edie Windsor married her longtime partner, Thea C. Spyer, in 2007 in Toronto, taking advantage of the marriage equality laws just over the border from her native New York. After Spyer passed, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in taxes on her inheritance from Spyer, a tax that would have been foregone if the federal government had recognized her marriage to her wife.

Now Edie's pissed, and at 81, is suing the United States for recognition of her union to the late Spyer. The lawsuit has been filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Windsor by the ACLU and private attorney Robbie Kaplan. In light of recent events regarding marriage equality in that state, many are hoping the lawsuit will go all the way to the top and have resounding effects for LGBT Americans.

Edie with Joe Sudbay.

Please note that this legal attack on DOMA is, of course, being defended by the US House of Representatives, as per Speaker Boehner's promise. My personal feeling (and Joe Sudbay's from Americablog)? Those poor schmucks don't stand a chance.

Windsor's lawyers are feeling confident enough in their case that they have filed a motion for summary judgment, a motion asking the presiding justice to rule without the case going to trial. I've got my fingers crossed for Edie, as do many others. Go Edie!

9th Circuit Court Orders Government To Clarify Its Position On DADT

Last week the 9th Circuit Court ordered to the government to immediately stop its enforcement of the near-dead Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy preventing LGBTs from serving openly in the armed forces.  This week the court showed once again that they're not afraid to bust balls for equality and gave the government 10 days to defend the policy's constitutionality in court.

While the order is unsigned and it's not clear if the same three justices are the ones now giving DoJ a deadline to clarify their position, the message is clear: stop fucking around, guys.  Are you repealing this or not?

From the AP:

"The three-judge merits panel of the 9th Circuit said after reviewing briefs from both parties in the case, that it appears the United States is not prepared to defend the policy's constitutionality.

"The order was not signed by the judges and it was not known if the three jurists were the same justices who ruled last week on stopping the policy's enforcement.

"Log Cabin Republicans attorney Dan Woods said the court is forcing the government to take a stand on the issue.

"'The government has been trying to have it both ways and now the government is not going to be allowed to have it both ways anymore,' Woods said. 'The court is saying either fish or cut bait.'

"DOJ officials could not be immediately reached for comment."

I think this is a great development.  For far too long the administration and its affiliated departments have been far too unclear on its "fierce advocacy."  This move is going to force the government to come down on either side of the issue.  That said, I have no doubt that DoJ-- what with recent memos bemoaning
the government's role in oppressing gay people-- will refuse to defend the policy.  If it does, it would be a huge misstep for the administration's message as our "fierce advocate."

DOJ's Balls Quietly Got A Little Bigger This Weekend

Amid the celebration that our nation's third-most populous state now has gay marriage, advocates and activists are quick to caution that this does not apply at the federal level. Just because New York has marriage equality does not mean the United States government recognizes that relationship in any way.

However, something curious has happened in a key court case in the fight to secure health benefits for the partners of federal employees. Karen Golinksi is one such federal employee who is suing the government in order to obtain benefits for her wife, and instead of facing an uphill battle with the Department of Justice, a brief was filed this weekend not just supporting her claim but stating that the court should find DOMA unconstitutional.

This qualifies as holy shizballs amazing, folks.

"Unlike in other cases where DOJ has stopped defending DOMA in accordance with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder's decision that Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional, DOJ lawyers today made an expansive case in a 31-page filing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Previously, the government had attached the Feb. 23 letter from Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R) that announced the DOJ position to filings to courts about the decision to stop defending the law, but it had not laid out any more expansive reasoning.

"But, for Golinski's case, DOJ did so. In describing why heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation, for example, the DOJ's lawyers -- in describing how 'gays and lesbians have been subject to a history of discrimination -- write, 'The federal government has played a significant and regrettable role in the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals.'"

As the incomparable Daniel Villarreal from Queerty points out, this is indeed a very big deal.

"Basically instead of just saying that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, Obama’s administration said its part of a larger system of nationwide institutional abuses against gay Americans throughout history and THUS the court should find DOMA unconstitutional as well. It sounds curiously like the historical testimony Olson and Boies offered in the Prop 8 trial.

"Basically, it’s a huge boon for the gay community that really shakes up the remaining DOMA lawsuits with an implicit government admission that it has had a direct role in unconstitutional anti-gay discrimination, a history that must stop today—amazing!"

I'm not a legal expert, but it seems very unusual to me for the DOJ to ask a court to rule a previously defended policy unconstitutional. It's kinda ballsy, and it's kinda smart, and it's kinda under the radar, meaning that Obama and Co. are going to get away with it. Neat!