PDA

View Full Version : Nebraska's Unconstitutional Amendment



Zen Curmudgeon
05-13-2005, 01:41 PM
Another conservative Christian initiative, Nebraska's unique constitutional amendment, called Section 29, which defined marriage as between one man and one women as well as prohibiting any recognition of rights by any same sex couple, has been found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge.

In his 43 page ruling, Judge Joseph Bataillon noted that the plaintiffs were not seeking to overturn the definition of marriage. Instead they argued that the amendment to Nebraska's constitution went further by depriving homosexual couples of rights enjoyed by un-married but heterosexual couples. For example, the amendment would have precluded a gay state employee from adding a partner to his/her health plan, nor would gay couples be allowed to adopt or foster children. The amendment's language could even be construed as prohiting same sex couples from petitioning the state legislature for changes in the law.

Quoting from decision( http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf ):

"It is clear that the government can regulate conduct, e.g., criminal activity, but the government 'may not create classes among its citizens on the basis of who they are rather than what they do.' (p41)

Section 29 does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition, a right they had before the passage of Section 29. If the purpose, as offered by the proponents of Section 29, were merely to maintain the common-law definition of marriage, there would be no need to prohibit all forms of government protection or to preclude domestic partnerships and civil unions."(emphasis added)

In other words, in their eagerness to reinforce the common law definition of marriage, the Christians exceeded the limits set by the US Constitution and established a class of citizens with fewer rights than all others. That violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's something the government can't do, no matter how many citizens think it's a good idea.

The reaction from the Dobson militia has been immediate and predictable. Dobson himself says, "But to argue that supporters of same-sex marriage are disenfranchised by the amendment is ludicrous; they have every right to undertake the amendment process themselves and get a different measure passed that's the way democracy is designed to work." Apparently, it doesn't occur to Dr. Dobson that legal experts, not psychologists, disagree with his interpretation, nor does he concede that while a group tries to "undertake the amendment process" they are, indeed "disenfranchised". ( http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47293 )

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, Dobson's conservative clone, raises the "judicial activism" flag to rally the troops for an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as one man one woman, but his press release rather conveniently overlooks the reasons for Judge Bataillon's decision. Perkins zealously argues for a part of the Nebraska amendment that wasn't contested. ( http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05E04 ) Umm...did he read the decision?

My personal favorite is the press release from the Concerned Women for America (CWA), a particularly viscious crowd, who claims the judge's decision, "ignored 6,000 years of human history to toss marriage out the window" , which, of course, is sheer hysterical hyperbole. But the best part of CWA's reaction addresses the Senate filibuster controversey, "The Democrat obstructionists clinging desperately to the filibuster think judges like Bataillon, who make a mockery of the Constitution, are 'mainstream'...". ( http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwfa05131.htm )

It turns out Senate vote appointing Judge Bataillon wasn't much of a horse race: it was unanimous, in fact. However, The yea voters included such notorious godless liberal thinkers as:

Ashcroft (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Frist (R-TN), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC), Hutchison (R-TX), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Santorum (R-PA), and Thurmond (R-SC) and our own Wayne Allard.

( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm? congress=105&session=1&vote=00236 )

The mockery isn't the legal decision, it's the fraudulent manipulation of fact by the radical Christian right in its attempt to avoid the 9th Commandment and create a separate but unequal class of Americans.

Instead of thumping it, perhaps Dobson's militia should actually read the Bible. I recommend one verse in particular, Matthew 7:5, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Or maybe Luke is a better choice, Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

One can hope.

Take Care -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-15-2005, 12:14 AM
As most people can deduce, the radical homosexual agenda is definitely in complete conflict with these Christian's agenda.

Because of my naturally skeptical nature and wanting an objective view of the universe, please clarify for myself and other readers of this forum if you are homosexual and have a biased viewpoint.

You obviously do tiredlessly and proliferately bash these Christian's political agenda on these threads.

MoralCompass
05-15-2005, 02:34 AM
Does anyone remember when they first came out with those label makers that let people label everything in sight with brightly colored labels? I remember, and one of the things I recall was that no matter what the label said or didn't say, it didn't change the contents of the labeled object one iota.

Now, spring forward to this new century and the Republicans again drag out their old label makers. For instance HTP calls the agenda of gays and lesbians a "radical agenda" but merely calls the Republican agenda "the Christian agenda". Missing in those labels are some important facts. While I do believe that most Republicans do refer to themselves as Christian, certainly there is a majority of Christians in the Democratic party as well.

Next, he does what most Republicans do, which is to somehow make the "Republican Agenda" a "Christian agenda", and the two could not be farther apart. The true Christian agenda has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics and EVERYTHING to do with redemption of the soul. The fact that the Republicans hide behind the parts of the Bible which support their views while ignoring the parts which condemn their very acts of judgement will only add to their own judgement. That isn't my opinion, that is scripture.

In The Great Commission I see not one word by Christ about homosexuals. In fact, Christ never mentioned them, not once, ever. He did however have a great deal to say about reaching out to sinners, and he set the example of how that is done. We seldom saw Jesus Christ losing his temper, but when he did, was it at the prostitutes, homosexuals, or even murderers? NOPE. It was at the very men who were in charge of his temple.

So who has the "radical agenda"? The people who are playing by the rules set forth in our Constitution for equality and are yet denied, or the people who seek to change our Constitution? We haven't seen gay people out there nailing Christians to a fence. We haven't seen gay people dragging Christians to death behind a pickup truck, or beating Christians with baseball bats and tire irons. We haven't seen gay people trying to outaw Christianity.

On the contrary, we see just the opposite. It is the Christians who torture and kill gay people. It is the Christians who try to outlaw gay people. When the gays have asked for equal rights, the RADICAL Republicans say that they are asking for special rights.

Another thing missed by the Radical Republicans is the fact that many, many gays are indeed Christian. You won't hear Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell admit it, but the fastest growing CHRISTIAN denomination in the world is the Metropolitan Community Churches, which was founded by an openly gay preacher who had been denied his chance to serve God in the denomination he grew up in.

You won't hear the Radical Republicans acknowlege that the largest single Christian church in TEXAS is the Cathedral of Hope, you guessed it, an MCC congregation. It is also the newest acutal cathedral in the world, designed for free by the same architect who designed the famous "Crystal Cathedral", who by the way, is openly Christian, and openly gay.

Lest you think that MCC is a "gay church" you would be wrong. The membership worldwide is only about 50 percent gay, and their mission isn't toward gays. It is toward anyone who is seeking God and not politics in Church.

I say again, it says in the scripture that "by their fruit you shall know them" and by golly, I guess it takes a fruit to bear fruit, certainly the millions of converts to Christianity via work of the Holy Spirit in the gays of MCC would be some proof.

So, simply calling the gay agenda radical, does not make it so, any more than calling the Republican Agenda the "Christian Agenda" does not make it so. Nor does it make it right (as in correct), it just hangs a bright label. Nobody has done more to advance the gay agenda than the Republican Right.

If it were not for the blatently moronic attempts to subvert democracy against gays, nobody would be aware of the inequality that they live with. But, thanks to the loud mouths like Dobson, Perkins, and those yahoos in Kansas, thinking people all over the world have been made aware of how unjust it is for gays. So pat yourself on the back HTP, the louder you yell the more decent people will come to realize they are voting for the wrong party when they vote Republican.

As Ambassadors of Christ, the Radical Republicans have proven to drive people away from God, not lead them toward him. People are like string, you can't push it very well, and can never tell where it will go, but you can pull it wherever you like, and it will follow. So go ahead, push, push, push. Meanwhile, decent people quietly pull.

Finally, here is a label which HTP should refer to himself : Bigot Not that we need the label, it is obvious from the contents.

Pointing the Moral Compass to heavean and away from Washington.

Hell To Pay
05-15-2005, 12:14 PM
On the contrary, we see just the opposite. It is the Christians who torture and kill gay people.

By reading the national newspapers, what we actually see as an almost everyday occurance are homos hanging around churches buggering and infecting little boys.

Are you Zen Curmudgeon? NO? Then butt out (you're probably good at that) and let him answer the question.

Homosexual bias Zen?

Zen Curmudgeon
05-15-2005, 04:49 PM
I've been given to understand that Hell To Pay has twice made posts in this thread referring to me personally.

As he knows, I have added him to my ignore list. While he certainly has the freeedom to express his opinion, I am not obliged to listen to the crude personal attacks he seems to consider reasonable argument. It seems the webmaster has his own problems with HTP, as a thread HTP was contributing to was locked when the webmaster decided it was getting "out of hand". I'm guessing HTP's brand of vile name calling was part of that decision.

That being the case, he may carry on and sputter as much as he likes. I'm not listening.

Should HTP actually address issues in a considerate, rational manner, I'd appreciate someone letting me know. I'd remove him from my ignore list. But for now, life is too short to spend any of it in the company of misanthropes.

Take Care -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-15-2005, 07:31 PM
For the record, Zen Curmudgeon said he would ignore me when he was caught lying about being a conservative. That was after he falsely accused me of a crime by "libeling" democrats.

I'm sorry if he feels that being labeled a leftist is a personal attack, that is obviously his political disposition,as anyone who has read his posts can attest to.

Too bad he is not man enough to tell the truth.

MoralCompass
05-16-2005, 02:58 AM
There is no excuse for churches to cover up sexual abuse by clergy and priests, that only compounds the crime and the damage done to some of our youth. I think most Americans are disgusted that the church not only promoted a major player in the cover up to the vatican, but to allow the man to vote on the new pontif certainly spoke volumes to the victims of abuse.

So, I again repeat what Jesus was most angry about was indeed the very people who ran the temples and synagogs who were busily pointing out the small sins of others, while desecrating the temple with their behaviour toward fundraising, etc, etc.

Victims of abuse by clergy have been twice vicitmized: once by the clergy, and again by the church body who have allowed the abusers to continue in other parishes and churches. Those resposible will indeed have Hell To Pay, and according to the bible, their punishment will be much worse since they are the ones entrusted to be God's ambassadors. He holds those who claim the title of "Christian" to a higher standard of judgement when they sin, even if the offense is the exact same offense. Christians are more culpable than non-Christians. Priests are more culpable than non-priests, and so on.

All that said, it is vitally important to make a distinction between gays and lesbians, and pedophiles. Child molestation is statistically less likely to occur from a gay or lesbian than from a hetero-sexual, but the danger lies in not teaching that.

Adults who assume that their child is safer with a hetero-sexual are lulled into false security, and thus may place their child in harms way. The thing is to make sure your child is ALWAYS safe by never letting them be placed in a situation where they may be harmed, even when you are sure that the adult they are with is totally trustworthy. You will be doing your child, your self, and your clergyman a big favor. All clergy should welcome having other adults present when they are with children, this gives the clergyman a witness and protection against false accusations. (These precautions need to be applied to coaches and any other situation where children are not with their parents.)

HTP, and others need to know that they actually provide molesters a perfect scapegoat when they label them as gay or lesbian. The gay and lesbian community does not endorse nor respect child molesters, though such offensive groups as NMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) have tried to hitch their wagon to the efforts of gays and lesbians for recognition.

HTP and the world at large need to know that the gay and lesbian agenda is for equal rights to what consenting adults should be allowed in respect to property, jobs, end of life issues, taxation, insurance, and the ability to raise children in a safe and happy environment.

When it comes to the molestation of children, HTP and the rest of society need to know that the gay and lesbian community is even more offended when they read about the abuses of molesters than the straight community. This is when labels become dangerous.

HTP probably doesn't remember back about 1990 when a prominant Republican, the former Republican speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, and (at that time) the current Assistant District Attorney for the City of Denver, and the lead attorney for the Annheuser Busch Beer company was caught literally with his pants down in a video taped sex session with a minor involving shaving of genitals.

That Republican, David Bath, was the author of Colorado's "make my day law", and even authored two other laws which he was later charged with breaking: One that made it mandatory to have verifiable proof of age when engaging in sexual activities with anyone who claims to be the age of consent, but not the age of 21. The second, was a law that allowed for property owners to recoup losses incurred when "sex bussinesses" legitimate or not, opened nearby and cause property values to drop.

Bath was convicted, but his conviction was later overturned when the REPUBLICAN controlled State Suprememe Court allowed Bath to tell them what he "really meant" when he wrote the laws he was convicted of breaking. Amzing isn't it: write a law to protect kids against molesters, but when ya molest them, tell the court "I meant that for everyone else, not me" and acutally get away with it.

To be sure, Bath DID pay a heavy price for his activity, losing his very lucrative law practice, and the respect of everyone in the Denver Metro area.

So how do you think Bath was brought to justice? Was it an alert Denver cop? Nope. Was it some Democrat who wanted to smear the Republicans? NOPE. It was a single citizen who took on the entire Denver Police Department (who did not want to attack the DAs office) and that citizen it turns out, was a gay man who the molested youth had confided in since they could not get STRAIGHT Denver police to listen. The children who were the victims had only one advocate for them, and it wasn't until this one gay man took Bath's victims to a Denver TV station KCNC, to tell their story that the Denver police chief finally decided to persue an investigation.

You may ask how much evidence was there to go on. Ok, there was a carfull, literally a sedan stacked front to back, floor to cieling with pictures and video of hundreds upon hundred of boys being molested by adult men, including bath. This happened withing a month or so after police in Wisconsin discovered what terrible things Jeffrey Dahmer had done. Even with the knowlege of a terrible crime, Dahmer was permitted to continue. And even with a car full of evidence, Bath and his co-conspirators were allowed to continue for 9 months with no investigation whatsoever.

It was the Gay community which pushed and pushed for justice to be done for these children, and in the end, justice was not served by Colorado's own conservative courts.

Where are they now? Well, Bath managed to keep his wife and children somehow. He apologized profusly (so did Dahmer). The boy who risked the wrath of the entire Denver police department and DAs office? He has died of AIDS which he contracted while Bath was pimping him out. John Roberts, one of Baths co-conspirators served a sentence in Florida for numerous charges, including kidnapping of another youth whom he had kidnapped and raised as his own, and eventually coerced into the conspiricy.

And the gay guy who stuck his neck out to protect the kids against the molesters? He went on to become a respected member of the Republican Party in the Denver area. He was himself kidnapped by some of Bath's cohorts, but escaped without injury. His kidnappers were never caught. He went on to become close friends with the mother of then Senator Hank Brown and worked to defeat Amendment 2 alongside Browns own mother, which eventually passed anyway, but was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

It is worth noting that Dudly Brown, a very prominant Republican in Colorado, actively tried to quiet that gay guy to spare the party embarressment over the Bath case and to give the (incorrect) impression that ALL Republicans supported Amendment 2.

Why do you suppose Amendment 2 was the worst idea ever? Simple, it was because it would have changed Colorado's constitution to eliminate "Home Rule". That is when one city or community passes laws or ordinances which apply only to that city, like Pueblo's smoking ban. Had amendment 2 been allowed to stand the state could have tossed out the ordinance leaving Pueblo with no legal recourse whatsoever.

With water rights at the forefront of Colorado politics and votors minds right now, it is well worth noting that had amendment 2 been allowed to stand we would not have even a small chance to keep our water against the Denver based water brokers. And back in 1990, that gay guy who helped save the molested kids from David Bath managed to convince nearly 15% of the Republican delegates to the state convention that attempts to block Boulder, Aspen, and Denver from non-discrimination ordinances with amendment 2 would cost rural communities their valued water.

The last chapter has yet to be written in this battle, but I think it interesting that the one person who fought for water rights in the misguided Amendment Two also was the only one to care what happened to those kids. Too bad the Republican Radicals don't think about what they are doing before they start legislating.

sweet_chin_music
05-16-2005, 08:36 AM
This sort of pure nonsense is what has led me to slowly walk away from people like Dobson and his teaching. This extends all the way down to quite a few churches and those who attend places of "worship" that are taught intolerance and maintain an attitude of "I'm better than you." If these were true places of worship, they would be focusing on God with words of gratitude and songs of praise instead of teachings of hate, bigotry and contempt.

I've been a Christian for over half of my 30 years. I believe in Jesus, the message that He brought and the fact that He is God in Flesh. But the message that Jesus brought then is *not* the message being taught now.

In his most famous speech, Jesus taught that hatred and anger were along the same lines as murder. Hatred isn't simply saying the words "I hate you"...hatred also contains intolerance, judgment and contempt.

When Jesus spoke, He didn't just tell people what to believe...He spoke in parable which gave His audiences the ability to think through the problem themselves. Jesus wasn't afraid of people coming to their own conclusions...if wrong, He gently pointed them in the right direction.

When Jesus fed the 5,000 gathered outside, not once did He ask to see their credentials or proof that they belonged there. He delighted in each of them, regardless of where they came from or their life circumstances.

Simply put, Jesus taught tolerance (turning the other cheek) and love. Not once did Jesus ever say that intolerance was a reasonable alternative or solution. His main point was always about love for those around you and actively showing that love.

Looking around today, many who claim Christ seem to have forgotten what Jesus taught and instead are counting on others like Dobson and the radical right to teach them what is plainly written in the New Testament.