Infidels of Every Denomination

Activist...Legislature?

As many expected, Gov. Arnold "The Governator" Schwarzenegger will veto the same-sex marriage bill passed just yesterday by the legislature. Fortunately for all decent Californians, his approval ratings might even be lower than Bush's, and it seems unlikely that he won't get kicked out on his ear next election.

This is what I love:

"The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action, which would be unconstitutional, but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state," [press secretary Margita Thompson] said.

Wait...these wingnuts always get me all confused. So now judges are ok and legislators are activists overriding the will of the people? But I thought...? Oh, forget it.

I'm of the same mind as the Gentleman-- get rid of legal marriage altogether and let people determine for themselves who constitutes family for legal purposes, without any of the incendiary rhetoric around it.

Indiana Child Custody Victory

While this shouldn't be surprising (and certainly isn't to me), it's good news nonetheless!

As some of you may recall, Thomas Jones and Tammy Bristol were taken by surprise last year when the judge overseeing their divorce included in the divorce decree an order -- supported only by his personal beliefs -- prohibiting either parent from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and ritual."  Because both parents are Wiccan, religion had not been an issue in the divorce.

Jones and Bristol appealed the ruling, with the help of the Indiana ACLU.   Yesterday the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision striking the court's requirement from the divorce degree and upholding the parents' rights to share their religion with their children.

Religious freedom and "annoying speech"

Late last week I came across a press release that has my inner civil libertarian battling with my inner curmudgeon.

It seems that the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico filed suit earlier this month to free "street preacher Shawn Miller from the Roosevelt County jail.  Miller was arrested last April after Portales police claimed he was yelling at passing cars, although Miller maintains he was merely `preaching the word of God.'”

According to the ACLU-NM, "Miller had been preaching in the lot of an abandoned gas station that is commonly used by street vendors."  Newspaper reports confirm that "Miller was arrested April 17 while conducting a religious service. The group’s congregation on that day carried folding chairs, a CD player and Bibles to a lot on Second Sreet and South Avenue C, commonly used by street vendors." 

Portales police, however, say that Miller did not confine his preaching to the lot.  Instead, he began shouting at passing vehicles and creating a disturbance.  A police officer was dispatched and Miller was arrested only after he refused to heed the officer's warning and instruction to stop yelling at passing vehicles.  As Portales Police Captain Lonnie Berry told the newspaper, “You could be shouting the First Amendment, but you can’t do it standing in the median. That was (what was) called in.”

The ACLU maintains that:

"Mr. Miller has a guaranteed right to stand on a street corner and proclaim his faith in God to all who pass by,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson.  “He wasn’t harassing or intimidating anyone.  He certainly should not have spent time under lock and key for such a minor incident.”

As Simpson told reporters, “Annoying speech, and even offensive speech, is protected under the First Amendment....  What’s offensive to one person in this instance is for another person the word of God. The Constitution protects both sides of the equation....  If people don’t want to hear what he has to say, then don’t listen, don’t stand next to him.”

I'm all in favor of free speech.  And I'm all in favor of religous freedom.  But this is not the first time I've found myself wondering where free speech ends and harassment, or being a public nuisance, begins.

Evaluating The Left

This NY Times op-ed 'The Message Thing' by Jim Wallis takes on an important discussion: what values should the Democratic Party embrace?

Well, I'm not a Democrat (though generally sympathetic), and I'm wary of seeing the left end of the spectrum get too mired in the idea of "values politics" promoted by the right. It becomes something of a zero-sum argument, as though there can be no coexistence of different beliefs, and the political discourse devolves into a contest where one side must be crushed by the other. (This is currently the SOP of the right, but my fear is that if the left buys too deeply into this, we could end up doing the same thing.)

On the other hand, it became clear during the election that the whole concept of "values voting" struck a nerve with a sizable segment of the American population-- to the point where working class voters were voting against their own best interests because of the perception that the right cared more about values than the "secular left".

The issue for the left, as I see it, is to separate out the discussion of values from the sole perspective of religion, and to re-cast it in national terms-- that is to say, what values do we share *as Americans*? One issue I take with Wallis's column is that he still seems to be defining values through the lens of Christianity, but if the progressive left is truly going to try to unite and inspire the voting population, we need to be talking in terms that not only can progressive Christians get behind, but also Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, and especially secularists. We need to talk about issues that we can all reach some consensus on, and put less emphasis on *why* any one of us or any group of us feels it's important. If we're all for protecting the environment, it really doesn't matter if the Christian progressives think it's because it's humanity's duty to steward the earth and Wiccans think it honors Gaia and atheists just want clean water and a lack of natural disasters. Let's stop at "protecting the environment" and put our efforts towards figuring out the best way to make that happen.

Wallis makes some good points about areas in which we can all at least begin to find common ground, but I can also think of some other issues that the left can embrace.

Secrets and lies

OK, now I'm mad.

Military ousts more gays for online ads

So, the military higher-ups are now trolling the Internet, to see if any Service Personnel have listed personal adds indicating that they are not lily-white heteros. If they find them... they are out. They are looking for keywords, like "Navy", "Soldier", "Army", and military jargon in screen names and in the texts of ads.

One scary thing is the quote from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN):

Sharra Greer, SLDN's director of law and policy, said the military interprets "don't ask, don't tell" more broadly than many people realize, and it can include seemingly innocuous statements or actions outside a professional context.

"Any statement of your sexual orientation at any time, to anyone, is a violation," she said. "But many service members don't understand that."

Now I realize that Freedom of Speech does not apply to all statements... like statements that put the general public at risk, in other words yelling "fire" in a crowded theater... and it does not apply to divulging Top Secret information... but to find out that the Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy means no service member is allowed to discuss his or her orientation with anyone at any time really startles me.

Of course, the naughty voice in my head asks.... really? I know that being hetero is not an offense in the eyes of the Military, but if telling someone, or implicating your orientation is a violation of policy... shouldn't any service person get at least reprimanded for dating, taking out personal ads, telling someone you are going home to see your girlfriend, mentioning dinner with your wife, subscribing to Playboy, etc?

The even more insidious scary moment in the news story is this: The individual focused on by the article was investigated at the behest of a commander who was senior to his direct supervisor.  The commander started a secret investigation why? Because he suspected the man was gay? NO.

He started the investigation because the guy posted a picture of a bombed-out jeep on his blog. He didn't like the proof that not everything is hunky-dory over there... and so he started a secret investigation... I think he was trying to find out if the man was a closet liberal.

"Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't show us in a bad light... the war is good, we are saviors, rejoice and worship Bush 43"

Nice message.

Good!

It was just a matter of time, really: NYC sued over random police searches of subway riders' bags

The NYCLU along with five plaintiffs (including someone was in the WTC on 9/11 and escaped) are challenging this BS policy and I've gotta give that a big thumb's-up.