Brody's Scribbles... Just In Case You Weren't Already Annoyed Enough...

WARNING! IF HOMOPHOBIA CAUSES YOU OFFENCE: DON"T READ ANY FURTHER!

By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) Feb 9 | Sometimes I just want to move to a deserted island with a cute younger partner and sip on piña coladas while engaging in mindless lovemaking all day long. Okay, so shoot me eh? But a guy can daydream right? The reason I am longing for tropical beaches and warmth, away from a substantial portion of society, is because once again the Christiban fundies are chipping away at our collective peace, quiet, and gains in the war for achieving equality and full civil rights.

I was livid. Oh excuse me, I am not supposed to swear am I? A good friend and colleague from my home province in Ontario sent me these articles in an email this morning. By the time I was finished reading this crap... hmm, well screw that! I've reached the point with all the religious zealots and pious hateful bigots, that as far as I am concerned, they can ALL rot in their fairytale hell that they keep telling me I am headed for.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, right, during an interview Monday with WEYI-TV NBC 25 (Flint) reporter Dan Armstrong

Photo By NBC25 Flint, Michigan

The first article is from Michigan Messenger staff writer Ed Brayton who reports;

"The Thomas More Law Center, founded by Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza fame, has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of several Michigan religious leaders against the federal government over the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was passed into law last year.

The plaintiffs include Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association – Michigan; Levon Yuille, pastor of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan; René B. Ouellette, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Bridgeport, Michigan; and James Combs, pastor of four different churches in the state. The full complaint can be read here (PDF).

Like the TMLC’s suit against the government over AIG offering sharia-compliant insurance, most of the complaint is devoted to political boilerplate rather than serious legal argument. An example:

Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act has the purpose and effect of deterring, inhibiting, and chilling the exercise of fundamental rights by persons, including Plaintiffs, who publicly oppose homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize intrinsically disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to the moral law and harmful to the common good of society. Supporters of the homosexual agenda seek to demonize, vilify, and criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to their agenda.

That’s the kind of political rhetoric — as opposed to legal argument — that can really make a judge angry when they read a complaint. I spoke to two different constitutional law professors about this complaint and both said the same thing, that it would be unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss and very, very unlikely to survive a motion for summary judgment.

The first problem is standing. The law has never been applied to any of the plaintiffs, nor have any of them ever been threatened with such an application. The complaint seems to base its standing argument solely on the fact that some people have argued that there should be legal limits on anti-gay rhetoric, not on whether the text of the law itself actually imposes such limits.

The hate crimes law contains a rather explicit exemption which says:

Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.

There is no question that the expression of anti-gay views, whether religiously based or not, is protected by the First Amendment (as it should be). And in reality, the provisions of the hate crimes law only applies to the investigation and prosecution of actual physical crimes against individuals, not against speech. Unless the plaintiffs intend to actually assault someone, their anti-gay beliefs are irrelevant; if they chose to assault someone, then those expressed views could be used to establish that they committed such a crime out of hatred or bigotry and that might then trigger the provisions of the hate crimes bill. But the mere expression of anti-gay views cannot be punished under the hate crimes law unless the person expressing those views actually commits a violent crime of some sort."

Well, I wasn't all that keen on Domino's Pizza to start with, after-all, Papa John's sauce does taste better. Well folks, hang on because the group mentioned as the lead plaintiff in the above entitled action would like to have homosexuality criminalised. Yup, you read that correctly. These imbeciles have decided that super-hater Peter Sprigg, the genius spokesman for the ill-named "Family Research Council," has the right idea. Todd Heywood, also a Messenger staff writer contributes this report: 

"Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, has added his voice to a growing chorus of American leaders calling for the re-criminalization of homosexuality in the U.S.

In an e-mail to Michigan Messenger, here’s how Glenn responded when asked if he supported the criminalization move proposed by the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg’s comments last week on Hardball:

“The short answer to your question is yes, we believe that states should be free to regulate and prohibit behavior that’s a violation of community standards and a proven threat to public health and safety — including, as most of the United States did throughout its history, homosexual behavior.”

The issue has come up because Sprigg and other advocates oppose repealing the federal government’s prohibition of openly gay military personnel. The statement was made on Hardball with Chris Matthews. A transcript of the exchange with Sprigg and Matthews via Firedoglake:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly-
MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes

Shortly after this statement by Sprigg, American Family Association broadcast host of Focal Point Bryan Fisher said he believed that homosexuality should be punished with criminal sanctions. Then, he wrote a blog backing it up.

If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

So there you have it. Glenn, who is suing the federal government over the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act claiming it will impinge on his ability to preach his Christian beliefs, wants to use the law to force their religious beliefs on others.

So, are you now as pissed off as I am? WTF?! These people claim to be living the so-called Christian lifestyle but their rhetoric and ideology seems more reasonably to mirror the practises and ideology of Hitler's Nazi Germany over six decades ago. Pink Triangles anyone?