Brody's Notes... Utah Web Hosting Company Shuts Down Anti-Gay Website

Bluehost.com Screenshot

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 28 | A source at the Utah-based internet website hosting company Bluehost.com speaking on the condition of anonymity acknowledged this afternoon that the company has disabled the ChristchurchQuake.net website, after literally thousands of e-mails poured in to complain about the site's anti-gay content in the aftermath of the Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake earlier this week.

The website is now listed as “disabled”, a message says “the website you were trying to reach is temporarily unavailable.”

The Christian website blamed the Christchurch earthquake on vengeance from God because of the “amoral” behaviour of Gays and Lesbians as the earthquake struck on the day ‘Gay Ski Week’ was to begin in the city.

RELATED: Utah Web Hosting Company Suspends Anti-Gay Website

Brody's Notes... Factcheck: Debunking Conservative Talking Points On DOMA

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) FEB 28 | The hue and cry over the decision last week by President Barack Obama, ordering the Justice Department to cease defending section three of the 'Defence of Marriage Act,' has grown increasingly shrill and filled with vitriolic statements, some calling for his impeachment by conservatives.

GOP presidential hopeful, Herman Cain said:

"I think it is a breach of presidential duty bordering on treason. The oath of office by the president says that he will protect, observe, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which means all of its subsequent laws. The fact that he says that he has asked the Department of Justice not to enforce it, to me, is a breach duty as President of the United States."

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, appearing on an American Family Association radio programme over the weekend told the audience that President Obama has "unilaterally decided not to enforce DOMA."

Another potential GOP presidential candidate former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during an interview with U. S. News & World Report last week said:

 “I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich.

Fox pundits Glenn Beck & Sean Hannity have also sharply criticised the president, all saying that he is failing in his presidential duties by "failing to enforce the laws passed by the Congress."

The problem is that the statements being made are false and misleading according to Equality Matters.  In a fact check released over the weekend, Equality Matters lays out the errors:

The Talking Point: Obama Is Refusing To Enforce The Law

Megyn Kelly, host of America Live: "The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has just announced that President Obama does not believe the law is constitutional and neither does Eric Holder.They're no longer going to be enforcing this federal lawthat's on the books, passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton and still very much a law."

Monica Crowley, radio conservative commentator: "It is his responsibility under the Constitution to enforce that law. Not just to decide 'well I don't like that law so I'm not going to enforce it.' To me that is a form of dictatorship. That is Mubarak Obama. You can't just pick and choose which law you're gonna enforce when you're president of the United States or the Attorney General." 

The Facts: Obama And The DoJ Will Continue To Enforce DOMA, Despite Not Defending It In Court. Attorney General Holder released a statement clarifying that, although the administration would not provide a legal defense of Section 3 in court, it will continue to enforce the law as written:

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. [Attorney General Eric Holder's letter to Congressional leadership]

The Talking Point: Refusing To Defend DOMA Is Unconstitutional And Unprecedented

The Family Research Council: "President Obama's Justice Department has a constitutional obligation to defend federal law, even when he disagrees with the law. The Constitution requires that President Obama "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By failing to defend DOMA, he is not satisfying this constitutional requirement. What will be the next law that he chooses not to enforce or uphold?"

Monica Crowley: "We are a nation of law. And what the Constitution says is that the President of the United States doesn't get to decide which laws he likes and which ones he's going to enforce. [...] To me that is a form of dictatorship. That is Mubarak Obama. [...] If President Bush had done that there would be calls for his impeachment. I think this is a very serious story." 

The Facts: Legal Precedent Exists For Refusing To Defend Unconstitutional Laws In Court. In his letter to Congressional leadership, Attorney General Holder clearly cites the basis upon which the government can legally choose not to defend legislation:

As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a "reasonable" one. "[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity," and thus there are "a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute." Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996).

This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute "in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional," as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001). [ Cited By The AG in his letter to Congressional leadership]

President George W. Bush Did The Same Thing When He Was President. In ACLU et al., v. Norman Y Mineta, the Justice Department chose not to defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transportation systems:

The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision." [ACLU, 1/25/06]

As Did President Bill Clinton. In a 1996 press briefing, Jack Quinn, counsel to President Clinton, stated that the Clinton administration would not defend a law barring HIV-positive men and women from serving in the armed forces because they deemed it unconstitutional:

Based on this advice from the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after consulting with the Department of Justice about the legal effect of that advice, the President concluded that the Dornan Amendment is unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminates and violates all notions of equal protection. Again, at the direction of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will decline to defend this provision in court. If the Congress chooses to defend this treatment of men and women in the military, it may do so. But this administration will not. [White House memorandum by Quinn and Dellinger on HIV Provision via Clinton Presidential Center]

Read the entire Factcheck here: Equality Matters

Brody's Notes... To Stop A GSA Meeting At School- Texas School District Bans All Clubs

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 28 | The superintendent of schools for the Flour Bluff Independent School District in Corpus Christi,Texas, has repeatedly turned down requests by  a Flour High School Senior, Bianca "Nikki" Peet, to form a Gay-Straight Alliance club. Superintendent Dr. Julie Carbajal told a local paper that there is no chance that district will approve the proposed GSA.

On Friday the superintendent said that she asked the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to meet off campus while the school district studies the legality of allowing the club while disallowing a club supporting homosexual students.

"Flour Bluff ISD is committed to supporting the cultural diversity of all students in our community. Flour Bluff ISD does not discriminate. We care deeply for our students and make every effort to prepare them for college, careers, and life. We work to consider the needs of all students in regards to the education, vision, mission,and goals of our schools. ...We need to be fair and equitable to all,” Carbajal told The Daily Caller.

Paul Rodriguez, President of the Texas A&M Corpus Christi Gay Straight Alliance who had helped to support and back Peet in her efforts to establish a GSA at the high school argued that denying Peet the chance to create a Gay-Straight Alliance violates the Equal Access Act.
Officials from Flour Buff Independent School District insisted that Flour Bluff High is not subject to the Equal Access Act -- a federal law, passed in 1984, that requires schools receiving federal funding to offer "fair opportunities for students to form student-led extracurricular groups, regardless of their religious, political and philosophical leanings.
The district had previously approved a policy in 2005 that did not allow student clubs not tied to curriculum to meet on campus.

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which has been meeting on campus, may not be adhering to that policy, Carbajal told the Daily Caller. She said the district is consulting with its attorneys on the matter.

“We feel like we need to follow the policy in place,” she said. “If we’ve made any wrong judgments then we have to fix that because we are not looking at changing our policy.” 

Carbajal said she respects the differing opinions on her decision but said she hopes people recognize she is going to be fair and equitable to all students.

“We’re not going to do something that lets someone be able to have an advantage over anyone else,” she said.

Upon hearing of Superintendent Carbajal's decision, Rodriguez said:

"What a sad, sad day in Corpus Christi. Hatred and intolerance prevails in Flour Bluff ISD. Rather than allowing the Gay-Straight Alliance to form at FBHS, Administrators have chosen the alternative route of dis-allowing ALL non-curricular clubs to meet on campus. Not only has this district turned its back on the students who could benefit from a GSA, but now has alienated the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and other non-curricular clubs on campus as well."

Manuel Quinto-Pozos, a staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Texas told the Corpus Christi newspaper that Flour Bluff Independent School District policy does not trump any precedent it sets by allowing the creation of other clubs that don’t have ties to the school’s curriculum. If the district allows other non-curricular clubs to meet on campus, such as the chess club, it can’t discriminate against other non-curricular clubs. 

“There is a very specific definition to a limited open forum,” Quinto-Pozos said. “It’s definitely triggered by what the school has done to non-curricular groups in the past and not tied to what the school states.”

Flour Bluff High School principal James Crenshaw has chosen to not speak publicly about the issue.

Brody's Notes... National Hispanic Media Coalition & GLAAD File FCC Complaint Against Media Outlet In LA

Rich Ferraro is Director Of Communications for GLAAD

Rich Ferraro

By Rich Ferraro (Los Angeles, California) FEB 28 | The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) today filed a joint complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. and KRCA, a broadcast television station serving the Los Angeles area. The complaint is in response to a string of broadcasts of the Spanish-language television talk show "José Luis Sin Censura," which often contains indecent, profane, and obscene material, offensive language, nudity, and on-air verbal and physical attacks against women as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The organizations also launched an online action [http://www.change.org/petitions/help-put-a-stop-to-anti-lgbt-attacks-on-the-spanish-language-program-jose-luis-sin-censura] with the Women's Media Center (WMC) where concerned community members and allies can send e-mails to the FCC supporting the complaint or file their own complaints based on episodes they have witnessed.

In over twenty episodes that aired between June 18 and December 7, 2010, the program contained images and language of the nature that is never displayed or is bleeped out of pre-taped English-language programs of the same nature, including the words "pinche" ("f*cking" in English) and "culero" ("assf*cker"), anti-gay language, including epithets such as ""maricón," "joto" and "puñal" (or "f*ggot"), and anti-Latino slurs, such as "mojado" ("wetback"). The program frequently featured blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights. Hypersexualized images of women's breasts and genitals while stripping for male guests and audience members also make up routine offerings. Guests and audience members were often incited to engage in verbal and even physical attacks, especially against people perceived to be LGBT. Many episodes showed the audience standing and shouting anti-gay epithets and profanity at guests.

"This is certainly not the standard being set by other Spanish-language news and entertainment media, most of which continue to improve in presenting stories of the LGBT community that grow acceptance," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. "It is extremely disturbing to see a show like 'José Luis Sin Censura' air this violent language with impunity and without any regard for the safety of our community. At a time when LGBT youth and adults face harassment and violence, it is unacceptable for media to fuel such a climate of intolerance about our community."

Last year, GLAAD issued a Call to Action against the program after a June 8 episode showed the audience repeatedly shouting "maricón" and "puñal" ("f*ggot") at a guest. The same pattern then occurred just two days later on June 10. GLAAD took action and nearly 1,000 supporters sent a petition registering their concerns with the show and LBI. In 2005, GLAAD led protests against the show which prompted KFC, Chevrolet and Nissan to pull advertising.

"I am outraged that Liberman Broadcasting is airing this filth at any time of day, no less in the middle of the day when our children are likely to be in the audience," stated NHMC's President and CEO, Alex Nogales. 

"This program is WAY overboard, and goes far beyond a fleeting moment of expletives or nudity. This is pre-taped, pre-meditated smut, designed to do nothing more than titillate and shock the audience. I have never seen anything like this on English-language television – José Luis makes Jerry Springer look like Mr. Rogers." Nogales added, "I am alarmed that José Luis seems to normalize violence and hate against LGBT people. At a time when so much hate is being directed towards Latinos in this country, we know firsthand that hate and violence have no place in our dialogue." 

Nogales, a long-time critic of what he sees as a pattern of weak FCC enforcement of its rules against Spanish-language broadcasters, was also responsible for urging the FCC to levy the largest fine ever against a Spanish-language broadcaster, Univision, who in 2007 paid $24 million for failing to follow FCC rules.

Julie Burton, President of the Women's Media Center said:

"Programming that is this misogynistic can't even be called television anymore – This is pornographic, and we're here to ensure it's no longer flying under the radar. As women fight for representation and rights internationally, we need to make sure we're modeling equality in the United States. Such objectification harms all women, but has a disproportionate impact on girls."

"José Luis Sin Censura" airs twice daily, Monday – Friday, in thirty-seven markets throughout the country. The show is produced and distributed by Burbank, CA-based LBI, Liberman Broadcasting Inc.

WARNING! The following video contains raw language & frank depictions of hyper-sexual activity. Viewer discretion is advised:

Brody's Notes... Wyoming Anti-Gay Marriage Measure Dies In State Legislature

Wyoming Capitol Building

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 28 | The proposed amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that banned recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states expired Friday when it missed a procedural deadline set in the state House.

However, another measure that is still pending would change Wyoming law to specify that the state would only recognize a marriage as being between one man and one woman. There has been contentious debate in both Wyoming's House and Senate over whether or not same-sex couples who entered civil unions elsewhere would have access to the state's court system to resolve any issues that arise in their relationships.

The House Majority Leader Representative Tom Lubnau, (R-Gillette) told reporters that he had no desire to spend valuable time and effort in debating a bill that didn't have the votes to pass.  The measure had already passed the state's Senate but requires a two-thirds vote passage in both houses before being sent to the Governor for his signature.

Fellow GOP legislator Amy Edmonds, (R-Cheyenne) said that given the differences in the House and the Senate over the measure, she felt that its future is "tenuous at best." Edmonds serves on the legislative conference committee assigned to hammer out a compromise measure.

Currently Wyoming constitutionally specifies marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, however Wyoming law also says the state will recognize valid marriages performed in other states. The measure calls for state law to be clarified now that same-sex marriages are being performed in other states.

An issue has already arisen in a pending case before the state's Supreme Court whether or not Wyoming courts have any authority over same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The high court is reviewing a case in which a lower court judge ruled that he didn't have authority to preside over a divorce case involving two women who married each other in Canada.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reported that critics said that both measures attack Gays & Lesbians and contradicts the state's motto: "The Equality State." Linda Burt, director of the Wyoming ACLU, testified in committee hearings against both same-sex marriage bills. She applauded the death of one of the bills in the House.

"Certainly those bills that take a minority group of people and tell them they can't have the same rights that other people have are unconstitutional," Burt said.

Proponents in favor of the measures have stated that they intend to seek passage of an amendment. The spokesperson for Wyoming Watch, Becky Vandeberghe, said the group would "continue to work toward getting marriage protected and giving people the vote."  Vandeberghe said her organization was unequivocal  in its support and intends to work to elect people in the future who will vote to support the issue. "We'll go ahead and bring it back," she said.

Speaking in opposition, Brianna Jones, the communications director for the Wyoming Democratic Party, told the Associated Press that the entire Democratic Party caucus in the Legislature had been against the bill.

"They didn't think it was an appropriate thing to put in the Wyoming Constitution," Jones said. "It also violated several clauses in the Constitution, particularly the equal protection clauses."

Brody's Notes... Democrats Ready To Introduce Legislation To Repeal ‘Defense of Marriage Act'

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

By Editors LGBTQNation (Phoenix, Arizona) FEB 28 | Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced plans to introduce a bill in the U.S. Congress that would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws.

Feinstein’s announcement comes on the heels of the Obama administration’s announcement last week that at least one part of DOMA will not be able to pass constitutional muster in federal court, and that the Justice Department will not defend that part of the law in two pending cases in the Second Circuit.

“As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that.

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.”

On Friday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced that he will support the bill proposed by Feinstein:

“Now that several states that have voted to give full marriage rights to same-sex couples, I believe that the Federal government should not interfere with those laws or discriminate between marriages sanctioned by State law…

“In the coming days, I will join with Senator Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

“It is a core American value that all people should be treated equally by their government.”

In the House, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), plans to re-introduce the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which would also explicitly repeal DOMA.

The bill was first introduced in September 2009 by Nadler, Rep Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.).

On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in two of the four cases where that section of the law is currently under challenge.

Section 3 — the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman — was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in July 2010.

The two cases in the Second Circuit are: Pedersen v. OPM, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut; and Windsor v. United States, filed by the ACLU in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The two other cases, in the First Circuit, also challenge Section 3: the cases are Nancy Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by Gay & Lesbian Activists & Defenders; and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, brought by the state.

It was in the First Circuit where in U.S. District Court in Boston, Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in Gill that DOMA Section 3 violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In the companion ruling in the case of the Commonwealth, Tauro ruled that the same section of DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment and fell outside Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution by denying benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Brody's Notes... House Speaker Boehner Tells CBN: "You’ll See The House Defend DOMA"

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 28 | Speaker of the House John Boehner told Christian Broadcasting Network's Chief Political Correspondent, David Brody, that the administration's decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court strikes him as “raw politics” and says the president is “pandering to the other side on this issue.”

Boehner, who was in Nashville, Tennessee to make a speech to a convention of the National Religious Broadcasters also told CBN's Brody that he expects the House to make a decision on their next step by the end of the week.

Clip Courtesy Of CBN:

Guest Editorial: Can We Talk About Muslim Homophobia Now?

Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist & columnist who writes for the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers, and the Huffington Post. He also writes for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and a wide range of other international newspapers and magazines.

Johann Hari
Photo By The Independent

By Johann Hari (London, England) FEB 28 | Last autumn, mysterious posters began to appear all over the East End of London announcing it is now a “Gay-Free Zone.” They warned: “And Fear Allah: Verily Allah is Severe in Punishment.” One of them was plastered outside the apartment block I lived in for nearly ten years, next to adverts for club nights and classes at the local library, as if it was natural and normal. I’d like to say I’m shocked – but anybody who lives in Tower Hamlets knows this has been a long time coming.

Here’s a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore. In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her “there are no gays round here” and she will “burn in hell” if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there. All through, it was normal to see young men handing out leaflets outside the Whitechapel Ideas Store saying gays are “evil.” Most people accept them politely.

These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of “tolerance”. The most detailed opinion survey of British Muslims was carried out by Gallup, who correctly predicted the result of the last general election. In their extensive polling, they found literally no British Muslims who would say homosexuality is “morally acceptable.” Every one of the Muslims they polled objected to it. Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences – and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families.

No, Muslims are not the only homophobes among us. But the gap between them and the rest is startling. It’s zero percent of British Muslims vs. 58 percent of other Brits who say we are “acceptable.”

Why does nobody want to talk about this? No, it's not because Muslims have "taken over" Europe, as ludicrous hysterics like Mark Steyn claim. I debunk that nonsense here: Muslims are 3 percent of the population of Europe.

So why the silence? It is true that British Muslims are themselves frequently the victims of bigotry. They are often harassed by the police, denied jobs, and abused in the street, and they are forced to watch as our government senselessly incinerates many Muslims abroad. (I have written many articles detailing and deploring these ugly facts.) So gay people are naturally reluctant to pile in onto minority who are being oppressed. We are rightly sympathetic. We know what it is like to be treated like this. We instinctively respond with solidarity, not suspicion.

But this can easily morph into excuse-making. When there was a wave of vicious gay-bashings in Amsterdam by Morroccan immigrants – ending the city’s easy, hand-holding culture – the gay spokesman for Human Rights Watch, Scott Long, said: “There’s still an extraordinary degree of racism in Dutch society. Gays often becomes victims of this when immigrants retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer.” What? How is it a “retaliation” to beat up a gay couple? What have they done to Muslims? What other human rights abuse would Human Rights Watch make excuses for? Would they say the Burmese junta beats dissidents in order to “retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer”?

When gay people were cruelly oppressed in Britain, we didn’t form gangs to beat up other minorities. We organized democratically and appealed to our fellow citizens’ sense of decency. It’s patronizing – and authentically racist – to treat Muslims as if they are children, or animals, who can only react to their oppression by jeering at or attacking people who have done them no harm, and who they object to because of a book written in the sixth century. Muslims are human beings who can choose not to this. The vast majority, of course, do not attack anyone. But they should go further. They should choose instead to see us as equal human beings, who live and love just like them, and do not deserve scorn and prejudice.

Yes, it is “Muslim culture” today to be bigoted against gay people. It was British culture to be anti-gay thirty years ago. Cultures change. They change all the time. They are not sacred and fixed. They are constantly in motion. But they only change if we admit there is a problem publicly and openly and search for solutions. We should not “respect” the bigotry of Muslims, any more than we would respect the bigotry of Christians or Jews or the Ku Klux Klan. The only consistent and reasonable position is to oppose bigotry against Muslims, and oppose bigotry by Muslims.

Mr. Hari's neighborhood in London is near where these
anti-gay stickers were plastered publicly last fall.

So how do we do it? There are plenty of practical steps. The most crucial is in the school system. Today, schools in Muslim areas like Tower Hamlets are deeply reluctant to explain that homosexuality is a natural and harmless phenomenon that occurs in every human society: they know that many parents will go crazy. Tough. It should be a legal requirement, tightly policed by Ofsted, and any school that refuses should be shut down. Every one of those schools has gay kids who are terrified and isolated and are at a high risk of self-harm or suicide. We need to get simple facts and practical help to them, over the heads of religiously-inspired bigots. No school should be a “faith school”, inspired by medieval holy books that demand death for gay people. Every school should be a safe school for gay children, and every school should educate straight children to live alongside them.

There are other crucial changes. We should be lauding – and funding – the few Muslim groups that are brave and humane enough to take a stand and defend the equality of gay people. They do exist: British Muslims for Secular Democracy is a heroic example. The same goes, even more crucially, for the gay Muslims who have come out and formed groups like Imaan. Only they can show their fellow Muslims that when they advocate discrimination against gay people, they are advocating discrimination against their own sisters and sons, brothers and daughters.

And we need to make it plain that accepting the existence of gay people – and our right to live peacefully and openly – is a non-negotiable British value. In the Netherlands, they now show all new immigrants images of men kissing, and if they object, they tell them they should go and live somewhere else. We should be doing the same – starting with imams, who are almost entirely imported into British mosques at the moment from countries where homosexuality is a crime punished with death.

I believe British Muslims can change. I believe they can accept and love their gay children, just as surely as my parents – who also grew up in horribly homophobic places – accepted and loved me. I think of all the good kind Muslims I met in my years living in Tower Hamlets, and I believe that over time they were capable of understanding that my sexuality is natural and innate and hurts nobody. But it won’t happen if we pretend we “respect” their bigotry, and that it is a legitimate expression of difference. It is not, any more than hating black people was the “legitimate” culture of the Deep South, or Apartheid South Africa.

No, we will not tolerate the idea that we are “immoral” for loving each other. No, we will not tolerate posters declaring East London a “gay free zone.” We will see them as a reason, at last and at least, to end this taboo – and demand much better of our fellow citizens.

Brody's Scribbles... DOMA For Dummies

By Matt Baume (San Francisco, California) FEB 28 | Can you even believe this week?

President Obama ordered an end to the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is huge. We'll check in with Marriage Equality USA's Molly McKay and Immigration Equality's Lavi Solloway about what this unexpected twist means, as well as Dianne Feinstein's surprise announcement about DOMA's repeal.

And the surprises don't stop there. Ted Olson has asked the California Supreme Court to not only expedite oral arguments against Prop Eight, but to also allow gay couples to resume marrying now.

And we all thought Imperial County was out of the picture for good, but a new foe popped up this week at the very last minute.

Brody's Notes... Tennessee GOP Introduce Bill Banning Schools From Ever Saying “Gay”

TN State Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville)

By Eric Ethington (Salt Lake City, Utah) FEB 26 | Two Tennessee GOP legislators have introduced two separate measures, House Bill 229 and Senate Bill 49, which would ban all use in school of the words “gay” or “homosexual” and prohibit faculty members from addressing any LGBT topics whatsoever. The bills introduced in the current session of the Tennessee Legislature spell out how schools can introduce sexuality – and only heterosexuality – to children in the state's school systems. It’s sponsored by State Sen. Stacey Campfield and Rep. Bill Dunn – both Republicans from Knoxville.

“The Don’t Say Gay bill raises all kinds of issues about anti-gay bias, free speech and government overreach,” said Ben Byers with the Tennessee Equality Project.

“It limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom,” Byers said. “It means they can’t talk about gay issues or sexuality even with students who may be gay or have gay family.”

Brody's Scribbles... Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites Gingrich & Beck Over DOMA Enforcement

Newt Gingrich & Glenn Beck are among those on the right who are attacking President Obama claiming he is refusing to enforce DOMA. Lawrence O'Donnell explains the difference of enforcing the law & defending its constitutionality in appeals court.

Brody's Notes... Utah Web Hosting Company Suspends Anti-Gay Website

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 26 | A source at the Utah-based internet website hosting company Bluehost.com speaking on the condition of anonymity acknowledged that the company had temporarily taken down the ChristchurchQuake.net website, after literally thousands of e-mails poured in to complain about the site's anti-gay content in the aftermath of the Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake earlier this week.

The Christian website blamed the Christchurch earthquake on vengeance from God because of the “amoral” behaviour of Gays and Lesbians as the earthquake struck on the day ‘Gay Ski Week’ was to begin in the city.

According to the Senior Editor of GayNZ.com, Jay Bennie, the ChristchurchQuake.net website listed a number of the major incidents that have taken place as a result of the devastating quake and blames them squarely on Gay people.

The website warned Kiwis that they should not “tempt fate and risk another quake.” It said:

“The morning of the Christchurch earthquake was the opening of ‘Gay Ski Week’. The highlight of the week was a party featuring two of NZ’s ugliest and butchest lesbians as the main event in Queenstown. Squadrons of ‘imports’ were to have been brought in for the week — from Sydney’s now booming gay and lesbian area around Oxford St, between the CBD and Kings Cross.”

In an interview with Britain's PinkNews.co.uk's editors, Bennie said;

“I think it’s despicable, I think it’s appallingly insensitive, not only to gays and lesbians but to the suggestion that the people of Christchurch, by embracing gays and lesbians to certain degrees in their society, have brought this upon themselves.
“It’s cruel and vindictive in the city’s hour of need. We are pretty disgusted about it and find it hard to understand how humane people could do this sort of thing,” he said. 

“I would ask them to consider the lives of people in Christchurch and not use tragedy as a further opportunity to stir up hatred against Gay and Lesbian people."

An Associate Professor of History at Massey University in Auckland on New Zealand's North Island, Dr. Peter Lineham told GayNZ.com that:

"This sort of homophobic attitude generally comes from religious people who are subscribing to a Mid-Western USA frame of thought which is fearful of the world. It has its roots in a fear of what they see as a series of evils which are destroying what seems to them to have once been a comfortable 19th century kind of world. They see gays and lesbians as a threat to family life and fear lesbians in particular, as for them all submissiveness to a male authority figure has gone."

Dr.Lineham, who is a recognized expert in the filed of religious studies and whom has for years studied religious movements, told GayNZ.com that LGBTQ person's visibility "is shocking for them, it makes them feel like the world is imploding and feeds into their religious predictions of the end of the world."
The source at BlueHost.com indicated that given the subject matter and as a matter of taste and appropriate content v. non-appropriate content, the company made the decision to suspend the site as it violated its terms of service: (From Bluehost.com TOS)

"Other Activities. Engaging in any activity that, in Bluehost.com's sole and absolute discretion, disrupts, interferes with or is harmful to (or threatens to disrupt, interfere with, or be harmful to) the Services, Bluehost.com's business, operations, reputation, goodwill, Subscribers and/or Subscriber relations, or the ability of Bluehost.com's Subscribers to effectively use the Services is prohibited. Such prohibited activities include making available any program, product or service that is designed to or could be used to violate these Terms. In addition, the failure of Subscriber to cooperate with Bluehost.com in correcting or preventing violations of these Terms by, or that result from the activity of, a subscriber, patron, customer, invitee, visitor, or guest of the Subscriber constitutes a violation of these Terms by Subscriber."

Reactions from the global LGBTQ community have universally condemned the website's content with an ex-pat Kiwi living in Canada noting that he googled the Christchurch quake and up came Christchurchquake.net.

 "Thinking it was some kind council website or something I went to look at it," says Jonathan O'Brien. "The whole site is either some sick joke or a worrying sign of insane bigotry back home."

Brody's Notes... Drug Abuse By Young Gay & Lesbians- New Program May Help Curb Abuse

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) FEB 25 | It's an open dirty secret at virtually every Gay & Lesbian club and venue across the United States that drugs are a constant presence and commodity- in all too many cases, tragically, use of Meth is rising especially by the young.

Now comes a new approach to combat drug abuse pioneered by Deputy Bret King and Deputy Curtis Sanders from the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office in Oregon.

Given that vanity has never been lacking in the Gay community in particular, some experts think that the two Deputies may have hit on something that could actually have a significant impact.

From Drugs to Mugs is a drug education program designed specifically for classroom use in the Northwest and is a collaborative effort that would not have been possible without the input of many dedicated professionals.

The message is clear. Substance abuse will change your life in ways you never imagined. Using before and after photos collected from jail mug shots as the foundation for this 48-minute documentary, the authors easily make their case. The shocking images, taken over time, during the jail booking process, are alarming. The photos clearly illustrate the stark and devastating effects of substance abuse. The program features interviews with incarcerated addicts and experts who encounter the impact of substance abuse on society in their daily work—law enforcement officers, a judge, an addiction recovery specialist and a deputy medical examiner.

The Sheriff's office saw this new approach as a complementary program to the already successful " Faces Of Meth" programme that it had been operating for the past few years.

The Sheriff's office also noted that special thanks were due to Deputy's Bret King and Curtis Sanders who were responsible for research, development, and production of the programme. Revenue generated from the sale of From Drugs to Mugs will be used to cover the costs associated with production and shipping and enable the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office to continue to provide educational visits to the youth in classrooms throughout the Pacific Northwest.

For more information contact Deputy Bret King
Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office
Email: facesofmeth@mcso.us
503-988-4300

Brody's Scribbles... “Day of Dialogue” From Focus On The Family Is Not A Jesus-Action

By Kathy Baldock (Reno, Nevada) FEB 25 | “Oh, I must tell the ‘truth in love’ or they may never hear God’s message.” Cringe. “Truth in love” sure gives us Christians the license to do stupid and offensive things. And, the effect, when we do it to people outside (and inside) our faith community, is often more division.

The one group that never seems to escape our “truth telling focus” is the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community. I actually get quite concerned about any “telling” action used on GLBT people, especially those outside the church.

This may sound entirely heretical to my brethren in the pews. Surely, we must be called by God to tell others that God has a better plan for them, particularly in the issue of their sexuality. And, if we do it kindly, then aren’t we are following the Biblical dictate of “truth in love”?

Not so fast, fellow saint. The verse we lean on for this truth/love license is usually Ephesians 4:15: “Instead, speaking the love in truth, we in all things grow up into Him who is the Head,that is Christ.” Sounds great. Apparently, here is the go-ahead to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, exactly how they are sinning and what they need to do to correct that situation. Problem is, the verse is used completely out of context. Right doctrine (God does want the best for all) but, wrong text.

Ephesians 4:15 is talking about combating lies in the church body, in the doctrine of the church. It is not addressing personal accountability or personal sin. So, using the “truth in love” angle on a gay person outside the church is not inside the context of this verse. Maybe that is why the “truth in love” tactic is not working? Oops, now what to do?

The default Jesus Action is always a good option: love and serve. We are instructed once in the Bible to love our neighbor and told to love strangers and our enemies twenty six times. Our plan for the most part in the past has been: judge and tell. It has not worked and it does not work. So who would then try to export a very defective, non-Biblical program to Christian youth? Focus on the Family would.

A program has been introduced by Focus on the Family (FOTF) called “Day of Dialogue” set for April 18, 2010. Christian high school and college students are encouraged to engage in dialogues on that day with other students about “what the Bible really says about [God’s] redemptive design for marriage and sexuality.” Day of Dialogue follows the next school day after the Day of Silence. Day of Silence was instituted in 1996 by Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to give gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered kids a way to demonstrate the silencing they experience at school from harassment, bias and abuse due to their sexual orientation.

Day of Dialogue was called “Day of Truth” until its rebranding this year. The conversation starter cards from FOTF, pictured here, are nicely designed and seem pleasant enough. They seem cheery and non confrontational. If you’re the giver that is. But, it is the same old rehash of the plan-that-does-not-work-and-is-not-Biblical. Plan is, a young Christian person hands a gay person or a gay ally a card that they will in turn read as: “hey, there is something wrong with the way you view your sexuality, attractions and marriage and I want to tell you the truth as me and God see it.” Oh, and it is done in love, of course.

“No, no, that’s not what it says,” you’ll say. “Look ‘God loves you’ is here, right here and it also says we will stand up for those being bullied.” Further pointing, “Right here.” Nice attempt at rebranding, but the message is still an anti-homosexual message and it will do more damage than benefit to GLBT youth and allies.

Focus on the Family says they have instituted both the Day of Dialogue and the TrueTolerance.org programs “to protect and defend the most vulnerable members of our society-children” from the influx of programs “that promote homosexuality to our kids.” What about the most vulnerable members of our society—gay and trans kids? And, there is a whole bunch of word twisting going on in the goals statement. Day of Silence does not promote homosexuality, it is intended to bring awareness to the issues of inequality and bullying in the treatment of GLBT kids.

Some background. Day of Dialogue/ Day of Truth was established in 2005 by the Alliance Defense Fund (established by Bill Bright, Larry Burkett, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries) and Don Wildmon (American Family Association)). The Alliance Defense Fund established the Day of Dialogue/Day of Truth “to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Ah, there it is. Day of Dialogue is not about God-loves-me-and-you-and-let’s-talk-about-it.

I actually am not impressed by the niceties tossed into the “Get the Conversation Started” card; this program is anti-gay. Dress it up in pretty colors, give it a snappy logo, hip Facebook page and a cheerful video. The goal is still to tell gay kids there is something wrong with them in the eyes of God and that they need to change. And what about the Christian gay kids in our high schools and colleges? They already have a relationship with this “sexuality-fixing God”. There must be something really wrong with them.

How can I possibly read all this into a chipper little conversation starter? By going to the website of Focus on the Family and Day of Dialogue. According to FOTF, gay/trans kids are broken and can’t live out God’s potential for their lives. Nice message for kids to hear right in the prime years of self-doubt and trying to fit in. What a program to push. Youth hurting youth. Not a good plan. Not a God plan. Not a Jesus action.

Oh, and if you want some “fun tips” according to the Day of Dialogue site, why not “consider inviting a local pastor or youth leader”. Okay, I am all for that. Youth leaders are some of the coolest humans I know. But, it does not end there, “or you could invite someone who has experienced homosexuality and walked out of it to share their story. Exodus International (linked) is a good resource for finding possible speakers in your area.” Wow, that sounds like a perfect day at school to me. Let’s take the kids that are feeling like outcasts, are struggling to understand their sexuality and tell them that they are not living to God’s perfect design because of how they were created. (Believe me, these gay and trans kids have spent more hours trying to figure out their sexuality than Christian kids have spent in churches.) Maybe . . . even have an adult that speaks for God tell them that they need to change to please Him and in order to have full relationship with Him. Do you actually think that kid will feel loved? And, back to the original point of this—the Jesus action in treatment of others is to love and serve not to judge and tell.

I would be all for a Day of Listening, not a Day of Lecturing. The Day of Dialogue is a badly veiled extension of anti-gay sentiments from a conservative family group extended to our Christian youth and unleashed on our GLBT youth. Listening builds relationships but I cannot imagine that FOTF would ever promote a Day of Listening because it would then minimally validate the existence of gay kids as part of God’s design and creation. It would also allow room at the Table for gay Christians kids.

If you are a Christian high school or college student reading this, consider a different tact. Ask questions of the kids you see participate in Day of Silence or, of those that are openly identifying as GLBT or allies. When did they know they were gay, is it tough to deal with the pressures of other kids and family, what is their experience with God/Christians? And, the most important question of all—what can I do for you?

The assumption is that most of the GLBT kids that would be approached are not in faith communities (because we do not welcome them there for the most part.) Remember, there are already plenty of gay kids in church youth groups and they have struggled for years to reconcile faith and orientation (the average age of realizing orientation in 14). Even considering the Day of Dialogue program as an outreach in a youth group will further alienate gay kids in the church. Be respectful enough to understand that they know far more about what it feels like to be gay and Christian than the straight youth and leaders ever will. Ask questions and listen. No lecturing, shut your mouths and listen. That is love. Telling someone the “truth in love” is rife with problems: it is your truth, it will rarely be felt as love and Eph. 4:15, remember, is not about personal sin or accountability. If you must have a go-to verse to tell them about the sin you perceive in their lives, use Galatians 6:1 and focus on the word gently. Then, listen some more. Better yet, focus on your own sin and put some more energy into serving.

And, to Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund—what the heck are you doing? Asking the Christian youth to do your anti-gay work? There is nothing wrong with sharing faith, but targeting GLBT youth? Sure, you have added a few nice words in the website and conversation cards, but this program is anti-gay, and worse yet, anti-gay youth! Don’t speak out of both sides of your mouth. You can’t both care about “the most vulnerable members of our society-children” and then target the most vulnerable of the vulnerable—the gay kids.

Forget the argument that “we” get to respond to Day of Silence which you say “promotes homosexuality to our kids.” Christians are called to love and serve. Christians are supposed to be the bigger people, not reacting in kind, not the ones, thumb on nose, fingers wiggling and saying “ ne-ner, ne-ner, ne-ner”. Come on, Focus on the Family. The youth today are not like you were; they are more accepting of different kinds of people. And they are more compassionate and loyal in their alliances. Stop giving the youth more reason to not walk in church doors. Let all come unto Him, just as they are, just as you were. The God I serve is big enough to deal with sexual orientation if He wants to. Gosh, He deals with our problems; give Him some credit and stop blocking the Throne.

Plenty of straight, educated, God-loving, Jesus-following, child-bearing and protecting, Bible reading, Spirit-filled Christians (me included) do not think that “family” organizations like Focus on the Family are telling the truth about gay and trans people. I believe gay kids are just as valuable in the eyes of Jesus as straight kids are. I believe they are just as able to have a full and intimate relationship with God as straight kids are. I believe gay kids are not broken and do not need to change their sexual orientation. I believe all kids can benefit positively from the knowledge that God knows them and cares for them. To segment kids out and tell them they have to change their orientation is man’s truth.

Many of us do not translate the five words in Scripture that are written in most translations as “homosexual”. We have Bibles too and we too have gone to the Greek and Hebrew and context and see a complete misuse of God’s Word that damages an entire segment of His creation. If you are concerned about this inappropriate action against GLBT youth and their allies, tell Focus on the Family to stop. Especially is you are a straight Christian parent and ally, let your concerns be heard.

Please, just let Day of Dialogue go away. It is not a Jesus-action on so many levels and it will only bring more pain, more division and more alienation from God. And, it will be done in His holy, loving, merciful Name. Yuck!

Brody's Notes... Equality Matters- Alan Keyes Tells The Right Allowing Gays To Marry Is Like Granting The Right To Own Slaves

Seth Michaels from Equality Matters sends this from today's edition of the World Net Daily from Alan Keyes' February 25th column:

"Government doesn't endow people with the ability to procreate the species. The Creator takes care of that. Like all unalienable rights, those associated with the natural family exist in consequence of this endowment. A couple that cannot, by nature, procreate has no claim to those rights. Nor can government grant them a semblance of it without impairing the claims of one or both of the parents biologically implicated in the physical conception of the child. The DOMA simply makes more explicit the government's obligation to secure the Creator-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. This obligation precludes government from fabricating other rights that impair them. In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves."

Guest Editorial: The Gay Marriage Debate Has Changed

The following views are from the editors of The Baltimore Sun newspaper:

Our view: Equal rights for same-sex couples will come, in Maryland and the nation

By Editors The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Maryland) FEB 25 | The Maryland Senate voted last night to remove one of the most glaring vestiges of discrimination from state law by supporting the Civil Marriage Protection Act. That is a crucial step in the direction of equal rights for all, not because it guarantees that this particular piece of legislation will remove the prohibition against same-sex marriage — that is still far from assured — but because of the context in which the vote was taken.

It came a day after President Barack Obama announced that his administration had concluded that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, a step that could one day lead to the federal recognition of same-sex marriages and all the benefits that entails. And it came after a debate that was markedly civil and empty of overt homophobia. Whatever happens to the Civil Marriage Protection Act in the House of Delegates or at the ballot box, if and when it is petitioned to referendum, the events of this week show that society's views on homosexuality have inexorably changed.

When the minority leader of the Senate, Nancy Jacobs of Harford County, acknowledged in her argument against same-sex marriage that "love between persons" — including those of the same sex — "is a wonderful thing," times have changed.

When another Republican, Sen. Allan Kittleman of Howard County, stood to support the legislation, saying "It took me a while to get where I am, but I am here because I believe in equal rights," times have changed.

When Republican Sen. Christopher Shank of Washington County stood to object to the legislation not because homosexuality is wrong but because the bill did not afford sufficient protection for wedding photographers and the like who have religious objections to gay marriage, times have changed.

When Republican Sen. E.J. Pipkin of the Eastern Shore said he would vote against the bill — not because he objects to gay marriage, necessarily, but because he would prefer an interim step of allowing civil unions — times have changed.

When a Maryland state senator, Richard Madaleno of Montgomery County, stood on the Senate floor and told the story of his marriage — unrecognized in Maryland — to his husband, Mark, times have changed.

The closest the debate came to the hysteria that has accompanied previous efforts to guarantee equal rights for gays was a warning by Sen. Bryan Simonaire, an Anne Arundel County Republican, that allowing gay marriages would somehow diminish opposite-sex marriages and that it would lead to the "homosexual world view" being taught in schools. But more common was the matter-of-fact appraisal offered by Sen. Ronald Young, a newly elected Democrat from Frederick County, that it's simply "fair and right." He added: "If I lose an election over this vote, so what?"

The very nature of the discussion shows just how far the nation has come since the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted and lends support to the reasoning Attorney General Eric Holder employed in a notice to Congress that the administration would no longer defend the law's ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It was not tenable, he wrote, for the administration to defend it given that the record of the congressional debate on the law "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Indeed, moral disapproval of gays is noticeably diminished in mainstream political discourse on the national and state levels. House Speaker John Boehner mustered an objection to the president's new stance on the Defense of Marriage Act not because homosexuality is wrong but because it was a distraction from the important matters of the economy and the budget deficit. Similarly, the debate in the Maryland Senate has focused less on homosexuality than on the state's reasons for sanctioning marriage in general.

Neither the vote in the Maryland Senate nor the president's announcement about the Defense of Marriage Act immediately changes anything. On both the state and federal level, the issue will surely see more advances and setbacks before it is settled for good. But the nature of the debate is critical. If the notion that homosexuality is immoral is removed from the equation, the rationale for denying same-sex couples the right to marry becomes untenably strained. History may or may not record Feb. 24 as the pivotal date for equal rights in Maryland, but it is increasingly clear that the day will come.

Brody's Notes... Fox Pundit Mike Huckabee Tells CNN Gay Parenthood Is A Social Experiment

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 25 | In a sit down interview with CNN's John King yesterday, former Arkansas governor & current Fox News pundit, Mike Huckabee, said that in his just released new book, he felt Gay parenthood was a social experiment and that the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell by President Obama was a failed decision. He went on to criticize the president for telling U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder to quit defending DOMA as an illegal act.

"I believe that we're in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood," from Huckabee's just released book.

Video:

Brody's Notes... Maryland Senate Votes To Pass Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By Linsey Pecikonis (Annapolis, Maryland) FEB 24 | Maryland's State Senate voted 25 - 21 to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act. The bill now moves to the Democratic controlled House of Delegates, where approval is anticipated. Governor Martin O’Malley (D) has pledged to sign the bill.
.

Brody's Notes... DOMA Rally In The Castro- Dan Choi, Molly McKay, Andrea Shorter, & John Lewis

By Matt Baume (San Francisco, California) FEB 24 | Yesterday I attended a rally in the Castro after the stunning news that President Obama will stop defending the federal ban on recognizing gay couples' marriages. Here's the footage I shot:

Brody's Notes... Former New Jersey Judge Says President Did Taxpayers A Favor On DOMA Decision

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 24 | Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now conservative legal commentator and analyst for FOX News, Andrew Napolitano, said that yesterday's decision by the Obama administration to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the pending court actions was doing the taxpayers a "favor."

“The government is actually doing the taxpayers a favor and doing the courts a favor and doing the voters a favor by saying, ‘We can’t defend it any longer,’” Napolitano said.

Judge Napolitano pointed out that since DOMA has already been declared unconstitutional by at least one federal judge, yesterday's decision by the president ordering the Justice Department not to defend the law effectively renders it non-existent during the remaining term of the Obama Administration, unless angered conservatives in Congress propose either an alternative or mount an attempt to defend the law.

Brody's Notes... Hawaii Governor Signs Civil Unions Bill Into Law

Washington Place, Honolulu, Hawaii

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) FEB 23 | Appearing before a large crowd at the Washington Place, the last official residence of Hawaii's monarchy, Governor Neil Abercrombie, (D) told the crowd of supporters of the civil unions measure that signing the measure granting same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law, says to all the world that everyone is welcome.

“E Komo Mai: It means all are welcome,” Abercrombie said in remarks before signing the bill into law. This signing today of this measure says to all of the world that they are welcome. That everyone is a brother or sister here in paradise. The legalization of civil unions in Hawaii represents in my mind equal rights for all people,” he said.

The Governor paid special tribute to the state's legislative branch in particular the Judiciary committees of both houses after which point the crowd clapped enthusiastically in a show of mutual appreciation.

The governor acknowledged that the road to passage of the measure was difficult but that it showed that the very diversified nature of the islands was key to the success of the bill's passage.

He told the crowd that he was pleased that everyone that was involved had gotten to express their viewpoints and then invited the state's Lieutenant Governor, Brian Schatz, along with the Senate Majority Leader Shan Tsutsui, (D) and House Majority leader Blake Oshiro, (D) to join him at the desk for the bill's signature.  As he signed the bill Governor Abercrombie joked about the fact that he had common everyday variety pens to sign the measure which he said showed that there were no special interests involved.

Brody's Journal... Associated Press: White House- Obama 'Grappling' With Gay Marriage

Brody's Notes... Iowa Republicans Propose Measure To Prohibit State Supreme Court From Ruling On Marriage

By Mark Singer (Washington DC) FEB 23 | GOP lawmakers in Iowa's House are putting forward House File 330, which specifically says that the state's County recorders would be prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until a public vote on a constitutional amendment is passed and additionally that the state's Supreme Court would not be able to prohibit or restrict the law if the bill were passed.

The measure is sponsored by Representative Glen Massie, (R- Des Moines) who told the Des Moines Register newspaper that his ambition behind the bill is to advocate Judeo Christian ethics as law.

Glen Massie

“The Republic is ruled by law. Now the question is from what source do those laws come,” he said. Massie continued: “Everything I do in this building I look at as: I swore an oath to a supreme creator to uphold his law. I know that’s something more of a lecture but I want you to know where I come from. Is this guy just another religious Bible-thumping nut or do I have some reasoning for my thoughts? Historically, I think I have some reasoning for my thoughts.”

Massie was joined by fellow Republican lawmakers,  Dwayne Alons( R-Hull), Tom Shaw, (R-Laurens), Kim Pearson, (R-Pleasant Hill),  Royd Chambers, (R-Sheldon) and Betty De Boef, (R- What Cheer).

The Register notes that review of laws by the Supreme Court is one of the fundamental pieces of Iowa’s checks and balances system.

However, there is a provision in the Iowa Constitution (Article 5, Section 4) that allows lawmakers the ability to make laws that skip Supreme Court review, noted Drake Law Professor Ian Bartrum.

“It’s technically probably constitutional but it’s a pretty rare and radical step and probably an ill-advised one,” said Bartrum. “I think this is a knee-jerk reaction. They say, we have this power and they don’t think about what this means to the outcome on the ground.”

That outcome: Iowa families could appeal a recorder’s decision in trial courts but those decisions would not be able to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

It would make the lower courts ruling final and it would also set up the likelihood that Iowa would have pockets of the state were the law was recognized and others were it was thrown out.

“I think the result is that you would have a hodgepodge of rulings across the state,” Bartrum said. “It would depend on whatever the local district judge thought because were would be no uniform appeal.”

Carolyn Jenison, executive director of One Iowa said:

“The Iowa House is leading us toward a constitutional crisis. Not only does this bill attempt to bypass the rules guiding the amendment process but also attempts to strip authority from Iowa’s top court.”

The GOP legislative efforts this session attempting to restrict same-sex marriage rights face uncertain outcomes. The state senate has a narrow majority Democratic control and Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, (D-Council Bluffs) has vowed to block any such measure.