Cyclists Lose a Round

Last summer I wrote about Black Hawk's cycling ban. The news since then hasn't been good for cyclists.

In 2009, the Black Hawk Board of Aldermen passed a law giving them the right to ignore state traffic regulations and prohibit bicycles within their city. In 2010, they passed a law banning cycling on most Black Hawk streets.

Several cyclists were ticketed under the ordinance, including three cyclists on a loop from Golden through Idaho Springs, Central City, Black Hawk and back to Golden. They were ticketed for riding on Gregory Street, the only road connecting Central City to Black Hawk.

The cyclists challenged their tickets, arguing the ordinance is a violation of state law. Their arguments are many and convincing.


[more]

Does Why Matter?

A pair of recent local convictions brought up the issue of how laws against bias-motivated crime relate to free speech protections.

Joseph Coy was convicted of both second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime for his racially motivated attack on Nigerian CU student Oluyibi Ogundipe. Zachery Harris was convicted of bias-motivated harassment for using racial slurs against Ogundipe and his Saudi friend, Ahmad Abdulkareem.

The First Amendment was designed to protect expression that may not be popular, even expression that makes people angry. Yet, even the Supreme Court has ruled that it has limits. Some speech may be regulated within the confines of free speech.

Coy won the lottery with his two-for-the-price-of-one crime. Clearly, there was evidence to convict him of the assault. Was the bias-motivation a separate crime, worth doubling his punishment?


[more]

An Uncivil Union

There's no doubt in my mind that the opposition to the recently defeated civil unions bill was based in one group's need to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us.

There is no other explanation for the fervor of the testimony against the bill given by the largely religious groups. There is no other explanation for the obsession with protecting their tradition and their definition of a single word. And there is no other explanation for what I believe is the clear violation of the oath each member of the legislature took to support the Constitution of the United States.

These opponents can't stand the idea that somebody else is getting married in a way different than what their religion supports, and civil unions are just too darn close for their comfort.


[more]

The Big Cheese Stands Alone

One thing clear in the Wisconsin budget kerfuffle is that it's not about the budget.

If it were about the budget, when the unions and Democrats offered to accept all of the proposed financial concessions the Republicans would have jumped on the opportunity.

If it were about the budget, those concessions would have included all public unions, not just the ones that supported the Democrats in the most recent election.

If it were about the budget, the Governor's plan wouldn't include the ability for the state to sell off its power, heating, and cooling plants to whomever they chose, for as much or as little as they choose, without so much as a competitive bid.

If it were about the budget, it would not have followed on the heels of major corporate tax cuts.

No, the proposal to disempower public unions is a political move, a way to leverage Wisconsin's budget problems to accomplish long-term Republican goals.


[more]

Talking the Talk

A few months ago, I wrote that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party darlings were fanning dangerous flames with their violent imagery, but that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so.

I also predicted the public would lose its sympathy for Tea Partiers after an event like Tucson's assassination attempt.

It's too soon to say whether my prediction will come true. However, it is clear there's been a backlash, in the form of calls for "civility." I'm opposed to those calls.

It's not that I'm opposed to civility. I'm not. Civility is greatly underrated.

But the principle of free speech is a foundation of this country. The way to protect against speech you don't like is not to tell people to shut up. It's to make a convincing argument why they are wrong.


[more]

Actors in the New Security Theater

According to one rumor, former Idaho Senator Larry Craig originally recommended the recent changes in airport screening processes. Perhaps now he won't have to go to the airport men's room to satisfy his alleged needs.

Craig's self-reported "wide stance" may prove useful in the new full-body scanners. However, he might opt out in favor of the enhanced pat-down, maybe even requesting that it be performed in a private room.

I can't fully report in this family publication, but many refer online to the scanners based on their ability to determine the size of parts of the anatomy commonly shielded from view, and to the pat-downs using the name of a location on a baseball diamond.

The resistance to the new procedures is widespread among some travelers. No wonder: you stand with your legs spread wide, and someone runs his or her hand up your leg until "meeting resistance."

Many others are stoically accepting the changes.

But is there a third group, people who actually enjoy the sanctioned public exhibitionism and groping?


[more]

Scary Monsters

The Republicans have been working on their Halloween costumes for weeks. This year they are dressing as Founding Fathers.

Last month they introduced their "Pledge to America," giving the rest of us a frightening vision of their costume.

The basis for this pledge is the idea that the citizens of this country do not consent to our government and its actions. It echoes back to the Declaration's explicit dissolution of our bounds to Britain. Why is that frightening? Our nation is a representative democracy that depends on peaceful elections and transitions of power. Talk of revolution pretends that process is optional.

It's not. That process has held this country together for over 220 years.

[more]

Arizona, Take Off Your Rainbow Shades

A month ago, Arizona passed a law requiring all police officers in that state to determine the immigration status of anyone they came into contact with if they had "reasonable suspicion" that their presence in the U.S. was not legitimate.

Of course, we liberals and civil liberty huggers were up in arms. That law was clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, an obvious attempt to add security at the expense of the constitution and our personal freedoms.

I'm not talking about the personal freedoms of illegal immigrants. I'm not even talking about legal immigrants, who are already required by law to carry their papers at all times (as the law's proponents are so quick to remind us). I'm referring to the personal freedoms of legal citizens.

[more]

Terrorist Cell Phonies

By U.S. law, "terrorism" is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." But ask 100 people and you`ll get 50 different definitions. One man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter. As Justice Potter Stewart said regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Just as most Muslims don`t want to blow up airplanes and most anti-abortion advocates don`t want to kill abortion doctors, plenty of people who are sympathetic with the Tea Party goals condemn violence in furtherance of those goals. Clearly, membership in these groups is not sufficient to earn a label as a terrorist. The Tea Party movement is not a terrorist group.

But something scary is going on.

[more]

Free Speech Means Just That

A couple of recent incidents in Boulder illustrate just how fragile free speech guarantees are.

Seth Brigham, local activist, was first interrupted and then arrested when it appeared he was about to criticize a couple of council members during the public participation portion of a city council meeting. Fortunately, the charges were dropped, and council apologized. But there are still some on council who think the actions against Seth were legitimate. Council needs to immediately change the rules so that complaining about a particular council member during public participation is not against public policy.

Second, the local Catholic school told the lesbian parents of two students that they would not be allowed to re-enroll the children because of their homosexual relationship. Many in the community have taken the church to task for this decision.

Some have accused the complainers of being "intolerant". (Never mind that these people are themselves being intolerant of the complainers.) Since when has the right to free speech been limited to things that don't hurt someone's feelings?

Strange Bedfellows in San Francisco

If you think you understand the gay marriage issue, what is happening in a federal court in California may surprise you. Under the limelight of that court, many are retreating or changing their stories.

Opponents of California`s Proposition 8, the amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage, have brought suit in U.S. District Court on the grounds that it violates the rights of gays under the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Vaughn Walker attempted to put the trial on YouTube, which would have been a first. However, the U.S. Supreme Court put a swift end to that idea.

[more]

(I Can't Gitmo) Satisfaction

Fortunately for our nation's interrogators, Gitmo is in no-man's land. If it were in the United States, there would the pesky problem of our Constitution and laws. If it were in some other country, the problem would be that country's rules.

When the U.S. government built the prison at Guantanamo Bay, they cleverly put it in part of Cuba that's not part of Cuba. President Teddy Roosevelt won it in 1903 from the first president of Cuba in a card game in which he wagered $24 in cigars.

[more]

The People v. Free Exercise of Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states." -- Defense of Marriage Act

Congress is prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion, yet an act of Congress invalidates Fran and Anna Simon's Jewish wedding -- sanctified by Rabbi Jamie Korngold. [more]

This is part 2 in a 3-part series. Read part 1.

How We Change Hearts and Minds

When Rabbi Jamie Korngold married Fran and Anna Simon in 2005, she made sure all present understood that the marriage had no legal standing.

According to Anna, "That was a surprise to many people." But, according to Fran, the wedding "really affirmed our relationship in their eyes, particularly the people closest to us."[more]

This is part 1 in a 3 part series.

Photo By: Peggy Dyer, www.peggydyer.com

Have You been Propositioned?

Fourteen simple words:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

And with those words, and the vote of 52.2% of the voters in California, the rights of roughly 120,000 people to wed in that state (estimated for three years) were taken away.

But shouldn't the wishes of the majority be respected? The voters in California (along with Colorado and 28 other states) have spoken. Well consider these very first words from the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

As well as the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clearly the U.S. Constitution has the authority to overrule any state's individual constitution and statutory code. Clearly the freedom from establishment of religion and the right to free exercise qualify as "privileges" and "immunities" under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that states cannot abridge these rights. And clearly, equal protection of the laws means that one class of people can't be subject to one set of laws while another group is subject to another.

Here's an analogy: The majority of the citizens of the State of Utah are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons have a number of beliefs and practices that are not necessarily adhered to by the majority of other members of society. For example, it is against Mormon law to have premarital sex, masturbate, view pornography, or have sexual fantasies. They also believe it is wrong to consume coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol.

There is nothing wrong with those beliefs. But suppose they were to put them on the ballot in Utah, and because Mormons have a majority in that state they were able get these aspects of their religion passed as state law. Because a majority believe it, it would be illegal to have a sexual fantasy or drink a cup of coffee.

How many people would consider that a violation of the principle of separation of church and state? How many people would be up in arms about their inability to get a cup of Starbucks, or watch just about any network television program?

Now, consider what has happened with gay marriage. Marriage is clearly a profoundly religious issue. A large percentage of weddings are performed by religious officials and/or in religious facilities. It is considered a sacred bond, and many religions speak out loudly on issues related to marriage. To many, gay marriage is an abomination. To others, it is a sacred celebration of love.

Although many weddings and unions are purely civil and secular, they cannot be separated from religion. In fact, ministers have been arrested for performing gay weddings.

That's right, they have been arrested for freely exercising their religion, something that is spelled out clearly as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights.

When our country was formed, the founding fathers had the idea that there were certain rights that are so basic that they cannot ever be taken away by the government. Not by Congress. Not by majority rule. Not by any individual state.

When gay marriage is allowed, its opponents lose nothing, except for the comfort of knowing that gay weddings are not taking place. But when gay marriage is banned, an entire class of people lose out on the sacred, emotional, financial, and other benefits of this institution. And that just isn't right.

One of these days, this issue will be brought in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as a First and Fourteenth Amendment issue, and I don't see how they could come to any other decision.

A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small -- Colorado 2008 Amendment 48

Amendment 48 was written for one reason -- to outlaw abortion. It tries to do this by defining the term "person" in certain sections of the Colorado Bill of Rights as "any human being from the moment of fertilization".

A couple of very basic problems with this approach. First of all, Roe vs. Wade was decided based on the U.S. Constitution. Changing a term in one state's constitution won't change that one bit.

Second, this definition is circular. According to my understanding of the terms, a person is a human being and a human being is a person. If I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person, I certainly won't acknowledge that it is a human being. Therefore, this entire definition is either redundant or illogical.

There are plenty more problems. For example, the moment of fertilization is unknowable. There is no way to tell if one of these brand new people even exists, and therefore no way to guarantee its (his or her) rights.

People have been struggling with the definition of "person" for thousands of years. Philosophers, religious leaders, legal experts, everybody has an opinion. Science fiction writers have struggled with the question of whether robots, androids, and extra-terrestrials qualify. Some animal ethicists argue that great apes should have the rights of people. When is the start of life? When is the end of life?

Why is this the realm of the State of Colorado to define, and not the role of each "person" to define for himself or herself?

Suppose this amendment passes. About 50,000 babies are born in Colorado every 9 months. That would be 50,000 people immediately added to our population. How are we going to perform a census to catch all of these new people? Does this one percent increase get translated into the right to an additional Representative to Congress, and if so how would that be fair to the other states?

The Colorado Bill of Rights does not currently define "person", although it is defined elsewhere in the Colorado code. For example, it's not currently considered murder unless you kill a born person. Presumably, every place in the Colorado code that mentions "person" would be impacted by this. Has anybody done the analysis, to determine which laws now apply to 50,000 more people?

This amendment only applies to three specific sections of the Bill of Rights. Who decided which ones and how did they decide? Why wouldn't they have included the entire thing? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Let's look at the specific sections that would be impacted:

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

So now a fertilized egg has the right to enjoy and defend its life. How? Do the supporters of this measure really believe that a newly fertilized egg can enjoy anything or defend itself? Are we going to provide them with teeny tiny knives to use in this self defense?

What about acquiring, possessing, and protecting property? Has anybody thought about the impact of allowing a fertilized egg to own property? What impact does this have on inheritance law?

How the heck is a fertilized egg going to seek out its safety and happiness?

Now the supporters will no doubt argue that the state will have the right and duty to protect the safety, happiness, life, and liberty of this newly anointed person. But who is speaking up for this entity and what it wants (as if "want" is even relevant)?

And, given that this fertilized egg is now a person, think of all the things that immediately become crimes against a person. The morning after pill, for one, is murder (a conspiracy between the pregnant woman and her doctor). If a pregnant woman drinks an alcoholic beverage she is committing child abuse. In fact, if a pregnant woman has sex, she and her partner are committing child sexual abuse, and will have to have their names added to that of other sex offenders.

Oh, and forget about in vitro fertilization or stem cell research. Those poor little people will be taking the doctors and researchers to court for damages.

Here's another:

Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

So now a wronged fertilized egg can take you to court. Presumably that egg will not be taking the stand on its own behalf, so the concept of being able to face your accuser will require significant reinterpretation.

There will have to be a whole new bureaucracy added to the state and all local governments to provide legal and medical protection to all of these otherwise defenseless people. How much will that cost?

And finally:

Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

That's comforting. If someone were to, say, imprison this "person" for nine months, that kidnapper would have to have a court order.

What about all the rights that these new "people" wouldn't have, because the new definition only applies to those three identified sections of the Colorado Bill of Rights? They wouldn't have the right to determine the form of government, which I guess means they can't vote. I don't know how they would use those new electronic voting machines anyway. No religious freedom. This should be comforting to the supporters of this measure in that they will be able to impose their religious beliefs on their spawn without consequence. (They already feel comfortable imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of us anyway.) No speedy trials. No requirement for search warrants. No protection of their estates if they commit treason. No freedom of speech or press. No right to assemble (sorry, that means no twins) or petition. No right to bear arms. (So much for those teeny tiny knives.) No protection against eminent domain. No habeas corpus. No equality of the sexes. (Even for a fertilized egg? How can you even tell?) No prohibition of slavery. Yes, you can legally make a fetus work for you without compensation! And so on.

How ridiculous.

As you have guessed, I'm opposed to this measure.

Vote NO on Amendment 48.

Protecting the State Constitution -- Colorado 2008 Referendum O

I have often whined about how easy it is for a group of disgruntled citizens to get a change into the Colorado State Constitution, and how hard it is to modify what they've done afterwards. In fact, our state's constitution is among the easiest to change. It is just as easy to change this guiding document as it is to make changes to our statutory laws. And once those changes have been made, they cannot be undone (or even slightly tuned up) without going back to the voters.

As an illustration of the problem, of the 14 initiatives on the ballot this year, 11 are written as amendments to the constitution, while only 2 of them really belong there. No wonder -- if you really believe in your idea, wouldn't you rather make it incredibly hard to change once it is approved?

This is also a reason why I sometimes vote against measures that I would otherwise agree with. Putting even a good idea in the constitution is a bad idea if it is something that might need to be revisited over time.

Referendum O is an attempt by the state legislature to fix these problems. It does this by making it easier to get a statutory initiative on the ballot and harder to get a constitutional initiative on the ballot. Provisions include:

• The number of signatures required to get a statutory initiative on the ballot will be decreased, while the number required for a constitutional initiative will be increased.
• For constitutional initiatives only, a significant proportion of the signatures must be collected from every congressional district in the state, ensuring that it has broad appeal.
• Drafts of constitutional initiatives will be required to be submitted earlier in the election cycle, while providing more time for collection of signatures for statutory initiatives.
• Statutory initiatives will be protected, once passed, from any changes by the state legislature for five years, unless there is a 2/3 vote. This hopefully will give initiators comfort that their good idea won't be immediately undone if they go the statutory route.
• Public comment will be allowed on proposed initiatives at public meetings held after the draft proposal is submitted. The goal is to identify problems and unintended consequences before the proposed ballot measure is finalized.

Given the many issues caused by the ease of amending our state constitution, I enthusiastically support this measure.

Vote YES on Referendum O.

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

Why'd He Do It?

On my run today, I came upon a dead skunk in the middle of the trail, so far decomposed it no longer smelled. On the way back, I stopped to watched a green snake slithering through the grass.

No particular reason, but I started thinking about Senator McCain's presidential campaign. Have you seen any of his ads? I generally TiVo through them, but occasionally I can't, and I get to see how he's positioning himself for the biggest job in the world. And that is: By insulting his opponent and telling tales that are so close to being lies that the camera has to focus high on his face to not show the smoke curling from his pants when he approves the ads.

You know I used to have quite a bit of respect for the Arizona Senator, back when he really seemed willing to stand up to people on both sides of the political fence. He used to think the fundamentalist right was an evil influence on politics. Then he actively sought out the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who actually is working towards nuclear war with Iran so that Israel will be destroyed and he (Hagee) can proceed directly to Heaven without having to pass Go. He promised to nominate Supreme Court justices that would vote for evangelical causes. And then he went and selected fundamentalist Gov. Palin as his running mate.

Why did he pick her? Well, my theory is that he had to do something drastic to stop Obama's convention momentum. Democratic excitement, and the biggest on-site and television audience in political convention history, and all that stopped cold by talk about Sarah. Perhaps a good short-term decision, but he's going to have to live with this longer term.

And speaking of Palin, what's up with her idea of teaching creationism in public schools? Suppose we did just that, put intelligent design on the high school science curriculum right next to evolution. To be intellectually honest, we would have to hold it up to the light and point out all the flaws in this so-called scientific theory. If you are a supporter of evolution (and who isn't), that might be intellectually satisfying. But, if actively supporting a specific religion in public school is unconstitutional (as it surely is), then actively pointing out the flaws in a specific religion is just as unconstitutional. Therefore, the science teacher would be prevented from saying anything negative about intelligent design, which would completely defeat the purpose of the "science" part of the science class.

Not to mention putting all those kids in the middle of the controversy, making them pawns in some religio-political battle. No, that should be done at home.

Fighting the Establishment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."

What does this mean? Fundamentally, it means that Congress (and, by the Incorporation Doctrine, state and local governments) can't give preferential treatment to the ideas of one religion over another, without a clear secular purpose. This was in direct response by the founders to the naming of the Church of England as the official religion of England and its colonies.

What clearer violation of this principle could there be than laws preventing gay marriage?

Think of it this way. Certain religions consider gay sex (and by extension gay marriage) to be a sin. Other religions do not, and in fact would be performing gay marriages today if they could. (And they do in Massachusetts and California.) Even though it may be the majority opinion that gay marriage is "wrong", that does not eliminate the protection of the First Amendment rights of those whose religious beliefs include sanctifying gay marriage.

And it is not just the establishment clause. The First Amendment also prevents our government from prohibiting free exercise of religion. When ministers are arrested for performing a religious ceremony (gay marriage), there is no doubt that this right has been infringed.

So, is there a secular purpose to banning gay marriage that can be used to overcome this objection?

What about the argument that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is best for children? That is a completely bogus argument. This is about marriage not about child rearing. If this were true, then gay marriage opponents should be working to ban gay adoption and gay artificial insemination. Indeed, many of the same people who are so worried about the children in this instance would not dream of imposing government will on parents to protect them in other instances where the science is more clear -- banning parents from smoking and drinking, banning parents from serving soft drinks to their kids, etc.

But the more fundamental reason that argument is flawed is that it is not equally applied. Many people marry and never have children or ever intend to (including me). Think of the elderly people that remarry long after child-bearing years. That's clearly not in the interest of the children they will never have, but we allow it anyway. But by the anti-gay marriage argument, all of our marriages should have been prevented because they will not result in children, the only valid reason for marriage.

Another argument that is often offered is to protect the word, the sanctity, or the tradition of marriage. Well, these arguments come perilously close to being explicitly religious in nature, which goes against our quest for a secular rationale. For what other word are we willing to sacrifice the rights of an entire class of citizens?

Plus, if you honestly check other cultures and traditions past and present, in this country and elsewhere in the world, you will find many other interpretations of the traditions around marriage, many of which are contrary to the beliefs of the majority here today. For example, in the Native American tradition, gays were accepted, even revered, and would often marry members of their own gender.

What about the concern that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage? In what way? Nobody would be forced to marry anybody they don't want to, no church would be forced to perform gay marriages, and no existing marriages would be affected in any conceivable way. This argument loses me completely.

It is claimed that gays are trying to force their agenda on everyone else. But who is forcing anything on anybody? It seems to me that the people who are being prevented from marrying are the only ones being imposed upon.

Colorado is one of the states in which gays are explicitly prevented form marrying. It's now in the state constitution. It really makes me wonder how so many people can fail to understand something so clear as the First Amendment.