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?

Changing Attitudes -- Time is on our Side

Researcher Fran Simon of Denver is a lesbian woman, married in every sense of the word except legally.

Working for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Simon authored a Harris Interactive study last November that explored attitudes of Colorado residents toward LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues, including gay marriage.
[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.

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.

Torture Me, Br'er Judge, But Don't Fling Me in that Virgin Patch

The man known as KSM and four of his good buddies all want to die. No, they're not depressed, they're giddy. They are not suicidal. Rather, they want to be rewarded for pulling a fast one over on all us evil Americans, and sent directly on the fast train to heaven.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his cohorts are responsible for plotting the 9/11 mass murders. They are still greatly pleased with how that turned out. They will never be repentant. They are the picture of evil, and given the chance would do as much additional damage as they could. If convicted of their crimes, shouldn't they be put to death?

Think of it this way. In their belief system, as warriors for their evil cause there is no greater reward that to become a martyr. Giving them death penalty would be rewarding them for their actions. Not only that, we would be sending the message to potential recruits to their cause that even if they are captured they could become martyrs. What greater recruiting tool could there be?

So, if giving them the death penalty would reward them for their actions, would help recruit people to their cause, and would cause many people in the civilized world to feel more sympathetic towards them, what should we do to them instead if they are convicted?

Simple. Lock each one of them up in a small, dark room and don't let them out. Give them each a mattress to sleep on, a Koran, and a daily kosher meal. That's it. If there is particularly good news in the fight against their buddies, slip them a copy of the news, but nothing else. No other news would flow in or out. Make sure they get good health care, so they live long, unproductive lives. And give the Red Cross access to make sure they are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated. Let them fade away and out of everybody's mind. But make sure recent pictures are always available, so that the world knows what a man in permanent, earned solitary confinement looks like.

Speaking of torture, it's pretty clear that KSM and his gang were interrogated using "enhanced" techniques. What's up with that? Even if they got a confession (which they did), and even if it was legitimate, the judge (along with the rest of the world) is going to have to consider the validity of that confession, throwing the entire prosecution into question. What if we can't convict these evil people because their confessions were coerced illegally? Do we then let them go? Or continue to hold them without convicting them? This leads to some very bad options. Even if they are successfully convicted, many will not accept it because of the torture allegations. Why does our government insist on putting the punishment and imprisonment of these horrible people at risk? Why must they take a positive thing (capturing known terrorists) into a negative (we had to torture a so-called confession out of these people) with our own allies?

These actions are unconscionable and we should demand more responsible behavior from the people we trust to keep us safe.

Party Like It's 12.19.19.17.19

Betcha didn't know that Y2K was just practice for the real end of the world, coming at the moment of the winter solstice in exactly five years. That would be December 21, 2012, 4:11:23 AM MST. You see, it was all predicted by the Mayans, thousands of years ago.

How is this stupid? Let me count the ways:

1. This date is claimed to be the end of the Mayan calendar. But in actuality it is just the rollover from the date of 12.19.19.17.19 to the date of 13.0.0.0.0. Oh, yeah, those tricky Mayans used a modified base 20 in this particular calendar, and the fifth digit just happens to roll over from 12 to 13 on 12-21-2012. Kind of like our recent Y2K experience. Except in this case the worst we should expect to see is stone tablets crashing. (Look out below!)
2. Yes, the Mayan calendar keeps going. And, when it gets to 19.19.19.17.19, it will roll over to 1.0.0.0.0.0. I don't expect to be around to worry about that one. And in fact there are known records of Mayans quoting dates well beyond 1.0.0.0.0.0, 3,000 years in the future.
3. And, speaking of not being around, did anybody notice that the Mayan civilization is no longer around. Seems like if they were so smart, they'd still be here. There are still many Mayans around, but as far as I can tell the full intricacies of their calendar are only relevant in the study of ancient history (and end-of-the-world hoaxes). I'd say their fancy calendar is no longer relevant.
4. Of course, all this is based on the interpretation of a dead language and culture by scholars looking at its remnants. Some think the rollover date is December 23, 2012. Others think it is decades off (in either direction), or even centuries. In any case, all the people who know for sure aren't currently available to tell us.
5. Um, and nobody has any idea what the Mayans actually thought was going to happen at this interesting point in time. They actually used (according to scholars) several interwoven calendars, and the evidence is that they gathered at the end of each cycle to make sacrifices and see if there was going to be another one.
6. This thing about being coincident with the Winter Solstice is just somebody's idea of tying these two things together to make a bigger event out of nothing. But there's no evidence that the Mayans had enough information to predict when the solstice was going to be this far in the future. The precession of the Earth's rotation has changed slowly over the centuries, and there is no way they could have known how much.
7. Then there's this thing that people keep bringing up about how the sun is going to be in perfect alignment with the galactic equator on that date. Totally unrelated.
8. The galactic alignment is supposed to happen only once every 26,000 years. In fact, the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy once every 225-250 million years, and oscillates up and down 2.7 times each orbit. That seems to me to imply that we would cross the galactic equator once every 41 million years or so. 26,000 years is approximately how long it takes the earth' rotational axis to precess through 360 degrees. People who confuse galactic orbital position with the precession of the earth's rotation don't understand astronomy.
9. In fact, if you use the precession calculation to figure out this galactic alignment thing, we crossed the galactic equator in about 1998, so that non-event already happened.
10. And non-event is what it was. There is not one bit of difference to earth whether the sun is a tiny bit above the galactic equator or below it. No change in gravity. No change in solar flares. No flipping of the earth's magnetic poles. No scorching of the earth by the sun, no gravitational surges, no more earthquakes and volcanos than normal. And the ancient Mayans didn't know anything about the Milky Way galaxy, anyway.
11. That's, of course, assuming that the concept of galactic equator can be accurately measured from here based on the relatively little information we've been able to collect in a few decades.
12. In any case, wouldn't 12-21-2112 be a numerologically better date for the end of the world?

So, go ahead and buy some bonds that mature more than five years out, and don't get an adjustable rate mortgage with a balloon payment in five years. Oh, and don't waste your money on any books or movies that try to convince you of this non-disaster, or waste your time listening to anybody who believes this crap.

Only In Boulder

Well, it's happened again. The Denver and national media is focused on Boulder, and what nut cases we are. People in my office are accosting me with facts about how outrageous we are. And that just makes the people of this town, well, to be honest, it makes us feel morally superior.

I can't begin to list the number of times it has happened over the years. Mostly the Denver shock jocks. This time it started with the KOA Denver radio host, Dan Caplis, but then even Bill O'Reilly got into the picture.

Yes, Mr. O'Reilly is up in arms about Boulder -- specifically Boulder High and the local school board. It seems that the Conference on World Affairs held a panel at Boulder High and invited the students, which they do every year. In fact, they held four panels, three of which generated no controversy: "Latin America: Political Forecast," "Marijuana Policies," and "Borat - Humorous or Hurtful."

But the fourth panel was titled "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs," and included a frank discussion of safe sex and drug use. One student complained to his parents, who complained to the school board. The school board initially apologized, and then back pedaled, saying the only error was that some students were required to attend the panel.

Now most Boulder residents don't know who Dan Caplis is, since he doesn't host the World Music hour on KGNU (the local left-of-Ward-Churchill public radio station). And they have only a vague idea that O'Reilly is a slim version of Rush Limbaugh, or perhaps just some weird half man/half bear that Stephen Colbert idolizes.

But now these media celebrities, who don't live in Boulder and who don't have kids at Boulder High, are pronouncing that students were forced to go to a seminar where they were encouraged to have wanton unprotected sex and use illegal drugs. Not the only lie foisted on the listeners and viewers eager for the next outrage. For example, O'Reilly stated that the school has invited the same folks back next year. While Boulder High will continue to host CWA events in future years, the same panel and the same speakers are not on the schedule (which of course doesn't even exist yet).

And now the principal, the superintendent, and the school board president are cowards because they refuse to talk to the O'Reilly and Caplis media machines and their loony followers who are harassing them non-stop.

There was a letter in today's Camera that made me laugh. Jack Strichman, upset about the panel, questioned whether the school district would be the subject of lawsuits when an attendee of the panel died of AIDS or an overdose of drugs. Amusing, when the panelists were encouraging responsible behavior, while Mr. Strichman clearly believes that children should not be taught responsible behavior. If his child were to suffer such a fate, I might not hold him directly to blame, but I would say that he could have done a better job for preparing that child for the realities of life.

The critics of this panel are quick to say that our children should be protected from such talk. In fact, the students we are talking about are not children, they are high school students, almost adults. If you as a parent have not instilled your moral beliefs in your children by that age, I would say that you have failed. If you can't trust your child in a discussion of beliefs that are different than yours, then you have lost your child. High school students are exposed very day to ideas just as "radical", on TV, on the Internet, from their friends, at the mall, etc.

So, Bill O'Reilly and friends, please keep it up. We Boulderites are all into feeling good about ourselves, and disapproval from you only helps!

President Carter Calls It

Jimmy Carter once said that "Falwell can go straight to hell!" And now it has finally come true.

Jerry Falwell is dead. I'm sure that, if there is a hell, he is there. This is the founder of the Immoral Minority -- a group of folks so bloated in their own importance that they are willing to forget what this country is really about.

That's right. The founders of this country were so worried that one group would try to impose their religious beliefs on others that they wrote in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights that it would not be tolerated. And yet it is.

Being pro-life, I can't celebrate anybody's death. But, as they say, "he will not be missed."

There is a picture in my mind of a special section in hell for Dr. Falwell. (Little known fact: Falwell's three honorary doctorates qualified him to perform abortions on demand.) In this special section, at every moment Jerry is forced to do the bidding of the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Teletubby Tinky Winky, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Larry Flynt, Desmond Tutu, the ACLU, Jews, homosexuals, and people like me.

Mr. Falwell, I hope you enjoy your stay in hell. Eternity can seem like such a long time, but I'm sure you'll get used to it. And I'll be sure to look you up when I get there.


Jerry Falwell contemplates the "marital aids" that Tinky Winky had in that purse.

Wanna Be Mega-Church Hijacks Boulder County

Rocky Mountain Christian Church (RMCC) in Niwot wants to more than double its structure size, to almost a quarter of a million square feet. Unfortunately for them, the area they want to expand in is zoned for agriculture, and Boulder County denied their permit. This is the same process that the county follows for all other applicants and that process is one reason that the area is so desirable to live in.

Well, unfortunately for the rest of Boulder County, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, something called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) a few years back. This law, at least in some interpretations, includes a section that pretty much allows any religious institution to bypass any local land use regulation. Since the law went into effect, religious institutions have been suing local governments like crazy, and winning. Boulder County is now on the receiving end of one of those lawsuits.

Here's the problem. If the law says what its supporters claim, it means that the local government is required to change or bypass its own rules to benefit the church, which means additional costs and other negative impacts to the county government, other residents, and local businesses. This means that the county is, in effect, supporting a specific religion. This, in my book, is a classic example of the government establishing a preferred religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How about this: Members of the Boulder Church of the Sacred Prairie Dog put an application before the county to create a prairie dog altar and worship site adjacent to the RMCC. If the county approves expansion of the RMCC church, they are interfering with Prairie Doggerals right to worship, and they should be taken to court. Makes just about as much sense to me.

Here's what the RLUIPA says:

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Also:

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that ... unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

Clearly, the government has a compelling interest in denying the application (a large majority of the residents consistently vote to support maintenance of open space) and it's hard to think of a less restrictive way of treating the church (they can expand, but it has to be below ground, so that the prairie dogs can continue to roam.) I guess it's that whole subjective phrase "unreasonably limits".

Well, now that I look at it again, the RLUIPA is clearly constitutional. Why? Because it says so. That's right, it declares,

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion.

That's right, by enacting, as part of the law, a statement that the law is constitutional, it clearly must be ok. Just as the President does with his notorious and self-serving signing statements, Congress is ignoring the very clear separation of powers delineated in the Constitution.

I'm reminded of the sign I see on the back of the gravel trucks that travel local roads: Not Responsible for Damage to Windshields. By telling us it's not their fault, they absolve themselves of all responsibility. Kind of like me saying that I'm not responsible for the damage to your monitor when you smash it because you are so angry about what I write.

Go ahead. Smash your monitor now. I guarantee you will feel better, and my nasty old opinion will surely disappear.

Anyway, back to my previous rant. The county commissioners have written to the local congressional delegation asking for their support in modifying RLUIPA to allow them to fairly do their job. Seems reasonable to me. The members of RMCC should be free to worship as they please, as long as the rest of us, who may have different religious beliefs, are not forced to pay for them to do so.

On the Slopes, Two Wives Are Better than One

G. Lee Cook of Salt Lake City wants to get married again, but he is happy with his first and current wife. Unfortunately, according to state law in Utah (not to mention everywhere else I know about), that would be illegal.

I have previously argued that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Isn't that a slippery slope argument that will just open the flood gates to polygamy and other mixed metaphors? Why, soon we'll be wanting to grant religious freedom to everybody, even people that don't agree with (gasp!) me!

I say, let's open the gates. Let's slide down that slope. It sounds like fun. (Of course, I live in Colorado, and slippery slopes are an entire industry here.)

Cook, his current wife, and his prospective wife have brought their case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Utah Assistant Attorney Nancy Kemp argues that it is ok to ban polygamy, because the ban applies to everybody. As far as I can tell, this amounts to saying that it is ok to prevent people who are members of a religion from practicing that religion as long as you don't let anybody else practice it either. An interesting (but vitally flawed) interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't expect the courts to agree with me. But, after all, any judge who doesn't take my point of view is an activist judge and should be thrown from office. Wouldn't be constitutional, but it might be entertaining and ego boosting. And, in fact, that's what it's all about.

The Most Dangerous Man Alive?

Is it possible that someone can be more evil and more dangerous than Osama bin Laden? That is a very tall order. And for that position I nominate the Pastor John Hagee.

How can an evangelical preacher be that evil and dangerous? Well, for one, he and his growing national following have the ear of our Republican administration and Congress. He believes that rapture is imminent.

Personally, I don't care what he believes, whether he can convince people, or whether he can get these gullible people to send him millions of dollars every year. What I do care about, however, is that the end times he is calling for require a certain sequence of events, including widespread nuclear war (both in the middle east and in the red states of our country.) He is calling for the so-called Christian community in this country to back him, and is pushing the government to implement his policies.

These policies include, for example, doing everything to avoid a cease fire in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflicts. They include no room for any negotiations with Iran. They include the exploitation of Israel and the Jewish people for his own purposes (while pretending to be supportive).

At least with bin Laden, we are pretty much united in this country that he is evil and needs to be stopped (although we may not agree on how that should be done.) Pastor Hagee has a twice-daily broadcast on religious television. He is also meeting with the Congressional leadership and members of the administration. These members of our ruling party clearly do not believe that this man is evil and dangerous, and many are signing on to help him.

If you read my rantings regularly, you know that I believe strongly in the First Amendment. This means that John Hagee has every right to believe and preach anything he wants and people are free to follow him. What become a problem is when our elected government officials, who swore to uphold the Constitution, disgrace it instead by basing policy decisions on their religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of kooks like this. It becomes even worse when those religious beliefs are founded on the destruction of our country and planet.

No Virgins for You!

Some Islamic extremists are motivated to perform extreme acts in the hope of becoming martyrs. It has been widely reported that their religion promises 72 virgins in heaven if they die as martyrs.

However, there is one aspect of this that is not so widely known. It is true that dying in the service of Allah will earn you those 72 virgins. However, what they don't tell you is that you will have to share those 72 virgins with all of the other martyrs. Believe me, there have been a lot of martyrs in the past 1400 years.

Oh, and those virgins are getting just a bit shop worn, if you know what I mean.

Allard Attacks the Constitution

In his defense of my challenge to his proposed anti-gay marriage amendment, Colorado Senator Allard did not respond directly to my fundamental point. I'll try to make that point more clear here.

The position against gay marriage is a religious position. The loudest voices on this issue come from religious leaders like James Dobson, and the politicians trying to suck up to them. At the same time, there are religions in which gay marriage is celebrated. For example, in the Unitarian church several ministers have performed gay marriage (and been arrested for it!). Clearly, when leaders of one religion believes one thing and leaders of another religion believes something else, this is a matter of religious belief.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

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

The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, violates the First Amendment in two ways. First, it violates the establishment clause. It is a law passed by Congress that mandates the beliefs of a certain set of religions (in other words, establishes those beliefs as law). Second, it violates the free exercise clause, by preventing members of those religions that support gay marriage from freely exercising their religions. Arresting a minister for practicing her beliefs is in direct contradiction to this core principle laid down by our founding fathers.

What about putting the gay marriage ban into the constitution? Doesn't that get around this problem?

Well, Senator Allard and all of his peers took an oath, which reads, in part:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... and ... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

This means placing respect for the Constitution at the highest level. Authoring an amendment that violates the principles of the First Amendment seems to me to be the exact opposite of supporting and defending the Constitution. Attempting to change the will of our founding fathers does not seem to exhibit true faith and allegiance, but rather a religious-based attack.

In fact, I would maintain that Allard's amendment, even if it were to pass, would not be Constitutionally valid. Because the introduction of Allard's amendment to the Senate is tantamount to making a law that violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, that act in and of itself is unconstitutional and should not stand.

Let me be clear here. My position is not anti-religious. It is pro-religious. I encourage Wayne Allard to believe and practice the religion of his choice. The history of mankind is full of examples of people using religion to accomplish great things. However, our country was founded on the principle that no religion can have supremacy, and that the beliefs of the minority need to be protected against the tyranny of the majority.

Senator Allard, get your religion out of my Constitution!

Allard Defends Anti-Gay Amendment

A few weeks ago, I challenged Colorado Senator Wayne Allard over his proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Allard has since responded; see below for details.

I will respond to his arguments in detail over the next few days. I note now, however, that the Senator did not respond to my accusation that he is attempting to write his personal religion into the Constitution and hence violating his oath of office to protect the Constitution. My assumption is that his intern ("SK") noted the topic and that I am from Boulder, and decided it wasn't worth any more effort than sending the standard talking points on the issue.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the issue of marriage. I appreciate you taking the time to write on such an important issue.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. The definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology, and ethnicity. Marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of our society. It is the one bond on which all other bonds are built and from which families and communities are grown.

As you may know, on January 24, 2005, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 1 along with 32 of my Senate colleagues. Known as the Marriage Protection Amendment, the resolution states that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Unfortunately, traditional marriage has been under attack by those who wish to redefine marriage to be something that it is not. Activists have chosen to debate this issue not through the democratic processes such as state legislatures, the Congress, or ballot initiatives, but have instead turned to unaccountable and unelected judges.

The purpose of my amendment is two-fold: First, it defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman, and, second, it ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on individuals. This amendment would not affect civil unions as created by state legislatures, nor the ability of private employers to offer benefits to same-sex couples. This amendment simply affirms the traditional definition of marriage and allows state legislatures, and not courts, to decide the issue of civil unions or domestic partnerships.

I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. My decision to introduce a Constitutional amendment was made in direct response to the carefully coordinated campaign to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts.

I am pleased that on June 7, 2006, a majority of Senators voting voted in support of my amendment. Although it did not receive enough votes to end the filibuster, the progress that was achieved in the Senate and the states since the first vote on this amendment in 2004 is proof that marriage remains an important issue to the American people.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.


Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:SK

Allard Violates His Oath of Office

The U.S. Senate voted today on an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. This amendment was authored by Colorado's own Senator Wayne Allard.

Senator Allard: How dare you!? You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And here you are attempting to write your personal religion into the Constitution. This is the height of arrogance.

Will's Values

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with columnist George Will. However, in a column today he pointed out the fallacy of referring to evangelical Christians as "values voters". This usage implies that these people have a lock on values, and that everybody else somehow is without. I have to agree with this assessment.

I totally resent the fact that because my values don't coincide with those of Jerry Falwell they don't count to those who base their positions on so-called values. My positions are highly values-based, as, I'm sure, are those of most voters of all religious and political stripes.

For example, one of my values is respect for the Constitution. Clearly, many folks of both major political parties feel that the Constitution is merely an inconvenience when it contradicts their other values.

We have a Republican party that doesn't believe in separation of church and state. We have a Democratic party that sometimes ignores the right to free speech. And we have a President who feels that separation of powers is quaint, and pretty much ignores half of the Bill of Rights.

Well, folks, just remember. The person who votes oppositely to you believes just as strongly that they are right and you are wrong. And the person that votes opposite to me IS wrong.

Don't Pray for Me, Argentina

For years I've worried about people praying on my behalf without my permission, or even directly against my will. What if someone who believes in the almighty tortoise prays for me to do well in a running race? Or somebody who believes in crystals prays for my kidney stones to dissolve? If somebody who believes in auras prays for me while I'm walking through airport security, will it set off the alarm?

My religion (insomniology) relies more on lying in bed and worrying than on actually praying for any specific outcome. But this is one thing I no longer have to worry about. A new study in the April 2006 issue of the American Heart Journal has proven that praying for other people has no impact. Telling them that you're praying for them, of course, has a negative impact. Who needs all that pressure?

In this study, titled Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer, 1800 cardiac patients were divided into three groups. One group was told they might be prayed for and were. A second group was told the same thing but weren't prayed for. And the third group were told they were definitely going to be prayed for and were. The first two groups had about the same rate of complications, while the third group (who knew they were being prayed for) actually had more complications.

Apparently, one of the groups doing the praying consisted of Christian Scientists.

In any case, from now on you should all feel free to pray on my behalf. Just please don't tell me you are doing so.