A Stitch in Haste

To review (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of their preferential status. The restriction does not apply only to churches and does not apply to issue advocacy generally. Only endorsing particular candidates for particular offices is proscribed.

So how is this anything other than a disingenuous stunt aimed at the misinformed?

The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation."

The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.

Read that again: "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit."

To use the theocrats' favorite jurisprudential stunt: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a "right to tax-exempt status"?

"The First Amendment" is not an answer. The tax-exemption in no way unfavorably* singles out churches relative to other civic institutions. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Nor does it force any such institution, religious or otherwise, to do anything or refrain from anything. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Any church or cleric is free, at any time, to say anything they want about any candidate they want. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status (which, recall, Congress could simply abolish any time it wished). Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie.

The theocrats (whose Bibles seem to have been miraculously redacted of that pesky "render unto Caesar" passage) appear perfectly willing to completely misrepresent the First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code, the case law**, and the nature of their record of flagrantly illegal (and un-Christian) abuse of the tax-exempt status that allows them to suck so shamelessly at the taxpayer teat.

Some have suggested that the true purpose of this stunt is to generate a test case in the courts. Yeah right, good luck with that. There is simply nothing to test — because, again, there is absolutely no theory of constitutional interpretation, by anyone of any political orientation, that would dare suggest that there is a First Amendment "right to a tax break." It is beyond absurd.

More thoughts at Americans United, Religion Clause, Wall of Separation.

---

*Indeed, some elements of the tax code actually treat churches more favorably than other civic institutions:

Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Service") for an advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS.
...
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The Church Audit Procedures Act ("CAPA") sets out the circumstances under which the IRS may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in such an investigation.
--Branch Ministries v. Rosotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)

**Especially Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983):

Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for ... lobbying. We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.

To review (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of their preferential status. The restriction does not apply only to churches and does not apply to issue advocacy generally. Only endorsing particular candidates for particular offices is proscribed.

So how is this anything other than a disingenuous stunt aimed at the misinformed?

The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation."

The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.

Read that again: "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit."

To use the theocrats' favorite jurisprudential stunt: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a "right to tax-exempt status"?

"The First Amendment" is not an answer. The tax-exemption in no way unfavorably* singles out churches relative to other civic institutions. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Nor does it force any such institution, religious or otherwise, to do anything or refrain from anything. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Any church or cleric is free, at any time, to say anything they want about any candidate they want. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status (which, recall, Congress could simply abolish any time it wished). Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie.

The theocrats (whose Bibles seem to have been miraculously redacted of that pesky "render unto Caesar" passage) appear perfectly willing to completely misrepresent the First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code, the case law**, and the nature of their record of flagrantly illegal (and un-Christian) abuse of the tax-exempt status that allows them to suck so shamelessly at the taxpayer teat.

Some have suggested that the true purpose of this stunt is to generate a test case in the courts. Yeah right, good luck with that. There is simply nothing to test — because, again, there is absolutely no theory of constitutional interpretation, by anyone of any political orientation, that would dare suggest that there is a First Amendment "right to a tax break." It is beyond absurd.

More thoughts at Americans United, Religion Clause, Wall of Separation.

---

*Indeed, some elements of the tax code actually treat churches more favorably than other civic institutions:

Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Service") for an advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS.
...
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The Church Audit Procedures Act ("CAPA") sets out the circumstances under which the IRS may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in such an investigation.
--Branch Ministries v. Rosotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)

**Especially Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983):

Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for ... lobbying. We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.

To review (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of their preferential status. The restriction does not apply only to churches and does not apply to issue advocacy generally. Only endorsing particular candidates for particular offices is proscribed.

So how is this anything other than a disingenuous stunt aimed at the misinformed?

The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation."

The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.

Read that again: "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit."

To use the theocrats' favorite jurisprudential stunt: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a "right to tax-exempt status"?

"The First Amendment" is not an answer. The tax-exemption in no way unfavorably* singles out churches relative to other civic institutions. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Nor does it force any such institution, religious or otherwise, to do anything or refrain from anything. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Any church or cleric is free, at any time, to say anything they want about any candidate they want. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status (which, recall, Congress could simply abolish any time it wished). Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie.

The theocrats (whose Bibles seem to have been miraculously redacted of that pesky "render unto Caesar" passage) appear perfectly willing to completely misrepresent the First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code, the case law**, and the nature of their record of flagrantly illegal (and un-Christian) abuse of the tax-exempt status that allows them to suck so shamelessly at the taxpayer teat.

Some have suggested that the true purpose of this stunt is to generate a test case in the courts. Yeah right, good luck with that. There is simply nothing to test — because, again, there is absolutely no theory of constitutional interpretation, by anyone of any political orientation, that would dare suggest that there is a First Amendment "right to a tax break." It is beyond absurd.

More thoughts at Americans United, Religion Clause, Wall of Separation.

---

*Indeed, some elements of the tax code actually treat churches more favorably than other civic institutions:

Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Service") for an advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS.
...
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The Church Audit Procedures Act ("CAPA") sets out the circumstances under which the IRS may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in such an investigation.
--Branch Ministries v. Rosotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)

**Especially Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983):

Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for ... lobbying. We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.

This is not the first time something judicially monumental has happened whilst I was on vacation. I hope you can find enough commentary on the decision to tide you over for a few days.

I won't lie to you: There is no way I am reading 172 pages of California constitutional interpretation here in my undisclosed location. It will have to wait until I get back.

I can, however, offer two hasty stitches:

1. Tim Sandefur asks what's in a name:

The Court begins by making clear that the question is not whether the state can bar homosexual couples from having the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples, but rather whether the state can establish an identical (or nearly identical) set of substantive rights for each, but only confer the name "marriage" on one and not the other. The entire dispute is about the word "marriage.'
...
The only difference is the word the state uses. Do you have a right to a word?

I think on this point, there is room for disagreement, but I would be skeptical. First, if the state were using a word for same-sex marriages that was derogatory or offensive, then there would be a stronger argument that the state was discriminating against them.
...
California simply denominates gay marriages "civil unions." Is that really a violation of the rights of gay couples? If so, is it discrimination to refer to people on AFDC or WIC as "welfare recipients"? Is it discrimination to refer to people in wheelchairs as "handicapped"? I find this an implausible ground for a finding of discrimination.

Sandefur is as fine a libertarian legal mind as you'll find, and no enemy of gays. (Again, he is critiquing the decision, not the concept of gay marriage generally.) So my observation is probably best filed away as a lawyer's quibble, but I think his analysis is utterly untenable for a reason that can be summed up in two "just words" — New Jersey.

A New Jersey straight "married" (just a word) couple can have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A Massachusetts or Canada "married" (just a word) gay couple can, now, have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A New Jersey gay "civil-unioned" (just a not-quite-word) gay couple cannot have their civil union (just words) recognized and legally recognized in New York. This despite the fact that the New Jersey Supreme Court insisted and demanded that "civil unions" be afforded all (just a word?) the rights and privileges of marriage.

New Jersey tried, and failed, to make marriage "just a word" —

We will not presume that a difference in name alone is of constitutional magnitude.

It was a Sisyphean nightmare then; it is a Sisyphean nightmare now. Marriage, for better or for worse, is not "just a word" in American jurisprudence. That is axiomatic in the exteme.

Note also that Sandefur's suggested qualifier "derogatory or offensive" has nothing to do with it. Full and equal either obtains or it does not; asking, "Is this derogatory or offensive?" is simply not a robust distinction in this context.

Like I said, this is a just a late-night* nitpick; Sandefur's post is really quite good. Do read it.

(*"Late-night"? Did I just give an inadvertent hint as to my undisclosed location?)

2. So while the heroes of Lambda Legal (aided as they often are by the ACLU) were busy actually doing something for gay equality, what was the Human Rights Campaign doing?

They were busy conflating gay marriage with socialized medicine:

In our national debate on health care — we need to remember that in America, health care is a right, not a privilege. Too often that's not true for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. The absence of federal protections, inadequate state laws and inconsistent hospital policies often result in discrimination and inadequate health care for GLBT patients and their families.

The question of fair and equal (not to mention sane and humane) recognition of gay relationships in the context of medical care has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the gobbledygook of a "right to health care." To equate gay marriage with socialized medicine is to make gay marriage as evil as socialized medicine. It also marginalizes, as unimportant collateral damage, all those gays who dare not to be radical liberal malcontents. It's worse than "win the battle, lose the war" — it's "win the battle, bomb your allies."

I'm not being entirely fair, of course: HRC did find the time and money to "sign on" (their term) to somebody else's (whom they couldn't bother to identify in their press release) amicus brief. How bold of them. And how much, I wonder, are they asking for in donations for "their" (just a word) "victory" (not just a word)?

If your charitable money is up for grabs, then give it to Lambda, not to HRC. (If you want to be utterly apolitical, then opt for the Point Foundation.)

---

The litigtion is In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (S. Ct. Cal., May 15, 2008) (PDF - 172 pages).

This is not the first time something judicially monumental has happened whilst I was on vacation. I hope you can find enough commentary on the decision to tide you over for a few days.

I won't lie to you: There is no way I am reading 172 pages of California constitutional interpretation here in my undisclosed location. It will have to wait until I get back.

I can, however, offer two hasty stitches:

1. Tim Sandefur asks what's in a name:

The Court begins by making clear that the question is not whether the state can bar homosexual couples from having the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples, but rather whether the state can establish an identical (or nearly identical) set of substantive rights for each, but only confer the name "marriage" on one and not the other. The entire dispute is about the word "marriage.'
...
The only difference is the word the state uses. Do you have a right to a word?

I think on this point, there is room for disagreement, but I would be skeptical. First, if the state were using a word for same-sex marriages that was derogatory or offensive, then there would be a stronger argument that the state was discriminating against them.
...
California simply denominates gay marriages "civil unions." Is that really a violation of the rights of gay couples? If so, is it discrimination to refer to people on AFDC or WIC as "welfare recipients"? Is it discrimination to refer to people in wheelchairs as "handicapped"? I find this an implausible ground for a finding of discrimination.

Sandefur is as fine a libertarian legal mind as you'll find, and no enemy of gays. (Again, he is critiquing the decision, not the concept of gay marriage generally.) So my observation is probably best filed away as a lawyer's quibble, but I think his analysis is utterly untenable for a reason that can be summed up in two "just words" — New Jersey.

A New Jersey straight "married" (just a word) couple can have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A Massachusetts or Canada "married" (just a word) gay couple can, now, have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A New Jersey gay "civil-unioned" (just a not-quite-word) gay couple cannot have their civil union (just words) recognized and legally recognized in New York. This despite the fact that the New Jersey Supreme Court insisted and demanded that "civil unions" be afforded all (just a word?) the rights and privileges of marriage.

New Jersey tried, and failed, to make marriage "just a word" —

We will not presume that a difference in name alone is of constitutional magnitude.

It was a Sisyphean nightmare then; it is a Sisyphean nightmare now. Marriage, for better or for worse, is not "just a word" in American jurisprudence. That is axiomatic in the exteme.

Note also that Sandefur's suggested qualifier "derogatory or offensive" has nothing to do with it. Full and equal either obtains or it does not; asking, "Is this derogatory or offensive?" is simply not a robust distinction in this context.

Like I said, this is a just a late-night* nitpick; Sandefur's post is really quite good. Do read it.

(*"Late-night"? Did I just give an inadvertent hint as to my undisclosed location?)

2. So while the heroes of Lambda Legal (aided as they often are by the ACLU) were busy actually doing something for gay equality, what was the Human Rights Campaign doing?

They were busy conflating gay marriage with socialized medicine:

In our national debate on health care — we need to remember that in America, health care is a right, not a privilege. Too often that's not true for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. The absence of federal protections, inadequate state laws and inconsistent hospital policies often result in discrimination and inadequate health care for GLBT patients and their families.

The question of fair and equal (not to mention sane and humane) recognition of gay relationships in the context of medical care has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the gobbledygook of a "right to health care." To equate gay marriage with socialized medicine is to make gay marriage as evil as socialized medicine. It also marginalizes, as unimportant collateral damage, all those gays who dare not to be radical liberal malcontents. It's worse than "win the battle, lose the war" — it's "win the battle, bomb your allies."

I'm not being entirely fair, of course: HRC did find the time and money to "sign on" (their term) to somebody else's (whom they couldn't bother to identify in their press release) amicus brief. How bold of them. And how much, I wonder, are they asking for in donations for "their" (just a word) "victory" (not just a word)?

If your charitable money is up for grabs, then give it to Lambda, not to HRC. (If you want to be utterly apolitical, then opt for the Point Foundation.)

---

The litigtion is In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (S. Ct. Cal., May 15, 2008) (PDF - 172 pages).

Several recent stories, from reports that over 1% of the American adult population is now incarcerated, to the passing of Mildred Loving, to the imminent gay marriage ruling in California, all remind me of this quest for judicial sanity:


Time to time and place to place indeed...

Previous Kip Clips here.

So a college student decides, as college students often do, to be an idiot:

A college student whose friend was being questioned in a hit and run found himself charged with assaulting an officer with a curious choice of weapons: M&Ms.

Sean McGuire was arrested early Sunday at a convenience store after Drake University security guards noticed the colored candies falling on the ground around the officer. When the officer turned around, an M&M hit his shoulder, according to a police report.

McGuire claimed he threw the candy because he was "sticking up for his friend," who apparently was the man suspected in the accident, the report states.

So a libertarian decides, as libertarians often do, to complain:

Okay, throwing M&Ms at anyone is uncalled for. Throwing them at a cop is just stupid. But, this college student winding up in jail, and having to post a $1,000 bond for throwing candy? What was this all about? Was it really about "assault," or was it a case of "you must respect my authoritah!"

So I decide, as I often do, to leave a comment:

Why does it have to be a question of "respect my authoritah" rather than one of not being a law-breaking jerk by throwing stuff at people?

Last time I checked, respecting people's space and bodily integrity was one of the higher-ranking libertarian tenets. If that's changed, then I didn't get the memo.

I know many libertarians like to pretend that all police are unstable maniacs just waiting for an excuse to don their jackboots and charge up their tasers. And a few are.

But sometimes people simply break the law — sometimes quite stupidly, immaturely or obnoxiously — and if they get caught, they get caught.

Sympathy is a scarce resource, and I don't squander it on fools.

Speaking of squandering, I also note that this is a terrible waste of perfectly good M&Ms. Next time, throw beef jerky or some other inedible product.

---

For the uninitiated:

A busy week on the gay rights front --

ITEM: New York's highest court declined, though strictly on procedural grounds, to review lower court rulings holding that same-sex marriages validly entered into in other jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts, Canada) must be recognized even though the gay couples could not have married in New York itself. The high court may hear the case after further litigation of the case in the lower courts. Despite the seeming contradiction, this "valid there means valid here" practice is actually a long-standing policy in New York (and other states) that has been applied to first-cousin marriages, underage marriages, common law marriages and other circumstances. Nevertheless, it does give further incentive to both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage, who share an eagerness to ask, "How can this be?" Most recent post here.

ITEM: A California appellate court, meanwhile

has ruled unanimously that a gay Orange County man who mistakenly thought his ex-partner had registered their domestic partnership is entitled to the same protections covering heterosexual spouses who discover that, for whatever reason, their marriage is not valid.

This was not a particularly inspirational case: one partner tried to exploit the other by claiming that the failure to mail in the domestic partnership form nullified the estate planning documents they had drafted at the beginning of their formalized relationship. Still, fair and equal treatment is fair and equal treatment, in dissolution of relationships as well as in their formation. (A reminder, meanwhile, that California faces both an imminent state supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage and a likely bigot amendment.)

ITEM: Every silver lining must have a cloud --

An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
...
Jessie Olson, an attorney involved in filing the challenge that was rejected by the court Wednesday, said the ruling leaves Michigan "at the bottom of the barrel. We are the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to civil rights for same sex couples."

When bigots insist that their "no nothing never" amendments are "only" about "defending traditional marriage," they lie. Most recent post here.

---

MEANWHILE: Although not quite rising to "Larry Craig" status, one of the most rabidly anti-gay bigots in Congress, New York Republican Vito Fossella, has acknowledged that he had an extra-marital affair* that produced a daughter, now 3 years old.

Fossella, now widely expected not to seek re-election,** voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, the (identical) Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006, the jurisdiction-stripping Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and a D.C. appropriations amendment that would have banned gays in the District from adopting.

He was certainly "defending traditional..." -- well, traditional something.

*The affair was, incidentally, with an air force lieutenant colonel. File that under "morale and unit cohesion."

**Not for the affair, mind you, but for a DUI arrest in Virginia that will likely result in jail time.

(Via Obsidian Wings.)

A busy week on the gay rights front --

ITEM: New York's highest court declined, though strictly on procedural grounds, to review lower court rulings holding that same-sex marriages validly entered into in other jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts, Canada) must be recognized even though the gay couples could not have married in New York itself. The high court may hear the case after further litigation of the case in the lower courts. Despite the seeming contradiction, this "valid there means valid here" practice is actually a long-standing policy in New York (and other states) that has been applied to first-cousin marriages, underage marriages, common law marriages and other circumstances. Nevertheless, it does give further incentive to both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage, who share an eagerness to ask, "How can this be?" Most recent post here.

ITEM: A California appellate court, meanwhile

has ruled unanimously that a gay Orange County man who mistakenly thought his ex-partner had registered their domestic partnership is entitled to the same protections covering heterosexual spouses who discover that, for whatever reason, their marriage is not valid.

This was not a particularly inspirational case: one partner tried to exploit the other by claiming that the failure to mail in the domestic partnership form nullified the estate planning documents they had drafted at the beginning of their formalized relationship. Still, fair and equal treatment is fair and equal treatment, in dissolution of relationships as well as in their formation. (A reminder, meanwhile, that California faces both an imminent state supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage and a likely bigot amendment.)

ITEM: Every silver lining must have a cloud --

An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
...
Jessie Olson, an attorney involved in filing the challenge that was rejected by the court Wednesday, said the ruling leaves Michigan "at the bottom of the barrel. We are the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to civil rights for same sex couples."

When bigots insist that their "no nothing never" amendments are "only" about "defending traditional marriage," they lie. Most recent post here.

---

MEANWHILE: Although not quite rising to "Larry Craig" status, one of the most rabidly anti-gay bigots in Congress, New York Republican Vito Fossella, has acknowledged that he had an extra-marital affair* that produced a daughter, now 3 years old.

Fossella, now widely expected not to seek re-election,** voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, the (identical) Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006, the jurisdiction-stripping Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and a D.C. appropriations amendment that would have banned gays in the District from adopting.

He was certainly "defending traditional..." -- well, traditional something.

*The affair was, incidentally, with an air force lieutenant colonel. File that under "morale and unit cohesion."

**Not for the affair, mind you, but for a DUI arrest in Virginia that will likely result in jail time.

(Via Obsidian Wings.)

"A building has integrity, just like a man — and just as seldom."
--The Fountainhead

Goldilocks and the triplicate permit forms:

John Jessop earned a cult following among his colleagues after his withering comments were leaked in an e-mail which has been sent all round the country.

After being asked to fill in a "design access statement" for a storage shed on a small farm, he wrote: "The density is like on a farm, the social context is a farm in the country, the economic context is farming in the United Kingdom in 2008 (which is not very economic), the opportunities are to store equipment inside rather than the outside, the constraint is the planning system."

And under a section headed Context Analysis, he said: "The use is compatible with a farm because it is a farm building."

"It is located where it is because it is in the most convenient place, being on the farm and near the farmhouse."
...
"It can not be lower because nothing could be stored in it. It is not made any higher because that would be silly."

But since when did being "silly" stop a planning bureaucrat?

The notion that a farmer needs anybody's permission to build a farming shed on his farming land to store his farming equipment that he uses to earn his farming income shows how far the half-sibling notions of "zoning" and "environmental impact statements" have corrupted what used to be a rationally based concern for negative externalities. In the past, such reviews were cursory, common sense inquiries. Today? Yes, we the central planners have graciously allowed you to call your land a "farm," but that obviously did not mean that we would also allow you to "do farming" on it. We'll get back to you on that after we review your design access statement...

Other gems omitted from the media account:

--"Landscaping: The applicant and pervious [sic] occupants have spent a long time, probably more than a thousand years, making the countryside around the house look like farmland so that everyone can enjoy the pretty English countryside."

--"Access: There is an airport at Bristol which can be accessed by driving your tractor along the road. This gives direct access to warm sunny places all over the world."

--"Appearance: It looks like a typical modern agricultural shed in green profiled metal sheeting because that is what it is, and a great architect once said, 'Buildings should look like what they are'."

Methinks Mr. Jessop has read The Fountainhead.

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

Original 3-page document PDF here. (Via Fark.)

Fascinating case study in theocratic majoritarianism versus secular libertarianism:

In a 7-1 majority vote Monday night the Charles Town [West Virginia] City Council decided to institute a moment of silent prayer, thus abolishing the decades-long tradition of reciting the Christian-specific Lord's prayer before the beginning of each meeting.
...
Charles Town Mayor Peggy Smith, who did not vote on the issue, said she was disappointed in the council's decision but understood why it was made. "I understand why they did what they did after listening to legal advice. We cannot place the citizens in jeopardy with a lawsuit. So I do understand their vote but it doesn't make me happy about it," Smith said.
...
[Geraldine] Willingham, who cast the dissenting vote [and] described Charles Town as a "Christian town" at the council's last meeting, was not pleased by the council's decision to do away with the recitation of the Lord's prayer.

"I think it's a sad day for Charles Town where we cannot start our council meetings off with the Lord's prayer all because of one negative person. That's my comment," Willingham said after Monday's meeting.

Some hasty stitches:

--The "one negative person" was a Jew, not an atheist. Of course, to most hillbilly Christians like Willingham, there's little point in distinguishing between Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever -- they're all equally un-American and all equally devoid of First Amendment protection (not to mention equally hellbound). Stated differently, there are still people -- elected leaders -- who actually believe, in the Twenty-First Century, that there can be such a thing as a "Christian town" in what was once known as the "land of the free."

--Based on the media account, it appears that the theocrats couldn't even be bothered to engage in the wink-wink of calling their new invocation a "moment of silence" rather than a "silent prayer." The simple, uncomplicated First Amendment notion that maybe, just maybe, a city council chamber ought not be used as a church is simply incomprehensible to these "dedicated public servants."

--Speaking of which, note that these theocrats did not stop their flagrantly unconstitutional* practice out of any moral epiphany. They stopped the practice because their lawyers told them to. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hardly praiseworthy.

(Via Religion Clause.)

---

Elsewhere:

Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
...
Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.

James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman.

This is similar to the observation that too many secular Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and not doing enough to "take back Islam" from extremists who spawn terrorism and violent intolerance in the name of a supposed "Religion of Peace."

To the extent that these non-political Evangelical leaders make noise against the radical anti-Christians in their midst -- especially Dobson (who, recall, is not a credentialed cleric in any church) -- I can only say, "praise be unto them."

(Via Wall of Separation.)

---

*Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (Inapplicability of First Amendment to opening a legislative session with a prayer presupposes that "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.") Note that I of course consider Marsh wrongly decided in that all legislative prayer sessions ought to be deemed facially unconstitutional, and not just those that are both openly and notoriously sectarian and unambiguously hostile to non-Christians -- as the Lord's Prayer unarguably is.)

Fascinating case study in theocratic majoritarianism versus secular libertarianism:

In a 7-1 majority vote Monday night the Charles Town [West Virginia] City Council decided to institute a moment of silent prayer, thus abolishing the decades-long tradition of reciting the Christian-specific Lord's prayer before the beginning of each meeting.
...
Charles Town Mayor Peggy Smith, who did not vote on the issue, said she was disappointed in the council's decision but understood why it was made. "I understand why they did what they did after listening to legal advice. We cannot place the citizens in jeopardy with a lawsuit. So I do understand their vote but it doesn't make me happy about it," Smith said.
...
[Geraldine] Willingham, who cast the dissenting vote [and] described Charles Town as a "Christian town" at the council's last meeting, was not pleased by the council's decision to do away with the recitation of the Lord's prayer.

"I think it's a sad day for Charles Town where we cannot start our council meetings off with the Lord's prayer all because of one negative person. That's my comment," Willingham said after Monday's meeting.

Some hasty stitches:

--The "one negative person" was a Jew, not an atheist. Of course, to most hillbilly Christians like Willingham, there's little point in distinguishing between Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever -- they're all equally un-American and all equally devoid of First Amendment protection (not to mention equally hellbound). Stated differently, there are still people -- elected leaders -- who actually believe, in the Twenty-First Century, that there can be such a thing as a "Christian town" in what was once known as the "land of the free."

--Based on the media account, it appears that the theocrats couldn't even be bothered to engage in the wink-wink of calling their new invocation a "moment of silence" rather than a "silent prayer." The simple, uncomplicated First Amendment notion that maybe, just maybe, a city council chamber ought not be used as a church is simply incomprehensible to these "dedicated public servants."

--Speaking of which, note that these theocrats did not stop their flagrantly unconstitutional* practice out of any moral epiphany. They stopped the practice because their lawyers told them to. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hardly praiseworthy.

(Via Religion Clause.)

---

Elsewhere:

Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
...
Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.

James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman.

This is similar to the observation that too many secular Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and not doing enough to "take back Islam" from extremists who spawn terrorism and violent intolerance in the name of a supposed "Religion of Peace."

To the extent that these non-political Evangelical leaders make noise against the radical anti-Christians in their midst -- especially Dobson (who, recall, is not a credentialed cleric in any church) -- I can only say, "praise be unto them."

(Via Wall of Separation.)

---

*Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (Inapplicability of First Amendment to opening a legislative session with a prayer presupposes that "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.") Note that I of course consider Marsh wrongly decided in that all legislative prayer sessions ought to be deemed facially unconstitutional, and not just those that are both openly and notoriously sectarian and unambiguously hostile to non-Christians -- as the Lord's Prayer unarguably is.)