Pedantic Political Ponderings: ACLU

Showing posts with label ACLU. Show all posts

04 June 2012

4 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

19 March 2012

Repudiation: Opposition to Day of Silence

Mission America, created and headed by Linda Harvey, has been spreading Christianity and denouncing homosexuality since 1995. She has just written a piece titled Why Parents Should Keep Their Children Home from School on the Day of Silence.

On Friday April, 20, 2012, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is once again exploiting public schools to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative through the political protest called the Day of Silence.

The idea of promoting homosexuality or "gender confusion" as if these were somehow contagious is absurd. Ms. Harvey clearly wants no understanding of the medical and counseling communities views on these matters. Every major medical and psychological and counseling organization understands that homosexuality and transgender persons are on the spectrum of normal and does not treat either as immoral.

GLSEN has just launched a new Day of Silence website. In their words, "Founded in 1996, the Day of Silence has become the largest single student-led action towards creating safer schools for all, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression."

A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to keep their children home from school on the “Day of Silence,” if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

Every public school where I have taught has allowed students to make this decision for themselves. No student is ever coerced into participating. I have had students tell me that they don't agree with the Day of Silence and will be participating vocally in class. That is the right of those students. Rather than stand up respectfully in disagreement, as a few of my students have done, Ms. Harvey is encouraging hiding and closing the minds of students from other ways of thinking. She is encouraging cowardice. She wants to make sure that bigoted students aren't contaminated by others who are nice to each other in silence.

GLSEN’s Day of Silence, which began on college campuses and has now infiltrated even middle schools, exploits anti-bullying sentiment to undermine the belief that homosexual acts are immoral.

Whether or not one believes that "homosexual acts are immoral", that does not give one the right to bully those who one thinks are homosexual. The word "infiltrated" implies some kind of subterfuge. No, this is not a secret. It is quite open and apparent.

GLSEN shamelessly exploits teen suicide in order to create a climate of hysteria which they then use to falsely impute culpability for teen suicide to conservative moral beliefs.

The "climate of hysteria" is that which is created by bullies and encouraged by beliefs like those of Mission America. When one establishes an environment where some children are designated as being in a lower caste, that makes bullying acceptable. That is the basis for saying that Mission America and hate organizations have culpability in the rash of teen suicides that we have seen.

GLSEN’s end game is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and political climate in which it is impossible to express them. Their cultural vehicle of choice for this radical social experiment is public education. What a strategic coup for homosexualists: use our money to capture the hearts and minds of our children.

No. The end game of GLSEN is the creation of an environment where those with conservative moral beliefs and everyone else can coexist without a caste system, without bullying, and without belittlement of any groups within our schools. The only expressions that are not welcome in this ideal are those that put down others. To the best of my knowledge, the Day of Silence is not funded by school or tax dollars. Materials are paid for by GLSEN, donations to which are tax-deductible under the same IRS code as Mission America.

Efforts to exploit public education for the purpose of eradicating conservative moral beliefs are dramatically increasing every year. Homosexual activists and their allies are aggressively targeting younger and younger children through “anti-bullying” laws, policies, and curricula; through the effort to nationalize “comprehensive sex ed”; through laws mandating positive portrayals of homosexuality and gender deviance in curricula; and through events like the Day of Silence, National Coming Out Day, Ally Week, Transgender Day of Remembrance; and Spirit Week.

"Eradicating conservative moral beliefs"? That applies to only those that involve hate (which isn't supposed to be part of Christianity according to what I remember from theology classes taught by Jesuit priests). It is certainly true that anti-bullying policies and curricula are and should be available to all of public school classes and children. I have written previously about the value and importance of comprehensive sex education. I have written quite a bit about California's SB-48, the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act which is the law "mandating positive portrayals of homosexuality and gender deviance in curricula". These and the other GLSEN programs listed are very good for our schools and society.

And conservatives do virtually nothing. Our complacence makes us complicit in the damage done to our children and our culture.

If that were true, there would be no need for my blog. Most of what I write is in response to hateful legislation and responses to efforts to move toward equality. In short, Ms. Harvey is bearing false witness.

Moreover, we teach our children by example to be cowardly conformists. It’s time to resist and there’s no easier way to resist than to call your children out of school on the Day of Silence.

Keeping children and home and hiding from an opportunity for dialogue is cowardly.

Parents and Guardians: Call your children’s middle and high schools and ask if students and/or teachers will be permitted to refuse to speak during class on Friday, April 20, 2012. If your administration allows students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class, call your child out of school. Every student absence costs school districts money.

As a teacher who firmly believes in the Day of Silence, I have never refrained from speaking on those days and neither has any other gay or straight teacher who I know. This is entirely the students. The nature of funding the schools varies from district to district and state to state. Some district funding is based on every absence. Other districts do quarterly or annual attendance checks for purposes of funding. In many schools, Ms. Harvey's suggestion hurts the students pulled out but not the schools, other than in losing opportunities for students to learn.

When administrators refuse to listen to reason and when they allow the classroom to be exploited for political purposes, parents must take action. If they don’t, the politicization of the classroom and curricula will increase.

The Day of Silence is a symbolic gesture to raise awareness of bullying. How is that not reasonable? To quote from GLSEN, "GLSEN’s 2009 National School Climate Survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students report verbal, sexual or physical harassment at school and more than 30% report missing at least a day of school in the past month out of fear for their personal safety. Moreover, two of the top three reasons students said their peers were most often bullied at school were actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression, according to From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America, a 2005 report by GLSEN and Harris Interactive. Thus, the Day of Silence helps bring us closer to making anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and name-calling unacceptable in America’s schools." It is about protecting students by creating a more tolerant environment.

If your administrator tells you that they do not permit students or teachers to refuse to speak in class, ask him or her how that is communicated to faculty and students and how it is enforced.

In the schools where I have taught, students have been allowed to put up posters announcing the day in advance. Teachers have been informed during an staff meeting when this will occur and reminding us that we can require that all students speak in our classes ... that our classroom policy is up to us as long as we remain respectful in implementing it.

The ACLU has issued this statement to students regarding silence in class:

"You DO have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak."

Sounds reasonable to me.

The idea that homosexual acts are moral, good, or normative is not a fact. It is an unproven, non-factual, controversial moral belief. As such, no government employee or publicly subsidized institution has the ethical right to teach it to children implicitly or explicitly. It is entirely possible for schools to work toward the important goal of eradicating bullying without affirming homosexuality or gender confusion.

While Ms Harvey is wrong in her first sentence, schools are not teaching anything other than tolerance. However, here is an important clue regarding "affirming homosexuality or gender confusion." Homosexuals and transgender persons have been around for millenia. We are real. We are part of American society even as we have been part of every other society throughout history (including during biblical times ... that is why we are mentioned in the Bible). Acceptance of this simple fact by Ms. Harvey would help.

There are a few more repetitive paragraphs. Rather than me writing more, let's look at a few facts from GLSEN:

The day is a positive educational experience. The Day of Silence is an opportunity for students to work toward improving school climate for all students. GLSEN advises students interested in participating to discuss their intentions with their administration and teachers long before the event. The day is most successful when schools and students work together to show their commitment to ensuring safe schools for all students. Many schools allow students’ participation throughout the day. Some schools ask students to speak as they normally would during class and remain silent during breaks and at lunch. There is no single way to participate, and students are encouraged to take part in the way that is the most positive and uplifting for their school.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

18 April 2012, FollowUp 1.

20 April 2012, FollowUp 2.

15 January 2012

Praise: Judge Solomon Metzger Rules on Public Accommodations

In 2007, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster booked the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's Boardwalk Pavilion, part of the Grove Hall Retreat Center, for their Civil Union Ceremony. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a Methodist organization. They were then turned away because the ceremony would not be in keeping with the religious views of the owners. Because the Boardwalk Pavilion was a public accommodation, Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster sued.

On Friday, Judge Metzger ruled in favor of the couple. The Cliffview Pilot takes up the story.

“The Camp Meeting Association could have used the pavilion exclusively for its own purposes,” said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C., who represents the couple as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. “The judge found, however, that the association opened the pavilion up to the public and thus was obligated to follow anti-discrimination laws.”

“We are pleased with the judge’s findings,” said Harriet Bernstein. “When we first started planning our civil union, we had no idea that it would come to this. We weren’t asking the association to change their beliefs. We just wanted them to give us the same opportunity to use a beautiful space that we had seen open for public use.”

The ruling was not about religion.

In his written decision, Judge Solomon A. Metzger of the Office of Administrative Law ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis.

The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis, the judge said.

Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein’s application.

“(The association) was not, however, free to promise equal access to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition and then except (Bernstein and Paster),” Judge Metzger stated.

With New Jersey in the Marriage Equality spotlight, Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein wrote, in part:

In a claim that strained credulity, the Association postured that the public pavilion was private even though the Association had accepted a public subsidy for the facility and had signed an agreement to make it open to public on a nondiscriminatory basis. Over the years, opponents of equality have consistently left those crucial facts out of their propaganda. Instead, they have falsely claimed that the case represents an infringement on religious civil rights. Let’s make this clear: Garden State Equality and our partners in the movement for equality passionately oppose forcing religions and clergy to marry anyone they don’t want to marry. We oppose with equal fervor forcing any house of worship or other religious institution to host any ceremony they don’t want to host. The new marriage equality bill, The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act, has religious exemptions that reinforce and strengthen those constitutionally guaranteed religious rights.

This is a tremendous victory for the ACLU of New Jersey, the lawyers in the case, and for their cocounsel, the Gibbons law firm. The ACLU of New Jersey, Gibbons and Gibbons’ partner in charge of pro bono work who worked this case, Larry Lustberg, have all been honored by Garden State Equality in recent years. Gibbons, incidentally, is cocounsel to Garden State Equality and same-sex couples in the marriage equality case now before the New Jersey courts, Garden State Equality v. Dow. Larry is among the amazing lawyers, along with Lambda Legal, presenting our marriage equality case before the courts. We’re in the very best of hands.

Of course, that didn't stop those opposed to equality from twisting the tale. Good As You points out that Fox News site Fox Nation claims that Judge Metzger ruled against the Christian faith, with this title:

Judge Says Following Christian Faith is Wrong

The full article at Fox News is without such a huge lie. The side of the Alliance Defense Fund attorney is given, along with his slippery slope conclusion about the judge's ruling.

Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has been operating on the Jersey shore for more than 125 years and has its history rooted in the Methodist Church.

“According to their Book of Discipline, they cannot host same sex unions on their property,” Campbell told Fox News & Commentary. “He is saying they engaged in wrongdoing under the law simply for refusing to use the property in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.”

But that’s only part of the judge’s concern. In 1989, Ocean Grove applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for a section of land that included the pavilion and the boardwalk. One condition of the exemption is that the property had to be “open for public use on an equal basis.

When they first applied for the tax exemption, civil unions were not yet legal in New Jersey. That changed in 2006 when the New Jersey Supreme Court granted same-sex couples equal rights under the state constitution.

The judge’s decision suggests that he doesn’t see a conflict with religious liberty in the case, Campbell said. Metzger rejected the church’s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry.
But Campbell said the ruling could have troublesome implications for religious groups across the state –including the possibility that churches may be forced to host same sex unions in their houses of worship.

“That’s the danger of this ruling,” Campbell said. “It could be applied to other religious entities and it could be applied to other places of worship.”

No. The ruling was specific. The goals of the LGBTQ Community, as expressed by Mr. Goldstein are specific. There is no threat to religion in New Jersey.

Kudos to Judge Metzger and the New Jersey ACLU. May New Jersey find swift passage of their marriage equality legislation.

04 December 2011

FollowUp 2: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Wikipedia has good information on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The right to peaceably assemble is under fire by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on 1 December that expensive permits are now to be required for groups of four or more to assemble at the State Capitol.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration could hold demonstrators at the Capitol liable for the cost of extra police or cleanup and repairs after protests, under a new policy unveiled Thursday.

The rules, which several legal experts said raised serious free speech concerns, seemed likely to add to the controversy that has simmered all year over demonstrations in the state's seat of government.

The policy, which also requires permits for events at the statehouse and other state buildings, took effect Thursday and will be phased in by Dec. 16. Walker administration officials contend the policy simply clarifies existing rules.

I've written a number of posts in the short time that this blog has existed on how Mr. Walker is harming education in Wisconsin, public employee unions in Wisconsin, voters in Wisconsin, women in Wisconsin, and now limiting the right to peaceably assemble. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives some details of this new policy.

The policy says:

Groups of four or more people must obtain permits for all activity and displays in state buildings and apply for those permits at least 72 hours in advance. The policy requires permits for 100 or more people outside the Capitol. The policy does provide some leeway for spontaneous gatherings triggered by unforeseen events.

Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond.

Demonstrators may not tape or stick signs to Capitol walls not intended for signs. During the protests hundreds of signs were posted at the Capitol.

Any damage or cleanup after a demonstration could be charged to organizers. During the court fight earlier this year over access to the Capitol, Walker's administration said the demonstrators had done $7.5 million in damage to the building with the signs and other wear and tear. But almost immediately the administration sharply backpedaled from that claim, conceding the damage was significantly less.

Given the Walker administrations exaggeration of costs early this year, one has to be concerned about this narrowing of the First Amendment. Not all groups of four or more persons are going along. Channel 3000 reported on a group of protest singers who plan to continue their songs without applying for permits.

The group of singing protesters known as the Solidarity Singers gathers nearly every day at around the noon hour to host sing-alongs in the building. On Friday, the sing-along was outside, which is what is typically done on Fridays.

DOA officials said that groups as small as four people holding demonstrations in state buildings, including the Capitol, must give notice 72 hours before the event. As part of the rules, officials could even charge groups for costs of cleanup or security.

But despite the announcement of the rules on Thursday, Chris Reeder, one of the organizers of the Solidarity Singers, said that he believes the rule violates their free speech rights.

"We won't be applying for a permit. We feel very strongly about that. That's one of the central tenets. We do not believe that free speech requires a permit," he said.

He said that he feels the policy, which DOA officials have described as a clarification, thwarts their efforts."It does definitely seem like they are trying to crack down on protests and crack down on dissent at the Capitol. We feel pretty strongly we need to make our voices heard at the Capitol," Reeder said.

According to WTMJ, the Wisconsin ACLU is considering a lawsuit to protect the Freedom of Assembly in Wisconsin.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.

11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

14 October 2011

FollowUp 1: Voting Rights

As I wrote a week and a half ago, Republicans appear to be determined to make it more difficult to vote. This week there are two interesting developments, one in Florida and the other in Wisconsin. Florida is suing to remove Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the section that requires preclearance of changes to voting rules in parts of the country with a history of suppression of voting rights of minorities. Wisconsin is considering changing how it participates in the Electoral College.

The Miami Herald reports that Florida Republicans are upset that the Justice Department did not allow four of the measures that they had tried to enact.

Those four sections reduce the number of early voting days, slap new requirements on groups conducting voter registration drives, require voters changing out-of-county addresses at the polls to cast provisional ballots and make it more difficult to get citizen initiatives on the ballot.

Only one of these measures has anything to do with preventing fraudulent voting, that being provisional ballots for those who have recently moved. The other three measures just limit democracy. The ACLU has a stronger opinion. According to an article on Care2, the SCOTUS under Chief Justice Roberts is eager to take an activist stance and undo Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Like Pennsylvania, the Wisconsin legislature is considering a bill to change from having a state majority determine the Wisconsin delegates to the Electoral College to having the delegates selected by Congressional district. This would mean that the state would offer a split vote for President instead of a majority takes all vote. Think Progress considers this to be a strictly partisan maneuver to limit President Obama to one term.

On general principle, I think that the Electoral College is a relic of days gone by that should be reconsidered. It is not difficult to argue that the Electoral College denies representative democracy for the Executive branch of United States government. Chopping away at it on a state by state basis is partisan and, if done, likely to favor the other party in a subsequent election. If the Electoral College is to be changed or eliminated, it should be done for the entire country, not on a piecemeal basis.

3 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article.

22 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
6 November, FollowUp 3.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.

Various Direct Links