Sodomy Map

Despite Lawrence Vs. Texas, laws specifically against gay sex remain on the books in four states. Ten other states continue to outlaw all acts of sodomy. Last month the GOP blocked an attempt to delete such a law in Montana.

(Via - Matt Yglesias)

KANSAS: Lawmakers Call For Continued Criminalization Of LGBT Residents

Even though in 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all anti-sodomy laws in its landmark Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, two state legislators in Kansas are fighting to keep their now unconstitutional laws on the books. The Kansas Equality Coalition reports:

State Representatives Jan Pauls (D, Hutchinson), and Lance Kinzer (R, Olathe) said yesterday that being gay or lesbian should remain a crime in Kansas. Pauls made, with Kinzer’s support, the successful motion in the Kansas Legislature’s Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee to keep the criminalization of gay and lesbian relationships on the books. Their action removed key language from HB2321, proposed by the Kansas Judicial Council, which would have resolved inconsistencies in Kansas criminal code, as well as remove unconstitutional laws. “Jan Pauls was trusted to be a judge before becoming a state representative, and should know better than to support unconstitutional laws, breaking her oath to defend the Constitution,” said Jon Powell, Chair of the Hutchinson Area chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition. “We are fed up with her obvious support of harassment of gays and lesbians. We will not be bullied.”

Equality-minded Kansans are encourage to join a March 17th demonstration calling for Rep. Paul's removal as chairwoman of the Kansas House Judiciary Committee.

Anthony Weiner: Justice Clarence Thomas Must Recuse Himself On Health Care Fight

Watch our hero hand the Fox anchor her head.

Father Of Slain Soldier Predicts Gunfire At Future Westboro Baptist Pickets

Bereaved father Albert Snyder, who lost his Supreme Court battle with Westboro Baptist Church earlier this week, says that somebody is inevitably going to open fire on the Phelps family.

"Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt." "You have too many soldiers and Marines coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they (the Westboro protesters) are going to go to the wrong funeral and the guns are going to go off." "And when it does," Snyder said. "I just hope it doesn't hit the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother. It's inevitable." Albert Snyder again slammed the high court justices for not having "the common sense that God gave a goat." "I just can't believe that there was no common sense used in this decision," Snyder said.

Snyder must now pay $116K in court costs to the Phelps.

America's Bedrock

Quote Of The Day - Maggie Gallagher

"The fringe cult calling itself Westboro Baptist (a small congregation consisting of close, and possibly incestuous, relatives of Fred Phelps, who calls himself a pastor) first became famous by protesting gay rights events with revolting signs suggesting that God hates gay people. (They used another offensive terms as well). These ugly signs proved irresistible to reporters from the New York Times etc., who like to pretend this sentiment captures religious conservatives' views generally. [snip]

"Only Justice Sam Alito had the common sense to recognize that somewhere in our great Constitution, there has to be a way to let people bury their dead, without becoming the objects of other people's monomaniacal desire to disrupt their grieving for publicity purposes." - Maggie Gallagher, whose supporters never use offensive terms or signs like Westboro.

HomoQuotable - Jim Burroway

"This [Westboro] ruling is important for many reasons. First and foremost, it preserves the primacy of free speech in America, which benefits us all. But from a parochial pro-LGBT narrative, it’s equally important to note that it proves the lie to the multiple instances when anti-gay activists falsely claimed that advances in LGBT equality and protections — whether they come in the form of marriage equality or hate crimes protections — will result in the infringement of religious and speech rights. They never have and, if this ruling is any indication, it reaffirms the fact that they never will. So the next time someone claims that marriage equality will result in pastors being prosecuted for hate speech, make a note of it: Snyder v Phelps." - Jim Burroway, writing for Box Turtle Bulletin.

Sarah Palin On Westboro Ruling

Supreme Court OK's Westboro Protests

The Supreme Court today ruled 8-1 to overturn a $5M judgment against Westboro Baptist Church, saying that the First Amendment protects their right to picket the funerals of military members. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

Tony Perkins Whines About DC Ruling

"It would be easy to spin yesterday's news about the Supreme Court as a victory for same-sex 'marriage.' (So easy, in fact, that homosexual activists are already doing it!) But there was a lot more behind this case than a simple 'yes' or 'no' on D.C.'s counterfeit marriage law. When the justices announced that they wouldn't hear Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal, it wasn't an affirmation of same-sex 'marriage' in our nation's capital. In fact, it wasn't a reflection on the merits of the case at all!

"The Supreme Court declined the suit because it's a local election issue. And even though this affects America 's capital, it has very limited federal implications. The only reason the Supremes had jurisdiction over this case is because D.C. operates under federal law. If this suit had originated in the states, the Court couldn't even consider it. With all the headlines out there, it's important to understand this. Tuesday's decision was not an endorsement of gay 'marriage' in this city or anywhere else. It was simply the court recognizing its own limitations. On matters affecting the District, Congress is the absolute authority. The justices are leaving it to them to clean up this mess, or not." - Family Research Council president Tony "Scare Quotes" Perkins.

Explaining Citizens United

(Tipped by JMG reader Miranda)

Catholic Group: SCOTUS Rejection Of DC Marriage Suit Is A Human Tragedy

Just in from Catholics For The Common Good:

"It is shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the appeal of District of Columbia citizens who were deprived of their right to vote on the definition of marriage. The Court's decision effectively upheld the finding of the Washington Human Rights Commission that it would be discriminatory to even give citizens a choice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. [snip] The consequences of changing the definition of marriage have broad ramifications for how the value of marriage to children and society is perceived and will affect decisions people make about marriage in their own lives. Already, 41% of children born today are deprived of a mother and father who have first chosen to make themselves irreplaceable to each through marriage. This is a human tragedy and a violation of the rights of the child."

SCOTUS Nears Decision On DC Marriage

According to the Supreme Court's public docket, the nine justices have scheduled a Friday meeting to discuss Jackson v. the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, Bishop Harry Jackson's lawsuit demanding that DC residents be allowed to vote on same-sex marriage. The Court is expected to announced on Monday if they will hear the case.

Lou Chibarro reports at the Washington Blade:

Jackson and his attorneys argue that the city did not have the authority to ban ballot measures that impact the Human Rights Act because only Congress could make such a change by amending the city’s Home Rule Charter. Gay rights attorneys have joined city attorneys in disputing that contention, claiming the city acted within the scope of the Home Rule charter in the 1970s when it put in place restrictions on certain ballot measures. City attorneys defended those restrictions in a brief submitted before the Supreme Court on Dec. 17. The attorneys, among other things, argued that the case involves a local matter pertaining to the city’s initiative and referendum law. They noted that the high court has a longstanding precedent of deferring to state or D.C. appeals courts on cases that don’t have a national impact. If the Supreme Court rejects Jackson’s request to take on the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals decision remains in force to permanently prevent a ballot measure on the same-sex marriage law.

Lou Engle: The Power Of My Prayers Gets Justices Nominated To The Supreme Court

(Via - Right Wing Watch)

Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals

Speaking on Friday at the University of Richmond, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the concept of a "living Constitution" and said the 14th Amendment was not written with the intent of granting equal protection to ALL Americans. Just the heterosexual ones.

“The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word - liberty - nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.” “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. Gay people and women, he said, should go to their state legislatures and see if "current society wants to outlaw discrimination" based on gender or sexual orientation. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws against sodomy, Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia was the most vehement dissenting vote.

The famous "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment, upon which entirely hangs the hopes of the federal marriage equality movement, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

RELATED: At 74 years old, Scalia is the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. He is thought to be in relatively good health and most court watchers expect him to remain on the bench for as long another decade.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Log Cabin Republican's DADT Request

The Supreme Court has refused to vacate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's indefinite stay of the overturn of DADT. The vacate request was filed on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans, who last month convinced District Court Judge Virginia Phillips to declare DADT to be unconstitutional.

Via SCOTUSblog:

Without noting a dissent, but with Justice Kagan not taking part, the Court denied a gay rights advocacy group’s plea to block the military from enforcing the 1993 law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the services. The order means the policy will remain in effect at least through March, unless Congress repeals it — an unlikely prospect.

UPDATE: Servicemembers United reacts.

"It is unfortunate that an unconstitutional law that is causing substantial harm to military readiness and to tens of thousands of troops is allowed to remain in effect for even one more day," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the only named veteran plaintiff in the case. "This just underscores the need to continue to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow the defense authorization bill to come back up and take its first procedural step before the Senate's Thanksgiving recess. Servicemembers United, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Stonewall Democrats, and the Log Cabin Republicans have all strongly and consistently called on Senator Reid to do just that. It is now time for other organizations, as well as the White House, to publicly do the same."

DOJ Files Opposition To Log Cabin Republicans' SCOTUS Appeal On DADT

Today the Department of Justice filed a brief in opposition to the Log Cabin Republicans' request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the LCR's appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court's indefinite stay on the overturn of DADT. Whew! Got all that? The Log Cabin Republicans respond to this latest bit of legal ping-pong.

"It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court to halt this failed policy. At the same time, President Obama remains far from the front lines of the fight for legislative repeal while commanding his lawyers to zealously defend 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in court. This week Log Cabin Republicans have conducted meetings with numerous Republican senators potentially in favor of repeal, all of whom are waiting for the President's call. The White House has been missing in action on Capitol Hill, undermining efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the final session of this Congress, potentially leaving the judiciary as the only solution for our brave men and women in uniform."

And there's this from the LCR's legal team.

"We have reviewed the government's opposition to Log Cabin's application to vacate the stay of Judge Phillips's injunction by the Ninth Circuit. In our view, the government's lengthy, detailed, 29-page brief does not address the two key arguments we presented to the Supreme Court. First, we argued that the premise of the government's position--that it needs time to conduct an orderly process of repealing DADT--is entirely speculative because Congress has not and very well may never repeal DADT; the government's filing today does not address that issue. Second, we argued that the Ninth Circuit order did not take into account the harm to servicemembers and potential enlistees resulting from the stay; the government's filing today does not respond to that point either. At this point, all we can do is to look forward to a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court."

SCOTUS Rejects Lisa Miller Case

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Lisa Miller, the "ex-gay" biological mother who lost custody of her daughter to her former partner.

The justices on Monday turned down an appeal from Lisa Miller, the biological mother of an 8-year-old girl. Miller wanted the court to undo a Virginia court decision allowing Janet Jenkins visitation rights with the girl. Jenkins is from Vermont. Miller is from Virginia. They were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2000. Their daughter has been the subject of a long-running legal fight. Miller has renounced her homosexuality. She and her daughter did not appear for a court-ordered custody swap in January. Their whereabouts are unknown.

Miller's case has been championed by both the "ex-gay" movement and by anti-gay Christianist groups who believe that gays should never have parental rights. It is suspected by many that Miller and her daughter Isabelle have been spirited out of the country by the anti-gay Liberty Counsel, who represents her.

Log Cabin Republicans File U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Of DADT Overturn Stay

Today the Log Cabin Republicans turned to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court's indefinite stay of Judge Virginia Phillips' overturn of DADT. From the LCR's law firm of Dan Woods, White & Case:

"We have today filed an application with the United States Supreme Court asking it to vacate the Ninth Circuit's order staying Judge Phillips's injunction pending appeal. We argue in this application that the Ninth Circuit order was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion and should be vacated immediately. We continue to look forward to the day when all Americans can serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation," said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans.

Q: Will the entire Supreme Court be involved in considering whether to vacate the Ninth Circuit order?

A: That is up to Justice Kennedy. He may decide himself or he may refer the application to the full court.

Q: How long will the review take?

A: That is also up to the court. The Court may allow the government the opportunity to respond to our application.

Q: What are the next steps if the Court vacates the ruling/doesn't vacate the ruling?

A: If the Court vacates the stay order, DADT is dead pending the appeal, and we have for all intents and purposes won. If it doesn't, we will next move in the Ninth Circuit to expedite the Judge Phillips's decision.

Outside Snyder Vs. Phelps

Good As You has an email from Shirley Phelps about her time before the Court yesterday. It begins:

I am floating home on a cloud of euphoria. We got to tell the conscience of Doomed america that if they would stop with the proud sin the soldiers would stop dying. Alito was a serious disappointment. I don't know why I would expect him to man up and tell a squally rebel to drink a frosty mug of shut the hell up and AVERT your eyes. On the other hand, the three women were lions of proper and simple First Amendment Law. When a nation is cursed of God, everything becomes so complicated and there [i]s no MAN among the people, so I find that dynamic to be altogether perfect. Shortly this nation is going to crack open like a walnut and be cast into the sea. The horrors of it will make this nation of girly boys beg for some good old-fashioned troops from Iran or China pouring into your borders and laying you waste.