The We the (Evangelical) People Act

[Gene C. Gerard]

In the wake of the Senate’s failure to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, conservatives are now coalescing around what amounts to their runner-up option. Various conservative and evangelical Christian organizations are now championing the “We the People Act.” The act would prohibit the Supreme Court and all other federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of state laws, especially those concerning sexual orientation. If passed by Congress, this act would severely limit some of the most basic legal principles of the Constitution.

The act was introduced in the House of Representatives in November of last year. But it remained dormant while conservatives waited to see how the amendment banning gay marriage played out. With its rejection last month, the act’s principal sponsor in the House, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, has now resurrected House bill 4379, known as the We the People Act. According to Representative Paul, the act is needed because, “The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions.”

Congressman Paul shares the delusional belief of many conservatives that federal judges are undermining democracy by imposing their preferences on state and local governments, especially regarding issues of sexual orientation. In an effort to counter this presumed threat, the We the People Act declares that, “The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim…related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation or reproduction.” This would essentially allow state legislatures to have immunity from the Constitution when they pass laws regarding sexual orientation. And for all practical purposes, gays and lesbians would loose their constitutional rights.

Evangelicals believe this act is needed to prevent the federal courts from continuing to strike down state laws discriminating against gays and lesbians. They point to the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas as a prime example of activist federal judges who are imposing liberal jurisprudence on state laws. Lawrence v. Texas dealt with two adult men who were arrested for having consensual sex in the privacy of their home. Both men were convicted of violating Texas’ sodomy laws. But in 2003, in a six to three ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws affecting consensual adults were unconstitutional.

The chief proponent of the We the People Act is the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC.) Founded in 1980 by Reverend Louis P. Sheldon, TVC claims to represent the views of more than 43,000 churches. The executive director of the coalition, Andrea Lafferty, worked in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. According to TVC, its mission is “to defend what is morally right.” As such, it’s asking churches to force Congress to vote on the We the People Act. A press release by TVC claims that the act is needed because, “Federal judges have shown themselves to be irresponsible, out-of-control, and politically-motivated in their decisions dealing with marriage, religion, and sexual orientation.”

TVC has a long history of homophobia. A book written by Reverend Shelton entitled The Agenda amounts to a laundry list of old urban myths surrounding homosexuality. The book claims that homosexual activists are attempting to recruit children, undermine traditional marriage, and criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. And it warns that, “The homosexual agenda is an attack on everything our Founding Fathers hoped to give us.”

While it’s troubling that the We the People Act would usurp the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, the act is actually far more dangerous. It stipulates that the federal courts may not issue any ruling that “interferes” with state legislatures or courts. In effect, the federal courts would be prohibited from ruling on state laws and legal decisions made by state courts. A state’s supreme court would have complete and total legal authority, without regard to the federal courts.

While evangelicals view this as an answer to their prayers (literally), the act would end all constitutional oversight by the federal judiciary. But many of the significant legal achievements since the 1950s, especially regarding civil rights, have been the result of federal courts overturning discriminatory rulings by state courts. The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 catapulted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks to national prominence, but it didn’t end segregation on the city’s buses. It was the Supreme Court, which ruled that the city’s municipal bus system was unconstitutional, that did so. This act seeks to prevent similar actions, under the guise of morality.

Congressman Paul has indicated that he intends for Congress to vote on the act by the end of summer. Given the upcoming election, it’s likely that conservative Republicans will use this to rally their base. The GOP seems all too willing lately to trample the constitution as a get-out-the-vote maneuver. Perhaps the name of bill should be changed to the “We the (Evangelical) People Act.”



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gene C. Gerard writes a political blog for the world news website OrbStandard.Com at http://orbstandard.com/GGerard /

[MichiganVote]

1. Modern day sedition

[SammyBlue]

25. Where in the Constitution does it say that the rights given

apply to everyone by gayo-Americans???

How dare gayo-Americans not know their place? This poster from www.whitehouse.org (satire) says it all!!!

[JDPriestly]

40. OK, You're joking but the Constitution is not,

and it says: Article III, Section 2<1>, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority . . . ." Congress cannot prohibit the Court from ruling on constitutional issues, in my view. The Supreme Court will decide, of course, not Congress. If a state wants to try to secede over this issue, well . . . . . . we've been there before.

If gay marriage is an issue of equal protection pursuant to the 14th Amendment, then it is a constitutional issue. That gay marriage is a constitutional issue has not been established by a court as far as I know, however I think a good argument can be made that it is. Amendment XIV, Section 1 states: "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."

The Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and that there must be a compelling reason for laws prohibiting marriages between people. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). I can think of no compelling reason for refusing the right of marriage to people because they want to marry a person of their own gender.

In my view, the bar to gay marriage also constitutes gender discrimination. After all, it prohibits a person from marrying another person and enjoy the legal protections of marriage based solely on gender. Unless it can be shown that a law against gay marriage "serve important governmental objectives" and is "substantially related to achievement of those objectives," it arguably presents a constitutional, 14th Amendment issue. Reed v. Reed, 429 U.S. 190, 197 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). I can't think of an important governmental objective that the bar to gay marriage serves or is substantially related to, but it will be up to the Court. To get justices that will find as I believe they should, we have to elect a Democratic president and Congress.

These cases are very old. There are lots of newer cases discussing the standards of review for constitutional issues as well as what issues qualify as constitutional issues. This isn't the forum to go into that.

[savemefromdumbya]

35. A lot of these evangelicals are closet gays nt

[zonmoy]

53. shoot, how easy do you think it is to be gay and open when your

family is made up of fundie nut jobs and probably all the people you are allowed to associate with too.

[roguevalley]

37. they're laughable aren't they? this would be struck down on the face

of it and if they want to foment revolution, I hear we have a lot of jails available.

[lisby]

64. Ahhhh

Wake up and smell the civil war brewing....



Lisby

[ixion]

2. well, I believe in states' rights, but I wonder if their amendment will

include things like medical marijuana, etc.

This type of legislation goes both ways, and usually the repukes only want it to mean things that offend them.

[Martin Eden]

59. Do the fundies really believe in states' rights?

If so, why did they push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that would have preempted states' rights?

IMO, they only believe in their narrow-minded bigoted agenda -- not in the Constitution or any rational concept of "We the People."

[colinmom71]

61. There is no such thing as "state's rights"...

Persons have rights.

States, per our Constitution, have delegated roles and responsibilities (jurisdictions) of law in order to protect the rights and interests of the people.

Amusingly, this proposed "We the People Act" is itself going to subject to judicial review because it would be a standard act of Congress. The 14th amendment is what demands federal judicial review over state matters where a Constitutional issue is at question. The only power that can be brought to change this would be another Constitutional amendment.

Though I do agree with the conclusion in the journal article. This will definitely be another election year attempt to slur our justice system and to use "hate mongoring" to rally the Republican base.

[LiberalPartisan]

3. That would be the kicker

If such an act became legislation I'd leave the country, take up residency in another country and work towards attaining citizenship in my new adopted country and turn my back on the US with absolutely no regrets abount my decision.

[annabanana]

6. If it became legislation, you would only have to

move to another state.

[femrap]

17. Maybe a bloodless civil war....

All progressives move to blue states and let the bible thumpers and homophobes live in south...where it is going to be very hot.

And then we can build a wall to keep them out....lol! Didn't someone write a great piece on this topic of progressives having all the creative people and our country would be just grand and the bible thumpers would have NOTHING?

[Norrin Radd]

56. I'm not certain if this is the what you are thinking of, but

Garrison Keillor wrote something along those lines, recently:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/07/keillor...

[ForUnity]

77. See, I dont think that's the solution

I think we need to unite... as Americans against the polarizing politics of our time. Be PROGRESSIVE!

I dont know, I came across this declaration that pretty much summed up my thoughts: www.unity08.com/declaration

[Gman]

4. How about a law that prohibits the SCOTUS from telling Florida

how to conduct an election?? What a concept. We wouldn't be in the middle of the shit we're in now.

[Mist]

5. So basically this would allow any state to ignore any constitutional

ruling they don't like? Well, they got the idea from the chimperor, after all.

[annabanana]

7. This is FRAUGHT with unintended

consequences. It would be amusing to watch it play out (from a distance, mind you).

[yardwork]

30. I agree! With these bozos in charge of the federal government

I'm tempted to think that, on balance, this might turn out to be a good thing. (It'll never happen, of course.)

I think that a lot of these homophobic nuts would be surprised to learn just how many states might pass laws that are more progressive than Congress's. Lately, it wouldn't be hard to do. Sure, there will always be some incredibly backward states. We have them anyway, though.

[Joanne98]

42. Yes! CA could decide it didn't want to pay war taxes for moral

reasons like, "thou shalt not kill". We know how much Christians love their wars. They better watch out.

[FloridaPat]

8. Can anyone explain to me the absolute hatred these people have

against gay people? This has been going on for centuries. They have no problem with rapists, child molesters, pimps, but they go nuts on this stuff while the country is killed by insane religious nuts? I find it amazing that when things don't go their way for liberals, they go to a bar in drink. But these right wing nuts want death to those that would foil their plans. History has way to many of these kinds of people.

[rfranklin]

10. They fear their own impulses...whether hetero- or homo-

sexual....yet time after time, when the closet door is opened, it is these same people who are seen busily fornicating.

[jmowreader]

43. The Bible says to hate gay people

Here's what happened: A few thousand years ago, Moses was cruisin' around in the desert when he ran across the Levites. These guys were lots of fun. They had gay sex, screwed their relatives, ate pork without cooking it properly, and slurped down shellfish like it was going out of style.

None of them knew what trichina worms or paralytic shellfish poisoning were with predictable results, and the 90-plus-percent infant mortality rate in Biblical times made the kind of sex that gets someone you're not related to pregnant the only acceptable kind.

So we get the Story of Onan (who had sex that didn't cause pregnancy and was slain for it) and the Mosaic Code (long list of who not to have sex with, long list of meats you can't eat).

Some of Leviticus still makes sense--there are twenty verses proscribing inbreeding. Thanks to man's foolishness regarding the seas, the rules against eating shellfish are starting to look better all the time; lots of harmful algae out there.

But gay sex? "Well, it says here God hates gay people so I have to hate them too." It doesn't say why...and they don't care.

God also says to pay your taxes. They don't listen to that one much.

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. They think if they kill all the gays

there will be no one to tempt them out of the closet. They think going gay is a choice because they've been fighting the impulse and those dirty, sinful thoughts themselves for years. They dare not even contemplate any other explanation. God will read their minds and send them to hell.

[blm]

9. TVC has been aligned with and funded by RevMoon, too.

.

[mike_c]

11. would this include support for state drug laws, too...?

Like decriminalization of marijuana? How about state right-to-die laws?

[drm604]

12. This would essentially be the dissolution of the union.

This is ridiculous. If state laws aren't governed by the constitution then what exactly is left of the union? It's about as un-American as you can get. Would such an act even be constitutional? It would surely be challenged and I can't believe the Supreme Court would give up their power and essentially dissolve the union.

[FantasticFlan]

29. Right, no worries, the Supreme Court would never let this stand. n/t

[insleeforprez]

36. The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment would render this act unconstitutional, based on a century of legal interpretation of that piece of the Constitution.

[bos1]

74. I think this is the main point.

Congress cannot pass a law in outright defiance of the Constitution -- the law would be null and void (especially by the time the Supremos got to it)

[tavalon]

13. I think we have heard from about all the Texas Jackasses (tm)

that we need to. Ron Paul, STFU and while you're at it, take a goddamn remedial civics class, you fucking knuckle dragger!

[bos1]

75. Ron Paul is an interesting character, actually.

He opposed the war on Iraq for being unconstitutional, motivated by profits and for the reason that nothing could be proven against Iraq.

http://www.counterpunch.org/pauliraq1.html

[Up2Late]

14. This is a ridiculous Bill. The amazing part is that he doesn't...

...(or maybe he does) realize how massively un-Constitutional this Law would be.

The funny part is that this would probably struck down almost immediately by The Supreme Court of the United States.

Ron Paul should be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and deported to whatever country his family originally came from just for proposing such a STUPID law.

[lisby]

65. Psssstt...

They don't want him back there.

Lisby

[ptolle]

66. selective attention

Given that this twit, and the rest of the frightwingshriekers, tend to pay selective attention to what anybody else thinks it's likely they haven't seen this which I found on Aravosis' americablog
~~~~~~~
Big drop in ten years. From the National Journal:

Values: Legislating Morality
Another release from the Gallup poll on Americans' values reveals a divide about the role of government in modeling morality. When respondents were asked whether the federal government should "be involved in promoting moral values in our society," 48 percent said it should and 48 percent said it shouldn't.

Poll numbers from a decade ago -- May 1996, about six months before Bill Clinton won a second term in the White House -- show more of a desire for institutional participation. Six in 10 said the federal government should be involved in promoting moral values in our society, more than 10 points higher than the current survey. Thirty-eight percent said the government shouldn't be involved.

[HuskiesHowls]

15. This is quite interesting,

Especially since only ONE (1) justice on the Supreme Court at the time of Lawrence v Texas was appointed by a Democrat!!! It seems that conservatives are turning on their own, now.

[truth2power]

16. I don't think Congress can pass a law

the abrogates part of the Consitiution.

....Well, they can pass it, but it would be unconstitutional.

Idiots!!

[ContraBass Black]

20. Exactly.

But they'll get away with enforcing it until a court strikes it down.

[davepc]

18. When will a Dem introduce the Reproductive Freedom Amendment

which in explicit language spells out the rights women have over their reproductive choices.

[frankly_fedup2]

19. Wasn't it because of disagreement between states and their laws

that got the Southern States deciding they would become their own country and this brought on the Civil War? Just asking 'cause it sounds like the same thing to me.

Well, next I do believe there will be a so-called debate (so-called because the Dems will debate but don't have a chance in Hell having their votes matter) as to whether the Constitution itself needs to be updated to the way of life today starting with the First Ammendment. Freedom of speech is on its way out, freedom of the press is all but gone, however, right to bear arms I'm sure will stay the same.

Okay, fine I say. However, if there will be no separation of church and state, each state's laws govern that state, then we need to get Biblical Scholars of today and have them update the King James Version translation of the Christian Bible. How do you think that might go over? We could call it the "The Evangelical's Evolutionary Versus Intelligent Design Act." I can see Falwell's and Robertson's heads exploding now.

[Larry Ogg]

58. They did update the King James Bible and it’s called the Living Bible

And what they shamefully did to the King James Bible they want to do to the Constitution, and that is to translate it into there narrow minded perception of what they think it should have said to suit there slithering hell fire and damnation warmongering Christian Ayatollah dogma. Why? Because they are heartless bastards incapable of understanding what the authors of either the Bible or the Constitution said. I would really like to know who finances the campaigns of these idiot scum sucking gutter pigs that call themselves Christians and why? Ok I know why; they want to destroy freedom liberty and justice for all and turn us into a nation of terrified superstitious lost sheep that will do anything our holeyer than thou wolves in sheep’s clothing masters say.

Know the minds of your enemies!

[frankly_fedup2]

85. That sounds exactly like the Taliban. Ironic! (nt)

[Maestro]

21. For Pete's sake!

Let's just do away with all courts and have a theocratic council oversee the United States. Damn that Constitution and its three branches of government.

[OldCurmudgeon]

22. goodbye equality, it was nice knowing you

“The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim…related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation or reproduction.”

So South Carolina could start enforcing old anti-miscegnation laws that federal
courts shut down?

I'm sure that the repug-base would be happy with such an outcome, but the rest of the country, not so much.

[PittPoliSci]

23. define irony.

an unconstitutional law that places limits on the judiciary, that if passed, would be destroyed by, yup, you guessed it, the judiciary.

[Occulus]

24. Isn't this related to the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005"

or some such?

Why, it appears so!

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1070 IH



109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1070
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2005
Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. PENCE, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Ms. FOXX, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. PITTS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. CANNON, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. HERGER, Mr. GOODE, Mr. HALL, and Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary







A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Not precisely the same wording, but it effectively does the same thing. I guess someone decided God wasn't necessary to institute theocratic fascism.....?

It serves the same purpose. My God, we are so fucked.

[Popol Vuh]

26. What about?

United States Constitution

Article IV

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.



Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ta...

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=...

[readmoreoften]

27. Will this bill be resoundingly defeated?

Just wondering. I can't imagine this passing.

[FantasticFlan]

28. Wouldn't that effectively end federalism...

since any state could pass legislation in opposition to federal legislation and congress would lose all power?

We've been down the road of weak central gov't before, it didn't work, twice actually, it won't work again.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kevinbgoode]

32. So this means the first act of a Democratic congress

should be that we pass an immediate law removing those who follow "con-servative" christian beliefs from protections of their cults on the grounds their actions and behavior are a danger to national security.

Those who attempt to establish a theocracy are far more a danger to the United States than the people of Iraq. Just think what we could do when gun restriction legislation comes up? We can demand that an important issue that can cause life or death to citizens must be put up for popular vote and the SCOTUS has not right to protect owners.

[TwentyFive]

33. Middle class is shrinking. It's an election year. Connect the dots.

The extra chromosome wing of the gop.....middle class christian republicans...are feeling intense economic pressure. Lower wages. Higher gas prices. Their dodge minivan with the "support our troops" and christian fish sticker is about to get repo'd. And the Bush bankruptcy bill means they'' never escape the ever larger credit card bills.

So what's a Karl Rove to do about getting these suckers to vote gop again? Ahhh...the WE THE PEOPLE ACT. Gotta bar the door from the queers....even as their house falls into foreclosure (which are up 72% in 2006). Christian Suckers!!!!

[Patchuli]

50. Please remember those are rightwinger

Christians. There are leftwing liberal Christians out here that wish the rightwingers would shut the &^$*@ up! No where in my Bible does it tell me to hate homosexuals or *anyone* for that matter.

Those folks really think the world revolves about them, don't they?

[TwentyFive]

57. Right, Bible never says to hate homosexuals - just KILL THEM

The bible is not concerned with emotions - just commands, like to kill your neighbor for working on the sabbath.

The real reason the fundies hate queers is because they can't (without going to jail) do what the bible commands them to do, which is to stone anybody who "lies with another man." Some christians do carry out biblical instruction, like the Army of God guy who bombed a gay nightclub, or the several more 'dedicated' members who kill abortion doctors, bomb clinics and the like.

But what really irritates me are the so called liberal/moderate christians. First, conservative christians easily knock the theological legs out from under liberal/moderate christianity....which allows them to ignore their critics. Second, liberal churches spread the fallacy that christianity is a religion based on love...ignoring the majority of the bible where your god destroys cities, tells fathers to kill their babies, sends plagues, kills thousands in a flood, creates a place of eternal torment, complete with weeping and gnashing of teeth...just to name a few. Would they give similar cover to the abusive husband who brings his wife flowers? And lastly, they immediately attack and silence any critics, and claim "Oh, but thats not REAL christianity. How DARE you attack my religion! Mine is a religion of LOVE!"....even though liberal christians are simply a side show, compared to the huge, evangelical mega-churches growing by leaps and bounds.

[Patchuli]

67. Spoken with true intolerance and with a liberal

sprinkling of ignorance. You're going by the Old Testament which is full of hate and cruelty.

We study the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Would you, with all your assumptions and stereotypes, kindly point out to me where Jesus told us to "kill homosexuals" please? And while you are at it, you don't need to educate me as to what the extreme-o fundies are up to. I no more approve than you of any of their actions, I am pro-choice and I help financially support NARAL so women will continue to have a choice.

Be sure to keep in mind by labeling all Christians that YOU too are being intolerant.

Happy Lord's Day to you.

[TwentyFive]

76. Perhaps you need to read your own words.

>>"You're going by the Old Testament which is full of hate and cruelty."

So by your own words, you worship a hateful and cruel god. But somehow you think he's changed, that he's turned over a new leaf perhaps. I've heard this line of reasoning before. Yes, it sounds just like the Battered Spouse Syndrome...or in this case, the Battered Parishioner Syndrome.

>>"Would you, with all your assumptions and stereotypes, kindly point out to me where Jesus told us to "kill homosexuals" please?"

I'll be happy to answer your question. But first, I want to know more about your "all your assumptions and stereotypes" description of what I said. It seems I make several assumptions and refer to several stereotypes that are not true? Please list them 'all' off and why you think I am in error. And while you're at it, please give me examples of the "liberal sprinkling of ignorance" you claim I use my posting.

>>"Be sure to keep in mind by labeling all Christians that YOU too are being intolerant."

I reread my posting. I refer the actions by "fundies", "some christians" and "liberal/moderate christians" which are very similar to the descriptors you used in your first posting. I never engage in "labeling all Christians" as you accuse.

edit: add/edit last paragraph.

[Patchuli]

79. Incorrect

Perhaps you should re-read a bit yourself. I do not live my life by the Old Testament and I certainly don't worship a God of hate and cruelty. Being raised Catholic, I did feel that way. Becoming a born-again Christian at age 17 by choice and nondominational at that, hate and cruelty are not a part of the life.

Your stereotypes are assuming that all Christians basically suck. And that, my fellow DUer is what I object to. You stated that we liberal Christians enable the hate-freaks. Bullcrap. I live my life tolerant of all others as I would wish them to be tolerant of me. But I'll never stand idly by and watch someone trash what is nearest to my heart. My pastor calls for tolerance towards others and he never discusses abortion or any other political footballs in church. In other words, it's up to God to judge folks on those matters, not ours.

Why don't you turn that energy towards being the voice of reason to the fundies who are obviously brainwashed by freakazoid humans, such as Robertson and Dobson? Otherwise, it's just more generalized intolerance toward another group of people. I'm not really up for a flamefest but that's my four cents.

[TwentyFive]

81. Did you consider this?

>>"I do not live my life by the Old Testament and I certainly don't worship a God of hate and cruelty."

I don't want a flame war either, but god does not change. OT god = NT god. You are worshiping the same god.

NT god is still hateful and cruel, perhaps more so. What kind of god would create a place described as Hell and/or the lake of fire? That's in the NT. OT stories of sadism and cruelty are gone. In their place, the NT describes threats of future eternal torture and suffering that is unimaginable to the human mind. In many ways, this is actually worse - god is now making threats against us, and is planning out his crimes against humanity. The old god maybe just lost his temper and sent floods, famine, disease, etc...sort of a spur of the moment kind of thing.

I used to be a christian, but after much study and agonizing, I concluded the whole thing is a huge hoax. As you know, we don't allow kids to vote or sign contracts, because they lack logical reasoning skills. Perhaps this is why churches are so adamant about getting to the little ones? Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, claimed that if you indoctrinate a child before age 6, you have that child in your power for life.

[Patchuli]

83. I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way

but peace to you. My faith in a good and gentle Lord sustains me.

I also don't think that God is responsible for all the bad things, but then, there I go again!

[readmoreoften]

34. Can't we get another recommend on this?

I know it's on the front page but I'd like to have more imput from more people. This is seriously important.

[savemefromdumbya]

38. IF THE GOVERNMENT would do something about the economy?

instead of persecuting gays and Muslims?

[Initech]

39. Wow, these people are getting scarier by the day.

The We The People act sounds like a really modern day form of fascism. Hell, it's starting to sound like their "Final Solution". Remember - Hitler hated gays, too.

[drbaldwinfl]

41. Wringing Our Hands

I make a challenge to all the bloggers out there to stop crying about this and do something constructive to prevent this bill from even seeing the light of day. Write your Congressmen and Senators (most can be reached by email) and tell them that this bill will be a direct attack on the very Constitution that they swore to uphold.

[nealmhughes]

44. The tyranny of the majority in action.

A constitution's main focus is not merely the setting into stone the limits and duties of certain branches of government, but also to protect the rights of the minority.
Without our constitution, there could well be religious tests and established churches. After all, look how long it took Massachusetts to disestablish.
Any group with an agenda could therefore change their constitutions in their respective states to suit the supposed desires of the majority. Don't like people getting state benefits? Make them against the (Insert name of state here)'s constitution.
Want to make sodomy a capital crime? Make it so in the constitution of the state.
Want to make everything in the Mosaic code capital? Put it in the constitution of your state.
Want to make speaking any language other than English in public a felony? Put it in your constitution.
The USSC could not review, unless it was a federal breach. A lot of fundamentalists say that the anti-establishment clause applies only to the federal, i.e., the US cannot establish a church, but the states can.
This is one step from continuous referenda on everything. We know how well that worked in Athens.

[knitter4democracy]

45. So much for the Civil War.

I mean, apparently we have to fight it again. States' rights trumping federal rights? Haven't we dealt with this with thousands who gave their lives for it on both sides?

God, these people are sick.

[Wonderpup]

46. Popol Vuh is right...

Fortunately, and ironically, it would take a constitutional amendment to do this rather than simply passing legislation. The wingnuts who proposed this bill are not just, well, wingnuts, but they are morons as well. I doubt even the basket full of right-wing boobs dominating the Supreme Court could come up with a rationale to overrule Marbury vs. Madison.

[DespisedIcon]

47. These Evangelicals

do not understand the checks and balances are in plae to protect everybody , even themselves. If some other religion gained power and tried to discriminate agaist them, like they are doing to homosexuals, the constiution would protect them from the discrimination. The constitution was set up on the basis of minority rights and majority rule: if they are the so-called majority, why do they viciously want to attack this minority and take their rights away?

[tlsmith1963]

48. These People Are Sick

This proves that the fundies don't believe in freedom or democracy. So why don't *they* just leave if they hate it here so much? I bet they'd love a country like Saudi Arabia *so* much better!

Tammy

[orleans]

49. i am sick to death of all the crap these freaking pukes and

evangels are doing--

[RiverCamper]

52. Deny the Christians

Let's start a major movement to deny them anything that has been created or contributed to by a gay person. Demand that cable limit anything that gays have had anything to do with. I don't want fanatics to enjoy the work of gays and lesbians and others. Superman Returns? Religious fanatics aren't allowed. And all the other movies and shows and books and entertainment. Fuck them.

Christians For A Gay Free America should be our name.

Once they realize they would be limited to about one commercial on tv a week, I think they'd start to pay attention to what really matters.

[dansolo]

51. Wouldn't that invalidate the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment?

The whole purpose of the Gay Marriage Amendment is to prevent any state from passing a law allowing any form of gay marriage, by making it unconstitutional. If they passed this law, then even with a Gay Marriage Amendment, any state would still be free to pass a law allowing gay marriage. Remember, state laws can work both ways in regards to the gay marriage issue, either forbidding them or allowing them. That should make the evangelicals stop and rethink their support of this.

[ElboRuum]

71. Rethink?

You presume that they thought once.

[zonmoy]

54. Is there a subtitle on the act called be as evil as we want to be and

tell everybody that our evil god told us to do it act.

[amb123]

55. Declaration of War on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

I believe this so-called “We the People Act" is nothing more or less than a declaration of war not only on GLBT's but on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It allows state laws to supersede all federal laws and the federal courts. This is Interposition and Nullification in a new guise.

If this becomes law, then I have no choice than to conclude that the Founding Fathers of our nation lived, worked, fought and died for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

When it comes to this, I'll leave this Fascist country and live with my aunt in Canada. And the last words I'll ever say on American soil will be, "LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE MY ASS!"

Anybody agree with my assessment or am I being paranoid?

[PurpleChez]

62. You're not being paranoid.

The fundies want the government to protect them from everything and anything that challenges their very narrow reading of Christian doctrine. If ONE of their wing nut amendments were to succeed, be sure that we'd see a dozen more proposals within the year, each more petty than the last. And more fascistic.

[Joe Bacon]

60. So when are Christians gonna go after shrimp eaters?

The Bi-Bull condemns them to death, too!

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com /

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

[usregimechange]

63. Activist Judges: like the ones in Brown v. Board of edu...

http://www.cafepress.com/rightsrules1

[Hawaii Hiker]

68. we the people act

Couple thoughts on this article..All this talk about "activist judges", well, has there ever been a more activist judge than Roy Moore of Alabama, who disobeyed a direct order to remove the 10 commandments...Also, the bible talks about the re-distribution of wealth, funny how the far right hacks always leave that one out of their sermons - LOL..The religious right picks apart the bible, & chooses the parts that suit them...

Lou Sheldon is an awful person...I saw the "E" True Hollywood Story on Jenna Jameson while back, & during that show, they interviewed him & basically went on about how Jenna is ruining America blah blah & the usual blame porn for all the worlds troubles rhetoric from the far right...Also, Jenna had a file of some of the hate mail shes received, no doubt written by the religious right clowns..

Articles like this one really showcase why this country needs Howard Dean as president...

[timontheleft]

69. No jusrisdiction, no money

If a state doesn't want to be under the juisdiction of the SCOTUS, fine - but they should not receive any more Federal dollars for any reason. Why should my tax dollars go to pork in a state that just wants to discriminate against me?

[2QT2BSTR8]

70. We The People INDEED!! Please read.

WE the people, for those that are privileged to live here. I recently heard in a comedy "All are welcome to our church - - - - within reason". I thank whoever found and posted this article to DU!

My first response to this article when I read it was to cry, to cry for my partner of 8 years and I who may never know equality and justice. To cry for those youth who are still in the closet, and terrified as I was to come out. Twenty years ago my biggest fear in coming out was that my parents would reject me. Now, the youth of today have the concern that their own country will reject them!

Can someone please tell me whatever happened to Liberty and Justice for All?

I would like to share a story with you if you will please indulge me. Back in 1989 I had just turned 18 and had graduated high school with the full knowledge I was a gay man. During my senior year in high school, my mom had placed me into a psych hospital after she found some magazines that she did not "understand" in my bedroom. I had come to find out later that she had told my dad that the necessity was because of my falling grades and social problems which were actually caused as I struggled to come out of the closet. Her greatest hope back then was that this psych hospital would stuff me so far back in the closet I would never find my way out. I was in Charter Hospital of Santa Teresa for 3 months, and during that entire time, the "plan of treatment" as it reads in my later acquired medical records was to convince me that I was hurting myself, my family, and most of all God. My family was big into church politics in our SMALL southwestern NM town (less than 800 Methodist church. And if I came out of the closet it would devastate my family, and be the scandal of the worst kind. I am very proud to say that despite that plan of action, by the time I left I was telling the doctor who had been treating me, that if anything he gave me the strength to come out of the closet. I was discharged, and went back to finish up the last 9 weeks of my torturous senior year of high school. And as soon as I graduated, I packed up everything I had and very quickly moved out of my childhood home, and up to Amarillo, TX to attend WTSU about a 20 minute drive in Canyon, TX.

Well on to my main story, if you are still with me, thank you! I started to attend an Episcopalian church, which so happened to be the largest church in the panhandle of TX. During the 9 months I attend that church, I remained in the closet, and had to skulk like a vermin at night just to meet other people like myself. During my time at this church, I tithed, I sang in both choirs (mens and mixed), I helped out with several volunteer groups serving the elderly and sick members of our church, and was very involved in numerous other church related volunteer groups. All this time I was completely in the closet, by my own choice. Because I felt like I still needed God in my life, but of course back then in the Episcopalian church ALL PEOPLE WERE WELCOME - - - - - within reason. My life however got to the point where I felt like everyone I knew and loved had abandoned me, all because I was gay. My parents had disowned me, saying "I didn't exist", and I could never come back home because they had told everyone in my hometown that I had been killed in an auto accident. To them, I was dead. My friends of course turned out to be anything far from. All I had left was my church. (my parents have since come full circle and totally accept me and my partner)

So it came down to the point, of my making an appointment with the head pastor of my church. We spent the entire afternoon with my spilling my heart and soul out to him, including coming TOTALLY out of the closet to him, all while he was holding my hand telling me it was all right and referring to bible passages to help me cope with what was going in my life. I left that appointment feeling very positive about my life and my situation, knowing that I would get better and would get through anything sent my way. Little did I know what fate held in store for me. The following Sunday, I made my usual plans to attend all three church services, (each with around 2000 people) as I usually did. So it came down to my sitting in the front row, dead center to the pulpit, so that I and my fellow church members sitting with me could quickly move up to choral loft to sing for the service. Then it began.......

The pastor started in his sermon of "Healing the Heart", he was 15 minutes in when I heard and felt his sermon starting to go south.

I do not have it word for word, but this is as close as I can remember. "My fellow children of God, the only way that we can truly heal the heart of those around us and in the world is to have a pure heart ourselves. It grieves me to say that today one of our own has confessed to me that his heart is not pure, and he refuses to change." He then went on to this death spiral about the sin of homosexuality and how it destroys the heart, family, and how it was the gravest of sins. I was mortified, and crying inside, all the while wishing the service to end. Then he called out my name, and asked me to stand. There I stood in front of the only family I had left, over 2000 people whom I had grown to love and know. He then asked everyone to shield their eyes from me, and cast me as a demon out of the church, and everyone followed suit. No one came to support me, or be with me. I was so completely devastated. That day was spent packing up my place, and that night in the cover of darkness I moved from Amarillo to Phoenix to start my life over on my own.

It took me giving up on my life so much that I purposely became sexually careless. I was to the point that I felt I was such a worthless human being that all I wanted to do was die. So in my sexual carelessness, I became infected with HIV which led me to a suicide attempt. My struggle of coming out and finally finding GOD took me 10 years before I finally found God again in the shelter of a nationwide group of churches known as MCC or Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.mccchurch.org or http://communitychurchofhope.com /.

I understand that I am one of many that can tell a very similar story. I am just sharing this story with DU to help those that do not understand, what we as gay people are subjected even now on a daily basis. For those of you that already support us, I thank you for everything that you do to help us in our struggle. You know that we are not freaks, child molesters, and we are not bent on destroying the fiber of the American way of life. My partner and I are committed to each other, and have been so for 8 years. We are also part of a life changing choral group located here in Dallas called the Turtle Creek Chorale http://www.turtlecreek.org . Some of you may have recently seen us in a documentary on PBS called The Power of Harmony which can be found at http://www.thepowerofharmony.com/trailer.htm . I wish to thank Dr. Seelig for everything he has done in our choir.

I ask of all of you, is it so much for us to ask that after all our own personal struggles, and those struggles of every GLBT person in this great country of ours to treat us as equal to every citizen of our great country? If House Bill 4379 passes it will be a slap in the face of EVERY citizen in our great country whether you are straight, bi, or gay. I urge everyone to contact their Representatives and urge them to vote against House Bill 4379. Let Freedom ring for everyone in this country, not just those that are welcome, and not just those that are welcome "within reason".

If you read this entire piece - - - - - Thank you from the bottom of my heart!

[amb123]

72. They are the PERVERTS!

The people in that Episcopalian church are the perverts, not you.
"Rev." Fred Phelps and his "Westboro Baptist Church" are the perverts, not you.
"Rev." Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values coalition are the perverts, not you.
"Rev." Jerry Falwell and "Rev." Pat Robertson are the perverts, not you.
All Republicans are the perverts, not you.
"PRESIDENT" GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS THE PERVERT, NOT YOU!

We WILL save Liberty and Justice for ALL and ALL will be welcome in America - Period.

Gob Bless you, your partner and your family. From one who is straight but not narrow.

[2QT2BSTR8]

73. Since I do not have enough posts - Thank you!

This was an extremely emotional post for me to make, and I feel honored to have you as the first reply to my post. Thank you is just not enough, but it is the only thing I can say.

[Patchuli]

80. 2Q

all I can say is I'm sorry you were treated like that and I hope that pastor gets special 'treatment' from our Lord on Judgement Day!!

The gay members of my family are every bit as precious to me as the straight. I could not love a God who didn't love all of us!

[Emit]

82. Your post brought tears to my eyes

I am so sorry you had to endure that abuse. GGGrrrhhhhh....!!!!

I'm fighting these assholes everyday -- writing letters, phone calls, volunteeriing -- for your cause, my cause and other's causes -- you are not alone.

[The Wizard]

78. One Nation

under Zeus.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. I think you are over generalizing about Evangelicals

Here is some info on another group of Evangelicals:

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean were speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

“They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception." link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14...

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.

Sojourners are the Evangelicals they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners:


http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview on Democracy Now with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/135...


.