It was about a week ago that we saw the ruling throwing out California's Prop 8; that decision has now been appealed, and we will see, at some point in the future, how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handles the matter.
A couple of days later, I had a story up that walked through the ruling, describing the tactics used by the Prop 8 proponents, which, in the opinion of the Judge who looked at the evidence, were basically to try to scare Californians into thinking that gay people, once they're able to get gay married, will somehow now be free to evangelize your kids and make them gay, too.
In the course of answering comments on the several sites where the story is up, I noticed that there were those who felt the Bible should be guiding our thinking here...that if it did, we would be better off than where we are today, with all those immoral gay people running around free to do all those immoral gay things.
This led me to an obvious question: are those who have been using the Bible as a sort of "divining rod" to figure out who is immoral and who is not...actually any good at it?
So I've been away for a couple of weeks, and it's time to get back to a more demanding schedule...but before I do, I have a story to tell you that is so hilarious that we need to put it on the front burner so we can get the weekend off to a truly great start.
To protect the innocent we'll leave out all the names, but suffice it to say that this story takes us to the intersection of religious evangelism, childlike innocence, and the idiosyncratic nature of autism.
Some of you are going to think I made this up, but I promise, this is an actual, true, "really, honest, it really happened" story, and every word is as accurate as it could be, considering that it was a tale told second-hand.
And with all that having been said, let's go to Spokane, where our story has been waiting for us.
I discussed HB 340 two weeks ago, speculating that HB 340 was designed to be on the November 2, 2010 ballot, which would help drive turnout of religious voters for the Sinning Senator David Vitter.
HB 340 would amend the Louisiana Constitution to add language to our freedom of religion clause, which, as currently constituted, copies word for word the federal freedom of religion clause, written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
A Kingfish reader, Randall T. Hayes, sent me an email pointing out: (emphasis added)
I just wanted to point out that HB 340, as originally proposed, did schedule the proposed amendment for the Nov. 2 ballot. However, a Senate amendment changed that date to August 28. The House declined to concur with that Senate amendment, so HB 340 is now in conference committee. It may, in fact, result in just the scenario you initially described.
Mr. Hayes is right ... and the bill is still pending in conference committee. They have until the close of session tomorrow to agree on the date. Either way, if it goes on the ballot, it will still help the Sinning Senator in his quest for re-election.
And I'm not sure the god-fearin', family values appreciatin' folks of Louisiana really want to have a Sinning Senator representin' 'em anymore.
We have an yet another Republican from Jefferson Parish in our State Legislature who thinks he knows better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Cameron Henry has written an amendment to the language of the § 8 of the Louisiana Constitution, which currently copies, word for word, a portion of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"No person acting under color of law shall burden the free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the specific expression, act, or refusal to act at issue, and that there is no other less burdensome alternative. The free excessive of religion shall include the right of every person to freely express his sincerely held religious belief and to engage in or refrain from activity based on a sincerely held religious belief."
Now, State Rep. Henry will tell you that he wrote this bill to allow religious people to refrain from dispensing contraceptives. But, let's consider some other scenarios here: (hat tip to stephenhandwerk)
Say it is 2am and you are in a horrific car accident in New Iberia traveling home. The hospital to which you are taken sends you to the only ER that is open and equipped to deal with trauma such as yours. The Doctor on duty is of Pakistani decent (not unheard of) and you are Jewish. The Doctor objects to treating you due to his "sincerely held moral objections" and the next closest hospital is over 20 minutes away: you will likely die en route. Should this bill pass, it is completely legal to do that. At least until it is challenged in court and the State Attorney General has to prove a case that it was AGAINST the "compelling governmental interest." Of course with our court system - that challenge is likely years down the road - which is little help to you at this point - you are dead.
Too extreme? Perhaps.
How about something less extreme? Say you married someone from a different race - an African American and you happen to be Caucasian. You go to your favorite new restaurant just down the street and before you are seated the Manager tells you that it is his "sincerely held religious belief" that the races should not mix and that you are not welcome in his restaurant. Again, no problem in this situation and I would also challenge that the State Government would have a difficult time proving a "Compelling Governmental Interest" in this matter. I mean, nobody's life is at stake.
Now, here's the other part, fellow Democrats ... take a look at the co-sponsors of this legislation ... a couple of Democrats in there, but overwhelmingly Republican Members of the State Legislature. I bring that up because this is an amendment to the State Constitution, which means that it must go to the voters for approval before it becomes law.
I believe that it would go to the voters at the next regularly scheduled statewide election, which in this case, would be November of 2010 August 28, 2010. (See update below). Guess who is running in that election?
What does this bill do? It will ensure that religious conservatives get out to vote for yet another manufactured issue for the GOP base.
Do we really want to make it easier for the Sinning Senator to win re-election?
UPDATE on 6/11 at 11:59 AM: State Rep. Cameron Henry graciously replied to an email asking when the issue would go before the voters. His answer: August 28, 2010.
This still helps the Sinning Senator, as it allows his campaign to ID the religious conservative voters on that issue, and use those ID's for the November election. It also gives the Sinning Senator an issue to campaign on to rile up the conservative Christian base he so desperately needs in order to win re-election.
Happy Easter to all. On this day, I always think of one of the most well-known passages of the Bible and its lesson for us:
“The poor you will always have with you ..." Matthew 26:11
For all their righteousness regarding moral issues, many folks on the religious right seem to think that this means we shouldn't attempt to get rid of poverty in our state and nation, because a literal translation of the first half of the verse is we'll always have poor folks among us.
But they miss the second half of Matthew 26:11:
"but you will not always have me."
