Recently in Civil Liberties Category

Since the passage of Prop. 8 in California, many people have been trying to figure out how we can protect minorities and other disenfranchised groups from the “tyranny of the majority.” One idea that has been floating around the blogosphere is a new and improved Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), designed to protect not only women but other classes if people who risk being having their rights taken away by popular vote.

Here is my version of the new ERA:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law in the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the on account of:

• Gender 
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity
• Immigration status
• The disbelief or denial of the existence of God or gods
• The choice not to practice a religion or creed
• DNA or genetic differences

Section 2. The United States legislature shall have the ability to give additional classes of people protected status with a simple majority vote.

Section 3. The United States legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 4. No law, policy, executive order, ruling, constitutional revision or amendment shall be passed at any level of government which prevents a protected class from enjoying full access to civil law or the constitutional protections.

In addition to women, immigrants, LGBT people, and those with genetic disorders and differences, my ERA would protect Americans from religious zealots who want to turn this county into a theocracy.

Section 2 would give Congress the ability to add other classes of people to the list when it becomes necessary.

What do you think? How would you write a new ERA? 

One of the strongest arguments that I gave against Prop. 8 was that it opens the door to discrimination against other minority groups. Today, I read this Reuters article that seems to suggest that other minorities have just realized that they could be next.

All I have to say is, “No shit, Sherlock!”

Minorities fear trend from California gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California’s gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.

The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.

[…]

Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts’ ability to protect minorities.

“They could take away any right from any group,” said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

More…

Welcome to the Prop. 8 era, when civil rights of a minority are put up to a vote. This is a sad and shameful time in history.

A Call to Action

I’m not an attorney. However, it seems to me that the best way to both overturn Prop. 8 and ensure that other minority groups do not have their civil rights taken away at the ballot box in the future is to amend the California Constitution with an Equal Rights Amendment.

The California Equal Rights Amendment would read something like this:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law in California shall not be denied or abridged by the  state on account of:

• Sex
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity
• Immigration status
• The disbelief or denial of the existence of God or gods
• The choice not to practice a religion or creed
• DNA or genetic differences

Section 2. The California legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This amendment should be promoted by LGBT rights groups, immigrant rights groups, groups who fight for separation of church and state, and those who lobby against genetic discrimination.

I believe that such an amendment would put California decades ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to civil rights for all citizens.

How do I get something like this started? Well, this blog diary is the first step. I’d like your feedback. We need to start I discussion and get this idea to civil rights attorneys and the various groups who would be active in getting this legislation on the ballot in California.

If you’re an attorney, let me know what you think of my wording. I based it on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that has currently been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states to make it into an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

However, the it has been decades since the ERA was introduced. It only covers equal rights for women (based on sex) and ignores many other important groups that are routinely subjected to discrimination under state and federal laws.

Crossposted at:

Pam’s House Blend

Daily Kos

Blue and gold are the official colors of California. Blue represents the sky and gold the color of the precious metal found by 49’rs in the state’s hills the same year California’s first constitution was written.

Therefore, I think it is ironic that the colors of opposing political banners were printed in those same colors — No on Prop. 8 in blue and Yes on Prop. 8 in gold. Rather than symbolizing unity and the progressive spirit of California, our state colors clashed in a battle of equality versus oppression.

I’ve just returned from Salinas, California where several churches held a “Traditional Family Values” parade. I estimate that about 200 people showed up to show their support for No on Prop. 8. We gathered at the Cherry Bean coffee place on Main Street and met with No on Prop. 8 organizers, who handed out signs and instructed us on what to do.

Many of us divided into teams and lined the first block of the parade route. I was impressed that we lined both sides of the street for the entire block. I went with my camera and got some great photos. So,  think I’ll let the pictures do most of the talking in describing what went down.

Here’s me with my camera (just so you know who your narrator is).

When we arrived at the Cherry Bean coffee place, there was already a nice sized group gathering for the “Silent Witness” event organized by the No on 8 campaign.

In spite of my prayers for rain, it was a beautiful day for a parade.

I noticed that the parade was setting up just down the street. Here’s a photo of the rock band that played on a flatbed truck. (I thought rock and roll was the devil’s music.)

On Sunday, opponents of equal rights for LGBT people will be having a parade in downtown Salinas, California.

The parade was organized in protest to the 2nd annual Gay Pride parade that was held on August 10th. Several local churches attempted to prevent the parade from taking place by protesting at a city council meeting.

Opposition to Gay Pride Parade

SALINAS, Calif.- The Salinas Valley Gay Pride Parade is scheduled to march through Old Town Salinas August 10th. The 2nd annual celebration is drawing strong opposition from the religious community.

Several pastors and reverends on central coast spoke at Salinas City Hall Tuesday. They asked that council members think twice about the implication a gay pride parade can have.

Reverend Chauncey Killens is leading the opposition with compassion. While he plans to protest the parade, Killens says, “We don’t want them to think we hate them, nor have we ever.”

Lisa Schramm, Board President for Salinas Valley Pride says having a parade in Salinas represents progress in the area. She adds, “Maybe just one day out of the year, they can come out and not be afraid and enjoy themselves.”

The controversial topic was not up for a vote, and council members made no decision to pull the parade permit. The celebration kicks off Sunday, August 10th at 2:00pm.

Here’s what the Freepers had to say about this story:

“Maybe just one day out of the year, they can come out and not be afraid and enjoy themselves.”

Yeah, they’re scared to death alright. Gay men don’t act more feminine than any woman could ever pretend do and they’re not “enjoying themselves” in bath houses and gay bars all over the country and Europe. They live in fear I’ll tell ya.

—————————————

All ya gotta do is let ‘em march and go watch.

Every adult ought to see one in person.

It’ll educate you.

—————————————

Who’s got that picture of the guys out in front of SF City Hall all dressed as “bikers?”

—————————————

It still boggles my mind that people can use sexual orientation as a reason to be proud.

—————————————

Hey! That`s not fair!

What about us beastialists!? Huh? Eh?

Come one,we want to come outta the closet too

Do those comments represent “traditional family values”? Is this what these people teach their children?

Here’s video of a news story about the local churches trying to get the Gay Pride parade shut down at that city council meeting:

The 25th annual Folsom Street Fair will be taking place in S.F. this weekend. It has always had a reputation for displays of public nudity, overt sexuality, and outrageous behavior. It has become a S.F. tradition that draws visitors from all over the world.

Unfortunately, it also draws a collection of religious fundamentalists who want the world to believe that all LGBT people participate in this kind of thing (I’ve never attended). Pam’s House Blend has the scoop on a group called Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality:

The Peter and his Folsom fundie crew head to San Francisco
by: Pam Spaulding
Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

It must be fundraising time for The Peter.

Calling all San Francisco Blenders — the man who specializes in advanced study of kink from the “Christian” perspective, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality, will spend the weekend in your city to “expose” the Folsom Street Fair.

The Peter will have two of the leading lights of the far right homo-obsessive movement in tow, Linda Harvey of Mission[ary Position] America, and Diane Gramley of the Pennsylvania chapter of the quickly fossilizing American Family Association.

More…

You know, this practice of “exposing” what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair could backfire on these wackos. I’m thinking about a series of ads urging people to vote no on CA Prop. 8.

With Proposition 8 on the California ballot, there is a good chance that the citizens of the Golden State could vote to amend the State Constitution. I would just like to remind my fellow Californians that there have been some pretty horrible things in the CA Constitution in the past.

Here’s a gem from 1879:

ARTICLE XIX: CHINESE.

     Section 1. The Legislature shall prescribe all necessary regulations for the protection of the State, and the counties, cities, and towns thereof, from the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens who are or may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and from aliens otherwise dangerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State, and to impose conditions upon which persons may reside in the State, and to provide the means and mode of their removal from the State, upon failure or refusal to comply with such conditions; provided, that nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to impair or limit the power of the Legislature to pass such police laws or other regulations as it may deem necessary.
 
     Sec. 2. No corporation now existing or hereafter formed under the laws of this State, shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, employ directly or indirectly, in any capacity, any Chinese or Mongolian. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary to enforce this provision.

     Sec. 3. No Chinese shall be employed on any State, county, municipal, or other public work, except in punishment for crime.

     Sec. 4. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared to be dangerous to the well-being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. Asiatic coolieism is a form of human slavery, and is forever prohibited in this State, and all contracts for coolie labor shall be void. All companies or corporations, whether formed in this country or any foreign country, for the importation of such labor, shall be subject to such penalties as the Legislature may prescribe. The Legislature shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for the removal of Chinese without the limits of such cities and towns, or for their location within prescribed portions of those limits, and it shall also provide the necessary legislation to prohibit the introduction into this State of Chinese after the adoption of this Constitution. This Section shall be enforced by appropriate legislation 

Article XIX was repealed on November 4, 1952.

That’s right. It was law for 73 years!  

For 73 years, it was illegal to hire a Chinese person. They were prohibited from working on any State, county, municipal, or other public job. Chinese people could be expelled from the state if they were deemed to be in anyway undesirable.

Today, anyone with half a brain recognizes this law as unjust. It is bigotry written into the Constitution.

Let’s not make the same mistake when it comes to gay and lesbian Californians. 

My friend Cliff and I just got back from a No on Prop. 8 rally at Monterey’s Window on the Bay. There I am in the above photo holding a yard sign.

The turn out was very good. There were between 100 and 150 people there to hold signs and wave at traffic at this very busy intersection in downtown Monterey.

Many of the folks driving by in their cars waved and honked in support. I only counted five people who shouted epithets or wave us the thumbs downs. The group who showed up for the rally was quite diverse. Old, young, black, white, hispanic, men, women, even a few four-legged friends showed up. 

I really got a kick out of a group of young people who were waving signs directly across the street from us. They have so many wonderful years ahead of them. I only hope that they’ll have something that I didn’t have when I was their age — the freedom to marry the person they love.

One thing that surprised me was the number of young military guys who drove by honking and giving us their signs of support (Window on the Bay is a few miles from two major military installations). It just goes to show you how different young people feel about this issue from their parents and grandparents.

At one point, CA State Assembly candidate Bill Monning addressed the crowd. Monning is a strong supporter of LGBT rights. It was great to see him come out for this event. Thanks, Bill!

One of the things Monning said was that he’s seen large turnouts for events like this throughout the region. That’s really encouraging.

Also in attendance were members of the local ACLU and the Unitarian Church.

On today’s The View, Whoopie asks John McCain if she needs to worry about the return of slavery since he wants the Constitution to be as the Founding Father’s intended…

I was shocked to learn that an anti-gay group held a rally just a few miles from my home yesterday. According to an article in today’s Monterey County Herald, an organization from Pennsylvania called The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (check out their scary website) gathered at the intersection of Ocean Avenue and San Carlos Street carrying anti-gay signs and a red banner with a lion and the words “Tradition, Family, Property.”

One Carmel resident described the demonstration as “fascist” and several others felt compelled to give these crazy folks the finger.

Apparently, this Phelps-style hate group is conducting a 30-day tour of the state, protesting marriage equality — and really pissing people off in the communities they visit.

For those of you who are not familiar with Ocean Avenue in Carmel, it is a little bit like an amusement park without the thrill rides. It is a beautiful shopping district with art galleries, quaint shops, outdoor cafes, and a quiet smalltown atmosphere. I can’t imagine anyone holding a demonstration like the one described here. It would be exactly like protesting on Disney’s Main Street!

Here are some excerpts from the article:

How pathetic are they?

Sorry. There’s no punchline. Today, the Log Cabin Republicans (self-loathing homos who vote Republican), endorsed John McCain for president. They did this in spite of the fact that the GOP platform is as anti-gay as it has ever been. They have officially declared that gay and lesbian people are “incompatible” with military service. They have called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw marriage equality.

But, never fear. The Log Cabin Republicans have found 12 Republicans who are against California’s Proposition 8, which would ban marriage equality in the state. They’ve created a Web site to showcase these folks (including Arnold Schwarzenegger and “comedian” Dennis Miller):
Of course, you won’t see any of these folks stand up and denounce Prop. 8 or the proposed constitutional amendment at the Republican National Convention this week.

I was talking to my twin brother on the phone a few nights ago and he posed an interesting question: When did our government begin to concern itself with our freedoms (plural) rather than just freedom (singular)?

Our nation was founded on the principle of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. Liberty — a synonym for freedom — was used as a singular term. The American Revolution wasn’t fought for liberties. Liberty was viewed as a comprehensive ideal, not an a  la carte menu of specific freedoms or liberties.

I did a little research and discovered that on January 6 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave what is called his “Four Freedoms” speech during his annual message to the Congress of the United States.

In his address, Roosevelt outlined four freedoms that the United States would attempt to guarantee the nations of the world:

1. Freedom of speech and expression;
2. Freedom of worship;
3. Freedom from want; and
4. Freedom from fear. 

Obviously, Roosevelt believed that his “Four Freedoms” was all-inclusive. In reality, it was a pretty narrow view of what is required to ensure basic human rights. There’s quite a bit missing from Roosevelt’s list:

1. Freedom of movement;
2. Freedom of education;
3. Freedom to love;
4. Freedom to reproduce;
5. Freedom to work;
6. Freedom to vote;
7. Freedom to die;
8. Freedom to bear arms;
9. Freedom of association;
10. Freedom from poverty; 
11. Intellectual freedom; and
12. Sexual freedom.

Clearly, those of Roosevelt’s time weren’t ready to embrace the concept of comprehensive freedom. Are we more enlightened today? It doesn’t appear that we are.

Our president and his cabinet continue to debate the issue of our freedoms — which ones should be granted during the War on Terror, and which should be restricted. The American people seem content to allow their government to pick and choose their freedoms. They may have some freedoms, but they aren’t free in the truest sense. In fact, we’re probably less free now than at any time after the Civil War.

So, let’s put a stop to discussions about freedoms. Instead, let’s return to the concept of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.