In Arizona, Which Side is “Intolerant”?

Current Events, Homosexuality,

By now, you are probably aware of the controversial SB 1062 proposed recently by Arizona lawmakers and vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer last Wednesday night.

The bill, which made national news across the country, would have “made certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest—a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993,” according to Cathi Herrod, President of Center for Arizona Policy, a supporter of the bill.

The bill, however, drew strong reactions from gay activists. In the words of Alliance Defending Freedom, they “egregiously misrepresented” SB1062 to the point that, as Cathi Herrod summed it up, Governor Brewer ultimately vetoed “a bill that does not even exist.” The bill she and others claimed she was vetoing was nothing, in reality, like the proposed law.

SB1062 was about protecting religious freedom from being compromised—not about allowing restaurants to deny service to gay people.

Gay activists often accuse groups like ours or the Center for Arizona Policy of being “hateful” and “intolerant.” But look at what Citizens for a Better Arizona did Wednesday, placing red tape over Center for Arizona Policy’s doors as if the place were out of business. They also attempted to swarm the office, protesting outside its doors and demanding Cathi Herrod come out and apologize for her group’s work. Some are even calling Cathi “a legislative terrorist.”

Does that sound at all like tolerance?

Click here for more info.

READ MORE

Oregon AG Won’t Defend State Marriage Amendment

Marriage, ,

Oregon’s attorney general announced this week her office will not defend the state’s marriage amendment in court.

Like Arkansas, Oregon’s voters approved a state marriage amendment in 2004 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That amendment has come under attack by gay activists and is now the subject of a lawsuit. Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum wrote yesterday,

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”

Rosenblum is the latest in a string of state officials around the country who have shirked their responsibility to defend marriage laws voters in their states have passed.

If you read the quote carefully, you see Rosenblum notes that her office will continue to enforce the ban on same-sex marriage, because they are obligated to do so as long as it is in the state’s constitution. The irony is defending state laws in court is a fundamental obligation of every attorney general in America. Rosenblum admits her office is required to enforce the law; she should also acknowledge her office is required to defend the law. She can’t cherry-pick which obligations she follows and which she ignores.

No attorney general has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. That power rests solely with the Judicial Branch. We have three separate, co-equal branches of government specifically to prevent this kind of lawlessness, where state officials unilaterally decide a democratically-enacted law is worthless.

A Democratic attorney general doesn’t get to decide a state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional any more than a Republican attorney general gets to decide a new tax or minimum-wage increase is unconstitutional. Their job is to defend the law in court. Some liberals are hailing Rosenblum’s decision right now; they should consider how they will feel sometime down the road, when a conservative attorney general follows this precedent by ignoring a law liberals support.

READ MORE

Are You a CIS Male or CIS Female?

Homosexuality, ,

The title may be confusing, but you are one or the other–or maybe one of the 56 other “gender identities.”

If you have a Facebook account, and are uncertain of your gender, you can now choose from one of 58 gender identities–another check mark for gay activists, as far as their movement is concerned.

Of course, the issue is much larger than recognizing 58 different types of “gender.” Tying gender to anything other than biology complicates society and carries a number of unintended consequences, as we’ve written about in the past.

Click here to read more.

READ MORE