A Test Case for Constitutionally Protected Same-Sex "Marriage"

Well, the forces out to destroy the traditional family now have their federal test case for constitutionally protected same-sex "marriage". Regular Guy Paul has the details:

Gay Felons' Relationships Equal To Marriage, Rules Federal Judge

Let me set the scene. A pair of homosexual drug dealers, Roberts & Mangini, were convicted, jailed and then paroled.

One of the conditions of their probation was that they can't associate with other felons, including each other (this rule is known as Standard Condition No. 9). They sued, with the help of the (of course!) ACLU, on the grounds that they were spouses:

... [U.S. District Judge Marvin] Katz now swung for the fences. Citing Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision which absurdly held that the Constitution prohibits states from banning same-sex sodomy, he declared: "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to intimate association."

Because of this, he argued, probation rules must treat two unmarried men who claim an "intimate association" just as if they were a married couple or a brother and a sister. "The Probation Office has violated defendants' Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by refusing to grant defendants permission to associate with each other, while maintaining a policy of granting such permission to similarly situated individuals in other kinds of family relationships (i.e., siblings, parent and child, and spouses)," he said. [Emphasis added.]

So a pair of convicted drug dealers sodomizing each other deserve the same respect for their relationship as I and my wife raising our children to be good citizens?

[More]

My Comments:
Read the whole thing. Paul nails it.

Justices Raise Doubts on Campaign Finance

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, April 25 — The Supreme Court put defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the defensive on Wednesday in a spirited argument that suggested the court could soon open a significant loophole in the measure.

At issue is a major provision of the five-year-old law that bars corporations and labor unions from paying for advertisements that mention the name of a candidate for federal office and that are broadcast 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. By a 5-to-4 vote in December 2003, the court held that the provision, on its face, passed First Amendment muster.

But a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection of political messages as free speech, and invite a flood of advertising paid for by corporations and unions as the 2008 elections move into high gear.

The argument on Wednesday was over whether, despite the 2003 blanket endorsement, the law would be constitutional if applied to three specific ads that an anti-abortion group sought to broadcast before the 2004 Senate election in Wisconsin.

The ads, sponsored by Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., mentioned the state’s two senators, both Democrats: Russell D. Feingold, a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold law, who was up for re-election, and Herb Kohl, who was not. The advertisements’ focus was a Democratic-led filibuster of some of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Viewers were urged to “contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster.” The ads provided no contact information, instead directing viewers to a Web site that contained explicit criticism of Mr. Feingold.

A special three-judge Federal District Court here ruled that because the text and images of the ads did not show that they were “intended to influence the voters’ decisions,” they were “genuine issue ads” that the government could not keep off the air.

***
If the Roberts court were writing on a clean slate, a broad declaration of unconstitutionality might well be the result. But the court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, upholding the law, is so recent as to make such a bold step unlikely. Instead, many election law experts believe the fate of the statute may depend on how broad an exception the court carves out through its handling of this or future “as applied” challenges.

The four dissenters from the 2003 decision were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, all of whom are still on the court, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Chief Justice Roberts appeared fully prepared to step into his predecessor’s shoes. So all eyes were on the court’s other newcomer, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a co-author of the 2003 decision, probably holds the balance.

[More]

My Comments:
I'm reading this and wondering: What country do I live in where allegedly "liberal" or "progressive" Supreme Court Justices like Breyer and Souter are fretting that "allowing" someone's political advocacy (i.e. the sort of speech the 1st Amendment was meant to protect, unlike, say, the pornography that Breyer and Souter seem to believe is protected) might "gut" a law passed by Congress (remember "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."?) regulating clearly political speech during the period preceding an election? What's wrong with this picture? Could it be that the "liberal" Justices are concerned that traditional values groups like Wisconsin Right to Life are more effective at utilizing such advocacy than their more liberal counterparts?

And be sure not to miss this post over at Amy Welborn's about how John McCain - already mistrusted among those in the pro-life community (with good reason) - is going about winning friends and influencing people among pro-lifers by trying to disenfranchise them of their 1st Amendment rights.

High Court Weighs Faith-Based Initiatives

From National Public Radio:

Day to Day, February 28, 2007 · The Supreme Court hears arguments about whether people can sue the government for funding faith-based social programs. Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst for Day to Day and the online magazine Slate, talks with Alex Chadwick.

Here's the The New York Slimes take:

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could have a broad impact on whether the courthouse door remains open to ordinary Americans who believe that the government is undermining the separation of church and state.

The question before the court is whether a group seeking to preserve the separation of church and state can mount a First Amendment challenge to the Bush administration’s “faith based” initiatives. The arguments turn on a technical question of whether taxpayers have standing, or the right to initiate this kind of suit, but the real-world implications are serious. If the court rules that the group does not have standing, it will be much harder to stop government from giving unconstitutional aid to religion.

Soon after taking office, President Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and faith-based offices in departments like Justice and Education. They were intended to increase the federal grant money going to religious organizations, and they seem to have been highly effective. The plaintiffs cited figures showing that from 2003 to 2005, the number of federal grants to religious groups increased 38 percent. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and several of its members sued. They say that because the faith-based initiatives favor religious applicants for grants over secular applicants, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government support for religion.

[More]

Cronkite Opposes Religious Influence

Former "most trusted man in America" appears at event urging greater separation of church and state:

Faith-based initiatives. Intelligent Design. Gay marriage. Terri Schiavo.

Alarmed by what they see as religious groups' growing influence on government policy, a consortium has launched a public awareness campaign to defend the First Amendment's vow that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"That cherished freedom is under severe attack," the Rev. Welton Gaddy said before an audience of about

700 people in San Jose. Friday's event included an appearance by newsman Walter Cronkite, who endorsed the new national campaign called First Amendment First.

It calls for houses of worship to stop endorsing political candidates and for states' tax dollars not to go to any charity that discriminates in its hiring or requires people hold a certain faith to receive services.

It also says science and health policies should be based on scientific data, "not religious doctrine," and that schools shouldn't promote any religious preference. [ED.: Does this include private schools?]

***
Religion and politics are both important, said Cronkite, but "we ought to be able to concentrate on each of those without crossing the two of them."

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Nope. The left isn't at all hostile to religion or to people of faith voting their values. Not one bit.

Sen. Brownback Wants to Stop Litigants in Establishment Clause Cases from Collecting Fees

Sam Brownback ... sticking it to the ACLU:

Washington DC, Jan 30, 2007 / 11:46 am (CNA).- U.S. Senator Sam Brownback reintroduced the Public Expressions of Religion Act on Jan. 29. The bill would prevent activist groups from using a 1976 civil rights law to recover attorney’s fees when they sue local cities and towns in cases related to public displays of religion and faith.

“It is not fair for taxpayers to pay the legal bills for groups like the ACLU,” said Brownback. “Currently many small towns comply with the demands of the ACLU rather than risk going to trial and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the ACLU if they lose the case.”

Currently, legal activist groups recover hundreds of thousands of dollars from state and local governments based on a provision of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act, which was intended to assist underprivileged plaintiffs in obtaining legal representation in civil rights cases.

For example, when several groups won a case in Alabama to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Alabama Supreme Court building, taxpayers were forced to pay the groups’ attorneys nearly $550,000.

Brownback said the legislation would still allow “plaintiffs with legitimate claims to have their day in court. However, it would prevent local cities and towns from being coerced into settling claims out of a fear of huge monetary losses.”

This new measure would require parties in Establishment Clause cases to pay their own attorney fees.