Episode 7 of the Freeligion Podcast is NOW AVAILABLE! Trumpocalypse is upon us, and this episode we discuss the implications. ALSO! I got to get an early interview with David McAfee about his work with PORP, the Party of Reason and Progress. Listen
I woke up this morning to a story of human rights violation, pretty much like every morning. But this morning was different, this morning the story was out of my hometown. Out of the school system of which I went to college. Out of the High School that my little brother went to as a football phenomenon. Out of Christian Brothers High School.
Lance Sanderson, a senior at CBHS in Memphis, Tennessee is being denied his request to bring a male student from another school to his Senior Homecoming Dance. Lance, a school photographer and openly gay student since his freshman year, approached his school two months ago to work on arranging his request.
On the 24th, CBHS released their Homecoming policy on their website stating the following:
CBHS students may attend the dance by themselves, with other CBHS students, or with a girl from another school. For logistical reasons, boys from other schools may not attend.
Logistical reasons? Wait, other girls can attend with no logistical problems even though this is an all boys school? A campus designed specifically with all male attendance in mind? I’m calling bullshit CBHS. This is a Catholic anti-homosexual move. How can I say that? Well, CBHS PUT OUT A STATEMENT to explain why Lance was being denied his date saying, in part:
They also had the task of creating a dance policy where ALL CBHS students could be included. It had to follow current school policies, Catholic teachings, and Lasallian principles (of which inclusivity is one). This was not an easy task. The Homecoming Dance was changed to a format similar to our courtyard dances. No longer is it a date dance. The school has never let boys from other schools attend these dances as the mixing of boys from other schools in such an open atmosphere can cause problems.
It’s now no longer a date dance? So how are girls from other schools allowed to attend? See what I mean? This isn’t about where the ‘date’ is from, its about the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. My REAL question to these homophobic clowns is:
Would you allow Lance to ‘officially’ bring another CBHS student as his date?
If the answer to this is yes, then CBHS may be honoring their statement about ” Developing a more pro-active outreach to gay students was one of them.”, I hope that’s the case.
However, this appears to be a bit of a pipe dream. As with many Christian organizations in the past we can already see the attempts to ‘turn’ or ‘cure’ the rabid homosexuals.
…formed a committee which included four staff members (three of whom have a gay sibling or son). Their task was to develop a program of education and outreach which will gradually be implemented in the school, starting with the seniors. The outreach would include more intense training of faculty members to aid in their counseling of gay students.
Not only is this hilarious (we have four people in a committee and three of the know a gay person) but it speaks volumes to their true intentions. The Catholic church openly condemns homosexuality, so the program of education and outreach they speak of inherently must be intended for the gay/trans students. Its good to see that the school will be intensely training their faculty members to aid in their counseling, right?
Sanderson says when he asked if he could take a boy to a dance, this is what administrators at Christian Brothers told him: “I was given several examples of statistics like they said gay couples have higher divorce rates, and that they’re violent; just different things that didn’t make sense, and I’ve come to find aren’t true.”
Sound’s exactly like the kind of double talk that the church is famous for.
Lance has written a petition at Change.Org which at the time of this writing has garnered almost 20,000 supporters. Why don’t you pop on over there and SIGN this?
I’ve watched this Kim Davis thing go from a case about bigotry and being a horrible human being to being about whether SCOTUS can make a law. For those of you curious about how the system you are a part of works, read on.
When the Supreme Court announces its decisions and issues its opinions, it is often accused of “legislating from the bench” or making laws although it is not the legislative branch. Does the Court “make law” when it decides the outcomes of the cases that come before it? The answer depends on the definition of “law” one uses. When the Congress, a state legislature or some other established law-making body passes a law, it creates “statutory law.” These are the laws with which people are most familiar, such as laws regulating the speed limit, laws that define criminal behavior and the laws that establish government programs. Statutory laws, however, are not the only kinds of laws that are “made” and applied in the American political and legal systems.
The most fundamental laws of this nation are the guidelines established by the Constitution. The “constitutional law” of the land includes the Constitution’s descriptions of the relationships between the three branches of the national government, the relationships between the national and state governments, the powers the Constitution grants to the national government and, most importantly, the limitations it places on governmental action.
The Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches are all established and guided by constitutional law. However, the Constitution is sufficiently vague that each branch has frequently found itself in situations where the “right” course of action under constitutional law was unclear. The Framers of the Constitution, recognizing that they could not anticipate every possible circumstance in the new nation’s future, purposely left room for each branch to adapt and interpret their roles under the Constitution to meet the needs and challenges they would face. Most notably, the Congress was given the task of deciding what was “necessary and proper” to “promote the general welfare” and form “a more perfect union.” The necessary product of these decisions has been thousands and thousands of statutory laws.
As the Executive Branch has implemented the statutory laws passed by the Congress, it has also had to interpret not only its role under the Constitution but also the intentions of the Congress. In many instances the Congress has passed legislation that was purposely vague, leaving the details to Executive Branch departments and agencies to decide. When bureaucracies determine the details of the enforcement and implementation of a law passed by the Congress, the Executive Branch also “makes law.” These kinds of laws are called “administrative law.”
As this nation’s political system has evolved and matured, there have been numerous controversies about the laws passed by the Congress and the way those laws have been implemented by the President and the Executive Branch. There have also been disputes about the separation of powers between the three branches, the relationship between the national government and the states, the rights of the people and a host of other questions that arise under the Constitution. When such cases arise, they clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As Alexander Hamilton observed, it was necessary for the stability and future of the nation to “establish one court paramount to the rest, possessing a general superintendence, and authorized to settle and declare in the last resort a uniform rule of civil justice”. When the Court makes decisions in response to such cases, it is, for all intents and purposes, defining and interpreting constitutional law. Does it “make” constitutional law in the process? There are differences of opinion on this matter, but the Court has clearly gone beyond the strict “letter of the law” embodied in the Constitution in several instances. Whether its decisions amount to new law or merely interpretations and clarifications of existing ones is, for better or worse, a matter of opinion.
From Hamilton’s statements in The Federalist Papers, however, it appears that the Framers at least intended that the Supreme Court would stand between the other two branches of the national government and the people, preventing abuses of power and improper interpretations of the Constitution. Indeed, Hamilton declared it the duty of the Court to “declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing
As you already are aware, today has been filled with updates about Kim Davis. I have certainly been swept up in it., However, as the day draws to a close I’m starting to pay more attention to the ramblings of a madman known as Mike Huckabee. Im sure at this point youve all read these.
What I don’t understand is how any one that knows ANYTHING about law or civics could back up this lady’s behavior. So let’s assume for a moment that he was just swept up in a moment of Christian woe-is-me-ism. Fine, I get it. But then he goes a little more out on a limb… comparing this self-righteous bigot to Abraham Lincoln, and then quickly followed that with a comparison to Rosa Parks saying: “Immediately release Kim Davis from federal custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given, constitutional rights.”
First of all Mr. Huckabee, with all due respect, you are a fucking idiot. Rosa Parks didn’t voluntarily place herself in a position to be elected into a civil service job, who’s job it is to execute the laws of the State and Country she is an elected official in. Kim did. Secondly, LISTEN to yourself. “A direct attack on our God-Given, constitutional rights”.
Now, I didn’t get a degree in national history, or constitutional law, but I’m fairly certain that the people who gave you your constitutional rights all actually signed the document. I don’t see God’s name on there anywhere. But knowing the trickster god you believe in Mr. Huckabee, I’m sure he just used disappearing ink.
Go home, Mike, you’re drunk.