You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1408)

PLAYS: (4386)

Killian Melloy at the EDGE has the details.

A 10-year-old Arkansas boy name Will Phillips has decided that he cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag as long as the country for which it stands refuses legal equality to its GLBT citizens.

That stand has brought young Mr. Phillips anti-gay taunts in the lunch room, but admiration from around the country, reports a Nov. 5 Arkansas Times article. The West Fork School District fifth grader clashed with a substitute teacher for his refusal to stand for the pledge, prompting a call to Will’s mother, Laura Phillips. When the principal acknowledged that Will has the right to refuse to say the pledge, Ms. Phillips asked that her son receive an apology--a request that the principal declined to honor.
...
That led the young man to his decision not to pledge his allegiance due to the injustice he perceived to prevail against gays and lesbians. He discussed the matter with his family and then took his stand--or rather, refused to stand with the rest of the kids when the time for the pledge came around each morning. The first week of the young man’s protest happened to be a week when a substitute teacher, a friend of Will’s grandparents, was in charge of the class; as days went by, the teacher grew more aggravated, until finally she took Will to task.

"She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up," Will told the Arkansas Times. "I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ’With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’"
...
Moreover, Will’s stand for equal rights for gays has led those who disagree to attack him personally with anti-gay epithets: "In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay," Will said. "It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad."

That hasn’t been easy for Will, who skipped fourth grade but seems older than his age, especially in contrast to some of his peers. Said Laura Phillips, "It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature."

The interviewer from The Arkansas Times asked Will what it means to be an American. The answer: "Freedom of speech. The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1684)

PLAYS: (1710)

I was wondering how Newt Gingrich would react to the crazy teabaggers that attacked him for endorsing Scozzafava: Would he stand by his principles or would he bow down at the altar of Rush Limbaugh?

Here's what what said in his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava:

“The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections,” Gingrich said of Scozzafava's candidacy in a statement to supporters, as reported by the The Post-Standard. “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
--
“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” the former speaker said. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”

The NRCC said this:

But Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, wants to unite the party. He sees Scozzafava and the Upstate special election – the only House race in the nation this fall -- as the best hope for Republicans to start a comeback and regain control of Congress.

Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

The teabaggers, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck were all putting their energy behind a man who wasn't even from the district, Doug Hoffman, and in the end it cost the GOP a seat in a district that hasn't elected a Democratic politician to represent them in over 100 years.

Right before the election, right-wing bloggers attacked Newt for supporting Dede and said they would never support him for President because of it. After Hoffman lost, Rush Limbaugh blamed Newt and the GOP party machine for Hoffman's loss.

What would Newt Gingrich do? Would he stand up for his endorsement and tell the teabagger brigade that to win national elections, the party needs moderates to be included? After all, he's the Big Kahuna. Guess again. In his election night wrapup that he tweeted the day after the election, he repeated Rudy Giuliani's line that Scozzafavva was too liberal to have been the Republican nominee, which is a blatant lie.

In retrospect it is clear Dede Scozzafava should never have been nominated because she was far too liberal to be acceptable.

Republican leaders in New York must recognize that Mike Long and the Conservative Party in that state have to be consulted before decisions are made. The national conservative movement is a force that has to be recognized and respected.

I certainly heard from enough friends to know that my decision to support the unanimous vote of the 11 New York county chairs was very unpopular with conservative activists.

In New York, after two failed special elections, it is clear the state party has to fight to change the election law so there are primaries in special elections. The insider nominating process is simply unacceptable to grassroots populists and guarantees a sense of illegitimacy.

Then, on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, he explained in detail why he regretted having supported Scozzafava. It was pretty abject.

Gingrich: I think the nomination was a mistake. I wish that we had gotten involved earlier. And if we had, I would have done everything I could to make sure she had not been picked. And she clearly proved in the last few days that she was in no way a loyal Republican.

Gingrich isn't one to make a snap judgment without knowing the facts, and he knew Dede was moderate on social issues, but to say she's not conservative enough is ridiculous.

If Republicans try to laugh off the notion that Limbaugh is running their party, all the media have to do is look at Newt. He caved to Limbaugh big time.

The Glenn Beck candidate wouldn't denounce Rush Limbaugh using a bestiality quote against Dede Scozzafava. That's not surprising for a phony teabagger like Hoffman.

Frank Rich had a great article about the NY-23 race on Sunday:

And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Sure enough, bloggers trashed her as a radical leftist and ditched her for a third-party candidate they deem a “true” conservative, an accountant and businessman named Doug Hoffman. When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway — as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele — he too was slimed. Mocking Newt’s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as “global warming czar.” She’s quite the wit.

The wrecking crew of Kristol, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the government-bashing Club for Growth all joined the Hoffman putsch. Then came the big enchilada: a Hoffman endorsement from Palin on her Facebook page. Such is Palin’s clout that Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor (and presidential aspirant), promptly fell over one another in their Pavlovian rush to second her motion. They were joined by far-flung Republican congressmen from Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and California, not to mention a gaggle of state legislators from Colorado. On Fox News, Beck took up the charge, insinuating that Hoffman’s Republican opponent might be a fan of Karl Marx. Some $3 million has now been dumped into this race by outside groups.

Who exactly is the third-party maverick arousing such ardor? Hoffman doesn’t even live in the district. When he appeared before the editorial board of The Watertown Daily Times 10 days ago, he “showed no grasp” of local issues, as the subsequent editorial put it. Hoffman complained that he should have received the questions in advance — blissfully unaware that they had been asked by the paper in an editorial on the morning of his visit.

Last week it turned out that Hoffman’s prime attribute to the radical right — as a take-no-prisoners fiscal conservative — was bogus. In fact he’s on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark. Then again, without the federal government largess that the tea party crowd so deplores, New York’s 23rd would be a Siberia of joblessness. The biggest local employer is the pork-dependent military base, Fort Drum.

The media is trying to frame today's election as some sort of referendum on President Obama, but NY-23 has voted Republican for decades and decades, so the real battle is between Republicans. If Owens wins, then I'd say conservatives have a real big problem. There will be a circular firing squad among Club for Growth, Limbaugh, Palin, Steele and Gingrich. Newt endorsed the moderate Republican after all, which is not the Fox flavor at the moment.

Last week, Gingrich became one of a small handful of conservatives who endorsed Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) in her bid to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's now-vacant House seat. As a result, conservative bloggers said Gingrich had eliminated himself from contention for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012.

And the wingnut bloggers attacked Gingrich over it too.

Right-wing bloggers have recently attacked Newt Gingrich for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's (R-NY) vacated congressional seat. On her blog, Michelle Malkin said "no thanks" to the possibility of a Gingrich 2012 presidential run, noting that he is the "most prominent GOP endorser of [the] radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate," while at RedState.com, Erick Erickson reportedly wrote -- before removing the post -- that Gingrich "stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994."

Hoffman doesn't even live or know anything about the district he's running in, but for teabaggers, that doesn't matter. Knowledge is a liability for the teabagger movement.

From The Colbert Report:

The petition signers who want to overturn the "everything but marriage" bill should be able to stay in the closet that the gay people have abandoned.

From San Diego CityBeat:

In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions. CityBeat contacted attorneys for both parties, but neither returned calls by press time.

This ardent defender of traditional marriage didn't just try to cover his buns in the divorce, he downright abused his wife of 43+ years:

In March, Doug told Elizabeth he’d no longer maintain the bank account the two shared to pay her expenses, and that she should submit her bills to his office. She followed this procedure, but was surprised to get a call from AT&T saying her bill was past due.

“Doug began dragging his feet on paying my expenses,” she writes, “refusing to pay certain expenses until I accepted his demands regarding our property division. I believe Doug did this to squeeze me financially.” Read on...

Now THAT, my friends, is what real, heterosexual, traditional marriage is all about! Snark/ You gotta love those GOP family values...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (772)

PLAYS: (1598)

Isn't it always the same with these homophobes? They say that their words are taken out of context when they are criticized for their remarks.

WjacTV has the news:

Abby: Marty, Sen. Eichelberger tells me his radio debate over same sex marriage was taken out of context and he adds that the group that's demanding an apology is making it difficult for people on both sides of the issue to have a proper discussion.

Host: But are you saying Sen. Eichelberger that by their very nature, homosexual relationships are dysfunctional?

Eichelberger Um, yes, I guess I would say that.

Nice try with the out-of-context canard. PA's (R) John Eichelberger really has people mad over his radio debate and rightly so. (h/t Ben)

Sen.John Eichelberger, R-Pa., is making headlines after a gay rights advocacy group claims he made some controversial comments.The Keystone Progress claims Eichelberger called same-sex couples "dysfunctional" and "we're allowing them to exist."Eichelberger debated Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Pa., on WHYY radio Friday.Both senators have dueling bills on same-sex marriage in the State Legislature.Leach wants to amend the Pennsylvania ban on same sex marriage to give same sex couples full and equal rights.

Eichelberger says his bill will define marriage between a man and a woman."There's no reason to encourage that kind of behavior in Pennsylvania," Eichelberger said. "That's my whole point. We don't have any reason to change the way we do business here. There is no evidence that this will be good for our society."...read on

He plays the "destruction of society" card. They never tell you how gay marriage will destroy society though, do they?

2 political junkies writes:

Eichelberger said in this interview, ''[This is] not an anti-homosexual bill.''

If despite that, you're still somehow convinced that Mr. Integrity First is "anti-homosexual," you'll be happy to know that he believes in allowing teh gays to exist!

You can sign a petition at Keystone Progress here.

Speaking today at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Dick Cheney said:

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

And in truth, Darth Cheney has said similar things on the subject in recent years. But it is a little odd that one of those most rightwing of all national political figures can have any position to the left of the current president.

The Mormons used a lot of their cash to influence Prop 8 in California so the east is ready.

With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.

"The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!" warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy "borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion."

"I'm not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people," said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. "My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims."

If a religion is pumping millions of dollars to defeat a human rights issue why can't people advertise against them? Isn't their actions extremely more offensive then an ad that says: The Mormons are coming?

Either this will turn out to be a bold, brilliant move - or a disaster that will set the cause back for a long time. Here's hoping they pull it off:

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.

“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”

The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California.

“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.

“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.

Not everyone in the gay rights movement, however, was thrilled by the sudden intervention of the two limelight-grabbing but otherwise untested players in the bruising battle over Proposition 8. Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage.

“It’s not something that didn’t occur to us,” Matt Coles, the director of the LGBT project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said of filing a federal lawsuit. “Federal court? Wow. Never thought of that.”

But Mr. Olson said that their lawsuit — which also seeks an injunction blocking the marriage ban until the matter can be resolved — fell squarely in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

“Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Mr. Bush. “The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (856)

PLAYS: (1209)

A lot of people saw this coming:

SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

Justice Carlos Moreno, in a lone dissent, said a majority should not be allowed to deprive a minority of fundamental rights by passing an initiative.

The justices ruled unanimously that Prop. 8 was not retroactive and that gay and lesbian couples who relied on the court's May 2008 ruling to get married before the Nov. 4 election will remain legally wed.

Prop. 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, passed with a 52 percent majority after an intense and expensive campaign. Sponsors, mainly affiliated with Christian conservative groups, raised nearly $40 million for the measure and opponents more than $45 million - combined, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue anywhere in the nation.

And here's the important part:

The ruling, the court's third major decision on same-sex marriage in five years, may be the last word from the state's legal system on the issue. But the matter is far from settled in the political arena. Gay-rights advocates, anticipating the decision, have discussed putting another constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to try to repeal Prop. 8.

Indeed. The Courage Campaign has a petition for you to sign calling for the repeal of Prop 8. I think we can count on it being on the next major ballot.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (903)

PLAYS: (3159)

The National Organization for Marriage already has quite the track record for its misleading and bizarre ads about gay marriage.

But this latest really takes the cake: It features video of young children who have been coached to voice their confusion about the ramifications of same-sex marriage might be.

As Michelangelo Signorile put it to Laura Ingraham on The O'Reilly Factor the other night:

Well I think that using children for any issue, I agree with you, is exploiting them. I think it shows a desperation on the part of the people who are opposed to marriage for gays and lesbians. I mean, they're losing at a swift pace, there is state after state making marriage legal, and now it seems like this desperate attempt to drag kids into it, when in fact, all of the polling shows, the younger people are, in terms of young adults right now, even among Christian evangelicals, the more likely they are to support marriage for gays and lesbians. So it's desperate, and think it's also, it betrays what's going on in the country.

Image h/t Sparklepony. From our Twitter buddy Greg Sargent:

Top right wing blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.com is now calling for conservatives to stop giving money to the NRSC over the endorsement of Crist, who is running against conservative former House Speaker Mark Rubio.

Erickson denounced the NRSC’s decision to endorse Crist as “wholly unacceptable,” adding: “If the NRSC thinks this is smart, we must not waste our time or energy with them. Join me in pledging no money, no help, no aid, and no support for the NRSC’s efforts in the 2010 election cycle.”

Bwa ha ha. We love it when Republicans fight over the "soul" of their party. But right wingnut blogs aren't the only unhappy campers. St. Petersburg (FL) Times lists the reasons conservatives hate Crist:

...his strong support for President Barack Obama's nearly $800-billion stimulus package; his appointment in March of Judge James E.C. Perry to the state Supreme Court, despite opposition from the National Rifle Association and antiabortion groups; and his lack of support for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

There are questions regarding Crist's sexual orientation, but frankly, I think we on the Left are wise to keep that issue off our tables. [Memo to RedState, who thought it appropriate to link Justice Souter with a certain proclivity for barnyard animals, we're better than you. Stay classy.] As a matter of policy, I don't care who a candidate wants to sleep with as long as he's meeting his obligations, particularly to those he represents. But on that score Crist is widely seen as an epic fail, and Florida's conventional wisdom is, he's running for Senate in part to escape the failures of his gubernatorial tenure. Florida Progressive Coalition blog:

If Crist has future ambitions, he has to get out from under the weight of the state’s failing political and economic system. Even a casual observer could notice that Crist has done a lot to contribute to that failure, but, because of his affable personality and a lax media, he hasn’t gotten credit [sic] where he deserves it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1645)

PLAYS: (1494)

Via NECN:

(NECN/WMTW) - Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a bill this afternoon making the state the fifth in the country to allow gay marriage.

The governor signed the legislation shortly after the Maine legislature passed it.

Four other states currently allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa have been ordered by the courts to do so, and Connecticut has enacted a law codifying a court ruling. Vermont passed a gay marriage law in April over the governor's objection.

"I think Maine people should be proud of the way this has been handled," said Baldacci.

"Under the Constitution, we are all the same," said Baldacci in referencing his personal feelings about this matter. "Times have changed."

(AP Photo) Gretchen Robbins, of Winthrop, Maine, smiles while hugging Sarah Reece of Los Angeles, after Maine's House members gave final approval to a same-sex marriage bill at the State House in Augusta, Maine, on Tuesday, May 5, 2009.

Complete statement below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2182)

PLAYS: (9893)

David Shuster exposed the distortions being used by NOM's Brian S. Brown over the issue of gay marriage. Groups like NOM will cut and paste any statement to make themselves appear right. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what we've come to expect from people like Brown. In this case they use people who support gay marriage and twist their words to suit their own goals.

Shuster: Brian, your ad refers to legal scholars and says same sex marriage will lead to damaging wide spread legal conflicts for small businesses and religious organizations. That's only half of the sentence of their conclusion, isn't it?

Brown: Well, that's the focus Doug Laycock, Robin...people on both sides of the debate agree...

Shuster: Let's talk about Doug Laycock because he supports same sex marriage and the fact is that in their conclusion they say without 'religious accommodation' it will create legal conflicts. You didn't put that "religious accommodation' or in your ad or press release, you simply took the last half of your sentence simply say "Oh, this is going to lead all sorts of problems, it's like saying your car is going to break down unless you fill it with gas and you leave out 'unless you fill it with gas," why did you do that?

Shuster then picks him apart the rest of the way. NOM joined up with Miss California to campaign against 'teh gays' that they say will destroy the institution of marriage. They's gone straight to Miss California to campaign against gay marriage.
Shakesville:

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."

The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

I'm amused by the idea that marriage is "very dear to [her] heart" (like orphaned puppies or her Grandma Mima) and that "traditional marriage" needs saving, not from divorce, or abuse, or philandering, but from queers seeking just a sliver of equality.

Go, Miss California, fight the good fight in the name of bigotry and intolerance! I'm sure you'll make your home state proud.

Miss Texas has found her calling now and will become a new Anita Bryant speaking out against gays. That's pretty sad. I'm sorry you lost the contest, but we are defined on how we respond to the challenges that confront us and you've made a pretty sad choice. Good luck hanging with the religious zealots.

Right Wing Watch has more:

The NOM ad then flashes the quotes "will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflicts" and "effects would be ... devestating" on the screen, but doesn't say where they came from.

In the press release on its website, NOM instead links to these two letters [PDFs] addressed to Christopher Donovan, Speaker of the House in Connecticut, showing where the quotes came from. The only problem is that the authors weren't warning of the "devastating" effects of gay marriage - they were urging the state legislature to pass an exemption for religious organizations when it enacted its marriage equality law:...read on

The Alliance Defense Fund, a group founded by James Dobson, is asking Iowa's county recorders who refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, free legal defense help against prosecution.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal advocacy group founded in 1994 by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and the late Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, sent an e-mail to each of Iowa’s county recorders asking them to tell their staff that they “shall not be required to issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist or participate in such procedures, against that individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The e-mail, which was sent out in conjunction with the Iowa Family Policy Center, says Iowa law protects citizens from being forced to “violate his or her conscience.”

The ADF then offers to “provide free legal review and defense” for any county recorder that adopts a “conscious clause” and is challenged “on the basis of its content.”

--

Attorney General Tom Miller has repeatedly warned county recorders that they do not have the authority to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and “recorders do not have discretion or power to ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling,” Miller said.

The court’s ruling goes into effect Monday.

Iowa law says that an elected official can be removed from office for refusal to perform duties of the office or for willful or habitual neglect.

They lost in Iowa and now these religious extremists are asking the workers to participate in illegal behavior. Will they guarantee to help them keep their jobs after they are fired? How Christian is it to ask people to break the law?