California Bill Targets Boy Scouts' Policy

The Boy Scouts of America has been under fire for a while due to its policy of discrimination against gay scouts and scouters. However, a new California bill that passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee with a vote 5 to 2 would eliminate tax breaks for organizations that discriminate against youths.  The bill would protect gays, transgender, and even atheists whose discrimination is often glossed over.

This is the first bill of its kind in any state.  It would make groups, like the Boy Scouts, who discriminate to pay taxes on donations and other contributions.  

The Youth Equality Act, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach, would deny tax-exempt status to youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

Scouting executives are slated to vote on changing the policy, to make it more inclusive, in May.

Intellecticide

More Slippery Slope Arguments From The Right

Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, decided to play up the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage in a blog post on RedState.  Apparently, supporters of same-sex marriage would quickly shift their support to incestuous and polygamous marriages.  This claim is, of course, ridiculous but will not stop fools like Erickson from making it.  Here is what he said:

Via MediaMatters.

Seriously. Why not incest.

[...] 

If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this? 

[...] 

So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the "ick" factor? Why should that preclude it?

If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer. 

[...]

The truth is, many, many, many of the same people who are now in support of gay marriage, but would oppose this or polygamy will, once the next step is advanced, support these things too. They just have to lie about it for now until they can shift public opinion further.

This is such an idiotic argument, it's hardly worth the time to discuss.  Here I am though, wasting my time on him.

Why not incest?  Because more often than not, incestuous relationships are exploitative.  Especially in situations where it is an adult and a child, like he has suggested.  Also, any relationship like that with a child involved is harmful too the child both mentally and potentially physically.  

If his argument were true, you would see many European countries, which already largely have equal rights for LGBT couples, rushing to approve incest and polygamy but you don't see that.  

I'm not sure which I find more offensive, his assertion that people like me are lying about some secret support for incest and polygamy with the intention of shifting the fight or his claim that same-sex marriage is morally the same as incest and polygamy.

Morality is on the side of the LGBT rights supporters.  The Right's assumed monopoly on morality is reprehensible.  Allowing two consenting adults to have the same legal rights as other adults in this country is not immoral, opposing that is.  That is what this fight is actually about, the law.  No one is arguing that churches will be forced to hold a religious ceremony for same-sex couples.  There are end-of-life decisions that they are excluded from, tax incentives, right to spousal benefits for insurance and many other reasons.  Can someone please give me a reason to oppose these rights that does not center around religion?  I didn't think so.

Erickson is just another troll.

Saturday Shakedown

I missed posting yesterday so here is a rare Saturday Shakedown!

North Carolina will not be establishing a religion thanks to the Speaker of the NC State Legislature, Thom Tillis (R).  He has announced that the measure will not be brought up for a vote.  This is a relief because we shouldn't be having a discussion like that in this day and age.  This is a settled issue with hundreds of years of precedent.

However, this discussion in North Carolina has prompted some polls to be taken with some frightening results.  

The new survey finds that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion in their own state, while 47 percent would oppose doing so. Thirty-two percent said that they would favor a constitutional amendment making Christianity the official religion of the United States, with 52 percent saying they were opposed.

 Tennessee is proposing a bill that would withhold welfare assistance to families whose children are not doing well in school.  There is already a revolving door when it comes to poverty and poor education, why make it worse with something like this?  Education is important and there are a lot of factors that contribute to poverty.  We cannot hurt kids by withholding food because they get a bad grade.  That is cruel and unusual.

North Carolina Republicans Failed Civics

I thought South Carolina was the crazy Carolina but it seems North Carolina wants to give them a run for their money.

North Carolina is trying to establish a state religion.  You read that right.  They don't care that this is obviously against the first amendment.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

The measure is supported by nine Republicans in the Legislature. They introduced this after a lawsuit took issue with Rowan county committee meetings opening with, way more often than not, an obviously Christian prayer.

They claim that they can pass this legislation because of that first word in the amendment: Congress.  And they are right in that the way the amendment is written, it would not be applied to North Carolina.  They also claim that the Tenth Amendment, which gives the states the rights to do things if the Constitution does not address it, does not stop them from establishing a religion.  The bill itself states that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and does not stop states from passing any law that defies any part of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ok, ok, let's say I'm on board with all that.  It does not really mention anything about the establishment clause.  If only there were something that would explicitly state that the first amendment... no, it needs to be more specific than that... the establishment clause itself...

Everson v. Board of Education, (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law.

WOW, look at that!  The issue has already been addressed!  I mean as long as it isn't before 1947...nope, I checked the calendar and we're good.  North Carolina can breathe a sigh of relief and not waste their time on a rehashing of previously decided case law.  But we all know they won't.

This follows a trend of Republican led legislatures in Red states of proposing, and sometimes passing, ridiculously illegal laws.  I have covered some of these laws in relation to gun control here on the blog. I really do not understand how they can continue with stuff like this.  Nullification, of which this is a cousin, cannot and will not stand.  

Maybe for fun the federal government should turn North Carolina loose, just as an example to the other states.  I really don't think they've thought it through.

Failure to Launch

They're Getting Desperate

Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart is afraid of gay marriage, but not for the reasons that are usually argued.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

That's right, she's afraid straight people will get married to their same-sex friends just for benefits.  In a way, I suppose she is right.  People could do that.  There should not be any requirement to prove your... gayness in order to get married to someone of the same sex.  And people get married for all sorts of reasons.  Is she implying that straight people cannot do this now with an opposite sex friend?  My guess is that people getting married just for benefits would be just as prevalent as it is now should same-sex marriage become legal on a national level.

They are certainly getting desperate.