This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith.
–Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, in OneNewsNow

The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights?

The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true.
–Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

In these two quotes above, “Christian” conservatives have spoken about fundamental freedoms in relation to public accommodation…in relation to Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group.

Some, like Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (AFA), are linking the Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group ruling to Proposition 8:

The California Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in a private clinic, based on their religious beliefs, cannot withhold unnecessary medical care to homosexuals and lesbians. A San Diego area lesbian claimed that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation. The Court’s decision means that California’s civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious freedom laws.

Here is another reason to vote YES on Proposition 8 and work to get others to do the same. Little by little our religious freedom laws are being lost because of activist courts and anti-Christian individuals.

Fundamental freedoms. These do include freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, fundamental freedoms also include the fundamental freedom to marry:

Read the rest of this entry »

Lambda Legal put out an email today, letting us know about tomorrow’s California Supreme Court coverage:

Tomorrow, March 4, you can watch the arguments before the California Supreme Court in our historic marriage equality lawsuit!

Lambda Legal has been working for four years with lead counsel National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the ACLU of California, Heller Ehrman LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell to make marriage legal for same-sex couples in California. Tomorrow our voices will be heard in the highest court in California.

Watch the arguments from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon PT (6:00 am to 9:00 am ET) at www.calchannel.com or, if you live in California, on the cable California Channel.

Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director, will be arguing on behalf of our plaintiffs: 15 same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition.

Join Lambda Legal here in the next 24 hours and you’ll have access to our members only briefing — and your gift will be doubled!

Legal Director Jon Davidson will summarize and comment on the arguments at the Supreme Court in San Francisco. He will also respond to questions that are emailed in during the call.

Should be interesting television/computer screen watching tomorrow.

A couple of stories hit the news this week about transsexual people trying to change their names to reflect who they are now. In both cases, they were thwarted (which is why the stories made the news), and both, in articles about their cases, were accompanied by statements indicating anti-transgender bias.

One case involves Rev. Ronnie Elise Elrod, who wanted the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to change the name on her diploma to reflect her change from male-to-female. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary refused the request. Their bureaucratic policy sounded pretty uniform in application to me:

“We have an institutional policy that we do not change names on diplomas,” said R. Albert Mohler, president of the seminary in Louisville, Ky. “That’s just the bottom line.”

Mohler said the school also doesn’t change names to note a change in someone’s marital status.

“If you’re married, if you change your name, if you move to another planet — it doesn’t matter,” added Mohler. “We’re not going to change the name on a diploma. … That long predated anyone asking for it for this reason.”

But of course, Dr. Mohler, know within segments of the transgender community for his articles Gender Confusion in the Kindergarten? and A Transgender Pastor in the Pulpit?, was further quoted in the Religion News Service article on Rev. Elrod:

Mohler has been vocal in his questioning of whether a man can truly change into a woman or vice versa but he, too, views this as a separate issue from the school’s diploma policy. He has written a column and spoken on his radio program about the case of a United Methodist transgender minister who has been permitted to remain pastor of his Baltimore church.

Mohler cited the Southern Baptist faith statement, which calls “the gift of gender … part of the goodness of God’s creation.”

Mohler said gender is “something that is assigned by God” and surgery may change how an individual looks but not their “chromosomal structure.”

“We would want to respond with pastoral concerns to persons who are struggling with this issue,” he said. “But we cannot endorse any confusion of gender and certainly not the notion of a sex change or sex assignment and the surgery that may be involved.”

The other story on a transgender woman being thwarted in her attempt to change her name to reflect her female identity comes from Will County, Illinois. In the Chicago Tribune article Transgender woman seeks name fee waiver (emphasis added):

A transgender woman who wants to change her legal name from “Donald” to “Daunn” asked the state Supreme Court Thursday to order Will County’s chief judge to waive about $450 in court fees because of her low income.

The legal filing by Daunn Turner, 52, of Lockport contended Will County Chief Judge Stephen White rejected the request by declaring, “I am not spending the county’s money on something like this.”

White told her the name change was “something that she wanted, not something that she needed,” the court filing said.

Imagine yourself with a name usually associated with the opposite sex: How necessary do you think it would be to change your name to match your gender identity? How difficult do you think it might be to get a job when your name doesn’t match the gender you are presenting as? Name changes for transsexual people aren’t a just a “want,” the name changes help us present as who we are. And more importantly, the name change helps transsexual people gain meaningful employment.

Thankfully, in Daunn Turner’s case, Lambda Legal has stepped in, and has filed papers in her case:

The court filing contended that a judge must grant a person’s “indigency application” if paying the fee would create a substantial hardship.

The judge’s personal views shouldn’t be a factor, said Turner’s attorney, Christopher Clark.

“That’s not the way a judge is supposed to determine whether someone can use the court system,” Clark said.

What’s in a name? For a transsexual person, it often is about implications of gender identity. It also is about how well he or she can function in society as a member of his or her target sex — such as with employment, housing, and public accommodation. When it’s tough to change one’s name on one’s identification and historical documents, it’s often tough to function in society as who one is.

Well! Exodus International and Focus On The Family have let us know — in CitizenLink’s piece Gay Activists Unveil Their Agenda for the New Year — who exactly has the master copy of the “nefarious” Homosexual Agenda®.

For those of you who wanted to know, it’s Lambda Legal!!!

Homosexual and transgendered activists are planning 2008 forays into every sector of society — business, health care, schools, the courts, the military and more. That’s according to an online report from Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the pro-gay Lambda Legal.

Hate-crimes laws, which grant special protection to homosexuals, are part of the agenda. So is legislation to give gay employees — including transgendered individuals — special rights.

Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said those are just the priorities the activists admit to.

“They’re not talking about what they’re doing inside of individual states,” he said. “There’s a lot of specifics that are not being pointed out.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, said: “It is a very nefarious agenda, and we have to be on our guard.”

Okay then! I expect Kevin Cathcart to mail out a copy of the document marked Homosexual Agenda® everyone who identifies as LGBT by the end of next week, otherwise my peers and I won’t know what “nefarious” activities we’re supposed to get involved with this coming year.

Lambda Legal released a press release of a new lawsuit, filed in the Northern District Court of Indiana regarding West Side High School (Gary, Indiana) violated Kevin “K.K.” Logan’s First Amendment rights when it barred him from his prom for wearing a dress.

From the press release:

K.K. Logan attended West Side High during his junior and senior year and expressed a deeply rooted femininity in his appearance and demeanor. Both classmates and teachers at the school supported him in his daily attendance dressed in clothes typically associated with girls his age.

However, on May 19, 2006, Principal Diane Rouse stretched her arms across the door of the Senior Prom, blocking Logan’s entrance. His classmates and friends rallied to his defense to no avail — even though a female student was allowed entrance dressed in a tuxedo.

The message here is that being a male-bodied person in a dress — a Jane-Girl — is as bad as using drugs. That’s right — according to school policy, one can’t wear clothing that “advertises” drugs or sexual orientation. And let’s be clear, that means a female-bodied person wearing a tux isn’t advertising sexual orientation, but a male-bodied person wearing a prom dress is advertising sexual orientation. The policy is excerpted in the press release:

Principal Rouse has stood by a school policy that deems inappropriate any “clothing/ accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements.”

Lambda Legal’s public response (besides filing the lawsuit):

“The fact that sexual orientation is lumped in with drugs and profanity in the school’s dress code is just plain offensive, but even more troublesome is that the whole policy is in violation of students’ First Amendment rights,” said James P. Madigan, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “There are ways to write policies that both create rules for student behavior and also respect their rights — but this isn’t one of them.”

Lambda Legal argues that Logan’s First Amendment rights were violated, including the freedoms of speech, symbolic action, and expressive conduct. The school district also engaged in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and gender.

K.K. Logan ended the press release with a significant statement:

I dress this way because it’s who I am and how I feel on the inside. Gay and trans students have rights, and they should be treated fairly.