LATEST FROM OTHER COUNTIES

Senator Burris (D-IL) Not Seeking Election in 2010?

By Jaime Huff | 02/26/09 | 11:31 AM EDT | 0 Comments

Chicago newspaper reporters (and us savvy blog columnists) are saying that Illinois Senator Roland Burris will soon announce he won't seek election to the seat in 2010. Senator Burris has made news recently for refusing to resign his appointment in the wake of rumored involvement in the Blagojevich investigation.

 

Illinois Democrats, led by interim Governor Patrick Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), are calling for Burris to leave office now because of reports that he did in fact attempt to raise money for impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich as a condition for receiving the Senatorial appointment. Quinn, elected as the state's Lt. Governor, assumed the state's top job when Blagojevich was removed from office. Burris had previously testified before a state legislative investigatory committee that he and the former Governor had no financial arrangement relating to President Obama's vacated legislative position.

 

Should Burris actually make the expected 2010 announcement, there are many in the wings waiting to jump into the 2010 race. Among Democrats, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) have already expressed interest in running for the Seat. Republican Congressman Mark Kirk (R-Kenilworth), who has held a Democratic-leaning district through the worst of elections for his party, is the prime GOP recruit.

 

The after-effects of the Blagojevich scandal and appointment mess seems to be opening the door for Republicans, hence the Democrats' desire to remove the tainted Burris from the field of candidates as quickly as possible.


Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III |

Homosexual Couple Win Legal Battle Against Church Group Over Use of Church's Property For Ceremony

By Craig Alexander | 01/02/09 | 6:43 AM EDT | 0 Comments

The advocates for same sex marriage in California routinely disclaim any goal of trumping the rights of religious citizens, including those who disagree with them.  Yet the actions of members of the homosexual community speak much louder than their words.

One of the hotly debated issues in the last election over Proposition 8 was the potential role of same sex marriage in education and freedom of religion in California.  The concern of many pro-Prop. 8 folks (myself included) is that legalized same sex marriage will require even stronger laws (created by legislature or the courts - more likely both) mandating the teaching of same sex marriage in public schools as a normative lifestyle even over the objections of parents.  Advocates of same sex marriage responded to this concern by scoffing at Yes on Prop. 8 folks by stating that our concerns were overblown.  

Yet during the campaign the Yes on Prop. 8 proponents pointed out through their TV ads that this situation is exactly what happened in Massachusetts shortly after its State Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage.  In fact one father who objected to this teaching by his child's school was arrested and placed in jail.  Also, during the lead up to the November 4th election, almost an entire class of elementary school children were taken to San Francisco City Hall for the Mayor to preside over a lesbian couple's marriage.  It was called, by one of the teachers, a "teachable moment."

Another concern of supporters of traditional marriage is that legalized same sex marriage will allow lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform homosexual marriages to go forward.  Again the scoffers of No on Prop. 8 said that this was not their goal, our concerns were overblown and that such a thing will not happen in California.  

Once again the actions of homosexual activists are proving to be louder than their words.  In New Jersey (which has civil unions for homosexuals) a lesbian couple have won their first round of legal battles in court against a church group that refused to allow them to use their facility for a ceremony.  The church group did so on the grounds that permitting such an act would be in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and the tenants of their faith.  

However, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has ruled that the church group's refusal to rent their property to the couple violated the couple's rights, specifically the public accommodation provisions of the state's anti-discrimination laws.  The couple's attorney stated that this fight is about his clients' being treated equally.  Never mind the deeply held religious convictions of the church and its members.  Never mind their freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech rights under the Constitution - not to mention their property rights, all trumped by the lesbian couple's right to their "ceremony" on the church's grounds.   

In California the same Supreme Court that brought us same sex marriage also ruled against a doctor who declined to perform fertility treatments to a same sex couple on several grounds including her religious beliefs.  The Court ruled that the doctor's sincerely held religious beliefs are trumped by the lesbian couple's sexual preference rights under the Unruh Act.  I doubt the same California Supreme Court who threw out the people's will in Prop. 22 would find it difficult to also throw out any religious exemptions under the Unruh Act that may still exist citing the legality of same sex marriage for justification for its actions.   

This situation is a clear example that when a state recognizes same sex marriage, it is interfering with religious freedoms too.  

 

Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III | News | FEATURE |

Why I will NOT be seeing Brad Pitt's new movie.

By Craig Alexander | 12/26/08 | 10:05 AM EDT | 0 Comments

Merry Christmas everyone!  I pray your Christmas celebration with your family was wonderful.
 
I know many people plan to spend some of their time off with their families by going to the movies - mainly this weekend.  One of the movies that came out just yesterday (Christmas Day) is "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" staring Brad Pitt.  I recommend that you NOT see this movie.  My recommendation is not due to the content of the movie. Rather it is due to Brad Pitt exercising his right to support the No on Prop. 8 campaign by giving it $100,000.
 
While I support Mr. Pitt's right to express his opinion in a political campaign, I also reserve the right to express MY opinion by NOT going to see his movie.  If I did, I would indirectly support his fight against traditional marriage.  Most actors at his level get a "piece of the box office proceeds" and, therefore, I strongly suspect that if I spend $10 to see this movie, a portion of that $10 would go to Mr. Pitt.
 
Therefore I will be seeing some other movie - perhaps "Marley & Me" (My wife and I have a yellow Labrador :-) .  Of course I have no guarantee that someone in that movie doesn't support the No on Prop. 8 campaign (such as Mr. Pitt's former spouse Jennifer Aniston), but I have no actual knowledge of that.  Since I have actual knowledge of Mr. Pitt's large donation to a cause against my values, I am knowingly exercising my right to not support that cause.

I guess you can call this activism at the movies!


Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III | FEATURE |

Attorney General Jerry Brown switches sides in Prop. 8 legal battle

By Craig Alexander | 12/20/08 | 11:16 PM EDT | 0 Comments

Coming as no surprise to anyone, Attorney General Jerry Brown has announced that he is switching sides and will now ask the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop. 8.  His publicly stated reasoning is that after review and thought about the issue, he feels the Proposition violates the "basic rights" of homosexuals.

Given his pre-November 4th support for the No on Prop. 8 campaign, including, significantly, his changing the Proposition's official title to a very negative sounding one, his "switch" is no surprise.  Never mind his oath of office as Attorney General includes the legal defense of the people's will as expressed in Prop. 8's change in the California constitution.  Jerry Brown has always bowed to political correctness and a strong liberal bent expressed with the view that the constitution is a "living document" where principal gives way to the latest cultural whims.   In fact, given his absolute 100% support for homosexual marriage, I am only surprised it took him so long to join the No on Prop. 8 folks asking the CA. Supremes to overturn the people's will.   

What this "switch" really proves is the wisdom of the official proponents of Prop. 8 (the Protectmarriage.com folks) by filing motions with the Court and being allowed to join the lawsuits against Prop. 8 as a party to the case.  This means that they will have a full place at the table to defend the people's will rather than relying on turncoat Jerry Brown to defend the Proposition Brown has now declared he will try to have invalidated. 

The Yes on Prop. 8 campaign folks have already proved that they have the wisdom and discipline to wage a great campaign in the passage of Prop. 8 on Nov. 4th.  They have again proven that by their recent hiring of Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr as the lead counsel for their side of the case.  I am sure Judge Starr and the rest of the Yes on Prop. 8 legal team will provide a first class legal defense of the constitutional amendment. 

What remains to be seen is if the California Supreme Court will respect the voter's will or not. 


Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III |

Governor of Delaware Names Biden's Replacement

By Jaime Huff | 11/25/08 | 12:51 PM EDT | 0 Comments

Outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner announced yesterday that Ted Kaufman, former Biden chief of staff, will be appointed to the United States Senate when Vice-President-elect Joe Biden takes office in January.

Kaufman served as Biden's top congressional staffer from 1975-1994, in addition to two years in a legislative position. Since 1991, the Senatorial-designee has been a Senior Lecturing Fellow at Duke University as well as teaching at the Fuqua School of Business. In 1995, he was appointed by President Clinton to serve as a charter member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the commission that oversees the federal government's radio broadcasting operations, including Radio Free Europe and Asia, Radio and TV Marti, as well as The Middle East Broadcasting Network.

There is speculation that Kaufman will hold the position for Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delware, who may consider running for his father's office when it comes up for election in 2010, and once he has finished his tour of duty in Iraq.


Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III |

California Supreme Court Rules: Prop. 8 to be Enforced But Will be Reviewed Early Next Year

By Jaime Huff | 11/20/08 | 9:41 AM EDT | 0 Comments

For Immediate Release

Contact: President Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

 

San Francisco, CA - The California Supreme Court has just issued a brief in response to several lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

The Court denied requests to stay enforcement of Prop. 8, meaning that the voters' rejection of gay marriage will stand--at least for a few months. The Court has now requested briefing on three issues: whether Prop. 8 is a "revision" of the state constitution which cannot be achieved through the initiative process; whether Prop. 8 violates the "separation of powers;" and what effect Prop. 8 would have, if it is upheld, on the gay weddings performed before its adoption. The Court has asked for briefing from Attorney General Jerry Brown and the official proponents of Prop. 8 by December 19, with amicus briefs due on January 15. The Court will hear oral arguments sometime in early 2009.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) was one of the first organizations to oppose the petitions requesting that Prop. 8 be invalidated and focused its initial briefs on defeating the requests for an immediate stay. PJI will file further briefings with the Court in the coming months explaining why Prop. 8 should be upheld. Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented, "We are pleased that the Court has taken this initial step to safeguard the will of the people, but we must continue to fight for Prop. 8 until its legality is fully and finally acknowledged by the Court."


Print | Email | Share
 

0 Comments | Related Topics » ARTICLE III |