Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Landrum Taylor exits secretary of state race: Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, a Phoenix Democrat, is dropping her bid to become the next secretary of state. Landrum Taylor, a veteran legislator, said she will instead focus on child welfare and added she is open to working … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
One of life's imponderable questions:
Why do the very people who believe an individual, association, partnership, corporation, trust, foundation or other legal entity (because "corporations are people my friend") possess a religious liberty to not comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious belief" to discriminate against gays — or women, or other religious faiths, or people of color, or other nationalities, etc.
. . . are the very same people who do not believe in the religious liberty or moral conscience choice of a woman to make medical decisions in consultation with her doctor regarding her own body for contraception and abortion? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to invoke her "sincerely held religious belief" in exercising her constitutional rights to contraception and abortion by logical extension of this argument?
Maybe someone should try to get an answer to this moral dilemna from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) on Tuesday when she is expected to testify in favor of Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153 (.pdf), in the Committee on Government, at 2:00 p.m. in House Hearing Room 4.
This bill is a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, as amended. Since religion is defined under his bill as an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" rather than that of a religious institution — and the government cannot discriminate among religious beliefs under the First Amendment — an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" that he or she may discriminate against persons of other religious faiths, or another race, ethnic origin, or sex would be permissible. Such a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Washington Post reports on the latest from Virginia, Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:
The race to get the Supreme Court to decide whether it is unconstitutional for states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples may run through Virginia.
* * *
[T]he Virginia cases are moving quickly, and some lawyers are hopeful they emerge through the appeals process as favored vehicles for an ultimate decision by the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled Friday that a suit brought by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers in Harrisonburg on behalf of four lesbians should become a class action covering Virginia’s estimated 15,000 same-sex couples who might want to marry. [Harris, et al. v. McDonnel, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virgina – Harrisonburg Division (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077)]
And Tuesday, in a courtroom just over 200 miles away in Norfolk, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen will consider for the first time Virginia’s startling reversal of the commonwealth’s legal position on same-sex marriage. [Bostic v. Rainey, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia – Norfolk Division (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-395)]
New Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) said the state’s ban, approved by voters in 2006, is unconstitutional and cannot be defended.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Arizona Republic, formerly known as The Arizona Republican, the media arm of the Republican Party establishment in Arizona (namely Senator John McCain, see the pushback to the Arizona Republican Party's crazy base censure of McCain on Sunday, Arizona GOP censure riles McCain backers), published a schizophrenic editorial opinion on Sunday extolling the Tea-Publican House "principles" on immigration reform released last week. A step to the middle:
There was a national sigh of relief when the House Republicans released their principles for immigration reform last week. Their plan creates space for genuine debate that could lead to finally reforming fatally flawed immigration policies. The biggest divide is over what to do about 11 million undocumented people. The House principles are a welcome step toward the middle.
In calling for [permanent] legal residency and citizenship [only] for young people who were brought into the country illegally as children, House Republicans have recognized what the nation has long understood: You don’t punish children for the actions of their parents.
In calling for legalization for the larger undocumented population, House Republicans have moved away from the more extremist factions of their caucus who denounce anything short of deportation as “amnesty.”
They now have to find accommodation with Democrats who denounce anything short of a path to citizenship as a sellout.
The key word here is “incremental.”
By Tom Prezelski
Re-posted from Rum Romanism and Rebellion
I suppose that I could go on and on about how high-handed, pretentious, manipulative and ultimately hollow the annoying Super Bowl tribute to the troops was (someone else already did that here). Instead, I will point out a glaring omission in their reading of the Declaration of Independence.
As every schoolboy knows, the Declaration features a list of grievances against the Crown, among which is this one, condemning His Majesty for being insufficiently committed to exterminating the natives:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
The item referred to the alliances that the British and the Loyalists had entered into with many of the tribes on the frontier. Leery of the intentions of the Patriots, many native leaders had thrown in their lot with the Crown. Their weariness was understandable. Britain’s agreements with tribes had long been controversial among colonists eager to expand into the frontier, so joining the effort against the rebellion was a matter of survival.