Citizens Project

When Words Mean the Opposite: The Story of My Awakening

15th July, 2011

When Words Mean the Opposite: The Story of My Awakening

By David Trillo

If a psychic or a Tarot reader had told me in 1985 that, within the next seven years, I would become a gay rights activist, I would have laughed in his face – if he had caught me in a good mood.

I was more than just anti-gay.  I was vehemently anti-abortion.  The only reason why I didn’t join Operation Rescue or a similar group was youthful ignorance – I didn’t know where to contact them.

I was still an evangelical Christian when I joined as one of Citizens Project’s earliest supporters in 1992.  The idea of gay marriage was still hard for me to take, but as I listened to Christian radio and conservative talk beginning around 1990, I began noticing a pattern that disturbed me much more deeply than guys marrying guys.

I began noticing a very systematic, repetitive attack on the concept of church/state separation, and an orchestrated re-introduction of the antiquated idea of “legislating morality.”  Not only did that run counter to my core beliefs in Christian free will, but I knew that if I had doctrinal differences with the “Christian authorities” – and I did — it took no rocket science to see that these aspiring theocrats would impose their moral doctrines by legislation, with no regard for my Christian theological disagreement.

I became, on that fateful 1992 day, the most unlikely gay rights activist.  As distasteful as I found my admittedly distorted visions of the “gay lifestyle” to be at that time, I knew, deep down, that to protect my rights as a dissenter, I must likewise protect theirs.

It didn’t take long to see that, in the world of far right politics, words aren’t always what they seem.

To average people, “freedom” means that you can live your life much as you choose, as long as you aren’t hurting others.  The Constitution, we’d think, sets up a government with internal restraints, and protects important individual rights and freedoms so that no government can take them away.

But in the strange world of Hard Right vernacular, these familiar, appealing words can take on virtually opposite meanings.  “Freedom” isn’t what most people would think it is; it means instead either an unlimited “freedom to make laws”¹ as former judge Robert Bork puts it, or freedom is a “biblical concept” that “comes with limits set from the very beginning by our Creator,”² as explained by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Religious freedom is also turned on its head.  To the Hard Right, it merely means the freedom to worship as you choose – “we won’t force you to go to church” — but you would be required to live your life by laws “rooted in Biblical law,” as the dubiously named Constitution Party says it³.  To be “free” to worship in your own religion, while being forced to live according to a different, government-imposed religion¹¹, is a hollow freedom.

And “Constitutional rights?”  Not as most people understand them.  To former Republican leader Tom DeLay, the Supreme Court should never have been given any power to overturn unconstitutional laws⁴.  To Robert Bork, very few rights would be off limits to being trampled by “representative assemblies¹.”  And to Religious Right attorney Thomas Jipping, “direct forms of democracy”⁵ such as ballot initiatives would probably be immune to Constitutional challenges, since he objects to the courts’ alleged “power to thwart the will of the people”⁵.

To theocratic “Constitutionalists,” the Constitution is considered subordinate to “God’s law”¹¹, despite its own statement to the contrary.  “Despotic government” is not tyranny in itself – it refers to any government that enacts laws contrary to “God’s law.” An expansion of personal liberty could be deemed “tyrannical” if “God” disapproves.   According to advocates such as noted creationist Henry Morris, this higher law that trumps the Constitution is “nothing more nor less than applied Biblical law.”¹²

Will voting for today’s Religious Right candidate “keep government out of our private lives,” as conservative and Republican advocates claim?  Don’t bet on it.

To Religious Right icon Sam Brownback, there exists no right to “sexual privacy”⁶.  To Tom DeLay⁴, and Vision America’s Rick Scarborough⁷, Americans have no protected right to privacy at all. Possible presidential contender Rick Santorum disparages the “right to privacy lifestyle”⁸, particularly as it pertains to sexual choice.

Conservative columnist Jason Adkins, to his credit, pointed out the importance of the courts’ role in enforcing the Constitution⁹.  Unfortunately, he was soon countered by comments that argued that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to states!

Indeed, partially or even completely repealing the power of the courts to enforce Constitutional protections is an increasingly popular idea among the far right^{10, 13}.  Imagine a future where your state or local government could randomly search your house for contraband books – and the Bill of Rights would afford no recourse.

America is just two or three “conservative” Supreme Court appointments away from possibly realizing such a frightening world.  That is what some extremists call “returning to Constitutional government.”

It is anything but.

Wow, what an awakening this was!  But the opening of my eyes paved the way for major changes in my soul.  I now support same-sex marriage with all of my heart.

I am still a moderate, libertarian Republican.  It worries me to see Democrats so eagerly support a wholesale expansion of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause scope to justify the upcoming federal health insurance mandate.  They would do well to contemplate such expanded federal power in the hands of the Religious Right.

But if you’re a Republican, Libertarian, new to the Tea Party, or are otherwise concerned about excessive government, don’t fall into the “any conservative is always better than any Democrat” thought habit.  Pay very close attention to candidates, and see whether each candidate uses the words “freedom” and “Constitutional liberty” in their normal, commonsense meanings, or whether there might be a bizarre reverse definition concealed inside a Trojan Horse.

If you’re looking for true Constitutional freedom, you might be disappointed, even stunned, that some of the people who most loudly promise “freedom” have in mind something very opposite — the unfettered legislative access to your most personal life.

I know I was stunned.  It knocked my eyes wide open.

———————————————————-

References:

1.  Robert Bork, “Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law” p. 9

2.  Albert Mohler, “The Culture of Freedom and the Future of Marriage,” AlbertMohler.com, 9/14/2005, http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/09/14/the-culture-of-freedom-and-the-future-of-marriage-2/

3.  Constitution Party National Platform, as of 7/11/2011, http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

4.  Tom Delay, Washington Times interview 4/13/2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/13/20050413-111439-5048r

5.  Thomas Jipping, “Imperial Judiciary,” Christian American, Christian Coalition, January 1997.

6.  Sam Brownback, Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution, Senate Hearing 109-1023, 3/16/2005, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg44825/html/CHRG-109shrg44825.htm

7.  Rick Scarborough, “It’s All About the Judges,” Scarborough Report, Vision America, 9/28/2007, http://www.visionamerica.us/article/its-all-about-the-judges/

8.  Rick Santorum, Associated Press interview, 4/23/2003, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

9.  Jason Adkins, “Judicial Abdication, Not Activism, is the Real Problem in the Courts,” Townhall.com, 2/24/2011, http://townhall.com/columnists/jasonadkins/2011/02/24/judicial_abdication,_not_activism,_is_the_real_problem_in_the_courts/

10.  2004/2008 Candidate Questionnaire, Conservative Caucus, http://www.conservativeusa.org/candqest2008.htm

11.  Main page, Rare Jewel Magazine Website, as of 7/12/2011, http://rarejewelmag.com/about/index.shtml

12.  Henry Morris, “The Higher Law,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/20528/228

13.  Alex Newman, “Stopping Abortion Without the Supreme Court”, The New American, 7/8/2011, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/8136-stopping-abortion-without-the-supreme-court

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

LGBT Equality: How Does Colorado Stack Up?

5th August, 2010

Citizens Project celebrated the recent overturning of Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage law, and it made us wonder; how do California’s LGBT laws stack up to Colorado’s?

Colorado had two items on the 2006 ballot regarding same-sex marriage.  Referendum I was a proposed law that would have “legalize[d] domestic partnerships, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples under Colorado law.” (CNN)

The other item on the ballot was Amendment 43, which would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Amendment 43 passed with 56% of the vote, and Referendum I, along with LGBT marriage equality, was defeated when 53% voted against it. (CNN)

However, some rights were granted to same-sex couples in 2009.  HB 1260, which Governor Bill Ritter signed in April of 2009, legally allows “couples (gay, lesbian, or heterosexual) to enter into ‘designated beneficiary agreements’. Designated beneficiaries would have certain rights, including the right to receive state employee pension benefits, health insurance coverage, the right to medical decision-making for an incapacitated partner and the right to inherit if a partner dies without a will.” (HRC)  This bill did more than help same-sex couples; it helped unmarried heterosexual couples as well as people who can’t afford a lawyer to draft a will. (DallasVoice)

California’s laws regarding marriage are more complex.  For a few weeks in 2004, the Mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but these were later nullified by California Supreme Court.  Then, in 2008, Proposition 8 was introduced and voted on, and passed in the November election with 52% of the vote.  This proposition said that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  (CA Voterguide)  However, on August 4, 2010, a California Judge reversed Proposition 8, calling it unconstitutional.  This decision will be appealed, and at least for now, same-sex couples in California are not allowed to marry.  That could change, depending on the ultimate outcome of this litigation.

Colorado’s 1992 Amendment 2 is an ugly blotch in our state history. Amendment 2 would have prohibited legal protection from discrimination for gays and lesbians.  It passed with xx% of the vote. Fortunately, justice prevailed and Amendment 2 was overturned by the Colorado Courts. Given this attempt to legalize discrimination against LGBT people, it may surprise you that California and Colorado have very similar laws in other areas that affect LGBT communities.

Employment: Both Colorado and California have laws that protect people from being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.  California put these laws into effect in 1992 and 2003, where Colorado put them into effect in 2007.  (HRC)

Housing:  Both Colorado and California have laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  For Colorado, this occurred with the passing of SB 200 in 2008, which, in addition to pre-existing nondiscrimination laws for sexual orientation and gender identity to employment, added housing, public accommodations, credit transactions, jury service, and more to the legally protected areas. (HRC, HRC)

Hate Crimes:  Both Colorado (in 2005) and California (in 1999) include sexual orientation and gender identity in their state hate crimes law (HRC)

School discrimination:  Both Colorado (in 2008) and California (in 2002) have laws that address discrimination, harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (HRC)

Adoption:  Both Colorado and California allow second-parent adoptions (adopting the child of one’s partner) as well as same-sex couples jointly petitioning to adopt (adopting from the child’s biological parent(s) or is in the custody of the state) (HRC)

Hospital Visitation:  Colorado and California have similar hospital visitation laws, but they are a result of different processes.  In California, equal hospital visitation rights are granted to same-sex spouses or partners through marriage equality or statewide relationship recognition.  In Colorado, same-sex spouses or partners are extended equal hospital visitation rights through specific provisions as part of a limited relationship recognition statute. (HRC)

Out-of-Jurisdiction Recognition:  In order to be eligible for benefits and protections extended by Colorado, couples must re-register with Colorado regardless of their relationship status elsewhere.  California, on the other hand, recognizes out-of-jurisdiction marriages that occurred before November 2008 as valid marriages, and all other same-sex marriages and civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid domestic partnerships. (HRC)

We can see that Colorado and California’s past in regard to LGBT issues are very similar.  Both states had, or are in the process of having, bad legislation overturned that would have prohibited equal rights from being attained by LGBT communities.  Both states are among the top LGBT-friendly states with regards to discrimination laws.  And they both, despite all of these positive attributes, have a long way to go before true equality is reached.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

30th June, 2010

With the recent developments regarding the United States’ military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which effectively bans openly gay and lesbian citizens from serving in the military, it is an appropriate time to examine where the policy came from, where it currently stands, and the possibilities for its future.

Leading up to his 1992 presidential election victory, Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays and lesbians in the US military.  However, once in office President Clinton encountered fierce resistance from Congress.  During the Congressional debates, Dr. Gregory Herek, a respected social psychologist with over 15 years of research in topics of sexual orientation, spoke on the potential consequences of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.  His ultimate conclusion was that “the research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.”  Despite these affirmations, President Clinton was unable to persuade congress, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was formed as a compromise.  This was, at any rate, progress, because it allowed gay and lesbian troops to serve in the military, as long as they kept their sexual orientation a secret.

Every year, a bill is used to decide the budget of the US Department of Defense, and the 2010 version includes an amendment that would eliminate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law.  This was voted on by the House of Representatives on May 27, and it passed on a 234-194 vote.  The Senate Armed Forces Committee also voted on the bill, and it passed there with a 16-12 vote.

The biggest argument against passing the bill is that its potential effects on the military are unknown.  The Pentagon is currently undergoing a review that was commissioned after President Obama’s State of the Union Address, where he discussed his desire to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The goal of the review is to determine whether or not the repeal would affect the “military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention,” and to offer strategies on how to implement the law if it was passed.  The results of this review are not due until December, so many Representatives who were not in favor of repeal said that they were reluctant to agree to the bill without first knowing the results of the Pentagon review.

What is known about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is there are many negative consequences.  Apart from its obvious discriminatory nature, which can alienate troops and force them to lie, it is very expensive.  A 2006 study showed that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has cost the US over $363 million dollars in investigations and training replacements.  Over 13,000 people have been kicked out of the military since 1993 due to their sexual orientation, which includes troops with critical skills such as Arabic linguists, fighter pilots and doctors, whose skills are invaluable during a time in which the US is involved in two wars.  There are over thirty countries that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, including Israel, England, Canada, Australia, and Spain.

There are still many obstacles in the way before the repealing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be passed.  The next step is that the Senate must vote on the bill, which could occur this summer.  If it were to pass in the Senate, the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all must sign off on it as well.  This might be a very significant obstacle because President Obama has threatened to veto the bill because it contains money for defense projects he deems wasteful.

Despite these obstacles, there is more hope than ever that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law will finally be eliminated.  As Dr. Herek mentioned, there is absolutely nothing that prevents gays and lesbians from serving as well as heterosexuals.  And with numerous examples of countries successfully embracing gays and lesbians into their militaries, isn’t it time that the United States, a self-professed powerful force for good in the world, did so as well?  As someone close to me always says, there have always been gay and lesbian troops in the military, and I believe that it is long past due to finally allow them to serve their country openly and freely.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

There’s an app for that? HRC’s “Buying for Equality” iPhone app

6th January, 2010

Thanks Amy Gillentine at the Colorado Springs Business Journal for reporting:

The Human Rights Campaign released the first-ever “Buying for Equality” iPhone application. This guide will allow shoppers to access its guide for equality as they are shopping to see how hundreds of popular American brands are rated based on the businesses’ treatment of their LGBT employees.

Now let’s make the City of Colorado Springs eligible for inclusion on the “good list” by passing Plus One employee health benefits, which includes domestic partners (gay and straight)! Here is the latest Gazette Opinion piece in support.

Read More - 1 Comment

Take Action: Vote for Plus One in Colorado Springs!

18th December, 2009

Our Plus One city employee health benefits proposal is in the news again today and the Gazette has posted an online poll about it. A strong showing of support in the poll and on the letters page of the Gazette could make the difference in showing City Council that there is enough public support to pass the plan. PLEASE ACT NOW!

• Vote for Plus One in the Gazette’s online poll (click here and scroll down, in the right-hand column).

• Forward this and ask your friends and colleagues to do the same.

• Write to the City Council and ask them to pass Plus One. Click here for a list of City Council Members and contact information. You can also email all council members at allcouncil@springsgov.com.

• Write a letter to the editor and post on online comment voicing your support for the plan. Send to opinion@gazette.com.

City Council members pay attention to these, so your letters and vote MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Read the story and take the poll here:  http://www.gazette.com/articles/city-90978-employees-href.html

You can find some talking points in Barb Van Hoy’s comment posted in the Gazette’s online comment section, reprinted here:

“The “Plus One” policy being proposed by Citizens Project would allow all city employees to buy into the city’s employee health insurance plan for one family member, if they are not already eligible for benefits for a spouse or dependent children. It is not really accurate to call this a “same-sex benefits” plan because that is only one of several types of qualifying family members. Employees could add an adult dependent child, a dependent parent, a domestic partner, or dependent grandparent. The employee would pay the full premium, rather than be subsidized by the city as current family members are (and as the 2003 policy did for same-sex couples that cost the cit $6,000). That’s one reason it is budget-neutral (the premium covers the full per-participant cost in the health plan.) The other reason it is cost-neutral is that the demographic population as a whole that is projected to buy in is not expected to increase the overall costs (based on the analyses of benefits experts).

Now is the time for Colorado Springs to begin catching up to the private sector, as well as the most successful cities across the country by adopting better, more inclusive employment practices. Whatever your personal opinion on same-sex couples, or single mothers or 35 year-old kids living with mom & dad, the fact is that our society includes a huge diversity of families. Competitive employers do right by their employees by adopting more inclusive plans, and our city should to. Attracting the best employees will get the best use out of our limited tax dollars. In addition, it is not government’s role to enforce a religious view of relationships on its employees, so arguments labeling some people’s families as “immoral” are moot. Government should treat all citizens equally. The Plus One plan doesn’t get all the way there, but it is an improvement, expands access to health care, treats all employees more equally, makes the city a more competitive employer, and won’t cost taxpayers a dime. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.”

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

The December Dilemma – Inclusive Holiday Practices for Public Schools

5th December, 2009

Every year Citizens Project sends The December Dilemma to local public schools. It is a primer on inclusive holiday practices for public schools produced by the Anti-Defamation League.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom by not only guaranteeing “the free exercise thereof”, but also by prohibiting our government from endorsing religion (“respecting an establishment of religion”). The December Dilemma provides expert guidance to schools on how the courts have interpreted religious liberty protections for students and staff, to ensure school holiday activities are not only legal, but inclusive and respectful of the great diversity of our country.

Download a PDF of The December Dilemma here.

Read More - 1 Comment

New hate crimes law is hard-won progress for freedom and equality

29th October, 2009

Today we celebrate a victory for the ideals of freedom and equality as promised in our United States Constitution.  After a 10-year fight, our nation at last has a hate crimes law that punishes the uniquely heinous nature of hate crimes, which have the chilling effect of creating fear among entire classes of people.  Thanks to Bruce DeBoskey of the Mountain States Anti-Defamation League for articulating this in an Op-Ed in Monday’s Gazette:

It has been 11 years since Matthew Shepard was beaten, tied to a lonely Wyoming fence, and left to die because his attackers hated gay men. That same year, James Byrd, Jr., was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas, a victim of a racially motivated crime. One of Byrd’s attackers wore tattoos including the image of a black man hanging from a tree.

Shepard and Byrd were not the only victims of those horrible crimes. In both cases, the murderers were not simply committing a crime against Shepard or Byrd; they were sending a chilling message to everyone who shared the characteristics of the victims — to every American who is gay or black. “You, and anyone like you, are not welcome here,” the perpetrators said through their hateful violence. “You, and anyone like you, are not safe here.” In fact, they were sending that message to all Americans.  Read more.

Signing the legislation yesterday, President Obama said,

“You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear,” Mr. Obama said. “You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts.” Read more.

This legislation does not punish thoughts, as conservative opponents of the legislation charge. It punishes a distinctive type of crime.  Focus on the Family earnestly opposed hate crimes legislation with the baffling claim that the bill would silence religious speech.  A July “CitizenLink” email states,

And, pastors who preach against homosexuality could end up prosecuted if they are found to have “induced” a hate-crime against a self-identified homosexual by preaching from the Bible.

It seems surprising that Focus would not understand the difference between preaching a belief and inciting violence.  In interpreting the First Amendment, our courts have made careful distinctions in this area.  With Neo-Nazis regularly demonstrating publicly without being prosecuted, can Focus really believe pastors will be arrested under this law for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? It sounds far fetched, but such rhetoric is consistent with their shrill denunciations of gay marriage as a threat to heterosexual marriage and their claims that equal rights laws threaten religious freedom (even with religious exemptions). Perhaps their supporters thought Focus went too far with these hate crimes statements, since this was the last such message they sent out. Regardless, in this case reason and fairness have won out.

Citizens Project thanks our elected representatives who supported this important legislation and will continue to fight locally for true religious freedom and equal rights for all.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Dear Focus, Please stop telling other people who they should love.

26th October, 2009

Focus on the Family is trying again to enforce their interpretation of the bible through public policy. This, from the Gazette:

Last year, Focus on the Family donated nearly $450,000 to support a California proposition outlawing gay marriage.

This year, the Colorado Springs-based organization is setting its sights on Maine, but the outlay is a lot smaller — both because Maine is a lot smaller, and because of the economy.

read more…

Support Equality in Maine here.

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!

Federal nondiscrimination bill urged

24th September, 2009

The momentum toward greater equality is growing! Religious bias against gays and lesbians  has been the basis for unjust discrimination for too long.  Yes, people must have the right to their religious beliefs, but that does not extend to depriving others of equal treatment.  It’s high time for gays and lesbians to realize the promise of our nations founding principles.

In yesterday’s news:

Two openly gay members of Congress on Wednesday urged their colleagues to pass a sweeping job discrimination bill that would — for the first time — protect gays and transsexuals from workplace bias.The testimony from Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., comes as supporters of the measure believe Congress is closer than ever to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Read more….

Read More - No comments yet - be the first!