Johns Creek Mayor Criticised After Radio Interview

Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker Discounts Efforts of Volunteer Firefighters and Says Johns Creek Residents Care About Other Topics More Than A Fire Department

In Radio Interview With The Regular Guys of Rock 100.5

In a radio interview with The Regular Guys of Atlanta’s Rock 100.5, Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker said a Fire Department is not a real one if it’s staffed with volunteers, ridiculed the Fulton County Government once again and said the Johns Creek residents don’t really care about having its own fire department.

The interview took place on Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008 as a radio debate between Mayor Bodker and The Regular Guys.

To listen to Mayor Bodker’s full interview with The Regular Guys visit www.LoveShackOnline.com/pressportal.html or www.RegularGuys.com.

Mayor Bodker insulted the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters in the United States when he said, “For many years you didn’t have a real fire department yourself.”

Mayor Bodker was referring to the city of Roswell because they used volunteers in the past. Volunteer firefighters account for nearly 73% of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,064,150 firefighters across the country, 777,350 are volunteers.

In fact, the majority of fire departments in the United States are volunteers. Of the total 26,354 fire departments in the country, more than 23,000 of them are either mostly volunteer or all volunteer.

“Perhaps Mayor Bodker needs a history lesson as much as he needs assistance in governing Johns Creek,” said Love Shack owner John Cornetta. “I know his name is a relatively unknown one in the history of the United States, but some guy that helped draft the Declaration of Independence and invented bifocals also established the first volunteer fire department in 1736. His name is Benjamin Franklin.”

Later in the interview, when The Regular Guys said, “I don’t think you can call it (Johns Creek) a city if you don’t have your own fire department “, Mayor Bodker replied with “Why don’t we measure a couple of other things that people might actually care about.”

The questions must be asked of the citizens of Johns Creek, “Does your mayor really care about public safety? And do you care about having your own fire and police department?”

In an article written by Doug Nurse in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on May 14, 2007, Nurse said the average response time for firefighters citywide is about 6 minutes, but it can take 11 minutes for county emergency workers to reach some parts of Johns Creek.

That’s nearly three times what the National Fire Protection Association recommends.

“Mayor Bodker has wasted more than $150,000 of the Johns Creek residents’ tax dollars to try to shut down the Love Shack in Johns Creek,” said Love Shack owner John Cornetta. “Despite the city of Johns Creek being in operation for more than a year now, the city still does not have its own fire or police department. Now Mayor Bodker has the audacity to appear on Atlanta radio and tell thousands of Atlanta’s volunteer firefighters that they don’t count as real firefighters!

“This man continues to prove that he is unfit and incompetent to complete his duties as Mayor of Johns Creek. He is a Mayor with no prior government experience and he ran unopposed in his quest to become Mayor of Johns Creek. Unfortunately for the thousands of Johns Creek residents, which includes myself, he has three more years in office.”

Mayor Bodker also continued his personal vendetta against Fulton County Government when he said on air, “I could say positive things about the (Fulton County) School System, I’m not going to say such positive things about Fulton County Government.”

But in the same interview he said, “We have hired Fulton County (firefighters). We utilize the fine young men and women of Fulton County to deliver those services today.”

This is the same Fulton County whom Mayor Bodker continually puts down and recently said in a press release posted on the Johns Creek website “Once again, a majority of Fulton County commissioners chose to throw their citizens to the wolves and abdicate their responsibility to preserve the community’s quality of life by failing to deal with their past mistakes,” Mayor Bodker said. “We keep paying and paying tax dollars to Fulton County leaders with the expectation that they will protect our citizens and our quality of life.”

This press release can be found in its entirety at http://johnscreekga.gov/news/2007-12-05_billboards.html .

Which is it Mayor Bodker? Is Fulton County Government good enough for you to rely on to supply emergency fire and police efforts to the citizens of Johns Creek or is the Fulton County Government failing to protect the Johns Creek citizens and preserve its quality of life?

Meanwhile, the Cornetta Charitable Foundation, the non-profit charity started by Cornetta, still has more than $4,000 money earmarked for the city of Johns Creek to build a fire department. This money has still not been accepted by the city of Johns Creek.

The Cornetta Charitable Foundation has already donated almost $4,000 to two families that saw a loved one perish in a Johns Creek fire on May 28, 2007.

Free Speech And Ernst Zundels

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

I've stayed out of this Richard Warman, Human Rights Commission, free speech argument for a while. In a very basic sense, I support unlimited free speech. That is to say, I support the freedom of each individual to write and to say anything they actually believe in, whether it be controversial in nature, or even dishonest in actual evidence. For instance, I support the freedom of speech for the faithful to claim that God created the world 5,000 years ago, against all the massive scientific evidence to the contrary. That's their freedom of choice on how they interpret the world around them. Of course, it does involve ignoring a body of evidence the weight of billions of fossilized bones refuting that idea, but nobody said anybody was compelled to believe in "facts". I'll even allow God may have created the Earth and the Heavens and the Universe. But it wasn't 5,000 years ago.

The problem, however, which arises from the free flow of free speech is that there are those who, against all contradictory evidence, will claim to be pursuing an intellectually honest search for "the truth". Wow. The Truth. Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? As this commenter at Small Dead Animals points out, isn't the truth more important than striking down "false news"?



First off, this has nothing to do with Warren Kinsella who also linked to this item. Those of you who have a problem with Warren Kinsella, take it to Mr.Kinsella. For me, the problem with "Loki" is that she is a very unwelcome voice on a conservative site which is a supporter of the conservative party. Not only do Loki and Kathy Shaidle not speak for me, but I imagine they don't speak for the Conservative party either. And I imagine few from the Conservative party would touch either of them with a ten foot pole if they said that Ernst Zundel had a legitimate right to pursue the "truth" of asking whether "Did 6 million really die?"

Second, yes they did die, Loki. In fact, the historical and forensic evidence of the holocaust is perhaps the single most documented and fact-checked mass murder in the history of humankind. The idea that a mentally unstable and intellectual liar from Germany has exposed any new insights into the holocaust is brazenly deceitful. Not only has Mr.Zundel been rebuked from every single reputable historian on the face of the planet, every single holocaust survivor living, and those who gave testimony before they were deceased, but the evidence from the Nazis themselves is overwhelmingly compelling. For those who are intensely masochistic, there is an entire website devoted to taking the Ernst Zundel argument and crushing it into a fine dust of incoherence. Of course, some form of tolerance for "reading" may be essential for "denial sympathizers" like Loki:



I spent a bit of time on Zundelsite a while back and on Ken McVay's Nizkor site and I just couldn't get excited about the minutae of interpreting WWII documents. For a historian this might be interesting, but I'm far more interested in science.


In short, Kathy Shaidle and Loki, the reason the Conservative party hasn't become involved in these latest little Human Rights Commission debacles, is that they tend to invite comment from intellectual dwarfs who think that Ernst Zundel has "nothing offensive" on his site. Loki, you are a pathological and dangerous liar if you think that either Mr.Zundel has anything worthwhile to say, or that there hasn't been a massive amount of outrage about the denial of the Armenian genocide either. As I wrote in Kate's comments section, here's google, get aquainted with it. Loki, you embarrass Conservatives by your association. Free speech is an integral part of a democratic society, but it's equally important to exercise the strong censuring of those who espouse historically dishonest propaganda.

I'm embarrassed by garbage of this sort, and I don't want to be associated with those who abide it. I support the Conservative party, not a bunch of borderline racists with an agenda against Muslims and a thinly veiled excuse of free speech to abuse it.




http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/02/free-speech-and-ernst-zundels.html

County Fair: First Amendment Victorious

By FCW Editorial
Freedom of speech won out last week after the Greenwich Library canceled, and then let proceed, a presentation on (what else) the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Alison Weir, founder of the Portland, Oregon?based group If Americans Knew, was invited by Greenwich's John McGillian to speak in a library conference room. According to www.ifamericansknew.org, the group's "objective is to provide information that is to a large degree missing from American press coverage of this critical region." (Its general thrust is critical of American complicity in the conflict.) Weir's presentation, scheduled for Feb. 14 and 16, was about her experiences in the region and what she calls the "true" history of the conflict. But on Feb. 9 McGillian called Weir to say that the presentation was a no-go. After the organization placed promotional ads in area newspapers, residents contacted the library and demanded that it be canceled. "John said he received a call from Mary Cuff [acting public information officer with the library] and she conveyed the message to him that they were canceling the event," Weir said. "This is very distressing," she told the Weekly before the event was re-instated. "You don't expect the library to break the law."

Cuff said the library board canceled the event was due to "several calls or emails about the program," claiming it was "too controversial."

Of course, the decision to let Weir speak only helped her cause. She was scheduled to speak in a small conference room, but after the ordeal grabbed the attention of a few national media outlets, it was moved to the 368-seat auditorium. Shine that light!




http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=5989

State sex toy ban may fall under federal court decision

JACKSON – Mississippi’s 25-year-old law barring the sale of certain devices designed for sexual stimulation could be unenforceable under a new ruling in a Texas case, according to the attorney general’s office.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by up to two years in jail, violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Mississippi law is similar.

“It’s still on the books, but the 5th Circuit ruling will make any defense of the law problematic,” said Assistant Attorney General Harold Pizzetta said Tuesday. “It will put our statute in jeopardy.”

Pizzetta said anyone cited under the state law will point to the court decision.
Harry V. Rosenthal of Pearl, the license holder for Secrets adult bookstore in south Jackson, said he considers the Mississippi law negated after the ruling in the Texas case.

Rosenthal was charged last year by Jackson police with possessing sex toys for purchase or resale at the store. The charge was remanded to file, meaning officials are not pursuing prosecution of the case, which has not been dismissed.

“If they charge us now, they can’t take us to court,” Rosenthal said.

Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia are the only states with obscene-devices statutes.

In 2004, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law and ruled the advertising of the sexual devices is not protected by the right to free speech. Such advertisements, the court said, promote an illegal transaction.

Adam and Eve and ZJ Gifts LLC, the Memphis-based owner of the Christal’s chain of adult stores, sued the state of Mississippi in 2000. The company, which closed an adult store in Southaven in 2001, claimed the law barring the sale of certain adult devices was unconstitutional.

A Hinds County judge ruled in 2003 that state law does not extend the right to privacy to the commercial sale of sexual devices.

The Mississippi high court said there is no fundamental right of access to buy sexual devices.

In the Texas case, Dreamers and Le Rouge Boutique operates four retail stores that carry a stock of sexual devices for off-premises, private use. The owners of the company challenged the constitutionality of Texas statute.

The 5th Circuit, in a ruling last week, said the issue was whether Texas law places a burden on an individual’s due process right to engage in private intimate conduct of his or her choosing. The court said the answer to the question was yes.

A challenge to Alabama’s law is pending in the 11th Circuit.

Virginia’s law barring obscene items is a bit different from other state laws and does not seem to apply to sex toy sales, said Phil Harvey, president of Adam & Eve Inc.

Louisiana, Kansas and Colorado had laws barring obscene devices, but courts have since struck them down, the 5th Circuit judges wrote in their ruling. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Georgia law banning the advertising of sex toys, which can be sold under some approved circumstances.

“An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right,” the 5th Circuit said in the Texas case.

“Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution.”

• The Clarion-Ledger contributed to this report



http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/80220003/1002

Decriminalize Private Adult Sexwork Coalition

This Coalition Cyber Center is only about changing the laws

While most all Western and many other countries have more reasonable laws regarding sexual pleasure, in the U.S. we are faced with moralists imposing their values on other people. If they can't reach us by knocking on our doors and preaching, then they will instead enact laws to prevent us from doing what they secretly wish they could. We oppose laws that violate our freedom as consenting adults to in private share intimacy and pleasure.

It is long overdue for private consenting adult prostitution to be decriminalized in the U.S. There are millions of sexworkers in the U.S. who enjoy their profession and the largest risk is not bad clients, not STD's since most insist on safe sex, but the law enforcement stings wasting resources on morality crimes with no victims.

Prostitution fills a vital role in our society by addressing the sexual and emotional needs of men and women, and by providing high paying employment options to women and men who wish to provide sexual services.

People in a free society have the right to work in their chosen profession, and to do with their own bodies as they so choose. Likewise, all citizens have the right to engage in consensual adult sexual contact.

Criminalization of private adult prostitution is wrong. Almost all the rest of the world realizes this, and the U.S. is one of the few countries were private sexwork is illegal.


http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html

Free Speech and Olympic Protests

Philip Hersch has an excellent article in the Chicago Tribune, aptly entitled Rules on Olympians' Criticism of Chinese Policy Confuse, that discusses the dilemma posed by speech restrictions at this year's Olympic games in China. Rule 15 (3) of the Olympic Charter says that "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas." But officials in Britain, Belgium and New Zealand have all considered restricting the types of speech athletes can engage in outside of official Olympic venues. Human rights advocates had hoped the games would be an opportunity to draw attention to China's troubling record on human rights, and find such restrictions particularly troubling this year since the IOC selected Beijing as the host city in hopes of encouraging positive change in China.

-Kathleen A. Bergin




http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/firstamendment/2008/02/free-speech-and.html

Sex Toys Now OK in Texas

In the spirit of Valentines day the 5th district court sex toys get the OK in Texas.

An appeals court has overturned a Texas statute outlawing sex toy sales.

The ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans leaves Alabama as the state with the strictest ban on such devices.

Tuesday's ruling says the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices -- violates the 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.

Companies that own Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, which sell the devices in Austin, and retailer Adam & Eve, sued in in 2004 in Austin.

They appealed after a judge dismissed the suit.

The Texas Attorney General's Office, which represented the Travis County district attorney, has not decided whether to appeal.

In 2004, a woman in Burleson was arrested for selling two sex toys to undercover officers.

Passion Parties consultant Joanne Webb was charged with violating the state's obscenity law. A judge later dismissed her case.
One has to wonder why the state of Texas has these laws and what kind of idiot decides to enforce and fight for these things. These laws are stupid and states shouldn't have any business making or enforcing these types of laws. Alabama had their similar laws supported by the 5th district court last year. What is confusing to me is that the Texan law was overturned because it conflicts with the 14th amendment on the right to privacy.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer but I don't see any right to privacy enumerated above. I suppose this is the same right to privacy that was declared in Roe vs Wade. Does the 11th and the 5th District court follow the same constitution that I do?



http://www.libertysblog.com/2008/02/sex-toys-now-ok-in-texas.html

Ordinance would regulate policies for new adult stores

Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 3:02:43am

Caitlin McGlade / For The Post / cm430506@ohiou.edu
Sarah Hensley / For The Post / sh232006@ohiou.edu
City codes might restrict the operations of sexually-oriented businesses in Athens if City Council passes an ordinance introduced at last night’s meeting.

The proposed ordinance and the zoning resolution recommended to the Athens Planning Commission last week would work together to regulate sexually-oriented businesses that might open in Athens, said Councilwoman Debbie Phillips D-4th Ward.

“These are some tools in our tool box to balance the different rights of people in our community in an attempt to reduce any potential negative impact,” Phillips said.

These proposed code changes would not affect the strip club that might open on Stimson Avenue because Chris Stotts submitted an application prior to the ordinance’s effective date, said Councilman Jim Sands, D-at large.

The ordinance would classify sexually-oriented businesses as adult arcades, adult bookstores or video stores, semi-nude model studios and adult theaters. These businesses are frequently used for unlawful sexual activities and raise concerns about sexually transmitted diseases, according to the ordinance.

If the ordinance is passed, future business employees and operators must keep the facility free of sexual activity, establish a management station with an unobstructed view of public areas, build with non-porous surface materials for sanitation and use bright lighting, among other requirements.

“We’re not trying to restrict anybody’s First Amendment rights — we just want to make sure there are some regulations in place and that we are able to also protect the public safety and the community interests…” said Phillips.

Councilman Elahu Gosney, D-at large said that this ordinance will help protect the property value in the area.

“There needs to be control over where businesses are and encourage more businesses Uptown that will benefit the city in the long term,” Gosney said.

This ordinance is modeled after a Wooster ordinance that has been in effect and has stood up in court, Phillips said. It is beneficial to use something that has been working for a while instead of starting from scratch, she said.

The ordinance must go through two more readings at Council meetings and Phillips said she did not know what date City Council would vote on it.

Mayor Paul Wiehl said that he hopes to approve the zoning resolution for sexually-oriented businesses on Thursday.



http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/News/2008/02/19/22971/

Free Speech For Some, But Not For All

Elizabeth Wright - 2/19/2008


Is freedom of speech a moot issue at this point in American history? Are those who persist in fighting to uphold the principles of the First Amendment fighting an already lost battle? From several recent polls of American citizens, it would seem that most people are more concerned about avoiding social discord than with preserving individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

It appears that the average American accepts the notion that if John's resolute opinions make his neighbor George unhappy--or, in today's politically correct jargon, "uncomfortable"--then John should be restrained from expressing those opinions. The once sacred adage that went something like, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," today is virtually unknown, and has given way to "Don't make waves."

The unquestioned right to disagree with majority opinion is no longer respected or considered an essential feature of the American social contract. Instead, there is a growing acceptance of or indifference to the use of smear tactics against citizens, whose expressed views deviate from the popular norm. Hurling the epithet "hater," with the intent to destroy the targeted
person's reputation, has become common practice.

Note the example of Matt Hale, a most unpopular figure. In 1998, he graduated from the law school of Southern Illinois University, and went on to pass the bar exam. Because what was considered Hale's notorious reputation
preceded him, the Illinois State Bar denied him a license, a decision that two Hearing Panels upheld, thus preventing him from practicing law.

Matt Hale is head of the World Church of the Creator, an organization whose religious tenets include teaching whites to regard their own race above others. Creator members believe that the colored races are inferior and should be shunned by whites. (Not exactly acceptable creeds in multicultural, integrationist Western society.)

After being declared "unfit" to practice law by the State Bar, Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review his case. As might be expected in today's social climate, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to review his case. However, one dissenting Judge, James Heiple, questioned the wisdom of rejecting such a case. He wrote, "The crux of the Committee's decision to deny petitioner's application to practice law is petitioner's open advocacy of racially obnoxious beliefs. . . . The Committee seems to hold that they may deny petitioner's application for admission to the Bar without finding
if petitioner has engaged in any specific conduct that would have violated the disciplinary rules if petitioner were already a lawyer. . . . Is there one standard for admission to practice and a different standard for continuing to practice? And if the standard is the same, can already licensed lawyers be disbarred for obnoxious speech?"

No print journalists or commentators in the mainstream media spoke up for Matt Hale's free speech rights. One of the few voices of support came from a University of Nebraska student journalist, Jeremy Patrick, who, in his article, "Bar Association Oversteps First Amendment Rights," wrote:

Consider the case of Matthew Hale, an avowed racist who took the Illinois Bar Exam. Hale passed the exam, including the portion on ethics, but was refused a law license because of his political and religious views. The Bar is afraid Hale won't be able to treat black clients fairly. If, as the U.S.
Supreme Court asserts, freedom of expression is the "fixed star" of the constitutional "constellation," then the law should only prohibit
actions and not words.

There is no evidence that Hale has ever acted in a discriminatory manner toward blacks, nor has he ever threatened to treat black clients unfairly. This failure to separate mere words from actions creates a dangerous precedent. If a Southern Baptist applies for a law license, should he be denied because he might not treat women or gays fairly?

I've probably said all kinds of things about Christians. Should I be denied because I might not treat them fairly? Simply put, lawyers don't need to like their clients to do a good job. When lawyers defend rapists, embezzlers and murderers, do you think they like their clients? Probably not, but they're still ethically bound to do their best.

Hale's views are despicable and wrong. But the point is that no one, not
even Bar Associations in all of their monopolistic splendor, should have the power to decide what kind of speech is allowable. Does your copy of the Constitution say that there shall be no law abridging freedom of speech "unless the speech is insensitive?" Mine doesn't.



Daunted but not yet undone by the cards stacked against him, Matt Hale next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of his case.

In the interim between the State Bar's rejection of his license and the denial of his petition by the Illinois Supreme Court, a tragic incident took place. A deranged member of the Church of the Creator--apparently angered over the court's treatment of Hale's case and embittered over his own arrest for distributing the Church's white nationalist literature--went on a shooting
spree, killing two men and injuring others.

Months later, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, refused to review Hale's case. This effectively put an end to any future possibility of him ever attaining a law license in the state of Illinois. The media outlets that
bothered to cover this case at all took the expected editorial positions against Hale, celebrating the fact that a "racist" had been thwarted in his attempts to become a legal voice and defender for a despised white minority.

One of the few supporters of Hale's right to adhere to his views on race and practice law was talk show host Michael Medved, who interviewed Hale on his WKVI-AM program in Seattle. Here is some of what Medved had to say after learning of the Supreme Court's decision not to review Hale's case:

This is another day in the greatest nation on God's green earth, where the Supreme Court of the United States has been making news all day today and yesterday as well. Part of what the Supreme Court has decided in crucial cases involving abortion, the Boy Scouts and the right of the Scouts to determine who will and will not be a Scoutmaster--these are decisions that are going to impact everybody in the country.

But the Supreme Court also made a decision yesterday that will impact many of us ultimately, even though it's gotten almost no attention. To a lot of people the decision just seems reasonable. It basically was a decision not to decide. The story involved Matthew Hale. He is the leader of the World Church of the Creator. It is a racist group, proudly racist group. It is a group that is a white supremacist group. It is, as you might imagine, highly controversial.

Mr. Hale went to law school, he passed the Bar exam, and then the State Bar in Illinois where he lives said, No, you're a racist, you're not allowed to be a lawyer. He sued, the case went up to the Supreme Court, and the Court declined to hear his case.

Despite the fact that Mr. Hale and I probably have very little in common and he might view me as a natural enemy, I happen to believe that he's right on this case, that it's shameful to deny somebody the right to practice law based on his political ideas, no matter how hateful you may think they are.

State Bar officials officially noted that Matthew Hale from East Peoria, Illinois, "has dedicated his life to hatred," and said he cannot do
this as an officer of the court. Given the record of an awful lot of attorneys, it seems to me that the idea that someone cannot be a lawyer, and that we are now going to create a standard where the only crime for which you are going to be prevented from practicing law is for advocating racial ideas that are unacceptable seems bizarre.

If we accept the principle that somebody, because he's a racist, an extremist, a hater, and a Hitlerian and a Nazi, and all those things, can be denied basic rights, like the right to practice law when he's passed the Bar - if they can deny that to somebody like Mr. Hale, then they can go after Evangelical Christian groups in the future, or some Orthodox Jewish groups. They can say to these groups, You don't believe in equal rights for homosexuals, you don't believe in equal rights for blank, blank, blank.

Therefore, we're not going to allow you to practice law. We're not going to allow you to have any positions of responsibility. I really do believe that this is one of those issues where if we accept the politically correct
establishment saying that the Matthew Hales of this world have no rights, then who knows who's going to be next?



If nothing else, this case shows the hypocrisy of race relations in America. Hale is being denied his license to practice law because he believes whites are superior. Would the Illinois Bar do the same to a black supremacist? Probably not because there would be cries of "racism." Yet, there are no such cries for Hale because he's white. Also, Hale has publicly stated he will represent other white supremacists, so his oath to fairly represent his clients will only apply to them. There is a double standard when it comes to Hale's situation. If a member of a minority said he would help only the members of his minority, that person would be praised as someone who is "giving back to his community" and a "champion for his (or her) race." No such accolades are given to Hale because his minority isn't politically correct.


http://globalpolitician.com/24140-race-law-courts-racism

Churches weigh in on same-sex marriage

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, February 18, 2008


The legal battle over same-sex marriage in California is also a clash of religions.

As the state Supreme Court prepares for a three-hour hearing March 4 on the constitutionality of a state law allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, the justices have been flooded with written arguments from advocates on both sides - including two large contingents of religious organizations with sharply differing views.

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as "the lifeblood of community, society and the state" and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create "deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution."

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

Those groups won't be represented at next month's oral arguments, when the court will hear from the parties in the case: same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, challenging the marriage law, and the attorney general's and governor's offices, defending the law. Also participating will be lawyers seeking to intervene on behalf of two organizations opposing gay rights.

The religious groups' written arguments, known as friend-of-the-court briefs, play the less-visible but important role of advising the justices how their ruling could affect society. Courts at all levels sometimes cite those arguments to buttress their legal reasoning.

Fifty such briefs have been filed in this case, representing hundreds of organizations and individuals - professional associations of psychologists and anthropologists, city and county governments, law professors, businesses, civil rights organizations, one former state Supreme Court justice, and advocates of "alternatives to homosexuality."

The religious coalitions have enlisted legal heavyweights: for opponents of same-sex marriage, Kenneth Starr, the former U.S. solicitor general, federal judge and impeachment prosecutor of former President Bill Clinton; and for their adversaries, Raoul Kennedy, a prominent San Francisco attorney.

Starr said the denominations he represents have gained their knowledge about marriage in "millions of hours of counseling and ministry."

"We have seen at close range the enormous benefits that traditional male-female marriage imparts," he wrote. "We have also witnessed the substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements."

The "inescapable truth," Starr said, is that "children need their mothers and fathers, and that society needs mothers and fathers to raise their children."

His clients' argument is not based on their religious beliefs, he said, but on "historical and sociological facts about what marriage has always been across time and cultures," and on the doctrine that courts must let the people and their representatives decide such fundamental questions.

He added a note of warning: Religious organizations support civil marriage only because they agree with the way the law defines it.

"Creation of a genderless definition would fracture the centuries-old consensus about the meaning of marriage," Starr said, turning "a point of social unity" into "a point of social conflict."

Kennedy singled out that passage in his brief for denominations supporting same-sex marriage.

"Starr less than subtly threatens retribution if the court steps in to keep civil marriage neutral with respect to religion," he said.

Like Starr, Kennedy cited academic studies - though different ones - to support his historical position: that the tradition of marriage is nowhere near as uniform as the conservative denominations portray it.

He said same-sex marriages were recognized by the Christian church in the fifth century, were observed among natives by the first Spanish explorers in the Americas, were common among the Mojave Indians of the Colorado River in southeastern California, and have been documented in more than 230 African tribes.

Besides religious denominations, Kennedy's clients include about 80 churches and temples in California and more than 250 clergy members, some of whom perform same-sex weddings despite the state's refusal to recognize them.

"By sanctioning only marriages between a man and a woman, the state relegates the beliefs and practices of (these) religions, denominations and clergy to second-class status," Kennedy said.

He argued that such treatment violates the California Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference," language that state courts have interpreted as separating church and state more strictly than the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The state's original Constitution in 1849, Kennedy said, specified that no marriage contract could be invalidated on the grounds it conflicted with "the requirements of any religious sect," a passage that was removed and re-enacted as a statute in 1970.

In this case, Kennedy said, "the state has been pulled into the sectarian fray." He said his clients "do not ask the state to redefine marriage" but instead "ask the court to fulfill its role in our constitutional system ... by protecting the fundamental right to marry without discrimination," as it did in a pioneering 1948 ruling that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage.

But Starr said the 1948 ruling overturned a law rooted in racism, while the current marriage law - enacted in 1977, and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000 - is based on a cultural decision about parents and children that "reflects no animosity toward gays and lesbians," who are covered by domestic-partner laws.

"When it comes to the definition of marriage," Starr declared, "the stakes are simply too high for the issue to be decided by a handful of judges."



To learn more
To read any of the briefs in the case:


www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile


To attend hearing
Justices will hear arguments on March 4 on the constitutionality of California's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The hearing will be at 9 a.m. at 350 McAllister St., San Francisco.



The case is titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/18/MN9JUV2MO.DTL

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

Everything used in this book is from public sources. The stuff that's available publicly is far more frightening than a lot of people realize.
TOM CLANCY

McWilliams marshals a vast army of anecdotes, quotes, statistics and assertions to argue that America would be a lot better off if we stopped using the force of law to save each other from drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography, suicide and sex in its more exotic flavors.
- New York Times


Peter McWilliams has come up with a "reinvention" of government that would bring us closer to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, increase our personal liberties and save an impressive amount of money in the process.
—USA TODAY


There's a huge difference between crime and sin - and the government has no business making the former out of the latter. At least, not in America.
—New York Newsday


It might inspire a song if I can match your mix of humor and seriousness. Brilliant!
—Sting


The forces arrayed against McWilliams are many and powerful, from the legions of the religious right to the political establishment. McWilliams' book brims with facts delivered with a gentle sense of humor and spiced with pithy quotations from sources as diverse as Thomas Jefferson and Joni Mitchell.
—Cleveland Plain Dealer


Here is a controversial book that contains so much logical thought, it is destined to be roundly ignored by policy makers.
—Gannett News Service


Just as bootleggers were forced out of business in 1933 when Prohibition was repealed, making the sale of liquor legal (thus eliminating racketeering), the legalization of drugs would put drug dealers out of business. It would also guarantee government-approved quality, and the tax on drugs would provide an ongoing source of revenue for drug-education programs. An added plus: there would be far less crowding in our prisons due to drug-related crimes. It's something to consider.
—Abigail Van Buren


Recently there crossed my desk (delicate way of saying "free") a book sufficiently intriguing that, breaking the habits of a lifetime, I bought another copy. The book is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams.
—Newhouse News Service


Don't miss the point: In our "free country" over 750,000 people are now in jail for consensual crimes. You should also know that another 2 million are now on parole or probation; over 4 million more will be arrested this year; we will spend $50 billion this year punishing people who have been convicted of consensual crimes; and we will lose $150 billion this year in tax revenue. It's your money. You're paying for it.
—Phil Donahue


If you want to stop this madness, you may want to begin by reading Peter McWilliams' book. A highly readable and entertaining work, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
—Hugh Downs


Why don't we reconsider the criminalization of consensual activities by adults? Why is the option considered so far beyond the pale that hundreds of timid elected officials who know all this and privately agree are convinced that to question consensual crimes is political suicide?
—Orange County Register


Using his trademark clear logic and simple language, McWilliams points out that freeing the police, courts and prisons from prosecuting consensual criminals will make available whole armies of fighters against consumer fraud, terrorism, murder and rape.
—Dayton Ohio News


What's the difference between a crime that hurts a fellow citizen and a crime that only hurts the fool who commits it? All the difference in the world, according to Peter McWilliams.
—Rocky Mountain News


In witty, well-researched pages, McWilliams gives a series of compelling arguments to back up his contention that it's morally wrong to prosecute people for victimless crimes against morality.
—Detroit News


One more reason to buy this book is for the boxed quotes on almost every page. One of the greatest collections of funny, hilarious, unusual and trenchant remarks ever.
—Liz Smith


So you have your rapist, your strong-arm robber, your mugger being released early to make room for somebody who took money for sex or smoked dope in what he thought was private, but turned out to be not quite. That doesn't look like much of a trade from here. However much you're repelled by, say, prostitution, wouldn't you rather meet a hooker than a mugger coming down an alley?
—Reno Gazette–Journal


McWilliams is a New York Times best-selling author. Since 1967, he has published more than 30 books. He is a man well acquainted with controversy and shows no fear in rushing in where angels fear to tread. Well-written and fabulously interesting.
—Tulsa World


McWilliams makes a strong argument for the elimination of such crimes, providing a history of consensual crimes and their absurdity. The blend of first-person observation, research, and argument makes for a fine and revealing title.
—Bookwatch


I don't expect anyone to agree with all of McWilliams' assertions. Even he admits that. But there is one point you should not overlook. What starts with control of narcotics and sexual activity can spread wherever a majority (or powerful minority), often powered by religious zeal, decide it knows what's best for you.
—Philadelphia News Gleaner


How truly revolutionary, libertarian, frightening and funny this book is. Grand in scope and scale. The book is interesting and meticulously researched.
—Little Rock Free Press


Peter McWilliams has written a book for our times—the quintessential book on the subject of consensual crimes. With public sympathy geared toward harsher sentences for those who commit felonies, McWilliams demonstrates the absurdity of prosecuting those guilty of "victimless" crimes.
—Newport News Press


Imposing criminal sanctions on human conduct which is wholly consensual and does not harm another person or his or her property is a misplaced and counterproductive act . . . we violate the premise upon which America was founded.
—New Orleans Times—Picayune


Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do was nominated for the H. L. Mencken Award.




http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/

Test your knowledge of the First Amendment

Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:51 AM CST
By RHONDA REGAN, For The Globe Gazette


What year did the Bill of Rights become part of the Constitution?

How did the Bill of Rights come about?

Was the First Amendment as we know it today at the top of the list proposed by Congress?

Which member of the founding generation was most responsible for the First Amendment becoming part of the constitution?

How many words are in the First Amendment?

What are the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment?

What landmark case from Iowa went to the Supreme Court and set the precedent for protecting students’ free expression rights?

Is flag burning protected by the First Amendment?

Do public school students have to salute the flag during a recitation of the pledge of allegiance?

Does commercial speech, such as advertisements on TV or in a magazine enjoy First Amendment protection?

Which case did Supreme Court Justice Holmes set forth his clear-and-present-danger test: “whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent”?



Sources: ww.archives.gov; ww.firstamendmentcenter.org; www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com; www.emints.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ANSWERS: 1) 1791. 2) Once the Constitution was ratified by the states, the anti-Federalists demanded a more concise Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the rights of the people and the limitations of the government. 3) No. It was originally listed 3rd and moved up to its current position because the first two amendments were not ratified. 4) James Madison — he had worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. By December 1791 three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. 5) 45. 6) Speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and to petition the government. 7) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969. five area students of the Des Moines Independent Community School District were suspended from school for wearing black arm bands protesting the U.S.’s involvement in Vietnam. The Supreme Court ruled that the Des Moines schools violated the First Amendment rights of the students by suspending them for wearing armbands. But the court did not say that the schools could never control freedom of expression. “Material and substantial disruption of school activities or invasion of the rights of other students” must be proved if student expression is to be controlled. School officials could censor only when they could prove that the expression would disrupt the school environment or invade the rights of other students. The Supreme Court said this standard had not been met — that by suspending the students for refusing to remove the armbands, the school violated the students’ right to free speech. 8) Yes. In a 1989 case involving Texas law and in a 1990 case involving a federal law the court ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. 9) No. In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, the court ruled that the freedom asserted to refuse to participate in the flag salute did not interfere with or deny the rights of others to participate. 10) Yes. 11) Schenck v. U.S. 1919. This case contains the now-famous example of falsely crying “fire” in a crowded theater.


http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2008/02/17/news/feature/doc47b7b5c199806917282847.txt

Adult shops 'excited' by change in sex toy law

By RYAN MYERS, The Enterprise
02/15/2008
Updated 02/16/2008 11:01:31 PM CST


The variety of sex toys available in Beaumont could blossom following an appellate court's decision to overturn a rarely enforced 35-year-old state law that banned promotion and sale of the devices.

"I am very excited," Katrina Faggard, owner of Krazy Katz in the 8300 block of College Street, said by telephone Thursday. "But I guess we'll have to talk to a lawyer before we decide how this will affect our inventory."

Faggard was one of nine people arrested in October 2006 when Beaumont police raided three shops carrying adult materials. Officers seized merchandise and charged employees with misdemeanor violations of the state's obscenity laws.

In existing Texas law, devices used primarily for sexual stimulation are illegal to sell, advertise or promote. Possession of more than five sexual devices is considered promotion.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the law violates 14th Amendment privacy protections.

"... (T)he state here wants to use its law to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the judges wrote in the 2-1 ruling. "Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution."

Attorneys for the state of Texas could ask for a review of the case by the entire court or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Otherwise, Wednesday's decision will not go into effect until a lower court formally adopts the finding.

The decision does leave room for restrictions on how the devices can be sold.

"Nothing here said or held protects the public display of material that is obscene as defined by the Supreme Court," the opinion notes. " ... Advertisements of the devices could be prohibited if they are obscene."

Jefferson County District Attorney Tom Maness said Wednesday's ruling likely would stop future enforcement of the state's laws against sex toy promotion and sale.

Faggard and Marilyn Cupak, owner of Bare Necessities, said inventory reductions to prevent further arrests hurt business.

"It affected our cross-over sales," said Cupak, who also was unsure how the court ruling would affect inventory at her adult lingerie shop in the 2500 block of Interstate 10. "Someone who bought that type of item might also buy a lingerie piece, maybe, or massage oil."

Because the sex toy ban rarely was enforced, Cupak said, customers easily could travel to other shops in Southeast Texas to find what they could not purchase in Beaumont.

Beaumont police and the Beaumont city attorney's office did not return repeated calls for comment Thursday. In October 2006, police said the raids were the result of a complaint.

Of cases filed on the nine people arrested, most were dismissed or resulted in fines. Faggard, whose case still is pending, said she hopes the ruling will result in prosecutors dismissing the charge against her.

"We have not crossed that bridge yet," Maness said of how his office will handle pending prosecutions. "But in all likelihood, all prosecution will be dismissed based on that case."

Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia have sex toy statutes similar to the one in Texas. Courts have thrown out comparable laws in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

Customers, already more plentiful on account of Valentine's Day, flocked to Krazy Kats on Thursday, Faggard said.

Disregarding limitations that might be imposed in the future, Faggard reacted to the ruling with a sense of vindication.

"I had never been in trouble before in my life - try explaining that to your dad," she said. "In my opinion, there was nothing at all wrong with the merchandise they took from us. If anything, it makes people smile. It doesn't hurt people."





Updated 02/16/2008 11:01:31 PM CST

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19298834&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

Gansler backing same-sex nuptials

Attorney general is top Maryland official to oppose state marriage ban

By Laura Smitherman | Sun reporter
February 15, 2008



Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has become the most prominent official in Maryland to endorse gay marriage, telling state legislators yesterday that he believes the current ban on same-sex unions amounts to discrimination.

"It would be hard for me to have this job knowing there is something so wrong in our society," Gansler told the Senate panel considering a bill to legalize gay marriage. "I just think it's wrong to discriminate against any people because they think differently or because of their sexual orientation."

But Gansler also said that lawmakers in Annapolis might not have the "political courage" to legalize gay marriage this year and that the General Assembly will probably "settle" for civil unions, which would confer many of the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples.


Gansler joined a steady march of lawmakers, clergy, concerned citizens, activists, children of gay parents and others who testified on both sides of the issue over several hours before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. The panel is also considering a bill to put a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the November ballot, and a bill that would create domestic partnerships in place of civil marriage, a possible vehicle for civil unions.

Gay-rights activists have made passage of same-sex marriage a priority this year after Maryland's highest court upheld last year a 34-year-old state statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Gansler's office defended the law in that case, and yesterday he said the court made the right decision based on the law as it is written. He said that law should be changed by the legislature.

Opponents argued that gay marriage would tear at the fabric of society and force public schools to teach approval for same-sex unions. They suggested that voters should decide the issue through a constitutional amendment. Twenty-seven states have constitutional provisions that prevent same-sex marriages, though Maryland does not.

"The issue keeps coming up again and again and again," said Sen. Janet Greenip, an Anne Arundel County Republican and sponsor of the constitutional measure. "Let the people decide whether we should have marriage the way we know it, or if it should be changed."

When asked about putting the legalization of same-sex marriage to voters, Gansler said such a referendum would probably lose. But, he added, "it is the job of elected officials to do what they think is right." He referred to the 1967 Supreme Court decision declaring Virginia's law against interracial marriage unconstitutional. If that law had been put to voters in that state then, he said, they likely would have supported it.

The Senate committee is not expected to vote on the legislation for several weeks; a House panel has not yet heard the bills. Lawmakers are deeply divided on the issue. Gov. Martin O'Malley supports civil unions.

The testimony yesterday was sometimes tearful, and sometimes tense. Many speakers told their personal stories.

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr., who is openly gay, said that he had a church wedding with his partner, Mark, seven years ago but that under Maryland law they are "legal strangers." Madaleno, a Montgomery County Democrat, helped to craft the same-sex marriage proposal, deliberately including language that no religious institutions or clergy would be compelled to perform or recognize those marriages.

"Without marriage, we live in a state of legal limbo," Madaleno said. "Without marriage, instead of security we have fear."

According to last year's Maryland Court of Appeals opinion, 339 Maryland laws provide for benefits and rights conditioned on marital status. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage. Nine other states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont, offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Sens. Bryan W. Simonaire and Alex X. Mooney, Republicans of Anne Arundel and Frederick counties, respectively, suggested that if outlawing gay marriage were considered discriminatory, perhaps laws against polygamy could be considered unfair as well. Both lawmakers are sponsors of the constitutional ban.

Kathleen Crank, who described herself as a stay-at-home mother and wife, said she felt compelled to testify for a constitutional ban because the "homosexual lifestyle" is "devastating." She said: "Redefining marriage is an activity undertaken to the peril of our civilized society."

Others said their families would be strengthened by gay marriage.

Bernice Melov, of Takoma Park, said that she worries what would happen if her gay son or his partner, both of whom she has lived with for more than two decades, died before she did.

Melov, 89, said they could be forced to sell the home to cover inheritance taxes they would not have to pay if they were married.

"Before I leave this earth, I want to celebrate fully equal civil marriage rights in Maryland," she told the panel. "My time is short, and I'm in a hurry. Please don't make me come back another year."


Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler addresses the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee about his support for SB290. (Sun photo by Glenn Fawcett / February 14, 2008)




http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-md.marriage15feb15,0,434721.story

Sex Toy Retail Ban Lifted: "Victory for American Freedom"

Yesterday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturneda Texas statute outlawing the sale of sex toys. The decision, which responds to Reliable Consultants Inc. (owner of eight Texan boutiques, including Dreamers and Le Rouge in Austin) having sued over the constitutionality of the law back in 2004, cited the 2003 overturning of a ban on same-sex intercourse as precedent. I spoke with Cloud Richards, the third generation of Richards to run Reliable Consultants, about the small step for man and marital aids.

How did Reliable Consultants start?
They started off as nightclubs and gentlemen's clubs and then it gravitated to take-home DVDs and novelty lingerie. The business had no on-site viewing due to the ban.

What exactly did the ban forbid in layman's terms?
The Texas sexual device law prevented the sale, not the ownership, of anything that was used for sexual stimulation.

What was your reaction to the ban being lifted?
I was very excited. I think it's two-fold. There are monetary reasons of course, but the other benefit is that it appears it'll take down the law in Mississippi. I think it's a victory for American freedom in a small way.

How is it going to affect your business?
It changes a couple of things: a lot of manufacturers and vendors wouldn't sell to Texas before for fear of the ban. That'll open up the market -- more stores being able to carry a full spectrum of novelties will improve our business. It'll bring Texas up to a more progressive standard.

What kinds of products are you going to start carrying now that the ban is lifted?
Come to our store and find out!

What are your best-sellers?
I'd rather not comment on that at the moment and make sure that the law continues. There's always a chance that it won't stick. They could appeal and go to the Supreme Court or ad hoc to all of the districts.

What would your grandfather say about the differences in terms of the social perception of sex and sex toys today versus when they started?
I think he would say that the general public is more accepting of the business, and that the persecution by the government is the same or even worse now. My guess as to why that is would be there's a growing difference in the opinion of the public and those that are in charge.


http://gridskipper.com/357099/sex-toy-retail-ban-lifted-victory-for-american-freedom

Court Declares Texas Sex Toy Law Unconstitutional

Court Declares Texas Sex Toy Law Unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has overturned a Texas law from the 1970s that makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys in the state.

Obscene Device Law Overturned In 5th Circuit

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

User Generated Content Sites: 1

User Generated Content Sites: 1

Given the smashing success of YouTube™ and other video-sharing websites, it was inevitable that the adult industry would see a surge of similar business models involving adult material.

Common sense finds no protection

Clive McFarlane
cmcfarlane@telegram.com

T&G STAFF


On Thursday, the Worcester Planning Board passed an entertainment ordinance for the downtown area that, if adopted by the City Council, would make it easier for a strip joint to open next to a school, or a day care center, or a church, rather than a bar.

I asked several city officials to explain the reasoning behind this move.

“The Constitution is written to protect freedom, but sometimes with that great freedom, we don’t get to pick and choose a lot of things,” City Councilor Kate Toomey said, in answering the question.

I must say her answer was at least as prescient as that of City Solicitor David Moore’s reflection on his understanding of the Constitution.

“If the Constitution was clearer, I would be clearer,” he said. “We have to allow them (adult entertainment operations) somewhere.”

Mr. Moore went on to explain that the new ordinance was crafted to reduce crime by limiting the concentration of adult entertainment operations in the city.

But no philosophical cover can protect what is clearly a limp ordinance.

If you haven’t been following the story, here it is in a nutshell:

Adult entertainment — adult bookstore, adult motion picture theaters, establishments that display nudity for its patrons, adult paraphernalia stores, adult video stores — are considered free speech and are thus protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Cities and towns cannot bar such establishments on the grounds that they are immoral or reprehensible, but can restrict their operations as a way of eliminating or reducing criminal activities.

Some time back, the city designated a downtown area ranging from Southbridge Street to Grove Street as a adult entertainment zone. City officials, however, created so many barriers within that zone — adult establishments couldn’t be within 500 feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes, other adult establishments, bars, day care centers, schools, churches, libraries, nursing homes, funeral parlors, hospitals or sanatoriums — that the overall impact was essentially a ban on adult entertainment in the designated zone.

Brendan Robichaud, a local businessman, discovered this when he sought to offer nude dancing at his nightclub, the Seven Lounge, at 287 Main St.

He sued the city, claming its entertainment restriction ordinance was unconstitutional.

The city pretty much agreed with him and, in an effort to get an upper hand in the legal challenge, quickly changed the ordinance to remove all but three barriers to adult entertainment establishments.

Such establishments in the designated area cannot now be within 500 feet of other adult businesses, bars and the main library at Salem Square.

But they could spring up in three downtown areas — along a sliver of an area running along Irving and Linden streets, from Chandler to Bowden; a triangular patch on Old Lincoln Street, on the other side of Highland; and a small angular section in the CitySquare area.

The School Department administration building, the Fanning Building (which houses special needs students), The Nativity School, St. Paul’s Cathedral and a bunch of homes are within the newly established entertainment zone along Irving and Linden streets.

Of course, adult entertainers could perhaps be hard-pressed to find the building space for their operations in the Irving-Linden street area, but Scott Cashman, vice chairman of the city Planning Board and who voted against the new ordinance, said it lacks a rational approach to the issue.

“It is just ridiculous to pass an ordinance that could conceivably place these things next to something like a day care center,” he said. “What we need is a comprehensive approach. We should be looking at the city map and trying to figure where these establishments could be appropriately located.”

That’s common sense, which unfortunately is not constitutionally protected.




http://www.telegram.com/article/20080211/COLUMN44/802110531

County residents say same-sex marriage bill will help them

Originally published February 11, 2008
By Meg Bernhardt



Susanne Abromaitis and her partner traveled to Vermont in 2004 to get married, then flew back to their home in Maryland where they knew their wedding wouldn't be recognized.
The Frederick couple held a wedding reception for friends and family anyway, but had to hire a lawyer to gain the ability to make medical decisions for each other or get domestic partner health benefits.

"Of course, it was disappointing because you get off the plane in Baltimore and it's like our rights were left behind in Vermont," Abromaitis said.

She is one of about 15 Frederick County residents who plan to travel to Annapolis today and participate in a rally organized by Equality Maryland in favor of a bill that would make same-sex marriage legal in the state.

They will also meet with local delegation members to share their stories and, they hope, to gain their support for the bill.

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic during this session of Maryland's General Assembly because last September Maryland's Court of Appeals upheld a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In the ruling, the court said the General Assembly could change the definition if it wanted to permit same-sex unions, leaving the door open for legislation this session.

The bill to legalize same-sex marriage was introduced last month in the Senate by Senator Richard S. Madaleno, Jr., and in the House by Delegate Ben Barnes, along with other sponsors. Hearings are scheduled for later this month.


Status quo

Also last month, senators introduced a bill that would add the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman into the Maryland constitution.

Republican Sen. Alex Mooney, who represents Frederick and Washington counties, is one of the sponsors of that bill.

"I think it's important for our society that marriage maintain its successful status between one man and one woman," Mooney said.

He said keeping marriage between men and women is best for encouraging and raising children, and follows natural law.

Abromaitis, a 30-year-old woman who works for a nonprofit organization on environmental issues, has been down to Annapolis before and said she's met with local delegation members who disagree with her about same-sex unions.

In some cases they agree to disagree, she said, but it's important to her that they have the conversation and are able to listen to each other.

"It was really important for us to have a ceremony and have the rite of passage," she said.

In her heart, she and her partner are already married, but having it official in Maryland would be meaningful in many ways, especially for the legal rights, she said.

Married couples have 1,138 federal protections and 425 state protections, including joint ownership of property and ability to file joint taxes, that she believes all committed couples should have.

"It's a matter of civil rights, and equality under the law," Abromaitis said. "I think anyone who believes in these things would be supportive of this."


Ordinary people

For another Frederick County woman, changing the marriage law would be a step toward society viewing her as an ordinary person.

Suellen Evans, a small business owner in Frederick County, has never written her representatives or attended rallies, but she said she's watching this session, hopeful they will change the law.

"I think this bill would allow people that are so afraid of gay people É the opportunity to step back and take a breath É and to realize it is about relationships and it's not about sex."

When Evans came out six years ago, she said many people she knew treated her like she had a contagious disease.

At the time, she was living in Virginia, but moved to Frederick County almost a year ago because Virginia had started passing laws against gay people.

She wants to live in a state where the government views her as a person, and not just a gay person.

She and her partner of four years would love to get married, but it's not allowed right now so she doesn't dwell on it.

"We're just like everybody else, we want relationships, we want strong relationships, we want loyalty," she said.

If the law were passed, Evans said it would help her friends in long-term relationships gain recognition.

"It's not a disease, it's something that's contagious, it's not something that should be looked down on. It just is."


http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=71115