The reason the Council is up in arms is because it believes the AG and the governor aren't going to fight the challenge their way.
The council notes in its Jan. 16 request that McDaniel previously opposed the measure to ban unmarried couples living together from adopting or fostering children. The ban went into effect Jan. 1 after voters approved it in November. The council said McDaniel may not make the same arguments that supporters would in court, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Saturday.Bring out the tiny violin. An even more hilarious objection by the organization is that it spent money to get the ban passed, therefore it's owed the chance to help defend the law.McDaniel's political action committee also gave $1,000 to a campaign against the measure last fall.
In addition, the council questions Gov. Mike Beebe's commitment to rebuff the lawsuit because the governor previously opposed the ban, saying it would limit the number of homes for children who need them. Beebe is a defendant in the case as the state's chief executive.
The council also argues it should be allowed to intervene because of its efforts to put the measure into writing and successfully campaign to get it on the November ballot and approved by voters. The council said the effort cost 20,600 man-hours and $92,716, and gives the group a special interest in defending the law.
We became terrorists one morning in February 2006, when we got dressed up, put a coat and tie on our then four-year-old son, and drove to the state capitol.
Parker asked why we were taking a special trip. Explaining civics to a four-year-old wasn't easy, but we told him that we were going to talk to "the people who make the rules" and ask them to change them so that Daddy and Papa could get married. Having to explain to him that Daddy and Papa are "married in our hearts" and hoped to someday "get married like everyone else too," was one of the reasons we decided to participate in Equality Maryland's lobby day in Annapolis.
For 14 months under our previous Republican governor, in 2005 and 2006, the Maryland State Police spied on activists. Groups ranging from peace activists to bike lane advocates ended up in a state database as terrorist organizations because they were "fringe people," in the words of the police superintendent who authorized the surveillance program, and a "threat" to security.
The program came to light last summer, due to a public records request by the ACLU under. In January, the Washington Post reported that Equality Maryland - the state's largest gay civil rights group - was one of the groups deemed a "security threat" by state officials, and that officials kept records of the group's plans for a lobby day at the state capitol.
It is troubling that merely by supporting an organization working for equal protection under the law for my family and families like mine, I may be labeled as a terrorist or as a supporter of a terrorist organization. It seems all one had to do to be deemed a "terrorist" was to openly and publicly oppose the policies of the government, state or federal, even - in the case of my family - policy that discriminated against you and yours.
I'm not among the 53 people whose names and personal information were entered into federal and state databases. But after reading about the undercover officer infiltrating a group planning anti-death penalty protests, I wondered if an undercover officer was at the meetings I attended concerning the Equality Maryland lobby day, or among the group that met with our state Senator - who's also a gay dad. I wondered what might have happened if the people running this program had gotten a sign-up sheet or membership list with my name on it.
As an American citizen, I should never have to wonder. But I do. And I am not alone. The FBI and police in several cities, including Denver and New York City, have responded similarly to the threat of terrorism. And those are just the cases we know of now. You may be a labeled a terrorist too, if you've protested against a war, for human rights, or peacefully petitioned the government for your own equality.
The police superintendent who authorized the surveillance program defended it, saying that the First Amendment isn't a guarantee to "those who wish to disrupt the government." I wonder how my family disrupted the government? Was it when we attended scheduled meetings with our legislators? Was it the peaceful rally outside the capitol? (Was it our six-year-old, running into the middle of the meeting, to show me the picture he and the Senator's daughter had colored?)
Another state official said the problem was that the information was not purged after no actual terrorist activity or connections were revealed.
The real problem is that United States citizens were spied upon, and thus treated as suspect, simply for exercising the very rights the so-called war on terror was allegedly intended to defend.
It would have made J. Edgar Hoover proud, and brought a smile to Joe McCarthy's face. But, at the end of an administration that encouraged Americans to spy on one another, it should make any American blush with shame that it happen, again.
Our legislators introduced a bill to prohibit police surveillance of activists who are not suspected of criminal activity. That we even need such a law is a reminder that our vigilance as citizens is vital to prevent such violations. Otherwise, someday the terrorist at your child's bus stop may be you.
MS: It sounds like you really didn't get a lot of information about this...and find out what his views really were...Did you connect with the Human Rights Campaign [a group she with which she has worked] and other gay groups before making your decision?Mike definitely holds her feet to the fire on this one. Go read the rest. I still don't think she gets the problem people had with the Warren matter. She didn't do her homework, and with her high profile, lobbed an uninformed opinion out there that Warren is actually reaching out to the community rather than her specifically to blunt the criticism he was receiving.ME: No, I looked it up on the Internet. I tried to find what people were saying. I watched the beliefnet article, where he was asked about, "So gay marriage, is that like pedophilia and incest and stuff?" And I got to ask him, "So what's that all about?" And he gave me his response. Now, again, I'm just going to take him on what he says --
MS: But can we take people on what they say when they're working against us? Shouldn't't we go by what their record is? We have seen that this man has empowered the very forces in Africa that have allowed people to become infected with HIV. He pushed abstinence-only programs, he helped to demonize gay people. There are gay people locked up in jail ...because of Rick Warren...So shouldn't we go by his record?...
ME: ...Yes, absolutely we should. We should hold people accountable. Now, does that mean they are exiled from what we are trying to accomplish here, which is a united America? Or do we say, we see you now? You can't be part of this party and hide that. I really want people to know that I'm not defending him.
No comments:
Post a Comment