General: December 2005 Archives

The federal Equal Access Act, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, requires any public secondary school accepting federal funds to allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities. It was aimed at protecting student religious activities. [...]

Backed by the Utah Eagle Forum, state Sen. Chris Buttars plans legislation to ban high school gay-straight clubs.

“I’m concerned about gay clubs,” the West Jordan Republican said Wednesday, a day after opening a bill file for the legislation he said would ban the gay student associations from meeting on public school property. “In my mind, if you are in the chess club, what do you talk about? Chess,” Buttars said. “If you are in the dance club, what do you talk about? Dance. If you are in a gay club, what do you talk about?”

“I just don’t believe members of sexual-orientation clubs should be sanctioned by the public schools—what they are talking about even a part of the public schools. They should not be allowed to have that on school property at all. It’s just wrong,” he said.

Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said Buttars’ bill would simply clarify existing law, which curtails what may be said in schools about sexuality. “We’re looking at the law saying, what do we need to do to help the districts? Most of the districts don’t want the clubs,” she said. “Provo certainly wouldn’t have a club if it didn’t have this fear (of lawsuits) hanging over its head ... (or) if it were up to parents.” (source)

Well, it’s kind of like the Solomon Act. That act prevents colleges and universities from preventing military recruiters on their campuses in protest of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on homosexuals. To prevent the recruiters full access to students, the university in question could lose all of it’s federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing if the Solomon Act is constitutional.

In the case of gay-straight alliance clubs at high schools, I would think the same principle would apply. From a constitutional point of view, can you restrict one club with a very specific subject matter (i.e. gay topics, tolerance, etc.) from another club that would talk about chess?

Ironically, it was Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who sponsored the federal Equal Access Act, which “requires any public secondary school accepting federal funds to allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities. It was aimed at protecting student religious activities.”

With the way things are working in Washington, I suppose they will now try to amend the Equal Access Act to “allow all school clubs equal access to its facilities, with the exclusion of any homosexual group or any group espousing anything identical or similar to any group espousing homosexual leanings.”

[Utah Senator] Buttars said he is not afraid of a lawsuit. “I know the school districts and some others are scared of the ACLU. Not me,” he said.

Then a lawsuit you will have because the ACLU will have no problems what so ever in bringing one to you. And, unless the Equal Protection Act is amended, you should expect to lose.

But if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, would you lose? Good question. I expected the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the Solomon Act because it restricts the university from following through with it’s beliefs from fear of losing all it’s federal funding (First Amendment issues).

Instead, Chief Justice Roberts made the assertion that there was no constitutional conflict and simply suggested that the school could simply opt to refuse federal funds if the schools were really true to their convictions (story).

In the case of gay-straight alliances, the Supreme Court could make a similar argument that the school is free to forego it’s federal funding if it wants to go ahead and exclude gay groups from meeting on school grounds.

Of course, I think the Supreme Court would have a hard time swallowing that one. And of course, I’m not suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that hypocrisy has anything to do with this.

This is a strange development. Ford originally pulled advertising in gay publications for it's Jaguar and Land Rover lines, saying that it was purely a business decision for them.

Well, apparently, they've made another purely business decision reversing themselves. What can we expect next? The AFA (American Family Association) will undoubtedly renew their efforts to boycott the company. At least, they can no longer claim victory.

DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday said it will run advertisements in gay publications, reversing a decision last week to pull all advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from that sector.

In a letter to some gay, lesbian and human rights groups, Ford said it has decided to run corporate ads for all its eight brands, including its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands, in the targeted publications. (source)

Related Article
December 5, 2005 - Ford ceases advertising in gay publications
January 11, 2006 - Group reinstates boycott threat against Ford over gay ads

Questions from the justices this week made it clear that the Supreme Court will side with military recruiters by forcing universities to forfeit federal aid if they restrict recruiting because of the Pentagon’s policies on gays. The court evidently believes that, while universities might have a First Amendment right not to comply with an arm of government that violates the universities’ policies against discrimination, Congress also has a right to retaliate by denying the colleges billions of dollars in federal support.

In the past, the federal government has threatened to withhold aid or tax-exempt status to compel institutions to stop discriminating against, for instance, blacks or women’s athletic programs. Members of Congress opposed to discrimination in all its forms should make sure this blunt but effective weapon is never again used to limit the rights of any Americans. (source)

The military needs these highly skilled people. This week, the Supreme Court seemed to recognize that need, as it considered whether colleges can snub military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon’s anti-gay policies.

The military will likely win this court battle, as it should. But it will lose the recruiting war in the long run, if leaders in Congress and the armed services don’t eliminate all barriers that deter qualified people -- including gay people -- from serving their country.

After four years of war, the armed services are struggling to meet their recruiting targets. Recruiters face anti-war sentiments on high schools and college campuses, where they traditionally find recruits. They also face opposition from people who see the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, passed in Congress during the Clinton administration, as discriminatory. [...]

The justices seemed supremely unsympathetic to the colleges’ complaints, and rightly so. The military isn’t just another employer, as some colleges like to argue. The right of the federal government to defend the nation by forming a military is expressly included in the Constitution. [...]

Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for students, and an honorable necessity of a free country. But they should also keep speaking out against Congress’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (source)

It’s all fine and well to state that the “military isn’t just another employer, as some colleges like to argue”, but it is because they represent OUR government, they should also represent the “brightest and the best” we as a nation have to offer. Many of those people happen to be gay or lesbian, and they deserve equal treatment and respect. They deserve to be able to hold their heads up high to fight for their country without having to lie about what they are.

“Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for students, and an honorable necessity of a free country.”

Fine, but that statement is inaccurate. What would have been accurate would be this...

Colleges should welcome the military for what it is: a career opportunity for SOME students (gays and lesbians need not apply if you have pride in what you are), and an honorable necessity of a free country.

“But they [the colleges] should also keep speaking out against Congress’ ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

The Supreme Court will probability rule that it is just fine for the military to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans, despite the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, and the First Amendment, which the law schools are basing their case upon.

This is why I am not too excited about the prospect of the issue of marriage equality for same sex couples to come before THIS Supreme Court, as I stated in this entry. They will somehow come to the conclusion, that where “marriage” is concerned, it’s off-limits for gay couples, and, they will find some way to justify it, probably by saying that they are “protecting children”, or some other crap excuse.

It would seem that discrimination against gays and lesbians, despite what the Constitution has to say about equal access to the laws and equality, simply do not exist for gay citizens at this time.