Eye Recommend --- Local Clergy Hand Out Condoms at Aurora Hobby Lobby Store

LOCAL CLERGY HAND OUT CONDOMS AT AURORA HOBBY LOBBY STORE, by Jessica Cilella -- http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140702/news/140709544/

These are the kinds of Christians who should be in the headlines, not the ultra-conservative-we-hate-everyone-who-isn't-us kind.  (Any underlines are mine.)

"A small group of clergy and representatives from Planned Parenthood handed out condoms Wednesday evening in front of a Hobby Lobby store in Aurora in response to (the) U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving the company."

Reverend Mark Winters of the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Naperville first made a half-joking comment on his Facebook page.  The response was positive and immediate, so he decided to act on it.

"The group stood outside the store...and handed materials to people as they walked into the store.  The demonstrators did not approach anyone with children...

...(Rev. Winters) said he hoped people who happened upon the demonstration would walk away with an understanding that Christians have a wide variety of opinions regarding birth control.

In addition, he hoped it would get people to question whether the court ruling was fair to the religious freedom of Hobby Lobby employees who have beliefs differing from their employer.

'You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power,' he said....

...'Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless.

The issue of power was also the primary reason Rev. Emmy Lou Belcher, a recently retired minister of the DuPage Unitarian Universalist Church in Naperville, agreed to attend the demonstration...'The health care law is meant to cover a diverse society...so people aren't excluded.  What this has done is exclude."

...(Rev. Winters added) "We believe in the freedom of individual conscience and support the rights of others to have their individual conscience respected,'...

Hobby Lobby officials referred inquiries about the demonstration to The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the company in court.  Becket Fund spokeswoman Emily Hardman said that the company has not released any statements regarding protests at its stores."

Does anyone else see the irony in the name The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty? Why is it that these conservative Christians think liberty is their exclusive moral right?

A church that chooses exclusion over inclusion and, as the Rev. White said, chooses to wield power over the powerless, is not following the teachings of the Jesus I learned about in Sunday School.   It is a cult of close-minded people, blind to their own fallacy and deaf to those who would point out their purposeful self-deception. 

The GOP Mandate on Foolishess

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has finally announced the basis for his party's proposed lawsuit against President Obama.  It's not what anyone expected.

what eye thynk:   After weeks of hearing Republicans talk about the necessity of filing a lawsuit in order to stop the lawless and over-stepping President, the best Mr. Boehner and his party could come up with is a suit based on the President's postponing of the employer mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act--not the steps the President has taken to move ahead on immigration; not the new regulations against carbon emissions, not the executive order raising the minimum wage for employees working under government contract, not the pending executive order designed to give workplace protection to gay employees--they are suing the President over a year long postponement of the ACA's requirement that employers with 50 or more full-time employees provide health care for their workers.

The suit's focus becomes even more ridiculous when we remind ourselves that it was small business owners themselves who asked for the postponement and it was the GOP who urged the White House to grant the request.  Just last summer, Republicans were crying to the media that the employer mandate was going to kill jobs and was going to force these companies out of business.  They vehemently complained that the requirement was unworkable, it was too fast, too much, too soon.  So basically, John Boehner is planning to ask the House to vote on whether they should go forward with a lawsuit that complains about the fact that the President acceded to a demand they themselves made less than a year ago. 

As Steve Benen pointed out earlier this week, in order for a judge to put the suit on his court's docket, Mr. Boehner must demonstrate that the plaintiff, (the GOP), will be harmed or will face the threat of harm by the act in question.  They "can't simply go to court and argue to the judge 'We don't like the president.'  They need to show how they've been adversely affected by the delay itself."

Good luck with that.  I don't see success in the future for a lawsuit that says "We loved this idea in 2013, but then the President did what we wanted, which caused us to hate it so much in 2014 that we are being harmed by this thing that we thought we loved."

Mr. Benen's article attempted to answer some obvious questions about this dynamic:

"*Given how upset Republicans are, Obama's move must have been unprecedented. Actually, it's not.  When the Bush/Cheney administration was implementing Medicare Part D, officials used executive power to move implementation deadlines around in order to make the law work more effectively.  No one cared--and certainly no one sued.

*Do Republicans support the employer mandate?  No they vehemently oppose it...

...*So Boehner is suing because Obama isn't implementing Obamacare fast enough?  Pretty much."

And that's it in a nutshell, the GOP hates the ACA, has spent millions of dollars voting to repeal the ACA and uncountable sound bites railing against the ACA and is now planning on filing a lawsuit saying they are being harmed because the ACA isn't happening fast enough.

Can the Republican Party possibly make themselves look any more foolish?

Quick Note: Colorado Claims All 15 Federal Judges Got It Wrong

Yesterday, Federal District Judge C. Scott Crabtree struck down Colorado's ban on same-sex marriage. 

"The court holds that the marriage bans violate plantiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Colorado currently allows civil unions for same-sex couples, but the state constitution prohibits issuing them marriage licenses.  Judge Crabtree called that difference "further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples."  

State Attorney General John W. Suthers defended the ban with an argument that said marriage is for the purpose of procreation.

This is one of those arguments that drives me nuts.  If procreation was the be-all and end-all of marriage, then what about couples who cannot have children?  Or choose not to? Should the state require that heterosexual couples have a fertility test and then deny those who cannot procreate a license to marry?  And should a marriage license come with a clause that, should you not produce a child within xyz years, your license is revoked?

Judge Crabtree took another view of the procreation argument by talking of two over-65 friends of his who are planning a wedding.  Pointing out that they obviously have no plans to produce children, he asked the Attorney General "How do I divorce that from love and devotion?  Where does that fit?"

Assistant Solicitor General Michael Francisco, who aided Mr. Suthers in the case, argued that the other federal judges who have overturned state same-sex marriage bans in recent months got it wrong.  Mr. Francisco insisted that all 15 of those judges misread the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling on DOMA.

Of that argument, Judge Crabtree asked, "They all got it wrong?  What am I supposed to do then when presented with this?  Just punt?"

Governor John Hickenlooper (D) did not declare for one side or the other in the case.  He did not try to stop the Attorney General from going forward with the case; but Governor Hickenlooper has called the ban "bad policy."

Judge Crabtree issued a stay on his decision, so same-sex couples will have to wait a while longer for this case to make its through the appeals process, along with those other 15 "wrongly" decided cases.

You'd think by now, these people would realize they have lost the war.

Quick Note: Oh, Supreme Court, What Hath Thou Wrought?

Well, this didn't take long:

Last week, the Supreme Court created the Church of the Holy Corporation by ruling that Hobby Lobby's owners could impose their conservative religious beliefs on their female employees by denying them free access to contraception. 

One day later, religious leaders elsewhere were looking to get their foot in the door of the Court's new tabernacle by requesting an exemption that would allow them to discriminate against their gay employees. Thanks to the Supreme Courts' egregious ruling, these religious bigots are now free to claim that corporations can have religious beliefs and those corporate beliefs are more important than the beliefs of mere employees. 

The President has said he will sign an executive order that would prohibit government contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  ENDA, a similar bill, was passed by the Senate in November 2013 with a bi-partisan vote of 64-32. House Speaker John Boehner has refused to put the bill to a vote in the House.  With no sign of movement on the issue, the White House drafted an order that would protect LGBT employees who work for companies or organizations that do business with the federal government.

Seeing an opening in the Hobby Lobby decision, Michael Wear, former Obama staffer, the Reverend Larry Snyder, leader of the Catholic Charities USA, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and Stephan Bauman, president of a wing of the National Association of Evangelicals sent a letter to the White House.

In it, these "Christians" wrote, "We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need."  They wrote that they seek a "robust religious exemption."

Michael Wear, who drafted the letter, calls himself an "ardent supporter" of gay rights.  

His definition of "ardent" must be different from mine.  You can't call yourself a supporter--ardent or otherwise--while, at the same time, advocating that your supportees be denied workplace protection.

Mr. Wear told the New York Times that "We're not trying to support crazy claims of religious privilege." He explained that the letter was only a request that these groups be permitted to uphold their religious-based moral standards for their staff members.

Mr. Wear would seem to be the poster boy for self-delusion. If requesting permission to discriminate on the basis of religion is not a "crazy claim of religious privilege" then what is it?

And on what do these "Christians" base their "moral standards" homophobia? They claim conservative Christian values, yet they simply ignore the second commandment: "Matthew 22:31  And the second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  There is none other commandment greater than this."  Where is the verse where Jesus said "except for...?"

So far, these exemption requests have come from conservative Christian companies and organizations.   I can't wait to hear the uproar when the first Muslim company requests a religious exemption asking that they be permitted to impose Shariah Law on their employees.  

The Supreme Court has opened a can of worms so big they make Godzilla look like a gnat. 

Eye Recommend --- Senate Dems Prep Contraception Legislation

The Statue of Freedom atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol.  The statue is a female figure, standing on a cast-iron globe encircled with the words E Pluribus Unum, Latin for Out of Many, One.

SENATE DEMS PREP CONTRACEPTION LEGISLATION, by Steve Benen --
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-dems-prep-contraception-legislation

Knowing this is a long shot and there will be lots of Republican breast-beating and even more press conferences, conservative sound-bites and claims that the President is a Nazi-inspired dictator who believes he is above the law, this still made me smile this morning.

(Any underlines are mine.) 

"The Supreme Court's conservative majority had its say on contraception last week.  As msnbc's Irin Carmon reports, Senate Democrats will kick off their legislative response today.

On Wednesday, congressional Democrats plan to introduce the 'Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act,' which according to a summary provided to msnbc, 'ensures that employers cannot interfere in their employee's decisions about contraception and other health services.'  The bill states that all insurance plans--including those provided by for-profit corporations--must cover contraception, though it keeps the exemption for houses of worship and the 'accommodation' for religious nonprofits.

The charge is being led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who said at the time of the decision that it 'sets a dangerous precedent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.'  She added, 'Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women's access to health care, I will.'"

Patty Murray for President!

"For Democrats and proponents of reproductive rights, this is no small development.  Murray will host a press conference this morning to unveil her bill, standing alongside Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado); Reps Diana DeGette (D-Colorado, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.); as well as the National Women's Law Center's Marcia Greenberger, NARAL Pro-Choice America's Ilyse Hogue, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's Cecile Richards.

A simple, perfunctory rollout this isn't.

What's more, Murray's bill, which will immediately feature a companion measure in the House, will have the White House's full support.  Indeed the measure was reportedly 'put together in consultation with the Obama administration.'...

...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act will be near the top of his to-do list.

'The one thing we're going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,' Reid said.

Looking ahead, there are two broad angles to keep an eye on.

The first is whether the bill can pass legal muster.  After all, it's not as if the legislative branch can simply overturn a Supreme Court ruling by passing a bill.

But note that the Hobby Lobby ruling wasn't based on the First Amendment, but rather, something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) from the 1990s.  The new proposal from Murray and her allies intends to clarify this area of the law, its constitutional merit is not in question.

The second is whether the bill has any chance at all of becoming law this year.  Realistically, even the most optimistic proponent of women's rights would probably concede that a House dominated by far-right Republicans probably won't approve legislation to make contraception access easier.  On the contrary, the GOP-led House widely celebrated the high court's Hobby Lobby ruling and sees no need to revisit the policy."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will undoubtedly refuse to bring the bill to a vote as he has done with numerous bills since his ascendancy to Speaker--with no consideration given to whether they were popular with his constituency or the American people as a whole.  If the Republican majority doesn't approve of a bill, he simply refuses to allow it to come to a vote, the people be damned.  If you want to throw the "dictator" epithet around, Republicans need look no further than their own leadership. 

He makes me ashamed to be from Ohio.

"But for supporters of the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act, it's worth the effort.  If there's a bipartisan agreement and the legislation reaches the Oval Office, great.  If this joins the list of popular measures killed by congressional Republicans, Democrats and their allies have a campaign issue for the fall. 

Either way, this is a fight progressives, and the reproductive rights community in general, are eager to have."

I can't wait to hear the GOP sound-off against this bill while still denying there is a Republican war on women. 

I can't wait to hear them explain how they chose to celebrate with the Church-of-the-Holy-Corporation while treating women who want access to family planning as acceptable collateral damage in their continuing fight against Obamacare. 

It should be quite a show.

Republicans Say the Darndest Things - A Little Thermometer Problem

Kentucky State Senator

Brandon Smith (R)

Chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee and 

Member of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Committee

At a recent hearing on carbon emissions:  "I don't want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here.  Nobody will dispute that.  Yet there are no coal mines on Mars.  There are no factories on Mars that I'm aware of."

According to NASA scientists, the average temperature on Mars is minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

As for that "in academia we all agree" reference, holding a bachelor's degree does not may you an academe; and a degree in political science does not make you a scientist.  (Obviously.)

July 7 - Monday Quote

Sadly, this is even more true today...and not quite so funny.

monday quote:  Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.  (Mark Twain, author and humorist, 1835-1910)