Senate President: The Best Deliberation Is No Deliberation

We're on week two of Utah's nearly 7-week Legislative Session, and we may already have the quote of the session.  And, it comes from Senate President Wayne Niederhauser.

First, some background:

SB100 is the current bill number for a bill that has been floating around the Utah Legislature for 6 years.  It is currently sponsored by St George Republican Senator Steve Urquhart.  It adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of things that you can't be discriminated for in the state of Utah.  The list currently protects people from getting fired (among other things) on the basis of race, religion, sex, and family status.

It's similar to laws passed by several cities in the past several years, including one in Salt lake City that was supported by the LDS Church.

Oh, and it's an issue that a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll says that 60% of Utahns support.  The Deseret News has the number at 72%.

However, Urquhart can't get his bill heard.

On Friday, he held a press conference encouraging Utahns to let their Senators know they want the bill to be heard.  He encouraged people to come to the Capitol and post "blue notes" on the Senate Door.And, people came.And by the time the Senate reconvened on Monday, the door and doorway were covered in blue notes.

And, what did that mean to Niederhauser?  Well, it was further proof that the bill SHOULDN'T be heard.That's right.  If you want a bill heard by the Utah Senate, don't tell anyone.  Especially the Utah Senate.

From the Tribune:

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said Monday the notes are proof "there is a lot of emotion out there" over same-sex marriage and related issues.

But, he added, the Legislature should stick with plans to let the issue cool down and not deal with more changes until the courts consider Utah’s appeal to a federal ruling that struck down its ban on same-sex marriage.

"This is an emotional time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s stop and pull our faculties together and address other issues this session and wait for the process [in court] … to take place and we’ll come back at another time to address religious liberties and other types of discrimination."

Because the Utah Legislature never, ever acts based on emotion.

Wait, what court process is he talking about? Oh yeah, the gay marriage lawsuit.

You see, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told the Legislature that they shouldn't take up any bills relating to gay people because they don't want the state to show any animosity towards gay people, since the whole basis of the case hinges on "'The Utah Government is being mean to gay people.'  'No, we're not!'"Well, that's what it sounds like, at least.

And, what better way to prove that the state doesn't not like gay people than by keep the Legislature from talking about gay people.

Yeah.  That will work.

However, the killer quote from President Neiderhauser comes at the end of the Tribune article:

"It is most important for us right now to take some time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s not get too anxious. The best kind of policy is the policy that takes some time and has had a lot of deliberation."

Did you catch that?  We need to deliberate the bill, so we're not going to deliberate it.

It may just be me, but I would think that allowing the bill to be discussed over the remaining 37 days of the session would be a great way to deliberate it.

Especially a bill that's been around for 6 years.  How much deliberation will be enough?

Maybe I don't get the joke.....

From Jesse Fruhwirth at City Weekly:

As I reported first via my Twitter feed, the press conference calling for a ballot initiative to remove homosexuals from Utah was fake. At best, the organizers put together improv theater that punked the Utah press corps and maybe got people to think about gay rights for a moment. It's fashionable to make fools of news media folk such as myself, so, touche. But at its worst, it was an offensive attention-grabbing play on Holocaust-like imagery and language that does little to advance the argument for gay rights in Utah.

The phony press conference is a play out of the Yes Men play book. For example, The Yes Men once punked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by announcing a press conference, then posing as representatives of that group while calling for climate change legisation. It was funny, you see, because the Chamber opposes such legislation. Ha. Zinger. Got 'em.

I'm not sure what Ha-Ha we were supposed to get from today's action, but I think the point they must have been trying to make is that it is somewhat believable that Utah could foster such a movement of concerned citizens that would openly and publicly call for Nazi-like solutions to the "homosexual problem?"

And a response from the group who held the "press conference," Patriots for a Moral Utah:

Because of the intense anti-lgbt climate in Utah, and because our voices have been silenced by recent statements and deals made on the hill, we felt a creative solution would be to highlight just how outlandish some of their claims are. It is amazing that Utah has reached a point where even something as crazy as the "Utah Fair Solution" has legitimacy and is believable.

The goal of this political satire was purely a play off of the many groups, legislators, organizations and religions who speak against the LGBT community. As a community we hear constantly from people like Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute who tell us that our families and love are an illusion, or Senator Chris Buttars who says that we have no morality and are the biggest threat to America.

The point was not to "punk" anybody, but to push people to continue the discussion of LGBT rights, and are thrilled at the conversations and public input that flew when news of the Patriots came out.

We love our community, and hope that our political farce has helped in highlighting what we feel is the ridiculousness and cruelty of some in our legislature and groups like The Eagle Forum, the Patrick Henry Caucus and America Forever. Thank you to all those who caught the big picture of our attempt and who have supported the efforts of all those who made this a reality. Also a very special thank you to each of the protesters who attended at the capitol, who were aware of the satire and helped to make it such a great event. This was another step in our multi-faceted campaign to achieve equality, and we're all in this together.

OK, great. I still don't get it. With Sutherland, Buttars, Ruzika, and America Forever, do we really need parody? After all, the best comedy to come out of Saturday Night Live the last couple of years was Tina Fey repeating Sarah Palin's words.

And, instead of pointing out how ridiculous they are, you made some of us think "hmm, Makes Mero not seem so bad."

Yes, you got people talking. But they are talking about your stunt, not the need for more gay rights.

-Bob

Corroon and Herbert on "Social Issues"

The Tribune ran a feature yesterday talking about the similarities and few differences between the two candidates running for Governor. It is well worth the time and effort to read the piece. I agree with BYU political scientist Quinn Monson when he says that while Corroon and Herbert agree on many social issues,

Corroon ... needs to make the governor's race about fiscal responsibility and good government. "If it turns on social issues," he adds, "you activate the vote-Republican gene" in GOP-dominated Utah.

So, how does Peter Corroon feel on some of the Utah's hot-button social issues?

Gay Marriage/Civil Unions:

Corroon » "I believe traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. I also do support making sure all our citizens can work, live and support their loved ones without discrimination in our society.

"Our citizens have spoken on [civil unions] through a constitutional amendment so it wouldn't be something I would pursue."

Abortion:

"Based on my [Catholic] faith and upbringing, I am opposed to abortion except in limited circumstances: rape, incest and the life and health of the mother. ...

"I certainly understand that other people may have a different opinion. I respect that difference. As governor, my goal would be to unite everybody to see how we could reduce the number of abortions. ...

-Bob

Sen Buttars doesn't Want Gays Shoving it Down His Throat

This has been floating around for a while. I'm posting it mostly so I have it when I need it later on....

Best Marriage Speech Ever!

New York State Senator Diane Savino speaks on Marriage Equality Albany, NY December 2, 2009

LDS Church to Issue Comment on Non-Discrimination

And, from the sounds of it, Paul Mero and company aren't gonna like it....

from KTVX:

Numerous sources are now telling ABC 4 that the LDS Church is poised to extend an olive branch of sorts to the gay community.

These sources say the Church is expected to - both through spoken and written statements - to offer its support for proposed Salt Lake City ordinances extending protection to gays in the areas of employment and housing.

Reportedly, the Church has been in quiet discussion with members of Utah's gay community.

This announcement from the Church is expected sooner rather then later.

Mero: Making up history to prove his point

This is from a couple of weeks ago. I have meant to post it, but with a death in the family and a few other things, blogging has taken a back seat.

However, I just wanted to point out how the Conservative Agenda will re-write history to prove their point. From Sutherland INstitute's Paul Mero, in a comment to this post:

Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.

There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.

First, for the love of Pete, can we stop calling it "Amendment 3?" That is not it's name. It's name is Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

Secondly, California did not have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage until November 2008. In 2000, California residents passes Proposition 22 (2000) which, in the same 14 words used in Proposition 8 (2008), prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Prop 22 (2000) amended California Code, not the California Constitution. So, therefore, you are wrong, Mr Mero. It was not the Constitution that was found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, had it been the Constitution that was unconstitutional, what difference would Prop 8 (2008) had? It, too, would be struck down by the courts, pretty quickly,too.

-Bob

source:
wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)

Taking on Sutherland's Pro-disrimination Statement

I just got a press release from the Sutherland Institute about Salt Lake City's proposed non-discrimination ordinance.

Needless to say, they have some issues....

SALT LAKE CITY — October 12, 2009 — Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker recently released the details of two different ordinances designed to ban employment and housing discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” In response, Sutherland Institute reaffirms its commitment to marriage and family as matters of public policy. We continue to draw a negative policy correlation between attempts to advance “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and other similarly vague legal notions and all honest attempts to protect the meaning of marriage in the law.

While we commend Mayor Becker and his staff for their openness and willingness to discuss their recent proposals adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Salt Lake City’s nondiscrimination ordinances – and thank him and his staff for honestly and sincerely seeking Sutherland’s input and advice as their processes have unfolded – nonetheless, we oppose the inclusion of these terms in the law anywhere in the State of Utah.

The experiences of other states, namely California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, prove that the inclusion of terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in state and local laws is used, ultimately, to denigrate the meaning of marriage. Seemingly rational and everyday concerns, along with more egregious concerns affecting the very safety and justice to be afforded every American, are manipulated and twisted by political activists and activist judges to reach beyond the limits of legal reason and the public good.

However, what Sutherland fails to mention is that the states of California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont didn't language in their state constitution defining marriage, and that's part of what led those activist judges to rule the way they did. However, Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution states "(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" So, in order for their slippery slope to happen, the activist judge would have to rule the Utah Constitution unconstitutional, which is illogical.

Mayor Becker’s new anti-discrimination proposals only open the door to such legal abuses in Utah.

I separated this out and put this after my rebuke to point out Sutherland's all-out lie.

In meeting with the Mayor’s staff, Sutherland encouraged them to emulate the compromise found several years ago on the state hate crimes bill (Criminal Penalty Amendments, H.B. 90, 2006). Conservatives and liberals collaborated to craft a law that addressed all concerns without the inclusion of vague language such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Furthermore, we alternatively recommended that Mayor Becker might choose to propose non-binding resolutions that could include vague language and yet do no harm to the integrity of state law.

As the current proposals stand, Sutherland opposes them.

So, in other words, Sutherland wants laws that don't mention them thar gay people. If you ignore, them, they'll just go away....

First, the proposed ordinances are legally vague. Redundancy is not clarity. To define “sexual orientation” as “heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual” is redundant. The definition does not clarify the words – it is the equivalent of stipulating that a specter is a ghost.

Funny, most laws have redundant definitions. As an example, Holladay City Code Chapter 8.01.030 defines an animal: "Animal" means every nonhuman species, both domestic and wild." Chapter 8.01.120 of the same Code differentiates the difference between a cat and a kitten.

And, how does the definition of sexual orientation not clarify the words?

Second, the proposed ordinances are dangerously broad. The inclusion of the term of legal art “perceived as” disallows any serious response to an accusation of discrimination. If an accuser simply perceives himself to be homosexual – or perceives the accused to have acted discriminatorily based on the accuser’s perception of himself – the accused has no basis for an honest defense against the charge of discrimination, and neither does the city’s appointed “Administrator” have reason to consider any defense if the ordinance allows anyone to subjectively “perceive” anything.

Discrimination claims put the burden of proof on the accuser. Otherwise, nobody would ever be fired ("I was fired because I was Mormon/White/a guy, etc").

Third, the proposed ordinances are inherently unjust to the parties they seek to regulate. Businesses that operate within the city limits of Salt Lake would be compelled to abide by “civil rights” laws that do not exist elsewhere in the state. While it is not uncommon for individual municipalities to differ in a variety of business regulations, it is uncommon – indeed, unprecedented – for businesses to comply with a variety of “civil rights” laws.

Yes, it's difficult for businesses to have to comply with a variety of laws, but that's just the cost of doing business in multiple jurisdictions.

The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” have no place in Utah laws, especially not in employment and housing laws. Sutherland addressed these specific concerns earlier this year as the State Legislature was pressed by homosexual activists to pass similar ideas as a part of the “Common Ground Initiative.”

Why, because Sutherland says so?

No person is legally fired for who they are – although plenty of people are legally fired for inappropriate behavior, incompatible personalities, incompetency, or anything that gets in the way of personal performance or team productivity. This is the nature of at-will employment in a free society ...

Culture, not force of law, controls our workplace relationships…

The law protects men and women and children – male and female all. Only in sex professions are an employee’s sexual life relevant to the workplace. In every other work environment, the issue of workplace protections based on one’s sexual preferences is, in itself, discriminatory. It turns an otherwise irrelevant part of an employee’s work experience into something more important than the job itself – and does so through force of law.

Well, except for cases where people *have* been fired because they were gay. Yes, a person's sex life outside the workplace is not relevant, but employers make it so by asking. I've been asked by an employer if I was gay. I'm not, and answered as such, but I wonder what would have happened if I said I was, because legally they could have fired me.

No person can be legally denied housing for who they are – they can be legally denied housing for what they do as tenants, rental experiences based on prior references, or a landlord’s perceptions about how the applicant would fit into the culture of the housing project or surrounding community. These standards apply to every rental situation in a free society, regardless of someone’s private sexual behavior…

The real question for a landlord, in these cases, concerns her perceptions (visual, communicative, or intuitive) about the rental applicant. Would this applicant fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood? Based on hard experiences, the landlord may perceive that the applicant will have too many disruptive parties, too many strangers coming and going, or even undisciplined children. In the protection of private property rights in a free society, all landlords have this right to subjectively, but reasonably, screen all tenant. [ii]

So, in other words, if my parents, as landlords, have had probelms with Republicans who rented from the, it's OK to deny applicants based on party affiliation. Or if I wanted to move to the Marmalade district, I could legally be denied because as a Latter-Day Saint I don't "fit the culture of the housing unit, complex, or neighborhood."

Sutherland does not condone discrimination against any human being on grounds of innate and universal human traits addressed by civil rights laws. Nor does Sutherland condone irrational discrimination against any human being for chosen behaviors.

Well, that last sentence is alie, as evidenced by the rest of the press release.

-Bob