Kennedy Backs Hate Crimes Legislation

Marion Co. Democrat prosecutor candidate Melina Kennedy announced today that she will push for hate crimes legislation during the 2007 session of the General Assembly. A press release from her campaign reads:

“All crimes are tragic—for the victim and the victim’s family. Crimes motivated by hate, whether it be prejudiced hate for a person’s religion, race, sexual orientation, color or creed, are tragic for the community,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy’s hate crimes legislation would be based on the “penalty enhancement” model. Wisconsin’s Hate Crimes statute is a penalty enhancement model and was unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court as constitutional. Penalty enhancement refrains from criminalizing hate speech, but creates a stiffer sentence for crimes motivated by hate. Additionally Kennedy’s proposal will include an intentional vandalism clause. Intentional vandalism targets vandalism aimed at houses of worship, cemeteries, schools and community centers.

“Too much of American history has been dominated by hate, but time and again it is overcome by the brave few. This legislation is another important step for our community, the result is that hate mongers cannot hide in the law,” Kennedy added.

Last year Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi (R) told the Indiana Lawyer he would push for a hate crimes bill this year. He later dropped those efforts without explanation. AI later learned that Brizzi dropped the push after GOP legislators discouraged him from pushing what might be perceived as a "pro gay" bill during an election year. Sadly, Indiana Equality did not have a legislative agenda this year that included a hate crimes bill either. Indiana is just one of 4 states in the country without a hate crimes law.

Cal Thomas On "A Mormon In The Race"

AI recently discussed a poll showing that many Americans had misgivings about voting to elect a Mormon as president. In particular, Christian conservatives appear even more disinclined to vote for a Mormon than liberals. AI recently opined that Mitt Romney will be the likely GOP nominee in 2008, notwithstanding his religious affiliation. AI based that belief on Romney's position on the so-called "cultural issues" and his bona fide credentials as a "family man." Conservative columnist Cal Thomas picks up on this theme and makes this comparison of Romney to the other candidates:

Consider the following scenario: four candidates are running for president in 2008. One is a pro-choice Protestant who believes in balanced budgets and would cut spending and lower taxes, but is divorced and remarried to someone who has also been divorced. The second candidate is a Catholic, who is pro-life, but who believes in tax increases and more government spending to help the poor. This candidate is married, but during the '60s he smoked dope and lived in an ashram with two women. The third is Jewish and supports the Iraq war and Israel against those who wish to destroy it, is married to a gentile and thinks same-sex marriage is OK. The fourth candidate is a Mormon, who is married to the same woman he started out with, is pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage, wants taxes and government spending cut, would put more conservatives on the Supreme Court and appears consistent in his private and public behavior.

Thomas' description of the candidates leaves little doubt that Romney is his favorite. In his column today, Thomas is beginning the process of softening up Christian conservatives on Romney. As Thomas explains: "If an ambulance hits me, I care less where or how the driver worships than I do about his sense of direction to the nearest hospital. It troubles me not that a Mormon might be president. It does trouble me a great deal that so many people would think a person's faith - whether one shares it or not - should be the only reason to deny someone the presidency."

Contrast Thomas' column with the efforts of a conservative site to portray John McCain as a man with an "irrational, explosive temper" who uses the f-word a lot.

Celebration Fireworks Win No Celebration For 10-Year Old

Elizabeth Howard and her family own Celebration Fireworks, Inc. They've been throwing money at politicians for years in the form of campaign contributions to relax Indiana's law to allow Hoosiers who purchase fireworks from their business and other fireworks distributors to set them off on their property. Previously, purchasers were required to sign a paper attesting that the fireworks would be shipped out of state within 5 days of their purchase. They finally got their way this year as Indiana legislators approved legislation, which was authored by Rep. David Frizzell (R-Indianapolis) and Sen. Tom Weatherwax (R-Logansport) and signed it into law by Gov. Daniels, to allow the purchasers to set these more dangerous types of fireworks off on their own property.

Reminding us of the reason the use of these fireworks has been outlawed in Indiana in the past, a misfired bottle rocket cost a 10-year old Decatur Township boy his right eye. WTHR-TV reports that Cameron Davis lost his right eye after he threw a bottle rocket up in the air on the 4th of July, which struck him in the eye and blew up. Davis' parents said they were unaware Cameron and his brothers had the fireworks. The new law will no doubt put more money in the pockets of the Howard family and other fireworks distributors. But how many life-changing injuries like that suffered by Cameron Davis will Hoosiers sustain as a consequence of this permissive fireworks law?

New York Constitution Doesn't Protect Same-Sex Marriages

Gay rights activists were extremely disappointed by a 4-2 ruling from New York's highest Court of Appeals that New York's constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Instead, the majority deemed that a matter best addressed by the state legislature, which had already made it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation under New York's civil rights law.

The case was brought by 44 same-sex couples who argued that they were deprived of their right to due process and equal protection under New York's constitution because they were deprived of their "fundamental right" to marry a person of their choosing, whether of the same sex or opposite sex. The Court conceded that opposite sex couples alone benefit from 316 statutorily-provided benefits, including tax advantages, rights in probate and intestate proceedings, spousal support rights, family insurance benefits and health care decisions.

The majority rejected the plaintiffs' argument that there existed a fundamental right for opposite-sex couples to marry, noting the long-held tradition of a marriage being between a man and a woman. The plaintiffs' case, accordingly, was afforded no heightened scrutiny by the Court; it only had to find that the legislature had a legitimate interest in excluding marriage from opposite sex couples, and that the classification for such purposes--all same-sex couples--was rationally based.

The majority concluded that the legislature had two rational grounds for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, both related to the welfare of the child. "Promoting stability" in opposite-sex relationships by legally recognizing their marriages alone serves the "welfare of the child" according to the court since it is undisputed that most children are born of sex between a man and a woman. The rationale for same-sex couples to marry does not "apply with comparable force" according to the court. "These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse."

The court also thought the "legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." The court reasoned, "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."

The court specifically rejected any comparison of laws against same-sex marriages and the former anti-miscegenation laws, which barred interracial marriages. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws in a 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia. The majority contrasted racism with homosexuality: "Racism has been recognized for centuries -- at first by a few people, and later
by many more -- as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse - 9 - and its vestiges." While acknowledging that "there had been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals," the court made a distinction for "traditional definition of marriage," which it urged is not "merely a by-product of historical injustice." "The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one," the majority wrote. The denial of same-sex marriages, in the majority's opinion, was not "irrational, ignorant or bigoted."

The court's chief judge wrote the dissenting opinion. Judge Kaye could not have disagreed more with the majority's opinion: "This State has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition." In her view, the right to marry is a fundamental liberty interest. "Central to the right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's choice," she wrote. She believed that, because the denial of a fundamental right was at stake, New York's law against opposite-sex marriages should be subject to strict scrutiny.

She was critical of the majority for taking same-sex marriages lightly because they are not "deeply rooted in tradition." As she explained, "Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights." That is precisely what she reminds the majority that the U.S. Supreme Court warned of in the Lawrence v. Texas striking down homosexual sodomy laws. The question in that case wasn't the narrow question of whether homosexuals had a fundamental right to engage in sodomy; rather, it involved the broader fundamental right to engage in "private, consensual sexual conduct"--a right that belonged to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Criticizing the majority, she wrote, "An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it . . . Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise
them."

Under Judge Kaye's analysis, homosexuals as a class would be treated as a suspect class--automatically requiring a strict scrutiny review. Laws grounded in a classification of one's sexual orientation "reflect prejudice and antipathy" she argues. Secondly, Judge Kaye believes that the denial of same-sex marriages constitutes a form of sex discrimination--another basis for requiring heightened scrutiny. And finally, because New York's law infringes upon the fundamental right to marry for persons who are attracted to persons of the same sex, and the state failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, the law cannot be sustained.

Judge Kaye believes that history is on her side. "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep," wrote Kaye. "This court cannot avoid its obligations to remedy constitutional violations in the hope that the Legislature might some day render the question presented academic" by passing legislation that makes marriage gender-neutral.

Gay rights activists plan to take their case to the legislature according to the Washington Blade. "We're very disappointed that the court was unable to vindicate the constitutional rights for the many thousands of gay and lesbian couples throughout New York state,' said Roberta A. Kaplan, an attorney who represented same-sex couples denied marriage licenses. "We will take this battle to the legislature."

Democrat National Chairman Howard Dean surprised observers with the very critical statement he issued today after the court announced its decision. "Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal," Dean said. "It is up to the state legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker."

AFA Sues Michigan State To Block Same-Sex Benefits

The American Family Association, relying on a 2004 amendment to Michigan's Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, is suing Michigan State University to stop it from offering same-sex health care benefits to its employees. The Michigan gay marriage ban amendment was written broadly. It made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

A similar proposed amendment in Indiana, SJR-7, also does more than just bar the recognition of same-sex marriages. It provides that the “Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” Instead of using the words "similar union for any purpose", SJR-7 adds the words "legal incidents of marriage." Opponents have argued that if it is adopted, it would nullify same-sex benefits offered by the state's public universities or any governmental body.

Hotline Looks At The Mormon Question

The Hotline blog ponders the question of whether Gov. Mitt Romney's candidacy for president will be impeded because of his Mormon faith. The blog asks, "Will Mitt Romney be an Al Smith or a John Kennedy?" Hotline reflects on a recent poll showing that 35% of those polled said they would never vote for a Mormon presidential candidate:

The two groups most united in their opposition: liberal Democrats, of whom 40 percent were skittish, and more-than-once-a-week churchgoers, of whom a majority was opposed. (Note that these slices are taken from subsamples of a larger poll and are thus somewhat less precise).

Why?

It might be that Mormons are perceived as a fundamentally conservative denomination which scares modernist/secular Dems as much as their alleged heresy scares some evangelicals.

It might just be that the 2008 GOP presidential campaign will break down a barrier for Mormons much like Kennedy's 1960 presidential race did for Catholic candidates. While the poll would seem to suggest that Romney is going to have a real challenge with Christian fundamentalists, AI suspects that his supportive position on cultural issues will win out over any misgivings that these voters might have with Romney because he's a Mormon.

Cross-Dresser Doused With Gasoline

A 38-year old male cross-dresser was doused with gasoline by a 42-year woman who threatened to set him on fire according to the Star's Vic Ryckaert. He writes:

Jacqueline Dejournett, 42, 100 block of Detroit Street, faces initial charges of battery and criminal recklessness. She is being held without bond this morning, Marion County Jail records show.

Dejournett was arguing with Cece Miller, 38, at the Admiral Gas Station, 1435 E. Washington St., about 10:40 p.m.

Dejournett, according to a police report, filled a plastic jug with gasoline and doused Miller with fuel while threatening to light Miller on fire. Miller, police said, was dressed in woman's clothes.

The news story doesn't tell us whether Miller and Dejournett knew each other, or whether Dejournett was motivated to commit the act because of Miller's transgender status.

Indiana Has Highest Dropout Rate In The Nation

It's a distinction that will do little to change perceptions of Indiana among the country's thinking people. According to a study by the Annie Casey Foundation, thirteen percent of Hoosiers between the ages of 16 and 19 are high school dropouts, ranking Indiana 50th out of 50 states. Kelly Suderland of the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette reports that Indiana calculates its own dropout rate in a manner than produces a lower dropout rate:

The inverse of the dropout rate is the graduation rate and under a new way of calculating the latter, Indiana is faring worse than officials first feared. Indiana recently recognized that its reported graduation rates are not reflective of the number of students who are actually graduating high school.

Under the current system of counting the number of students who enter high school as freshman and comparing that with the number who graduate, Indiana reported a 90 percent graduation rate. A new formula will track individual students as they enter and exit high school, possibly providing a more accurate statistic, if not a lower one.

So what's the reaction from the Indiana Department of Education? They're not concerned. “Indiana has a dropout problem, but every state in the nation has a dropout problem,” Jason Bearce said. “It’s been with us since the beginning.” That's really encouraging.

Peterson Wants Taxpayers To Subsidize F-1

Keeping up his tradition of providing welfare for the rich while ignorning the needs of every day Indy residents, Mayor Bart Peterson (D) thinks the taxpayers should subsidize Formula One racing in order to retain the Grand Prix race in Indianapolis. Never mind that Formula One is the world's most financially successful racing series and that its principal owner, billionaire Bernie Ecclestone, is one of the U.K.'s richest men. And never mind the fact that the Hulman-George family has never received any public subsidies in the past--because they've never asked for anything. But with Mayor Peterson, there's no mega-rich person he won't open up the taxpayers' wallet to support. The Star's Curt Calvin reports that Ecclestone is looking for $14-$20 million to renew the racing series' contract with the Indianapolis Motor Speedway:

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson is interested in doing his part to bring Formula One back to Indianapolis Motor Speedway for years to come.

Peterson, who attended Sunday's U.S. Grand Prix, said the international motor sports event is too valuable to the city not to assist the Speedway in its pursuit of a new contract.

Options from the original contract in 2000 expired after Sunday's race, won by Ferrari's Michael Schumacher.

"They've never asked (for help)," Peterson said of Speedway officials. "If we were asked, we'd be open to getting involved."

Studies have estimated the local economic impact of the USGP at more than $100 million per year. The race has been held annually since 2000.

Peterson said he understands as many as two-thirds of the fans who attend the race are from other countries. Information about Sunday's event is not yet known.

"If that's true, that's a huge impact," Peterson said. "That's 'new' money, which is very important to the city."

Tony George, the Speedway's chief executive officer, plans to travel to London in the coming weeks to discuss a new contract with F-1 boss Bernie Ecclestone. Industry estimates put Ecclestone's asking price to be somewhere between $14 million and $20 million per year.

While admitting surprise at Peterson's offer, George said he is not currently considering asking the city to contribute to his family-owned business. George's grandfather, Tony Hulman, built the company on the foundation it would avoid using public funds.

IMS president Joie Chitwood said there has been no deviation from that.

"We have never asked for any assistance; we have never received any assistance," Chitwood said.

The very thought of taxpayer dollars being spent to subsidize the likes of Bernie Ecclestone is outrageous. Ecclestone and his series have clearly demonstrated in the past a callous and arrogant disregard to F-1's U.S. fans, most notably last year when they failed to manage a tire issue which resulted in only 6 cars competing in the Grand Prix event. Let's face it, F-1 is a rich man's event. The only reason Mayor Peterson wants to give away our taxpayer dollars to subsidize this event is so that he has another weekend of the year when he can escape the average Joes he looks his nose down at and hobnob with the super rich and celebrities who are drawn to the Grand Prix.

The economic impact from the race is realized by a handful of downtown hotels, about two dozen restaurants and Simon's Circle Centre Mall. If it's that important of an event for these select businesses, let them cough up the money. Taxpayers are already forking over a $1 billion for the new Colts stadium and convention center expansion, which disproportionately benefits this group of businesses.

And Mayor Peterson, start addressing the real problems this city faces. In case you haven't notice, you have the worst public transportation system in the country. You have a century-old sewer system that is polluting our waterways. You have the worst schools in the country. You've done nothing to solve the police and fire pension time-bombs. Get some time away from your rich friends and do something for the little guy for at least once in your life.