This is a very volatile thread...and I didn't want to pollute any of the other LGBT threads out there just in case people get nasty about this subject.
For years people have argued that when homosexuals and others get rights, they will then proceed to try to take the rights away from others.
That has largely not happened in the US thus far. It's been one of the prime statements that giving other people rights, does NOT take the rights of others away.
However, actions recently have the mayor subpoena the pastors sermons in Houston. Now, it doesn't specify that they ONLY deal with the political statements some may have made, it's overly broad and asks for anything dealing with her, or homosexuality. It is seen as a way to squash ANY commentary about it in the local churches.
[Background information]
An equality bill was passed in Houston, with a petition to vote on that bill or reexamine the bill that was denied. It needed around 17,269 signatures. It supposedly had around 50,000 signatures. Upon examination, around half those were invalid [Which still equals around 25,000]. Another counting after those were invalidated seemed to indicate that there were slightly less than 18,000 that were valid, but another counting by a politically invested individual downgraded that number in what some would consider a questionable manner which then allowed the city council to reject the petition.
This petition is seen as being supported largely by the Christian right in Houston. The City council believes that there were many speeches and sermons against the bill and later for the petition in churches.
They state it's because any of those speeches may deal with a political situations occurring that they did the subpoena. However, including in it ANY sermon dealing with Homosexuality (might as well subpoena the Bible at this point) is the kicker.
[end of background information]
This is where it gets painful for me. It doesn't matter WHAT the reasoning they have, having a subpoena as broad as the one issued will be used as ammunition repeatedly in months and years forward of some hidden agenda of the LGBT movement. Far Right movements will point out to this act as the LGBT crowd attempting to squash free speech, freedom of religion, and the rights of those to practice these in the privacy of their own churches. They will use it to point out how the LGBT crowd will use power to destroy the freedom of others. It does NOT matter whether this is fact or truth, or even falsely being used as such...the far right WILL use it in this manner to convince others (even legally) of a destroying of rights.
They (the city council) should have a much more narrow focus on the subpoena, as the one they issued is too broad and I think will hurt instead of help.
You can't just issue a subpoena asking for any and all sermons from a church (in this case, churches) relating to homosexuality in this way...as I don't think they can say it's going to be pointed to the political case as specifically as legal requirements mandate. If the subpoena doesn't get tossed out, I think they will have a very very very hard time utilizing it in court without the evidence being tossed out specifically BECAUSE the subpoena was so wide and broad.
Now this is NOT about the bill or petition specifically, but about that subpoena and it's effects. Irregardless of whether it is tossed out or not, it's going to be used for a looooong time by the far right to rally it's forces as an example of the LGBT movement trampling on the rights of others. It may or may not be, but it will be used as an example of such.
I can even see it being used in court cases as a counter argument to the discussion of equality in marriage and other aspects that are in the courts around the US currently as a way to weaken (not counter, simply weaken) certain Pro-LGBT viewpoints.
There IS a slight chance it could be used to further the LGBT courts progression IF it is successful, even if it is used as a rallying cry by the conservatives, which could be a positive (from a legal standpoint, if it is successful it could be used as a precedence)...but that relies on the evidence actually being accepted, and the legality of it not contested.
Because it seems so slight that this will happen, I see it as actually hurting the LGBT movement in the long run currently, and hate to see that it happened this way. It would be much simpler to have had a much more narrow focus, put specifically on political speeches on the bill itself and the petition made in churches, rather than how broad it was made.
Put simply, I'm in disbelief that Houston politics would get so small sighted as to only focus on the moment, instead of how such wording may impact the larger picture. But that's my opinion on the matter, but I don't think this is going to be something that's going to be helpful, and as it was worded so broadly, is actually something that could hurt the LGBT movement under the guise of being pro-LGBT.
Now, the problem I had with sources...it seems EVERY far right Christian and conservative news source have commented and reported this. Finding sources that are OUT Of that sphere is extremely hard. I couldn't find a single national site that was non-biased towards the far right (unless you count Fox News...I am not using them as I found their article rather biased on this item).
The most unbiased article I found is a local news source, sorry that I can't find anything larger at the moment. It is still a little biased towards the right.
This tells a relatively balanced story however on the situation.
Also, this topic is NOT to comment on the actual BILL or petition not on whether the bill or petition is a good thing or bad thing (I think the bill and petition are too hot of subjects for these forums and people would not be able to talk calmly enough or reasonably enough about it), but on the subpoena itself and whether it's too broad (or narrow if you feel that way) in what it demands.
It's more about how it is perceived and going to be perceived. The FAR Right have already jumped on it in regards to a squashing of the Bill of Rights...but perhaps there are other perceptions that will be generated in regards to this that can counter the fury in which they are ALREADY utilizing and leveraging this issue against others.
If I understand this situation correctly...
The far right is whining about a subpoena that will show that the horrors of homosexuality has been a serious focus in their sermons, and are grabbing at any kind of straw that might help before it's too late and it goes through.
Once it does get through, of course, the main story in this will be how much trash the right wingers talk in their sermons about homosexuals.
It might carry a price to pay, of course. Everything does. And there is the point: Right-wing churches will pay a far worse price for decades of preaching intolerance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Subpoena so people can read it themselves, and HERO
In my opinion the subpoena is way, and a very big way, too broad. If I were the Pastor and inclined not to fight the subpoena, I would send every piece of paper, book, document, etc. that I or the Church owned and demand a receipt documenting everything. Why exactly do they need his resume?
I do not condone the use of a church for political purposes, but neither do I condone the use of Political power to go after an opponent.
PS: I should add that I support the idea behind the ordinance, but not the tactics of either side.
If the subpoena cannot be used to obtain sermons referencing homosexuality, their content cannot be examined to determine whether the church is being used for political purposes, or even to solicit [even unknowingly] possible criminal activity such as the forging of petition signatures. It's legitimate to examine them for the same reason emails and letters would be checked.
There's no suggestion of any effort by the Houston city government to edit or censor any sermons. There's no indication that merely speaking out against the ERO -- something perfectly legitimate for a church or any private citizen to do -- would be punished.
There's no expectation of privacy here. The sermons were delivered in a public forum, not a "secret handshake members only" enclave.
If the subpoena cannot be used to obtain sermons referencing homosexuality, their content cannot be examined to determine whether the church is being used for political purposes, or even to solicit [even unknowingly] possible criminal activity such as the forging of petition signatures. It's legitimate to examine them for the same reason emails and letters would be checked.
There's no suggestion of any effort by the Houston city government to edit or censor any sermons. There's no indication that merely speaking out against the ERO -- something perfectly legitimate for a church or any private citizen to do -- would be punished.
There's no expectation of privacy here. The sermons were delivered in a public forum, not a "secret handshake members only" enclave.
Did you read the subpoena? They want more than the sermons, they want ALL communications of any sort to anyone, regarding HERO, homosexuality, equal rights, civil rights, gender identity, etc.
"Communications" means every direct or indirect disclosure, receipt, transfer, or exchange of information, inquiry or opinion, however made, whether oral, visual, in writing or otherwise, including without limitation any conversation or discussion by means of letter, note, package, invoice, statement, notice, memorandum, inter-office correspondence, telephone, telegraph, email, telex, telecopies, text message, instant message, cable communicating data processors, or some other electronic or other medium.
That is from the subpoena. Go look at the subpoena to see everything they want. Since they want everything including ORAL, how exactly is he supposed to give them copies of conversations? Yet if he doesn't he can go to jail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, there's nothing unusual in this subpoena. This is standard, to prevent the target of the subpoena avoiding production by saying "but you didn't ask for THIS." Obviously, you can't produce the oral communication itself, but if you have a tape recording of a telephone conversation or contemporaneous notes, you are expected to produce it. (The court can't jail you for failure to do the impossible; that's well established in case law.)
if the pastor thinks the subpoena is overbroad, he can challenge it prior to compliance. If the pastor is not actually challenging it and instead is just taking it to the media, I suspect he (or his lawyer) knows that the subpoena is, legally speaking, quite reasonable.
Did you read the subpoena? They want more than the sermons, they want ALL communications of any sort to anyone, regarding HERO, homosexuality, equal rights, civil rights, gender identity, etc."Communications" means every direct or indirect disclosure, receipt, transfer, or exchange of information, inquiry or opinion, however made, whether oral, visual, in writing or otherwise, including without limitation any conversation or discussion by means of letter, note, package, invoice, statement, notice, memorandum, inter-office correspondence, telephone, telegraph, email, telex, telecopies, text message, instant message, cable communicating data processors, or some other electronic or other medium.That is from the subpoena. Go look at the subpoena to see everything they want. Since they want everything including ORAL, how exactly is he supposed to give them copies of conversations? Yet if he doesn't he can go to jail.
Yes, I read the subpoena. Soliciting all forms of communication is standard,as O Quest says. Records of oral communication can be delivered in a couple of ways: either a recording of something being said aloud, or simply the pastor's response to an interview question "Did you say..."
Note that "visual" immediately follows "oral" in the subpoena, so not only does that cover things like posters, charts, and pie graphs, but also anything communicated by an interpreter for the deaf regarding the persons or topics named in the subpoena.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you read the subpoena? They want more than the sermons, they want ALL communications of any sort to anyone, regarding HERO, homosexuality, equal rights, civil rights, gender identity, etc."Communications" means every direct or indirect disclosure, receipt, transfer, or exchange of information, inquiry or opinion, however made, whether oral, visual, in writing or otherwise, including without limitation any conversation or discussion by means of letter, note, package, invoice, statement, notice, memorandum, inter-office correspondence, telephone, telegraph, email, telex, telecopies, text message, instant message, cable communicating data processors, or some other electronic or other medium.That is from the subpoena. Go look at the subpoena to see everything they want. Since they want everything including ORAL, how exactly is he supposed to give them copies of conversations? Yet if he doesn't he can go to jail.Yes, I read the subpoena. Soliciting all forms of communication is standard,as O Quest says.
Thanks for the backup. Do I remember correctly that you're a member of the Bar?
And, at the risk of repeating myself,.... fighting subpoenas is a fairly standard thing for people to do. (The technical term is "quash," and it's a routine request.) If the pastor is not fighting this subpoena, but instead complaining to every media whore he can find, that strongly suggests to me that he knows there's nothing wrong with the subpoena and he's simply hoping to muddy the waters. (If he requests the subpoena be quashed, and it's upheld, then it's much harder to argue to the media that this is in any way unreasonable or unusual, since the court looked at it and said "looks okay to me.")
... and it also suggests to me that he knows he's been busted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not allowed to preach politics from the pulpit.
You have to declare yourself a 501C3 and THEN bolt a pulpet onto your politics. Thank you Citizens united.
I would be willing to bet that the first 8.5 pages of that is a standard form letter with fill in the blanks. Nothing about this seems out of the ordinary.
Thanks for the backup. Do I remember correctly that you're a member of the Bar?
No. I do business analysis and programming for County government, and directly support the courts, clerks, district attorney, sheriff and others in the process. I can't claim more than a layman's knowledge of the law, but I'm a layman exposed to this sort of thing on a continuing basis, and I've been in this job for 18 years.
I have to be able to correctly parse legalese in order to convert judicial and law enforcement business requirements into applications programming and database design, and where there's been a difference of opinion between myself and the clerks over interpretation of language, the D.A. has almost always decided mine was the correct one.
But no, I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be.
New Developments have occurred.
As for the subpoena, it would have been better to subpoena any sermons dealing with the actual case (the bill and petition). Such wording could be broad enough to get anything they actually NEED, without putting into question and reliability of whether the information is even pertinent.
As it is, they basically subpoena'd the bible (why would they subpoena a public document and why is it needed in the lawsuit?), and a bunch of other items which really have no relation to the lawsuit. This has brought up questions on the legality and why it was issued, which is where the far right has jumped on the idea (whether correct or not) that it is trying to attack constitutional rights by threatening churches in regards to speech and religion.
Part of the reason for this, is the subpoena has been served to pastors that weren't part of the bill, the petition, or the lawsuit. Basically, they just served as subpoena to people that legally are not even part of the issue.
They HAD been to council meetings however to discuss the matter. This is the basis that the council states is the basis for the subpoena to them.
Soooo...in that light, (though the outcome could be more important legally in the future) currently the political aspects are rather big in Houston. Despite the wording and statements regarding the original release stating it was from the mayor, the attorney has come out with new information.
The Mayor supposedly had NO knowledge of the attorney's office's actions recently, and has just recently found out. Apparently the attorney was working on their OWN and it was entirely their own responsibility on what has happened and what will happen in regards to it.
This appears to be a political move to separate the Mayor from the political ramifications this action may have. Now that she is "in the know" supposedly, it should be interesting to see if she distances herself farther from this, due to seeing it as a political nightmare...if she grows closer to it and ties herself closer to it (doubtful at this point seeing the wording of the attorney), OR takes some other action.
My vote (no idea what will happen to tell the truth) is that she distances herself from this even further, and if it turns out that the court declares it unconstitutional, publically disclaims any authorization of it, and publically declares her abhorrence of it ever being issued and perhaps fires the attorney. If it turns out that it goes through, she let's it slide and does a wait and see to determine what effect it has on the public opinion overall.
Ah, and I finally found a national newspaper that carries the story, though it still is somewhat conservative in nature...the guy writing it actually DOES work in law...
legal analysis of legality of subpoena
Nice guy (or not), he's worked previously as a clerk at the USSC and at the US court of appeals of the 9th circuit. He's pretty knowledgeable about the entire first amendment thing.
His conclusions are very close to mine in analysis...but we'll see what happens.
But all this presupposes that the information in the subpoenaed sermons really is substantially relevant to a case or an investigation. I don’t quite see how “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession” would be relevant to the litigation about the validity of the referendum petitions.At the very least, the subpoena seems vastly overbroad. And the fact that it seeks the contents of religious speeches does counsel in favor of making the subpoena as narrow as possible (which would likewise be the case if it sought the contents of political speeches). I’m not sure what sort of legally relevant information might be contained in the subpoenaed sermons. But the subpoena ought to be narrowed to that legally relevant information, not to all things about homosexuality, gender identity, the mayor, or even the petition or the ordinance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IF this is allowed it will be used to witch hunt for islamic extremists and to find racism in minority churches. The more liberal side may be opening a can of worms they will regret
Final update to be fair to the mayor. Even the attorney Feldman is now backing off from the items stating that the subpoena were actually not prepared by him, but by Pro Bono Attorneys, and after review agrees they are too broad and the city will narrow them.
The Mayor is also stating the city will narrow the subpoenas to only the items relevant to the actual case.
The attorney still should be to blame however, at least in part. It should have been reviewed more stringently and actions, even by others working pro bono, should have been reviewed. I think they mayor can be let off, but the city attorney...I still think it's a foul.
I think he's off the hook though, as instead of looking at the more procedure of operations that should have been followed, the other side is concentrating more on how the pastors are uninvolved with the case legally and hence shouldn't even have a subpoena.
However, if the city narrows the subpoena as they say they will, and the pulpits were actually used for the political purpose as the city claims, to further the political aspects, well.......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having spent nearly a decade in Houston, it does not surprise me in the least that local politicians and churches would squander this much time, money, and effort in what appears to ultimately be a squabble over who gets to use which restrooms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having spent nearly a decade in Houston, it does not surprise me in the least that local politicians and churches would squander this much time, money, and effort in what appears to ultimately be a squabble over who gets to use which restrooms.
Granted for the trans people affected by the rules on restroom usage, it can be a literal matter of life and death. Apart from the obvious reason of trans people being at an extremely high risk of being murdered (compared to cis people), the rate of suicide and suicide attempts among trans people - directcly connected to all the harassment and wrong-gendering they suffer - is also extremely high.
Being able to use the restroom you need is an important health issue for transsexual people.
Also, today is transgender day of remembrance; mourn for the dead, fight for the living.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many trans people have been killed in Houston during the last, say, ten years, for using the "wrong" restroom? I'm not saying it's unimportant, but if the answer is "zero," I wonder if it isn't wiser to focus efforts on, say, general public education and advancement of rights overall, or on mental health care as needed for transition, suicide prevention, etc.
Of course, from my point of view, the need for gender-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. is both antiquated and absurd -- but 99.9999% of the U.S. violently disagrees with me on that, so my opinions aren't really worth much in the grand scheme of things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many trans people have been killed in Houston during the last, say, ten years, for using the "wrong" restroom? I'm not saying it's unimportant, but if the answer is "zero," I wonder if it isn't wiser to focus efforts on, say, general public education and advancement of rights overall, or on mental health care as needed for transition, suicide prevention, etc.
Of course there aren't statistics specifically on how many have been killed in restrooms, but I personally know several trans people who have been victims of violence in restrooms, and many, many trans people simply dare not use public restrooms, which can severely hinder them in day to day life (especially for poor women, and especially for homeless people).
And trans people (especially transsexual women of color) are killed at an alarming rate when people realize they are trans, and forcing, say, a transsexual woman to go into a men's bathroom has a large risk of doing that very thing.
If, say, "white men who've had their tonsils removed" were at 10 times higher risk of murder than people in general (and 10 times higher risk of being murdered are IIRC the _low_ estimate of transgender murder risk in the US), and we had restrooms separating those men from all others, you'd see such separation disappearing very quickly. And you wouldn't need to see statistics on how many of the men who were murdered _in the bathroom_, because the fact that the bathroom rules might out them and that outed men without their tonsils are at 10 times higher risk of getting murdered strongly imply that such bathroom rules are dangerous to men without tonsils.
Now, that's not to say that general education isn't important, it absolutely is, but education is more of a long-term goal and educating away systemic oppression takes at the very generations.
And while mental healthcare is important and highly lacking for TG people, getting those that need physical healthcare that healthcare quickly seems to be more effective (as the only known effective treatment for trans people is transitioning, which often though not always includes some kind of medical transitioning such as HRT and/or SRS). So mental healthcare can be useful for treating some of the consequences of the oppression of transgender people such as depression and anxiety, but to aid against the trans issues themselves easy and quick access to transitioning procedures is key.
How many trans people have been killed in Houston during the last, say, ten years, for using the "wrong" restroom?
Sorry for bumping up this thread, but came across a series of infographs by GLAAD that directly referred to rates of murder as well as restrooms, though no specific for "killed in restroom" and not specific to houston. But:
One in eight trans women of color are murdered. I think that makes it the most common cause of death for trans women of color, though I'm not sure if suicide isn't higher.Violence against trans people most commonly happen in restrooms.
Again, I don't have a specific source like a study or so, but the infographics are made by GLAAD who are one of the most respected sources on stuff like this.
Of course, from my point of view, the need for gender-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. is both antiquated and absurd -- but 99.9999% of the U.S. violently disagrees with me on that, so my opinions aren't really worth much in the grand scheme of things.
For the record, I agree with you - but i'm not in the US.
...except that I secretly enjoy when there's a long line for the women's restrooms and none for the men's.The solution to the concrete problem here seems to be architecture: Rebuild to have individual restrooms.
Obviously that wonn't solve the deeper issue, though.
Personally I find this whole issue strange and slightly amusing (for wrong reasons), but it seems to be less about the actual equal rights issue and more about mayor vs churches power struggle.
obsessive nitpicking:
Since they want everything including ORAL, how exactly is he supposed to give them copies of conversations?
He's required to share all existing documentation (in the broadest sense, such as secret recordings) he may have of conversations. He's not required to create new documentation.
Generally for total causes of death in the West, cardiovascular events (myocardial infarctions and strokes, mostly) comprise about 50% or so. Another 25% is cancer of various stripes. Everything else is the last 25%. To see a different picture, you really need to break it down by age. If you do, you will find suicides in groups that do not have much other mortality, like 18-35 year olds, making suicides noteworthy. Of course, the older you are, the higher the suicide frequency, but in higher age groups, it has more competition.
|
The Subpoena so people can read it themselves, and HERO
In my opinion the subpoena is way, and a very big way, too broad. If I were the Pastor and inclined not to fight the subpoena, I would send every piece of paper, book, document, etc. that I or the Church owned and demand a receipt documenting everything. Why exactly do they need his resume?
I do not condone the use of a church for political purposes, but neither do I condone the use of Political power to go after an opponent.
PS: I should add that I support the idea behind the ordinance, but not the tactics of either side.
The last page of that is interesting. Even though it can be used to protect everyone from discrimination it can be used to shut down monocultural clubs, organizations and meetings...so the Klan is holding a meeting...bam. Gay pride march...bam. Sex orgy in your house with twenty other people...bam. African American dressed like gangbangers walking down street...bam (though hopefuly not with guns). Basically it requires you live your life in the privacy of your own home and not disturb your neighbours...so when the neighbours complain that the gay couple are having sex in their own house...local government kicks door in.
You're not allowed to preach politics from the pulpit.
You have to declare yourself a 501C3 and THEN bolt a pulpet onto your politics. Thank you Citizens united.
That's only needed if your donors expect their contributions to be tax deductible. If you're not going for a 501C you can preach all the politics you want, even as far as to say Vote for John Smith because he'll keep those *blank* in their place!
The only place where 501Cs matter is the tax deductibility of the contributions you collect.
Also, Citizen's United concerns 501(c)(4), not 501(c)(3).
A 501(c)(3) is prohibited fairly strongly from engaging in anything that looks like politics. They are prohibited from engaging even indirectly in elections. For example, they cannot publicly support or oppose a candidate.
A 501(c)(4) is allowed to promote "social welfare". They are allowed to participate in politics as long as the focus is on "social welfare" or however that group defines the term. They can be opposed to a candidate as long as it's "issue" based.
Contributions to 501(c)(4)'s is not normally tax deductible (a few exceptions exist).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last page of that is interesting. Even though it can be used to protect everyone from discrimination it can be used to shut down monocultural clubs, organizations and meetings...so the Klan is holding a meeting...bam. Gay pride march...bam. Sex orgy in your house with twenty other people...bam. African American dressed like gangbangers walking down street...bam (though hopefuly not with guns). Basically it requires you live your life in the privacy of your own home and not disturb your neighbours...so when the neighbours complain that the gay couple are having sex in their own house...local government kicks door in.The Subpoena so people can read it themselves, and HERO
In my opinion the subpoena is way, and a very big way, too broad. If I were the Pastor and inclined not to fight the subpoena, I would send every piece of paper, book, document, etc. that I or the Church owned and demand a receipt documenting everything. Why exactly do they need his resume?
I do not condone the use of a church for political purposes, but neither do I condone the use of Political power to go after an opponent.
PS: I should add that I support the idea behind the ordinance, but not the tactics of either side.
Gay pride parades aren't exclusionary. Straight people are welcome and encouraged to attend gay pride parades. They are also public events.
There's a massive difference between the KKK and a gay pride parade.
To the OP:
Theyoungturks on Youtube covered the news in a pretty balanced way. Looked for the clip on their channel for 10 or 15 min, but not finding it.
I just wish that both sides, allies and haters, could see each other as being just as much real people as themselves. Seems each side sees the other side as more orc than human half the time.
What I find interesting is that people are still talking about the "bathroom clause." That was removed from the Ordinance before it was passed. Everyone screaming about men in womens bathrooms, and that is NOT part of the Ordinance.
What I find interesting is that people are still talking about the "bathroom clause." That was removed from the Ordinance before it was passed. Everyone screaming about men in womens bathrooms, and that is NOT part of the Ordinance.
"Men in women's bathrooms" were never part of the ordinance.
What I find interesting is that people are still talking about the "bathroom clause." That was removed from the Ordinance before it was passed. Everyone screaming about men in womens bathrooms, and that is NOT part of the Ordinance."Men in women's bathrooms" were never part of the ordinance.
The original Ordinance required that ANYONE claiming to be TG, whether they were or not be allowed to use whichever bathroom they wanted. Now, whether or not a man would use that to go into a women's bathroom or not is up for debate. But that clause was removed before the Ordinance was passed, yet people are still screaming about it.
Death Panels! Born in Kenya! Secret Muslim!
Yeah, people don't ever let go of untrue stuff; this is no different.
Death panels? Can I get some of those for my house?