You'd think the Religious Right might be starting to get the message. In case after case over these last few months, Federal Courts have ruled against the right to discriminate because of sexual orientation.
Still they keep on trying to push for the right to be homophobic as a matter of public policy, and they continue to get slapped down. Yesterday it happened again:
Augusta State University's requirement that a graduate student read material about counseling gays and increase her exposure to that community after she objected to counseling homosexual clients was "academically legitimate," a federal court judge ruled Friday.
In these last months the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to secrecy for those signing ballot initiative petitions advancing bigotry in Washington State (8-1, Doe v Reed). They've said that membership in a student organization given student funds at a public institution could not be predicated on not being gay (5-4, Christian Legal Society v Hastings). In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional (Gill), and just weeks ago Federal District Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8, denying equal marriage rights to Californians, was unconstitutional (Perry v. Schwarzenegger).
How did this latest decision come to be?
((Jennifer)) Keeton filed a lawsuit against the school in July, alleging the requirement was viewpoint discrimination and a violation of her First Amendment rights...
Professors ((had)) asked Keeton to complete the remediation plan after she said she opposed homosexuality and would tell gay clients "their behavior is morally wrong and then help the client change that behavior," according to an affidavit filed in the case.
U.S. District Judge Randal Hall's decision enables university officials to expel Jennifer Keeton if she does not follow the remediation plan...
Augusta State University's requirement... was "academically legitimate," a federal court judge ruled Friday...
These cases have one thing in common besides bigotry. Can you guess? Here's a hint:
She provided no evidence that ASU faculty imposed the remediation plan because they personally disagreed with her views, Hall said...
He noted that Keeton did not testify at the hearing nor present any witnesses in support of her motion.
Right!
The Proposition 8 proponents could not scrap together a shred of real evidence supporting their assertions. What testimony they did provide was sorely lacking, e.g.:
"The court now determines that Mr. Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight."
-- From Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger
The arguments by the Feds against DOMA were pathetic (as well they had to be, because all they could realistically say is that 'Congress passed it so it must be okay!'). In Doe v Reed, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was scoffing at the Petitioners' Attorneys' reasoning during oral arguments.
And here we have a case once again where no evidence was produced. No testimony was heard. As if her attorneys were relying on divine intervention instead of argument, precedent and logic. As well they might. As David Boies said so eloquently:
In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions. You've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy ... to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be crossexamined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence.
There simply isn't any evidence. Now we need five Supreme Court Justices to understand that.
Update: The decision to deny plaintiff's motion for injunction
Update: From the judge's summary:
Plaintiff has voiced disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle.' Plaintiff has stated that she condemns homosexuality based upon the Bible's teachings. Moreover, Plaintiff has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. Plaintiff also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created.
The counseling faculty became concerned that Plaintiff may not be able to separate her personal, religious-based views on sexual morality from her professional counseling duties, in violation of the ACA's Code of Ethics. The faculty further concluded that some of Plaintiff's views on sexual behavior depart from psychological research.
Update: A bit more from the decision.
The faculty also claim to have received unsolicited reports from a fellow student in the counseling program that Plaintiff "has relayed her interest in conversion therapy for [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ)] populations, and she has tried to convince other students to support and believe her views."
Update: In the comments, I convey the erroneous impression that Pope Benedict claimed for himself that the Church ruled correctly in Galileo's trial. In fact, he was citing someone else's opinion.
The Wikipedia article notes:
Ratzinger did not indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions, but he did say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views."
My apologies to the Pope. (May he rot in his own special hell anyway.)
Update: Info on this case and on a related case on Pam's House Blend