PEOPLE FOR BLOG

After vocal opposition from People For the American Way and others, Speaker Thom Tillis of the North Carolina House announced yesterday that a resolution stating that North Carolina has the power to declare an official religion would not be brought to a vote.  In effect, this means that the resolution has been dropped. 

The bill claimed that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment does not apply to states.  But as People For the American Way President Michael Keegan noted in a statement on Wednesday,

“There’s no question that any attempt to establish an official state religion is blatantly unconstitutional. That’s true whether it’s North Carolina or the federal government.”

The proposal highlighted the extremes that Tea Party Republican lawmakers are willing to go to in order to push their dangerous ideology – even when it means ignoring core principles on which our nation was founded, such as religious liberty and the separation of church and state.  

UPDATE (4/8/13): North Carolina Representative Harry Warren, one of the sponsors of the resolution, has now publicly stated that he “regret[s] any embarrassment or concern that it has caused the citizens of Rowan County and North Carolina,” calling the resolution “poorly written.”  Warren’s explanation is, however, still problematic.  He says he wanted a resolution that county officials have the right, despite the Establishment Clause, to open their proceedings with specifically Christian prayers.  That, of course, flies against the Constitution. 
 

We finally have news on the investigation of Judge Richard Cebull of Montana: He is retiring.

Judge Cebull, you may recall, sent a disgustingly racist e-mail about President Obama to his friends, then explained that he did so because he doesn't like the president. Racism and openly expressed partisanship are toxic to the idea of a fair and just federal court system, which relies on having trustworthy, unbiased judges, which is why PFAW called on him to resign more than a year ago. Instead, he remained on the bench, continuing to hear cases. Two weeks ago, he took senior status, meaning he would continue to hear cases, but in a semi-retired status allowing him to have a lower caseload.

It turns out that something interesting happened on Cebull's last day as an active judge, March 15. Yesterday, after a year-long investigation, the Ninth Circuit announced:

Judge Cebull's [March 2012] self-filed complaint and another were referred to a Special Committee which conducted a thorough and extensive investigation, interviewed numerous witnesses, considered voluminous documentation, including emails, and conducted an interview with Judge Cebull. The Special Committee's Report was submitted to the Judicial Council in December 2012. On March 15, 2013 the Judicial Council issued an Order and Memorandum. Judicial Conduct Rule 20(f). Pursuant to Judicial Conduct Rules 22 and 24(a), the Order and Memorandum remains confidential during the appeal period.

At this time, Judge Cebull has submitted his retirement letter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 371(a), effective May 3, 2013. The Council will have no further statement on this matter until Judge Cebull's retirement is effective.

We don't know yet what the March 15 letter said, since it remains confidential until the end of the appeal period, which, according to SFGate, is 63 days (which would be May 17). But we do know that mere days into his senior status, Judge Cebull has decided to stop hearing cases altogether, effective two weeks before the complaint becomes final and public.

So before the appeal period ends, Judge Cebull will be off the bench. That will eliminate the power of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to discipline him. In fact, the Council will likely be forced to replace the March order with a dismissal. As it stated in 1986:

[C]omplaints [against former judges] have been routinely dismissed. Such conduct can no longer prejudice the effective administration of the courts by the person complained of, or the discharge by that person of all the duties of judicial office. The several remedial methods prescribed by [law] are clearly directed at preventing the recurrence of actions by that judicial officer that might impair the administration of justice. When the subject of the complaint is no longer a judicial officer, he is beyond the reach of these procedures and the remedies they prescribe.

Judge Cebull should have resigned more than a year ago. Perhaps the discipline he was faced with was so great that he realized he had no choice but to resign. If the case is dismissed as moot because he has retired, we may never know what that March 15 order said. But we can guess. And other federal judges should understand that conduct such as Judge Cebull's is unacceptable.

My morning routine yesterday wasn’t very remarkable. The alarm went off with its standard annoying noise, my shower was cold (as is usual in a house of 16 interns fighting for precious little warm water), and breakfast was unquestionably mediocre. But just a block away from my bowl of cereal and skim milk, I knew that in an ornate chamber nine individuals would be considering something truly historic.

Growing up gay in a small, conservative town in southeast Texas, I oftentimes felt disconnected from the issues and events of the wider world. For as long as I can remember, I have had the drive to know, to understand, and to be a part of something much larger than my small beginnings. The cases before the Supreme Court are a perfect example of this. Marriage equality is something that not only affects me personally, but is regarded as one of the defining civil rights issues of my generation. Being in DC during this event was truly a stroke of good fortune and I couldn’t pass on the opportunity to be a part of history.

I headed to the steps of the Supreme Court, foolishly thinking that no one would be in line at such an early hour of the morning. How wrong I was. Spanning the length of the sidewalk were some 200+ people waiting for one of the coveted seats in the Supreme Court chamber. My chance of being a part of history, it seemed, looked uncertain. As I worked my way to the end of the line, one woman in the crowd turned to me and said “Don’t get your hopes up for getting a seat.” Luckily, I’m not used to taking advice from strangers, so I soldiered on. At the end of the line, an older lesbian couple from Ohio greeted me and chided my decision not to bring a jacket. Being from Texas, I’m not used to needing any sort of warm clothing in the month of March. Guess I still have a lot to learn about living in DC.

The first 60 or 70 individuals in line, I was told, would be able to sit through the entirety of the oral arguments. The rest of us who were lucky enough to receive a ticket would be rotated into the back portion of the audience seating. After what seemed like ages in the cold and wind, I managed to reach the front of the line and secure a ticket to sit and listen to a brief three-minute portion of the oral arguments in United States v. Windsor. Better to witness a small part of history than none at all!

After securing all of my belongings into a locker inside the building, we were placed in another line to await our seating assignments. The nervous excitement and uncertainty from the crowd was palpable. For myself and for others in the line, this case, challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), had the potential to make a real and lasting influence on our lives. How often do you get the chance to witness your own future in the making?

Luckily, I was given a great seat that had an unobstructed view of the proceedings. During the three minutes I was in the room, Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA on behalf of the so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, was being questioned by Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg, both of whom seemed critical of DOMA’s constitutionality. Commentators and legal analysts have all pointed to Justice Kennedy as the deciding swing vote on the DOMA case, and I couldn’t help but focus on him during much of my preciously brief time in the room. It’s an odd feeling, looking into the face of someone who has the power to make such a difference in your life. As I looked at him and the other justices, I wondered if they knew how much was riding on the case before them. How many future “I do”s would continue to be treated as second-class? Justice Ginsburg summed up current law in a humorous and relevant way: "There are two kinds of marriage: full marriage and the skim-milk marriage."As you can probably tell, I’m not a fan of skim milk in my marriage or my breakfast cereal. I, and millions of other LGBT Americans including Edie Windsor, don’t want watered down rights. I left the courtroom hopeful that at least five of those nine justices would see that this is no different from the “separate but equal” arguments of the past.

As DOMA and Proposition 8 begin to fade back into the recesses of the American public’s attention, I continue to remind myself that legal recognition for same-sex couples is just one piece in the enormous puzzle for equality. While TIME Magazine’s newest cover declares "Gay Marriage Already Won," the sad reality is that LGBT Americans continue to be treated as second-class citizens on a host of issues. Today, in 29 states (including my home state of Texas), you can be legally fired from your job just for living your life openly gay. In 34 states, you can be fired for your gender identity. And for thousands of binational same-sex couples and undocumented LGBT immigrants, the threat of deportation remains a daily source of fear and isolation. These issues may not get the media coverage or viral appeal that marriage equality does, but they nonetheless affect the lives and livelihoods of our friends, families, and neighbors in real ways. Let’s not forget that.

The road to “a more perfect union” will be a long and difficult one. But no matter what happens, I will hold these words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. close to my heart: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” I’m doing my best to make sure that becomes reality sooner rather than later.

People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch has been closely following the Right Wing’s reaction to this week’s marriage equality arguments at the Supreme Court – which ranges from awkward homophobic discussions to outright threats of revolution.

Last night, our director of communications, Drew Courtney, went on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton to discuss the Right’s reaction to the marriage cases. Watch it here:
 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, director of African American Religious Affairs at People For the American Way, delivered the following remarks to those supporting marriage equality in front of the Supreme Court today.

I greet you as one who is humbled to stand before you on this day that will be like none other and say celebrate, be glad in it, and keep standing for and with Hope!

Why Hope? As the Director of African American Religious Affairs of People For the American Way, Hope tells us DOMA will not stand but like Goliath, will fall.

Hope says same gender couples, in committed relationships will be recognized and receive those 1100 plus benefits now denied by the federal government. Hope defends what is right, Hope unites people and families, Hope stands with us and for us, and Hope is the American Way!

Why Hope? As an organizer and ally since 1996, Hope kept us waiting for this historic day. Hope gave us a process and a lesson to never take lightly judicial nominations, to make sure voter registration and mobilization is a core value, to rejoice in victories in 2012 from the proclamation from the highest officer holder in this country – President Obama - to 4 states making it 9 states total passing pro-Marriage Equality laws, and that our work in the states is not done.  Hope hasn’t just strengthened those who have always believed in marriage equality. It’s brought others to reconsider their opposition and join us on the side of justice for all. Hope is why we have so many other new and welcomed allies for equality.

Why Hope? As a Christian, during this Holy Week, from our sacred text “hope that is seen is not hope”, so you have had and must hold on with unwavering confidence that help has arrived, is sitting in between the walls of the highest court of this nation, and speaking into existence freedom that will no longer be denied.

And finally, why Hope? As an African American woman, on behalf of the Equal Justice Task Force of African American Ministers In Action, Hope says the enemy is a liar when they say African Americans and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are two separate - even hostile – communities, for “no weapon shall be forged against us” and no wedge can be driven between those who know oppression, discrimination, denial of basic civil and human rights.  Hope connects the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement, the yesterday to today, the hopeful to the hopeless.

So Beloved, stay in Hope! Stay in Hope I say for if the Justices are about the business of justice, then they will speak against hate, division, intolerance, and barriers to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Stay in Hope for my sacred text tells us what “man meant for harm, God intends for good”.

In this pivotal moment in our country's history, we must stand on the side of compassion and equality rather than on the side of oppression and discrimination. And that’s why we’re all out here on the steps of the Supreme Court today.

I leave you with these words, stay in Hope because it was the late Senator Ted Kennedy who said, and prayerfully he won’t mind me playing with it a little bit, “ For all those whose dreams have been our concern (to defeat all forms of discrimination), the work goes on (we are not going to stop trying until gay and lesbian Americans across the country have full legal equality), the cause endures (freedom to be, freedom to love, just freedom), the hope still lives ( I say again hope still lives), and the dream (for all persons to marry the person they love) shall never die.”

Be encouraged! Have faith. Expand love. Know peace. And may Hope, which is never silent, always be with you!

A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and Brookings Institution documents that broad and growing support for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for immigrants now in the country illegally, cuts across religious and political lines. Sixty-three percent of Americans, including majorities of all religious groups, agree that immigration reform should provide a path to citizenship, along with 71% of Democrats, 64% of independents, and 53% of Republicans. The survey’s unusually large size – 4,465 interviews conducted in both English and Spanish – allowed the pollsters to draw conclusions about religious and political subgroups.

In a panel discussion of the poll results in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, March 21, Brookings fellow William Galston pointed out that 58% of white working class Americans support the DREAM Act and 56% support reform that includes a path to citizenship.

Columnist and Brookings fellow E.J. Dionne noted that the “halfway” position that has been promoted by some Republicans – a legal status that falls short of citizenship – is the least popular of three options among rank-and-file Republicans – after a path to citizenship and mass deportation. Dionne noted that on immigration reform the Republican leadership has a “coalition management problem” that Democrats do not face. 

On that point, Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, said that the Tea Party represented the biggest challenge for pro-reform Republicans. Tea Party supporters were the only group expressing majority support for a “self-deportation” strategy.   Among Republicans, 57% of evangelicals not associated with the Tea Party support a path to citizenship. Among non-evangelical Tea Party members, support for a path to citizenship is 46%; support drops to 44% among Republicans who are white evangelicals and Tea Party members. Jones said this “Teavangelicals” group constitutes about 10 percent of the Republican rank-and-file; in contrast, Republicans who are neither Tea Partiers or evangelicals make up nearly half of those who consider themselves Republicans and 54% of them support a path to citizenship.

This morning, People For the American Way’s YEO Action, joined by 42 young elected officials from 20 states, sent a letter to congressional leaders urging them to adopt common-sense gun violence prevention reforms.  Daniel Hernandez, one of the signers of the letter and a member of our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation's Young Elected Officials Network, introduced the letter last night on the Ed Show. Daniel is one of the thousands of Americans who have been personally affected by gun violence: he was credited with saving then-congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ life after a 2011 mass shooting.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The letter urges members of Congress to consider the impact that congressional inaction on gun violence prevention has on school boards and state and local governments.  “No child should fear going to school in the morning, no parent should fear a trip to the grocery store, and no teenagers should fear walking the streets of their own neighborhood,” the letter says. “That fear, fed by a lawless market in deadly weapons, erodes our efforts to create strong schools, safe neighborhoods and healthy local economies.”

You can read the full letter here.