“Why I do it” — An Erotic Documentarian’s Viewpoint

by Tony Comstock
Special Guest to the Legal Satyricon

In a world that seems awash in sexualized imagery, why is it that so little of this imagery speaks to the common pleasurable reality of sex? We’ve been producing the “Real People, Real Life, Real Sex” erotic documentary series for some time now, and I’ve heard the same kinds of questions dozens, perhaps even hundreds of times from people who know and love our work, from therapists and counselors, from people in pain about their sexuality, and from people enjoying their sexuality as part of full and wholesome lives. Over and over, I am asked, “Why are films like ours, films that depict sex in a way that is joyous and cinematic, almost nonexistent?” “Why are art films that contain explicit sex always so downbeat?” “Why does pornography look and feel so different from the other sorts of visual images we see?” “How does what we do — and do not — see in cinema affect our understanding of our own sexuality?”

I’d like to say the answer is that I have a special insight into the human sexual condition as it relates to cinema, but it’s a little more complicated than that. To truly understand why sex on film looks the way it does, one needs to look at the history of sexual imagery in cinema, the history of obscenity laws, and the business and technology of image making. Once you have that background, you can explore how cinematic images actually work, and how that relates to cinematic depictions of sexuality. I have spent many years investigating that background, and the more I learn, the more I am driven to make the films that we produce.

I have been a photographer my entire adult life. I believe passionately in the power of the moving image to help us understand who we are as human beings. I’ve documented unspeakable suffering, violence, and death. For that, I’ve been called a courageous witness.

In bearing witness to sex, I sometimes get called other, less charitable names. Sometimes this hurts my feelings. Sometimes it makes me feel like quitting.

I bear witness to the sex act because I believe that depictions of truly joyous and wholesome sex — depictions that represent the overwhelmingly positive and important role that our sexuality plays in our humanity — are all but absent from the cinematic landscape. Moreover, in an age where it is easier than ever to see sexually explicit imagery, it is harder than ever to find imagery that reflects the common reality of sex: that sex is nice; that sex is normal; that sex is good.

I’d like to share a comment left on my blog about three years ago. As you might imagine, doing this work and demanding that it be taken seriously can sometimes be a struggle. But when I despair, I go back and read this:

I have issues with sex. I’m a sexual abuse survivor. Anyone who’s been sexually abused comes into sexuality with a handbag and two trunks of emotional baggage.

When we were trying to conceive there was a blatant point to having sex: having a baby. That made it okay. After all, society couldn’t look down it’s nose at a married couple — young, still facing fertility problems, trying to have a child.

And then when the child is born, you get the excuse of body recuperation. And if your child is sick, you get a bonus 6 month reprieve. However, there does come a point where sexuality, motherhood, couplehood, and life clash. I’m tired. Sex requires energy. So does doing the dishes. But sex requires an emotional investment, something I’m not ready to make, something I feel inferior making. So the dishes it is. And laundry for good character.

I feel conflicted by sexual imagery. I sometimes like what I see. I sometimes like it a lot. But sometimes it scares me. I’m not pretty like Eva Longoria. I’m not thin or have shiny hair. I don’t have nice breasts. Mine are saggy and droopy and currently nourish the body of a very rotund 9 month old. They serve a purpose, and purposeful breasts aren’t sexy — to me anyway. And besides, they don’t LOOK like the breasts I see on TV. Perfect, sculpted breasts. Breasts that boys like. And bodies. Don’t get me started on the bodies.

What we see isn’t real. It’s said over and over. I know there are 50 people off-set creating the magic. What they’re feeling isn’t real. What they’re doing isn’t real. And it makes me wonder if what I’m doing is okay. Emotionally un-investing myself in my relationship. Because really, I can’t ask family about sex. I can’t ring my mother-in-law up and ask her if she ever felt this way when looking at her naked body. Or ask her if she felt hung up on emotional issues when her husband’s hand touched her bottom.

Abuse survivors bring guilt into the game as well. Not only do we have more bodily hang-ups, failed relationships and mental problems, but we have guilt about sexuality. About wanting sex. About feeling GOOD about sex.

Today though, something struck me in just in the right spot. I had one of Oprah’s famed “a-ha” moments. A link took me to www.comstockfilms.com. Dubbed: “Real People, Real Life, Real Sex” the site explores sexuality for real. In a documentary style, we meet and enjoy the couple and then venture into the velvety movement of their bodies.

I must say. I was stunned. I’m not a fan of porn. I am disgusted by a lot of what is sold to men. The fairytale behind that isn’t charming, in my opinion. But watching these clips I thought, wow. Oh my goodness. So THIS is sex. For real. And I loved the charming banter of the couples. I feel grown up right now. Like a real adult. I’ve confronted one of my demons — enjoying a sexual experience — and I can actively admit that I enjoyed it. Which is probably a lot more information that you’ve wanted to hear from the mother of a child who doesn’t do a lot of sleeping. If you’ve got the time and the inclination I encourage you to take a step into the realm of Comstock films. It’s the first step I’ve taken to embracing that humans are allowed to be sexual beings. – Jen P.

---

Award-winning filmmaker Tony Comstock frequently lectures on the legal and business realities that shape and too often warp the sexual imagery we see. Drawing on examples from Hollywood’s history of self-censorship, landmark obscenity cases, and the collision of technology and image-making, Comstock offers an expanded framework for understanding of how what we do and do not see in cinema effects our understanding of our own sexuality.

James Corbett Speaks

James Corbett

Last week, I published a piece on C.F. v. Capistrano School District. In that case, a federal judge ruled that when schoolteacher James Corbett referred to another teacher’s assignment asking students to provide scientific support for c reationism as “superstitious nonsense,” he violated student Chad Farnan’s First Amendment rights.

Mr. Corbett has graciously agreed to appear as a guest blogger, and provided us with his editorial on the case, published below.

By JAMES CORBETT

Over 2,000 years ago Socrates faced a court for refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, importing strange divinities and corrupting the young. The judges sent Socrates to his death. He accepted the sentence of the court and committed suicide by drinking a cup of hemlock.

The only virtue for Socrates was “knowledge.” He reached it by questioning the most deeply held beliefs of his students by which I mean all of Athens and ultimately all of us. What troubled the Athenians about Socrates, however, was not listed in the charges. His crime was that he prompted people to think.

His provocations exposed the Athenians’ shallowness of belief and mindless deference to myth. Socrates was judged because he was successful in provoking his students “examine their lives.” [his words]Those who guard the myths must try and strike down any who teach young people to think and question, because myths often shrink in the light of reason, draining power from those in authority who benefit from belief.

There are thousands of teachers who agree with Socrates that, “[t]he unexamined life is not worth living.” Every teacher who makes a student think takes the risk that he will be attacked by parents and others who see themselves as guardians of cherished political and religious myth. The teachers willing to take that risk should be rewarded, not punished. After the verdict, the Athenian court asked Socrates what his punishment should be. He responded that he should get free meals at the Pyrataneum, a celebration hall for Olympian athletes. Socrates went on to explain that those who passed judgment were not harming him, but rather themselves. He said, by killing him they corrupted their own souls and revealed the weakness of their own belief. A true believer does not fear that a few questions can undo years of parental teaching. Those who would “protect” students from self-examination have little faith and great fear.

Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was an average student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. If Chad’s lawyers, the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn’t they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farmans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farmans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:

“Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the ‘lessons’ of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.”

I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one.

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Challenging myths is dangerous, but it is the essence of getting students to think for themselves. The Athenian judges, like some parents today, would have students accept myth without question, because myth is the foundation of their parental, political and/or religious authority. Ms. Farnan objected to my challenging the myth of the Puritans as a pious people who fled religious intolerance to found America. As Ms. Farnan sees them, the Puritans are quaint, pious people with buckles on their hats and shoes as portrayed in the national mythology, but they may also be seen as intolerant, misogynistic and homophobic religious bigots who hanged Mary Dyer, a Quaker girl, for preaching something other than Puritan doctrine and several other women for the crime of “witchcraft.”

Questioning may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not “bullying” to demand that students think.

Ms. Farnan also objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the United States was founded as a “Christian” nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan’s faith: “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt with his view would be called “Christian” by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and units it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers.

We respect the guardians and their myths at our peril because history (and science) changes and improves with knowledge, but the same force damages myth based on belief. That’s why the guardians fear the knowledge begat by questioning. For them, “knowledge” is gained in rote memory of approved truth. They chant in the school, temple, church or mosque and fool themselves into thinking they’ve acquired knowledge.

All those teachers, and there are many of us, who understand the value of questioning sacred myths serve this nation as faithfully as other patriots. What is true will be strengthened. What is false will be destroyed, as it should be. Such teachers should be honored. There is no greater gift teachers can give to students than to teach them to think. Don’t sue them for it. Try taking them to the Pyrataneum for dinner, conversation and a cup of coffee, no hemlock.

Anti-Creationism Statement By Teacher Violates First Amendment

Sometimes the rational must suck the Lemon too.

The Central District of California held that when schoolteacher James C. Corbett made an in-class statement that creationism is “superstitious nonsense,” he violated the Establishment Clause. However, it isn’t as simple, nor as outrageous, as it sounds.

Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.” (Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. (Op. at 15)

However, the Judge reviewed a number of the teachers’ statements, all of which were critical of creationism and religion, and held that the rest of his statements were permissible. For example:

Aristotle was a physicist. He said, ‘no movement without movers.’ And he argued that, you know there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense. I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all of this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.

[T]he other possibility is it’s always been here. Those are the two possibilities: it [the universe] was created out of nothing or it’s always been here. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. [Inaudible] the spaghetti monster behind the moon. I mean, all I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.

Therefore, no creation, unless you invoke magic. Science doesn’t invoke magic. If we can’t explain something, we do not uphold that position. It’s not, ooh, then magic. That’s not the way we work.

Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense. (Op. at 27)

The judge held that the primary effect of these statements was to illustrate a contrast between scientific reasoning and religious faith. Although a statement might be offensive to one religious set of beliefs, that does not make it unconstitutional.

[I]n Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 89 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools and in colleges and universities, finding that the statutes violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the statutes were unconstitutional even if they merely prohibited teachers from stating that the theory of evolution is true. Id. at 102-03. This was so even though the theory was contrary “to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man.” Id. at 107. The Court found that “[t]here is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” Id. at 106 (emphasis supplied). The Court also noted that “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.” Id. at 107 (citing Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952)). (Op. at 8)

Accordingly, only one of Corbett’s statements was found to run afoul of the three-part test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

1. The government action must have a secular purpose;
2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3. The government action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Permissible conduct must satisfy all three requirements. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987); Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1396-97 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, even under this stringent test, most of Corbett’s statements successfully ran the Lemon gauntlet.

Change we can all believe in…

by Jason Fischer

Obama plans National Day of Prayer proclamation, not event… Aaaaah! Not an event? That TOTALLY makes it different.

Obama Art Unveiling Suppressed

by Jason Fischer

Artist Michael D’Antuono was scheduled to publicly unveil his painting (pictured below) in New York’s Union Square Park this morning, to commemorate Obama’s 100th day in office. However, due to “thousands of emails and phone calls; online blogs and other public commentary received in the first 48 hours following its release”, the event was canceled. (source)

Should this speech be suppressed? What do you think?

Here we go again, Flori-duh proselytizing with our license plates

Rhonda Storms, as bat-shit crazy as she looks

Our favorite Anita Bryant wanna be, Rhonda Storms (R-Valrico) teamed up with the least intelligent member of the Flori-duh Senate Gary Siplin (D-Orlando) to each pass their own version of a bill to fund Christian-themed license plates for America’s Wang.

Siplin didn’t mince words when asked what his “Trinity” plate looks like, saying, “It has a picture of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.” It, along with a “Preserving the Past” plate offered by Siplin, would benefit the Toomey Foundation for the Natural Sciences.

Storms’ “I Believe” plate would benefit Faith in Teaching, an Orlando company that funds faith-based programs at schools. Its design features a cross over a stained-glass window. (source)

At least Siplin’s plate would fund an organization that seems to be willing to accept the fact that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Storms, not so much.

Gary Siplin,
Incompetent, stupid,
and a state senator. Made in Flori-duh

Neither of them seem to have consulted with even a middling lawyer before pushing their little agendas. Last year, a federal judge blocked South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plates. See Summers v. Adams, 3:08-2265-CMC (D.S.C. 2008). Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

In tossing out South Carolina’s “I Believe” tag, the United States District Court relied upon the three-part test laid out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under that test, a government action must meet all three of the following requirements in order to conform with the Establishment Clause.

1. The action must have a secular purpose
2. The action must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
3. The action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

The judge determined:

Based on the record now before the court, the court finds it unlikely that the “I Believe Act” satisfies even one of these requirements. As the Act must satisfy all three requirements to survive constitutional scrutiny, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits as to their Establishment Clause Claim. (Op. at 4).

If you're sick of being a punch line, stop electing idiots!

Neither Siplin’s nor Storms’ initiatives seem like they would be able to survive the Lemon test either. But, don’t expect either of them to start respecting the Constitution any time soon. While legislators place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, Storms and Siplin both think they did just the opposite.

One of these two clowns should be named “Asshat of the Flori-duh Senate.” I can’t decide which should be the winner, and which should be the first runner up.

Go Google each of them and vote. Feel free to lobby for your position in the comments.

Iowa Idiot Calls for “Executive Order” Staying State Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage

Bob Vander Plaats on the campaign trail

This is a new “tactic” by the American Taliban.

In Iowa, Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican candidate for governor has issued a statement that demands that Iowa’s current governor “immediately intervene” to set aside the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling that the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that marriage be offered to all Iowans.

“I don’t want to wait two years,” said Vander Plaats. “I want this governor to issue an executive order that says there will be a stay on all same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa have the right to vote. If I were governor today, I would issue that executive order immediately.” (source)

And if I were a leprechaun, I’d shit gold nuggets and piss Guinness beer.

In the next election, when the people of Iowa are considering their choice for governor, I hope that they will remember Vander Plaats’ stupidity and his bush-like misunderstanding of what the executive can do. The governor doesn’t get to issue “executive orders” that overturn supreme court decisions.

H/T: Brian B. Vakulskas

Mathew Staver: Free Lunch Crybaby

I don't want no commies in my car... No Christians either!

Blue Ollie writes about how the Palinite Front is reacting to the fact that gays and lesbians are being granted first-class citizen status in many states.

The moronic right wing is feeling that it’s liberties are being infringed upon. Funny, but the right wing seems to equate “liberty” with “we want to be able to control YOUR personal life”. (source)

Ollie directs us down a link trail that leads us to this article in The Baptist Press: ‘Gay marriage’ colliding with parental rights, religious liberty around the country.

My thought, just upon reading the headline, is that this proves how abjectly weak their ‘religion’ truly must be. If two guys getting married and fucking each other up the ass on their wedding night ‘collides’ with the ‘liberty’ of anyone whose prostate gland isn’t directly involved, then the ‘collision’ ‘victim’ has some deep psychological problems. The author trots out the usual asshats, including asshat extraordinaire, Matthew Staver — who unwittingly tells us what this is really all about.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty legal organization, told BP. “Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values…. People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today — bar none.” (source)

Wow… his ‘religious’ beliefs are so strong, yet a couple of people loving each other is in direct confrontation with his supposed ‘religion.’ Oh wait, we were going to find out from Matty boy what this was really about. Lets let him continue talking out his sphincter.

“That’s the agenda. It’s always been the agenda,” Staver said. “There is no question that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, that churches eventually will have their tax-exempt status threatened — no question whatsoever. If churches today discriminate against race, they would not be able to have tax-exempt status today. If churches discriminate on the basis of same-sex marriage — if it became legal — then same-sex marriage becomes the equivalent of race, and churches would not be able to have tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”(source) (emphasis added)

In other words, he’s worried that the public will no longer have to subsidize superstition-based businesses. Same old shit with the christianists. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with their magic space ghost. It is all about money and power. Isn’t it awfully funny that the same people who will rail the loudest against socialism are its prime beneficiaries?

I don’t see why churches (or anyone else) should be forced to be non-discriminatory. If you want to run a religion based on racism, sexism, or homophobia, then so be it. If you want to run a religion based on equality, so be it. But it does piss me off that my property tax bill is higher every time I see a sign pounded into the ground announcing the future home of some ‘church.’

I challenge the ‘religious’ who feel so ‘persecuted’ by worrying about losing their tax-exempt status to solve the problem once and for all. Simply tell the government that they don’t WANT tax-exempt status. Then Staver’s bullshit ‘religion’ can discriminate against anyone they want, they can tell people how to vote (as if they don’t already), and when the tax bill comes due, ask the congregation to dip into its wallets. Let the marketplace decide whether a petty little cult can continue to survive. Surely even the most destitute members of the poorest congregation have a few bucks to keep a roof over the pastor’s head.

And if the congregation can’t, or won’t, tithe enough to keep the property tax bill paid? Then auction the place off as if it were any other piece of property. If the members of the church can’t muster up the favor of the Almighty, or put on a benefit concert, or whatever the rest of us have to do in order to pay our taxes, then why the hell should I have to subsidize it?

If the ‘religious’ will agree that my favorite sports bar should receive tax exempt status, then I’ll agree that their little house of lies should have the same. Until then, they should stop being a bunch crybabies whenever they are afraid that that the free ride might be over. It ought to be over, and if they think the free ride comes with too dear of a price tag, then they should reject the subsidy. Then I don’t have to pay higher taxes and they don’t have to treat fellow citizens with any degree of decency.

BIGOTS TAKE ONE ON THE CHIN: IOWA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT “EQUAL PROTECTION” APPLIES TO EVERYONE – GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IN IOWA

“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

-motto on the Iowa State Flag

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in Varnum v. Brien that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is a violation of the Iowa Equal Protection Clause.

I have highlighted the case a little. We will provide some more analysis later, but I wanted to get the case posted as quickly as possible.

This opinion is absolute constitutional poetry. If it doesn’t make you well up with a few tears, you don’t really love the Constitution.

The process of defining equal protection, as shown by our history as captured and told in court decisions, begins by classifying people into groups. A classification persists until a new understanding of equal protection is achieved. The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, The Path of the Law, address dedicating new hall at Boston University School of Law (January 8, 1897), in 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 469 (1897). This concept is evident in our past cases.

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1 (Iowa 1839), we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. 1 Morris at 9. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1856), which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868), and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873), we struck blows
to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a
woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Admission of Women to the Bar, 1 Chicago Law Times 76, 76 (1887). Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’
decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 139, 21 L. Ed. 442, 445 (1873), and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the
Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, see Ex parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 118, 14 S. Ct. 1082, 1083, 38 L. Ed. 929, 930 (1894). In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the
road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.”4 See Coger, 37 Iowa at 153.

…

This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage? (Op. at 16-18)

It can’t. Welcome to first-class citizen status!

The best part, I think, is that the Iowa Supreme Court finally expresses what many have said all along — that religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things — and one has nothing to do with the other.

A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires. (Op. at 66-67)

In the Establishment Clause We Trust: St. John’s County, Flori-duh, Tries to Indoctrinate Students – Gets Sued

Flori-duh, where they try to 'save' our children by robbing them of soul

In Saint John’s County, Flori-duh, the Webster Elementary School didn’t get the memo that public schools aren’t supposed to act as religious indoctrination centers. Accordingly, the school planned to use the Diamond Rio song, In God We Still Trust, in its end of the year assembly — requiring students to rehearse the blatantly religious lyrics.

The school did offer an option to students who didn’t want to participate:

The suit alleged the Webster School teachers in charge of the assembly — Dawn Caronna and Debbie Moore, who along with the district and Principal George Leidigh were named as defendants — told students March 11 if any of them objected to singing “In God We Still Trust,” they wouldn’t have to do so. But if they didn’t wish to practice that song they would be excluded from the entire performance. (source)

This kind of a “choice,” hasn’t fared well in the courts in the past. In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court confronted a situation in which religious leaders were asked to give a benediction at a middle school graduation ceremony. The middle school made the same argument, that anyone who didn’t wish to attend would not be required to attend. However, the court held:

To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary,” for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years.” Weisman at 595.

When it comes to elementary school students, there is a heightened concern that religious exercises, under the color of official state or school-sponsored action, are particularly coercive in nature. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583-84 (1987) (“The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.”).

As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Lee v. Weisman at 592.

Parents of two of the students filed this complaint in the Middle District of Florida. Additionally, the parents are seeking a preliminary injunction against further school-sponsored proselytizing. The county’s response is here.

My bigger question is this: Why is it that these teachers decided to use such a bunch of no-talent peckerwood ass-clowns’ music for their brainwashing session? I’m very uncomfortable with in-school proselytizing. However, if it must be done, MUST it also be done in a way that completely robs our children of soul? If I were a high school teacher, I might have the kids sing something religiously based too, but for frick’s sake, Diamond Rio?

THIS is what good religious music sounds like. And if my daughter came home from school singing this, I’d just think her music teacher was wicked cool.

How to Respond to a Creationist’s Invitation to “Debate”

BlueOllie tips us off to a post by PZ Myers at Pharyngula about a dust up between Professor Nicholas Gotelli and the buffoons at the Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute’s David Klinghoffer, a winner of the lifetime asshat award wrote this letter to Professor Gotelli:

Dear Professor Gotelli,

I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.

I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.

A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”

On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.

Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?

With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute

Gotelli’s response:

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.

The government has speech rights too.

What? You don't want *this* guy's monument in your park?

by Jason Fischer

The United States Supreme Court this week announced that a city’s government has a right to decide which donated monuments to display on municipal property (source). Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, said that placement of a permanent marker on public grounds represents a type of government speech. As such, the government gets to pick the message.

The dispute began when a member of the Summum religion (which adopts Egyptian customs, such as mummification, with elements of Gnostic Christianity that teach spiritual knowledge is experiential) proposed that a monument to their “Seven Aphorisms” should be placed alongside an existing “Ten Commandments” monument. The city declined to accept the “donation,” and the “donor” sued, asserting a violation of their free speech rights. The Tenth Circuit agreed, and the dispute made it all the way to the High Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s reasoning, which asserted that placing a monument in a public park was analogous to making a speech in an open forum. Alito states that the display of a permanent monument is not the same as a transitory expressive act, such as giving a speech or staging a protest.

He went on to explain what might happen if municipalities were forced to put up every proposed statue, in the name of “equal” treatment:

“Every jurisdiction that has accepted a donated war memorial may be asked to provide equal treatment for a donated monument questioning the cause for which the veterans fought. New York City, having accepted a donated statue of one heroic dog (Balto, the sled dog who brought medicine to Nome, Alaska, during a diphtheria epidemic) may be pressed to accept monuments for other dogs who are claimed to be equally worthy of commemoration.”

You can find the full text of the opinion here.

Pennsylvania Says No to Hell

Apparently that Highway doesn't run through Pennsylvania

George Kalman, a Pennsylvania filmmaker and the owner of “I choose hell productions” filed suit against the state for rejecting his chosen business name. Apparently Pennsylvania law prohibits business names that “constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.”

I guess Obama was right about those bitter Pennsyltuckians who cling to their guns and religion. They might want to take a look at the First Amendment there in Harrisburg. They are about to get their asses handed to them.

Of course, the USPTO still clings steadfastly to the rule that “immoral and scandalous” trademarks can’t be registered.

I may write more about this if the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s PACER system ever comes back online. If anyone out there finds a copy of the complaint, I’d love to see it.

Short Url: http://bit.ly/NNAFv

---

Technorati :  First Amendment, church and state

Dixie County Courthouse

This display is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit, but a whole lot of nothing has occurred in the case so far. The last event of any note was an order denying the County’s claim that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit.

What do you think? Establishment clause violation, or not?

Photos courtesy of the ACLU of Florida.

Feel His Noodly Appendage!