GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma Has (Finally!) Removed 10 Commandments Monument

Good news! The state of Oklahoma is no longer violating its own constitution by promoting religion (Christianity) on the state Capitol grounds. About two weeks ago, workers quietly removed the large two-ton stone monument to the Ten Commandments which has been in the news several times over the last year (October 2014, July 2015).

Slate reports:

A Ten Commandments monument planted on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol was quietly removed on Monday night, after years of quarreling over the 6-foot, 4,800-pound granite slab’s presence at the statehouse. The court-ordered relocation puts to rest the divisive issue, but perhaps only temporarily—conservative lawmakers are considering a (state) Constitutional amendment to bring the monument back. 

“Originally authorized by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2009, the privately funded monument has been a lightning rod for controversy since it was erected in 2012, prompting a lawsuit from Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister from Norman who complained it violated the state constitution,” the Associated Press reports. “The [move] comes after the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in June that the display violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support ‘any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.’" 

“Oklahoma is the latest in a string of states, cities and school districts to grapple with whether government display of the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on any ‘law respecting an establishment of religion,' or similar provisions in state constitutions,” according to the New York Times. “Courts have prohibited displays for religious purposes, while allowing those for broader cultural reasons, leading to mixed results in legal challenges.”

Here at MadProfessah.com we will keep you posted on the developments! For all of your godless heathens in Oklahoma, you can breathe easier knowing that your state government is no longer officially declaring the non-religious to be second class citizens by violating the separation of church and state.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma Refuses To Remove Religious Monument From Capitol Grounds

The saga of the status of the religious monument on the grounds of the capitol in Tulsa, Oklahoma keeps on going and going despite the fact that the state supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional.

The latest news is that the Governor has said the monument will stay in place during appeals and legislators are trying to amend the state constitution to remove the provision that the state court used to base their ruling.

Gov. Mary Fallin says the monument will remain at the Capitol while appeals and constitutional changes are considered. 

“Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case. Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue.”

Hmm, watch this space. It will be interesting to see how the Court deals with the request for rehearing. Maybe next time they will base their ruling on the U.S. constitution not the state constitution.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma's Ten Commandments Monument Violates State Constitution

The Oklahoma State Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Ten Commandments Monument at the state capitol that was previously demolished by a crazy person and then rebuilt violates the state's constitutional separation of church and state.

Friendly Atheist analyzed the decision:

The ruling is very clear about what the law says and how obviously this monument violates it:
The text of Article 2, Section 5 [of the State Constitution]…:

“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
The plain intent of Article 2, Section 5 is to ban State Government, its officials, and its subdivisions from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose. Use of the words “no,” “ever,” and “any” reflects the broad and expansive reach of the ban.…
As concerns the “historic purpose” justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

In other words, what the hell were you all thinking putting this monument up in the first place?! 

The Justices made clear that, unlike a previous Supreme Court case, this wasn’t about whether Oklahoma’s monument violated the First Amendment. It violated the state’s Constitution, and that’s all that matters.

Amusingly, both Satanists and Hindus were petitioning to have monuments also appear at the State Capitol grounds but now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has correctly ruled that religious displays on state property are unconstitutional.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma's Ten Commandments Monument Destroyed By Vandal

This news story about the destruction of a monument of the Ten Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol caught my eye. There are multiple interesting aspects of the story, in my opinion. The very first was: Oklahoma has a monument to the Ten Commandments on state property? How is that legal? The second one was, "Good for you, vandal, for ending this violation of church-state separation, although I do not approve of your methods." Third was, I wonder who did it?"

It turns out the person who did it is not a godless heathen, but a different kind of crazy person. According to KFOR:

OKLAHOMA CITY – A man has been taken in for mental evaluation after allegedly vandalizing the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol. 

U.S. Secret Service Agents say it all started after a man walked into the Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City Friday morning making strange threats against the President and Federal Government.
Agents say he then admitted to them that he crashed his car into the Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol, then left his damaged car and walked to the Federal Building.
The Secret Service says the man told them that Satan made him crash his car into the statue.
He also told agents that Satan told him to urinate on the statue.
According to investigators, the man says he is bipolar and had been off his medication for quite some time.

Interestingly the ACLU and the Satanists both condemned the man's actions, with the ACLU saying it was "outraged at this apparent act of vandalism" while the Satanic Temple says it still wants a monument next to the Ten Commandments one,"we want it to compliment and contrast the Ten Commandments, with both standing unmolested as a testament to American religious freedom and tolerance."

Wouldn't it just be easier if we followed the law and legal principle that the state shall not endorse or promote any religion by refusing to enact monuments with clear religious meanings on state property maintained by taxpayer funds? I'm jus' saying...

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Marriage Equality Appeals From 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits!

Wow! The Supreme Court today surprised almost all legal observers by refusing to hear ("called denying certiorari") appeals from five states of decisions in three federal appellate circuits that said that bans on marriage equality violated the federal constitution. The nearly immediate effect of the Supreme Court action means that the fight for marriage equality in those states (Oklahoma, Indiana, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia) is over. Once final orders are issued from the corresponding U.S. appellate circuits (which usually takes a month) same-sex couples will be able to get married in those states. Effectively, it means that as of today there are now 24 states that "have" marriage equality.

Very soon after those orders go into effect the number of states with marriage equality will include the other six states within the 4th, 7th and 10th circuits covered by the previously issued rulings in those marriage equality cases: Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Evan Wolfson Founder and President of Freedom to Marry issued the following statement:

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court leaves in force five favorable marriage rulings reached in three federal appellate courts, ensuring the freedom to marry for millions more Americans around the country. The Court’s letting stand these victories means that gay couples will soon share in the freedom to marry in 30 states, representing 60% of the American people. But we are one country, with one Constitution, and the Court’s delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places. As waves of freedom to marry litigation continue to surge, we will continue to press the urgency and make the case that America – all of America -- is ready for the freedom to marry, and the Supreme Court should finish the job.

I wonder if this surprising result is an example of the Posner effect, i.e. Judge Richard Posner's evisceration of the arguments against marriage equality in oral arguments and then eloquently in his written decision (upheld today by the Supreme Court) overturning Indiana's and Wisconsin's bans on marriage equality.

Woo hoo!

SCOTUS TO Consider 7(!) Marriage Equality Appeals On Friday September 29

There are now seven(!) marriage equality cases from four different states pending before the United States Supreme Court. On September 29th the Court will likely consider how to dispose of thousands of writs of certiorari that include appeals from the 10th Circuit (Utah and Oklahoma), the 4th Circuit (Virginia) and the 7th Circuit (Indiana and Wisconsin). There currently is no circuit split, because every appellate court decision released since last year's landmark United States v Windsor decision has resulted in a win for the cause of marriage equality.

The 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in two cases on Monday (from Nevada and Idaho) and the 6th Circuit has already heard oral arguments earlier this summer and a decision from either court could be issued at any time. It is thought likely that the Supreme Court may hold over deciding any of the pending certs until the 6th and or 9th circuits release their decisions.

However, regardless it is unlikely the Court will be able to escape resolving the fundamental question of whether marriage equality is part of the United States constitution beyond the end of the 2014-15 term which ends in June.

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Virginia's Ban On Marriage Equality!

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a February 2014 district court decision that struck down Virginia's ban on marriage equality. The ruling puts the marriage bans in four sates covered by the 4th Circuit (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia) in question. However, it is likely that there will be stay on proceedings in the Fourth Circuit until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final ruling in the case.

Just a  few weeks ago the Tenth Circuit issued rulings affirming that Utah's and Oklahoma's bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional but this did not stop the Attorney General of Colorado (the Tenth Circuit is physically housed in Denver!) from asserting that Colorado's ban on marriage equality is still intact (even though a state judge and a federal judge has struck it down).

In today's 2-1 decision from the 4th Circuit, the majority says:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest LGBT advocacy group helpfully noes that there have been nineteen consecutive ruling from federal courts affirming marriage equality since June 27, 2013 and lists the state of play in the pending federal lawsuits on marriage equality at the appellate level or higher:

Cases pending before federal appeals courts:

• DeLeon v. Perry, Texas [Argument date at the Fifth Circuit not set]

• Tanco v. Haslam, Tennessee [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Bourke vs. Beshear, Kentucky [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Obergefell v. Kasich, Ohio [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Henry v. Himes, Ohio [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• DeBoer v. Snyder, Michigan [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Wolf v. Walker, Wisconsin [Arguments at the Seventh Circuit set for August 26]

• Baskin v. Bogan, Indiana [Arguments at the Seventh Circuit set for August 26]

• Sevcik v. Sandoval, Nevada [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September 8]

• Latta v. Otter, Idaho [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September]

• Jackson v. Abercrombie, Hawaii [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September 8]

• Burns v. Hickenlooper, Colorado [Argument date at the Tenth Circuit not set]

Cases petitioned or likely to be petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court:

• Kitchen v. Herbert, Utah [Tenth Circuit struck down marriage ban June 25]

• Bishop v. United States, Oklahoma [Tenth Circuit struck down marriage ban July 18]

• Bostic v. Schaefer, Virginia [Fourth Circuit struck down marriage ban July 28]

Basically it's a race now to see if the Supreme Court will get the marriage cases in the 2014-15 term or in the 2015-16 term. Sooner is looking more likely, but maybe we'll need to get a circuit split (an actual federal appellate ruling where marriage equality loses) for that to happen.

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner

10th U.S. Circuit Affirms Ruling Invalidating Oklahoma Ban On Marriage Equality

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling striking down Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality. The same 3-judge appellate panel that struck down Utah's ban on marriage equality earlier this year (making history to become the highest court to issue a ruling that bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional in Kitchen v Herbert) has now ruled in Bishop v Smith that Oklahoma's marriage equality ban is also unconstitutional.

Freedom to Marry notes that this case is one of the longest running legal battles over marriage equality (originally filed in 2004!) and is the twenty-sixth consecutive win in court for marriage equality. Eval Wolfson said:

“Today’s ruling arises out of the oldest active marriage case in the country, filed in Oklahoma ten years ago; and follows more than two dozen favorable rulings for marriage in the past year. The legal consensus is clear: marriage discrimination is unconstitutional and inflicts concrete harms on committed gay and lesbian couples and their families.  From the heart of the Southwest and as far as the Mountain West, the federal rulings from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals from Oklahoma and Utah affirm that all of America is ready for the freedom to marry. It is time for the Supreme Court to end this patchwork of discrimination and bring our country to national resolution as soon as possible.”

The Washngton Blade reports that the vote count was 2-1 and that the 46-page opinion was written by Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee. The court basically says that its decision in Bishop is controlled by its earlier decision in Kitchen.

Interestingly, the Department of Justice and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group are defendant-appellants in this case because the original lawsuit also challenged the now-defunct Defense of Marriage Act. I don't know if that makes it more or less likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court on appeal (I would think, less likely, but who knows.)

10th Circuit Upholds Ruling Striking Down Utah's Ban On Marriage Equality!

Now, this is a very big deal. The 10th U.S. Circuit has become the first appellate court to uphold one of the very many district court rulings striking down a state's ban on marriage equality. The court heard oral arguments in April. The same panel has a pending ruling in the case of Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality it heard on the same day. The case today is Kitchen v Herbert on appeal from Utah' of the December 20th district court ruling striking down that state's Amendment 3. The 3-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding the lower court ruling invalidating Utah's ban on same-sex marriages.

Chris Geidner reports on the case:

In detailing the reasoning, he wrote, “Consistent with our constitutional tradition of recognizing the liberty of those previously excluded, we conclude that plaintiffs possess a fundamental right to marry and to have their marriages recognized.”   

Importantly, however, at the end of the opinion, the court also stated that because the Supreme Court stayed the trial court’s ruling in the Utah case pending the 10th Circuit appeal that it should stay its mandate of the appellate ruling “pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for writ of certiorari” to the Supreme Court.

Judge Paul Kelly wrote a 21-page dissent, countering Lucero’s 65-page majority opinion. Judge Jermoe Holmes joined the majority opinion.
The 10th Circuit’s decision, which cites heavily from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, was issued one day before the one-year anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision. 

The lawyer for the Utah same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit, Peggy Tomsic, said in a statement, “Today’s decision by the Tenth Circuit affirms the fundamental principles of equality and fairness and the common humanity of gay and lesbian people. As the Court recognized, these families are part of Utah’s community, and equal protection requires that they be given the same legal protections and respect as other families in this state. The Court’s ruling is a victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for our entire state and every state within the Tenth Circuit.”

Woo hoo!

WISCONSIN: Federal Judge Issues Stay and Injunction Halting Marriage Equality

Bad news out of Wisconsin! Federal judge Barbara Crabb finally issued a final order implementing her previously issued decision in the same-sex marriage case of Wolf v Walker in favor of marriage equality from last week and included a stay and injunction that makes it clear that no marriage licenses should be issued to same-sex couples while the matter is appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit.

This means that the multiple counties and big cities like Madison and Milwaukee where same-sex couples were being issued marriage licenses have to stop doing so immediately.

The judge wrote in her final order that the Supreme Court's previous decision this past January to issue a stay in the case of whether Kitchen v. Herbert striking down Utah's ban on marriage equality should go into effect compelled her to do the same since the two cases are indistinguishable from each other. All this year federal judges in various jurisdictions have been striking down laws banning marriage equality in several states (Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia, and many others) usually issuing stays automatically preventing marriages from going into effect.

In some jurisdictions, notably Oregon and Pennsylvania, the state officials agreed with the ruling and thus did not appeal it, causing marriage equality to go into effect immediately in those states. However, in others, like Wisconsin, politicians have continued to battle in court to uphold their discriminatory marriage laws and are appealing to the appropriate federal appellate circuit. The 4th and 10th appellate circuits have heard oral arguments in their marriage equality cases and could issue decisions at any time, although most observers do not expect one to do so until much later this year at the earliest.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

MAP: Spread of Marriage Equality, 2000-2014

Here's a cool map showing the spread of marriage equality since 2000. In 2000, there was only one state that had significant statewide recognition of same-sex relationships; Vermont, with civil unions. In 2014, there are 17 states with full marriage equality and another 5 whose bans have been struck down by federal judges.

Hat/tip to Mother Jones

10th U.S. Circuit Panel Hears Marriage Equality Oral Argument Next Week

Next week, oral arguments before a 3-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the marriage equality case of Kitchen v Herbert will occur, starting on Thursday April 10th. Exactly one week later, the 10th Circuit (a different 3-judge panel) will hear the appeal of the federal district court ruling that struck down Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality. This is the first hearing of the nine pending cases being heard before five, count 'em five federal appellate courts on marriage equality in the next few weeks.

HRC summarizes:

The Tenth Circuit is one of five federal appeals courts that will preside over nine marriage equality cases in the coming weeks and months. Other cases that will go before circuit courts include: Sevcik v. Sandoval of Nevada in the Ninth Circuit, DeLeon v. Perry out of Texas in the Fifth Circuit, Bostic v. Rainey of Virginia out of the Fourth Circuit, and four cases out of the Sixth Circuit - Tanco v. Haslam of Tennessee, Bourke vs. Beshear of Kentucky, Obergefell v. Kasich of Ohio, and DeBoer v. Snyder of Michigan. The Sixth Circuit holds the distinction of being the only federal appeals court to date that will consider marriage cases from all states within its jurisdiction.

The oral argument next week is important because it is the first time an appellate court is hearing a marriage equality case following last year's Supreme Court case in Windsor.

MAP: Current State of Marriage Equality In The States

Compiled by Andrew Turnbull, this handy graphic depicts the current state of marriage equality in the states. Look at all the ticking clocks, reflecting pending legal challenges to state bans on marriage equality, as well as the places where the ban has been struck down but is in abeyance due to a stay (Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah) as well as the two states where out-of-states same-sex marriage is recognized but you can't get married in the state (Kentucky and Oregon).

The map looks good!

Federal Judge Finds TEXAS Ban On Marriage Equality Unconstitutional!

A federal judge has just ruled that Texas's constitutional ban(s) on marriage equality, passed by voters in 2003 and 2005, violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution!

However, like judges in Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky, U.S. District Court judge Orlando Garcia put a stay on his ruling until the appellate court (in this case the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) could review his ruling. Texas Attorney General Gregory Abbott is a well-known homophobe who is running for Governor and will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the bitter end.

However, it is striking that even in deep in the heart of deep red Texas, federal judge found that the arguments in favor of maintaining legal discrimination in marriage to be so lacking that he would say the following:

“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

In other words, even under rational basis review, the judge ruled that a state constitutional ban on marriage equality fails to be upheld under the most deferential form of judicial review.

Hat/tip to Equality on Trial

OKLAHOMA Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

Wow! A federal judge has ruled that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States constitution.

Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner reports:

“The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern wrote.

The ruling will not go into effect immediately, Kern decided, issuing a stay of his decision based on the recent Supreme Court action granting a stay in the case challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages.

The case, which was filed back in November 2004, is the longest pending marriage equality case in the country. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after voters there passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying.

The lawsuit had challenged both the federal government’s ban on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as Oklahoma’s ban, but the intervening Supreme Court ruling striking down that part of DOMA, Section 3, rendered that portion of the lawsuit moot.

Amazing news! In deep, dark red states, federal judges are realizing that the words of the United States Constitution that say "equal protection of the laws" means everyone.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

QUEER QUOTE: Oklahoma Gov Stops All Military Spouse Benefit Applications

Wow. Just wow. In order to not have the Oklahoma National Guard process applications for legally married same-sex couples who are legally entitled to military spousal benefits, Republican Governor Mary Fallin has ordered the National Guard to stop processing all spousal benefit applications. This is a bit like saying "Hmmm, we can't have separate but equal schools? Well, then, let's cancel public education!"

Gov. Fallin is quoted by the Tulsa World as saying:

Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples.The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.

This is simply astonishing. Previously Fallin was one of eight governors identified by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel as being in violation of military policy. Curious how the other 30-something states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage didn't interpret their laws in such a virulently homophobic way. I wonder why not? Tulsa World goes on to explain the context of Fallin's statement, which is today's Queer Quote.

Although Oklahoma owns most of the state's National Guard armories and training centers, the facilities were built almost entirely with federal funds. 

The federal government provides about 90 percent of the budget for the Oklahoma Military Department, which includes the National Guard. 

Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, blasted Fallin, saying, "The governor is sending the message that Oklahoma desires to be an island of prejudice and continues to uphold laws crafted out of fear and drafted by bigots and hypocrites. 

"Once again she has insulted our citizen soldiers who daily stand in harm's way for the people of Oklahoma," Jenkins said. 

The current controversy began in early September, when the Defense Department said it would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states where such unions are recognized. This followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that all legal marriages, regardless of the spouses' genders, must be honored by the federal government.

Some people really don't understand the concept of "equality for all"! 

Oklahoma Homophobes Can't Even Discriminate Straight!

Last week in the blogosphere there were multiple reports about the Oklahoma State Senate passing legislation which would exempt that state from enforcing the recently enacted federal hate crimes act that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. However, now it turns that there was "a legislative error" and instead of exempting Oklahoma from enforcing hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the fools eliminated protections based on race and religion instead:

Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, said when the Senate passed Senate Bill 1965 on March 10, it eliminated hate crime protections for race and religion.

The bill states local law enforcement agencies should not enforce any sections of federal law under hate crimes statutes listed under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245 unless they are in correlation with Oklahoma’s hate crimes laws.

But the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes, which passed Congress last year, are not listed under Section 245, but Section 249

“The bill in its current form doesn’t take away rights from gays and lesbians,” Rice said. “It takes away rights for religion and race.”

“This is most likely a legislative error or at least a typo,” Rice said.

All I can do is shake my head.

hat/tip to PFAW's Right Wing Watch.