Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Arizona's version of the mutaween have Bisbee in their sights now

Courtesy The FreeDictionary.com: Mutaween - religious police in Saudi Arabia whose duty is to ensure strict adherence to established codes of conduct; offenders may be detained indefinitely; foreigners are not excluded.

The mutaween don't exactly have a good public image outside of Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't seem to have hurt them inside Saudi Arabia.

Clarification on 4/4:  Per a conversation in the comments section of this post with State Rep. John Kavanagh, he wrote both of the strikers submitted under his name, the "show your papers before you pee" measure and the "bigot protection" act.  Per that conversation, any impression given by the post that CATP wrote either or both measures is incorrect.

End clarification.

The Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy may not have quite as much control "influence" over civil society as they would like (and are striving toward), but when it comes to Republican elected officials, all they have to do is tug on the leash and electeds come to heel in a flash.

Witness State Rep. John Kavanagh's (R-Fountain Hills) "snap-to" when Cathi Herrod and the CATP got their apoplexy on over Phoenix' passage of an anti-discrimination ordinance - he proposed a "show your papers before you pee" bill that morphed into a "bigot protection act". 

If enacted into law, it almost certainly will be struck down by a court of law, but the CATP isn't about following the law, it's about blind adherence to dogma.

Now, it is the small town of Bisbee that has roused the ire of the grand high "poobahs" of moral rectitude in Arizona.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Lindsey Collom and Alia Beard Rau -

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne warned Bisbee on Tuesday that his office would take legal action against the city if council members approve an ordinance tonight allowing civil unions for gay couples. 
The unions would be recognized only within the city limits and would grant rights given to a married couple, including property ownership, inheritance, guardianship and adoption.
Three Republican state lawmakers -- Sen. Gail Griffin, of Hereford, and Reps. David Gowan and David Stevens of Sierra Vista -- complained to his office, saying that consituents had contacted them, expressing concern that the proposed ordinance may be in violation of the state's constitution, Horne said. 
On Monday, a powerful conservative advocacy group, the Center for Arizona Policy, sent city officials a similar letter and threatened to sue the city if it allows civil unions.

As the crow flies, the distance between CATP's headquarters and the AZAG's office is a little over six miles (approximately a 1/2 mile more to the state capitol) and it is a little more than 10 miles by street (approximately a 1/2 mile more to the state capitol.  Thank you Google Maps :)  ).

Anybody know the record for the longest lapdog leash?

PS - Am I the only one who thinks that it is rather "ironic" that CATP has called on Tom Horne to be the point man in their defense of the "sanctity" of marriage?

Columnist EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic offers his take here.

AZBlueMeanie of Blog for Arizona offers his take here.


John said...

You need to correct your post. Cathi Herrod and CAP learned about my bill after I wrote it. The fact that they support it does not mean that they wrote it.

State Rep. John Kavanagh

cpmaz said...

Thank you for writing Representative Kavanagh.

I will gladly correct any errors in the post once they are pointed out and verified.

Would you like full credit for the first version of the striker (widely known as the "show your papers before you pee" bill), the second version (known, here anyway, as the "bigot protection act") or both?

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

How do I prove that I wrote it first? I thought that the accuser had the burden of proof or does your blog use the Salem witch hunt burden of proof standard? Do you want to dunk me in a lake to see if I drown?

cpmaz said...

"Prove"? That isn't needed in this environment.

On this topic, your word is easily good enough. I simply asked for clarification. Which of the measures, or both, did you write?

As for the phenomenon of outside groups writing proposals for the legislature, that's hardly a new phenomenon, and it isn't confined to AZ.

And I don't think that it's an entirely bad practice, so long as it is transparent practice and the proposals benefit (or at least don't harm) the interests of the people of the state.

That tends to be an issue with groups like ALEC, GI, and CAP (almost never open, and almost never qualify as "harmless"), but that's an issue for another post.

John said...

I wrote both, although the final wording of both was refined by attorneys at the legislature. I am not trained in writing in the obtuse and confusing language of the bar.

I would appreciate that edit now that I have clarified.


Zagen Germaine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cpmaz said...

Previous comment removed because is was off-topic and spam.