Sex Strike Constitutional Amendment Opposing Iraq War Proposed In Colorado

If a proposed ballot initiative passes this November, there will be a no sexual fireworks launched on January 1, 2009 in Colorado.

That's what one man wants--not a referendum, proclamation, or resolution--but an amendment to the Colorado Constitution mandating a one day "sex strike" by women to show opposition to the war in Iraq:

A graduate student at the University of Colorado-Denver is proposing a statewide ballot initiative that would ask voters to include in the state Constitution a one-day sex strike by women to symbolize opposition to the Iraq War.

Yeah, that'll work. (Full disclosure--I attend CU-Denver, and no, it wasn't me)

Facethestate.com caught up with Page Penk, the initiative's author, and asked why there was a need for such a drastic measure:

"The war is underground. It's secret. It's not affecting the middle class. It's not being covered by the media. I feel like the war is taboo to talk about."

As Face the State quips, Penk needs to get out a little more.

Here is the original text, which received approval to begin collecting the signatures necessary to put the initiative on the ballot:

The initiative asks voters: "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Shall there be a sex strike by the women only, January 1st, 2009, for one day in length, in support of the wife's and parents of U.S. combat troops receiving pay for support services rendered to the military, through an amendment to the Colorado Constitution?"

After an hour of arguing, Page got approval from the board to begin collecting signatures for the question to appear on the ballot. He will need to collect more than 76,000 signatures.

Penk said the idea is a creative way to make a statement.

"This is about respect for the families of our military," he told the Web site.

To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, "they said if George W. Bush were reelected, we would have less privacy in our sex lives, and they were right!"

One could question, in a serious manner, the legal ramifications of such an amendment to Colorado's citizens, or the intent of the author's back door approach to inserting such anti-war schlock into the state's constitution, but that might give moonbats like Peng a little too much credit. The intent is to get his 15 seconds of Internet fame.

Pathetic.

But the initiative has cleared the first hurdle of review, and now goes to the people of Colorado for 76,000 signatures and final ballot approval.

Here is the Legislative Staff response to Penk's proposal:

MEMORANDUM
April 11, 2008

TO: Page and Chester Penk
FROM: Legislative Council Staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services
SUBJECT: Proposed initiative measure 2007-2008 #97, concerning a sex strike in support of combat troops.

Section 1-40-105 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, requires the directors of the Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to "review and comment" on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado constitution. We hereby submit our comments to you regarding the appended proposed initiative.

The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments intended to aid proponents in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of knowledge of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intent and your objective in proposing the amendment. We hope that the statements and questions contained in this memorandum will provide a basis for discussion and understanding of the proposal.

Purposes
The major purposes of the proposed amendment appear to be:

1. To mandate a sex strike by women in the state of Colorado on January 1, 2009, in support of United States combat troops.

2. To amend the Colorado Constitution.

Technical Comments
The following comments address technical issues raised by the form of the proposed initiative. These comments will be read aloud at the public meeting only if the proponents so request. You will have the opportunity to ask questions about these comments at the review and comment meeting. Please consider revising the proposed initiative as suggested below.

1. It is standard drafting practice to use small capital letters to show the language being added to the Colorado constitution. For example, the first line of your proposal would read "[SHALL THERE BE A SEX STRIKE BY THE WOMEN ONLY, ON JANUARY 1, 2009,...]." Would the proponents consider using this standard drafting practice in their proposal?

2. The proponents use "wife's and parents" in the proposal, which means the possessive form of a single wife and multiple parents. Is it the proponents intent to mean "wives and parents" and, if so, would they consider changing that language?

3. The text of the proposed initiative is in the form of a ballot question, rather than the actual language they wish to see amend a particular place in the constitution. Would the proponents be willing to amend their proposal to include specific placement instructions and language for the constitution?

Substantive Comments and Questions
The substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions:

1. Article V, section 1 (5.5) of the Colorado constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?

2. It would be helpful to further define "sex strike" to clarify who it applies to and who it does not apply to, if anyone.

3. The application of the proposed amendment to women only could raises constitutional questions concerning discrimination and disparate treatment. Have the proponents considered a response to such concerns?

4. If passed, the proposed initiative could not take effect until the vote is proclaimed by the governor. Sometimes, that does not happen until after January 1. Would the proponents consider a later date to be certain the action occurs after the proclamation of the vote?

You know, between this and the "Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission" proposed to Denver's City Council, it appears that the state's moonbats aren't confined to the People's Republic of Boulder or posh ski resorts any longer.

Good grief!

Exit questions: what effect, if any, will this have on current marriages--the ballot singles out wives--and will it apply to same-sex couples as well? Inquiring minds want to know . . . (not really)

March 2008 Denver Anti-War Rally; Poet Calls To "Burn Down Lockheed Martin," Crowd Cheers

Scroll for pics . . .

Poet "SUZI motherf#@*in' Q" calls for Lockheed Martin to be burned down--"I'm not saying I'd like to kill the president"--crowd cheers (around 3:40 in):



Final estimate--300 anti-war moonbats, plenty of anger and rage, and a very "musical" rally overall.

The Drunkablog has an extensive collection of photos from the rally--and an interesting encounter with Ward Churchill acolyte Glenn Spagnuolo, one of the heads of Recreate '68.

Correspondent "randomridge" was also there, and has a warning: ¡Peligro: Moonbattismo! The captions are priceless.


The calm before the storm--a foot of snow expected by Monday evening


While the rally gets set up, I took the time to remember those who have served


What would a rally be without bongos drums?


AFSC had a few of these banners around


The only torture in Denver was the overwhelming sense of smugness


Peace flags a-flyin', while a mournful cello played


Raging Grannies serenaded the early arrivers


A little tai chi to warm up for today's activism


Alternate party supporters were out in force--all three of them!


The rally started a little late, waiting for everyone to show up


An inflatable George W. Bush doll says "Impeach Me"


Keffiyehs and Palestinian flags were in abundance


Ah, good ol' Che!


Israoil--how clever

Annual Anti-War Protests Prompt Warnings Of Violence, Threats Against Military Recruiters, Soldiers

Last week, we learned of the anti-war protest plans of the local moonbats:

Boulder: Saturday, 15th. Rally at 11 a.m. at the Main Branch, Boulder Public Library Lawn (Canyon between 9th and Broadway), followed by a march.

Denver: Sunday, 16th. Rally at 1:30 at the West Steps of the State Capitol.

We also questioned the "peaceful" nature of the anti-war, anti-military, anti-American activists.

Our fears are not unfounded, courtesy of Michelle Malkin, who also has a roundup of planned "actions" and a copy of the full threat report:

Subject: FW: SUBJECT: HQ USNORTHCOM FORCE PROTECTION ADVISORY 00002 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

FYI

For your information. As the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war approaches, protest groups are increasing activity, some to include a direct threat to Recruiters, other Soldiers, others with DoD decals and their families. Areas of concern include Seattle and Tacoma, Washington; Pittsburgh; Washington, DC.; Chicago; Chapel Hill, NC; New York; Orlando and many locations in California.

Mitigation recommendations include standard AT/FP precautions to include:
- Avoid known risks
- Remain vigilant
- Use the Buddy system
- Inspect vehicles
- Do not engage belligerents

Can't wait for the "street theater" brought to us by Recreate '68 and the "festival of democracy moonbattery" at the DNC!

Besides, you don't want to engage the "belligerents" anyway--the overwhelming body odor and patchouli stench will rub off.

Monday Afternoon Linkage

Violence at the DNC in August? Perhaps.

And this week's Gathering of Eagles counterprotest? A bomb threat.

Threats of violence should be taken seriously, most importantly by the authorities, but also for those planning on attending an event, for whatever reason. The effect of even an idle, falsified threat is to discourage attendance through intimidation and fear.

And this comes, once again, from the avowedly "peaceful" anti-war protestors.

Can't wait until August!

---

Ward Connerly was in Denver today to promote a ban on affirmative action in public institution:

Supporters of a ban on affirmative action in public institutions say they've collected enough signatures to get the issue on this fall's ballot.

Backers have collected nearly 129,000 signatures, about 50,000 more than required by law. The secretary of state will review them to make sure at least 76,000 are from registered voters.

The measure says the state may not use race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin to discriminate against anyone or to give anyone preferential treatment.

It would apply to public hiring and contracts and to public education.

California businessman Ward Connerly is backing the proposal and similar measures in four other states. He thinks the Colorado campaign will cost about $2 million raised inside and out of the state.

Michelle has more:

On Monday March 10th, Ward Connerly, nationally recognized advocate for equal rights, will join Valery Pech Orr, proponent of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI), Jessica Peck Corry, volunteer with the initiative and other supporters of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative for a major announcement. The announcement will occur at noon in the Press Room at the State Capitol.

What: Update on Status of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (Amendment 31)
When: Monday March 10th at Noon (12:00 pm)
Where: Press Room at the State Capitol in Denver

The Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI) is dedicated to giving the people of Colorado the opportunity to end preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin by state and local governments. CoCRI will make Colorado a place of equal opportunity for all, not a state that uses preferential treatment as a tool to create “diversity.” Achieving “diversity” should never be an excuse to discriminate!

The ACLU just doesn't get it:

Cathy Hazouri, executive director of the ACLU of Colorado, said the bill does not reflect the spirit of the Civil Rights Act, however.

"It's about going back to the bad old days where if you weren't a member of the right club, you didn't get promoted or get the government contracts," she said. "The 1964 Civil Rights Act is obliterated by this ballot initiative."

That's precisely the point Cathy--affirmative action just redefines who is a "member of the right club". Good God these people are dense.

Upcoming Anti-War Protests, "Peace" Activists Target Military Recruiters

From the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement-Denver:

Boulder: Saturday, 15th. Rally at 11 a.m. at the Main Branch, Boulder Public Library Lawn (Canyon between 9th and Broadway), followed by a march.

Denver: Sunday, 16th. Rally at 1:30 at the West Steps of the State Capitol.

All for peace, right?

Wrong.

Here's what the moonbats' fellow "peace" activists have been up to--more military recruiters have been the target of anti-war activists, and Michelle Malkin has an exhaustive list of the, um, "actions" committed on behalf of peace, including more on yesterday's bombing of a military recruitment office in Times Square.

Who could forget last year's festivities at the Iraq war parade/protest in Denver:

Peace Rally In Denver; Moonbats At The World Series

This past Saturday I joined Drunkablog at the state capitol (excellent pictures at the link--including more Mercedes owners for peace) to soak in more liberal moonbattery and here are some highlights of the anti-war shindig (and hey, they managed to attract more than a couple dozen this time!):

Some video captured by the moonbats:



Photos from the rally (scroll for moonbat pics from World Series Game 3 at Coors Field):


Ron Paul's supporters seem to be everywhere these days


Flags of fury


Continuing the non-viable candidate theme, there was a smattering of Kucinich supporters as well


Democrats were under attack


Some moonbat anti-war profiteering


I'm sure every rally participant walked or biked to the event


That's so 2002!


Ward Churchill makes a literary appearance


Follow the incoherence, Democrats!


I'm sure they'd love us back . . . just like 9/11!


Everyone's a fascist according to the totalitarian moonbats


Progressivism isn't healthy, or hygienic


Some brave souls who wouldn't let the moonbats go unanswered

---

Denver was the center of the baseball universe this weekend, and the moonbats are like moths to the flame wherever cameras are found


Boston's sweep was an inside job!


The Paulians were at Coors Field for all the postseason games

Anti-War Activists Halted In Rocky Mountain National Park

Moonbats marching from coast-to-coast to protest the war, accompanied by reporters:

A pair of teenage anti-war activists who are marching across the country to promote their cause said they were detained for three hours at Rocky Mountain National Park Sunday and asked to remove peace bibs from their shirts.

Ashley Casale, 19, said she and her partner, Mike Israel, 18, are making their way through Colorado as they "March for Peace" from San Francisco to Washington, D.C.

Casale said they were stopped by a park ranger near the west entrance to the park and asked to remove bibs that were pinned to their shirts which read: "March for Peace."

"They said they couldn't let us in because we were making a political statement," Casale said.

After a park ranger took their identification, Casale said it took nearly three hours for park officials to determine they were in violation of park rules that require permits for "public assemblies, meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, parades and other public expressions of views..."

Park spokeswoman Kyle Patterson said park logs show the pair arrived at the west gate entrance at 9:04 a.m. and were headed into the park at 10:15 a.m., just over an hour total.

She said the two students were accompanied by two reporters, and that park staff worked to accomodate the group as quickly as possible for a Sunday morning, when the park is often full of visitors.

Of course, for the moonbats, this "harassment" is a violation of their First Amendment rights:

Casale, a college freshman from Connecticut, said she asked park officials to explain to her and Israel how their bibs were any different from bumper stickers or T-shirts with messages that park visitors wear.

Patterson said bumper stickers and T-shirts are private expressions.

"They had placards. They had reporters with them. They were promoting their Web site. It became a public demonstration and public expression," said Patterson.

Gayle Watson with Mountain Forum for Peace said a San Francisco peace group called her Nederland-based organization to offer assistance to Casale and Israel after they learned of the incident.

Watson said she encountered the pair in the park, and offered them food and water. They had removed their bibs and written their message in ink on their T-shirts.

"I think what park officials did was a violation of their First Amendment rights," said Watson. "Plus, what a way to say 'Welcome to Colorado.'"

It is pretty clear, both by their conduct and their retinue, that the "marchers" intended to do more than simply pass through the park. They are self-promoting anti-war moonbats, and anyone accompanied by reporters is up to more than simply marching for peace.

Rocky Mountain National Park rules obviously allow for the private expression of political views--bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.--that are probably quite well-represented at camp ground parking lots this holiday week. Even a small contingent of two people accompanied by reporters and promoting a political point-of-view can be reasonably estimated by park officials as more than "private expression". More likely just another moonbat publicity stunt, designed to waste park officials' time and energy during a holiday week.

Nice to see local moonbats out in force to help the poor, oppressed marchers--all the while lobbying accusations of rights violations and railing against inhospitability.

**Update--Whaddya know? The ACLU and others are condemning the ranger's actions:

Alan Chen, a University of Denver Sturm College of Law professor and free-speech expert, said park officials overstepped their authority.

"This is an astounding story," Chen said. "There is no question at all, those people have the right to not only wear the placards but walk through the park with them on."

"To say to two persons who happen to be carrying a message as they walk through the park that they're carrying on a demonstration that requires a permit is ridiculous," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.

Two moonbats privately expressing themselves while merely passing through the park? Not likely--their coast-to-coast may be a two-person parade/march/demonstration, but it is still more than a pair of students who just happen to be espousing anti-war beliefs. The placards, the march itself, and the accompanying journalists all point to more than that.

**Update 2--ACLU not sure it will pursue case
Why not, if this is such a slam-dunk case?