about EQUALITY

It appears that the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) is skirting the boundaries of the Constitution by not providing a religious marker on a fallen soldier’s grave marker. The soldier, Sgt. Patrick Stewart, is believed to be the first Wiccan to have died in the line of duty, and his widow asked for his memorial plaque to have the Wiccan symbol inscribed, like many other markers around that are inscribed with other religious symbols. According to the Washington Post,

The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half of are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists.

The article goes on to say that an initial request was made to include the Wiccan Pentagram in the Department’s listing of approved symbols nine years ago. Since that time, eleven other symbols have been approved, but the Wiccan symbol is still pending.

Source: “Fallen Soldier Gets a Bronze Star but No Pagan Star”
(Washington Post, July 4, 2006: Page A02)

InEquality, Religious Equality

Related Documents

• See the Dismissal Order
• See the lawsuit summary

Today, after a great deal of deliberation, I withdrew my legal action against CCGLA. It is important (to me) to document why I made this decision, as to some it may be seen as a retreat (possibly for the wrong reasons).

When I filed this claim back in November 2005, I (foolishly) believed that the justice system operated in a far more speedier manner. Given the span of over seven months, it appears I got this wrong.Three of the five remedies that I sought in my petition were no longer appropriate (relating to overturning the decision made by the CCGLA Board on November 20 and December 1), given that I no longer want to be a part of CCGLA’s Board. I also realized that even if the rules had been followed, the outcome would have been the same - just delayed.

In relation to the remaining two remedies that I sought, the first one relating to requiring the board to do their job within the parameters set out in the rules and law, it is really up to the membership to take action. As I’ve said in other posts on other topics, sadly the membership is not that interested (it’s not just a CCGLA thing, it’s a societal thing). This realization reaffirmed my decision to withdraw my complaint, along with the fact that very little would actually be gained by allowing this action to continue. In relation to the costs associated with this action, I just figured I just eat those - it was my case after all.

I think the realization that no-one would actually benefit from this case being heard, and it was really just time to move on, really was the driving force behind my decision. I am confident that I would have been successful in my case, but what good would that have really provided, especially as I no longer wanted what I was seeking back in November. It would have wasted the court’s time, and those involved with the action itself.

I wish CCGLA the best for whatever it will achieve in the future, and I am happy to have this chapter of my life close (if not with a big dogleaf).

James Nunn
June 30, 2006

CCGLA, CV-06-00077, Legal

UPDATE (6/30/2006): This complaint has been withdrawn.

Read more…

CCGLA, CV-06-00077, InEquality, Legal

Today, after a great deal of deliberation, I withdrew my legal action against CCGLA. It is important (to me) to document why I made this decision, as to some it may be seen as a retreat (possibly for the wrong reasons).

When I filed this claim back in November 2005, I (foolishly) believed that the justice system operated in a far more speedier manner. Given the span of over seven months, it appears I got this wrong.

Three of the five remedies that I sought in my petition were no longer appropriate (relating to overturning the decision made by the CCGLA Board on November 20 and December 1), given that I no longer want to be a part of CCGLA’s Board. I also realized that even if the rules had been followed, the outcome would have been the same - just delayed.

In relation to the remaining two remedies that I sought, the first one relating to requiring the board to do their job within the parameters set out in the rules and law, it is really up to the membership to take action. As I’ve said in other posts on other topics, sadly the membership is not that interested (it’s not just a CCGLA thing, it’s a societal thing). This realization reaffirmed my decision to withdraw my complaint, along with the fact that very little would actually be gained by allowing this action to continue. In relation to the costs associated with this action, I just figured I just eat those - it was my case after all.

I think the realization that no-one would actually benefit from this case being heard, and it was really just time to move on, really was the driving force behind my decision. I am confident that I would have been successful in my case, but what good would that have really provided, especially as I no longer wanted what I was seeking back in November. It would have wasted the court’s time, and those involved with the action itself.

I wish CCGLA the best for whatever it will achieve in the future, and I am happy to have this chapter of my life close (if not with a big dogleaf).

Note: All entries relating to this legal action have been removed from public viewing on this site.

CCGLA, CV-06-00077, Legal

It appears that the CCGLA Board of Directors have engaged Mr. Jay English to represent them in the suit I filed last November, and after he (English) requested a date, one was set. So this coming Friday, June 30, I’ll be finally able to present my argument to the Judge as to why CCGLA’s actions were improper. I’ll post how things go.

Suprisingly, Mr. English has cited this website to another court in another matter as part of CCGLA’s official response. Nice to know that I did such a good job in putting that information together (Side note: CCGLA filed suit against the Collin Equality Foundation and certain board members on March 31, 2006, claiming that the actions taken by the board on November 16, 2005 were not in accordance with the CEF bylaws.)

CCGLA, CV-06-00077, Legal