Saturday, September 19, 2009

Fighting Anti-Gay Bias in Virginia

The Washington Posts has to relevant columns/stories concerning the race for Virginia governor from the perspective of gay rights and the Christianist views of Taliban Bob McDonnell's alma mater. In an editorial column, the Post notes that both candidates' views have evolved in the area of gay equality, but that Creigh Mr. Deeds has done so much more convincingly that 's more convincingly than Taliban Bob McDonnell. As I have mentioned before, in this area the Deeds campaign has begun to reach out to the LGBT community and this past Thursday a representative from the Deeds campaign attended the HRBOR Third Thursday networking event in an effort to connect with the LGBT and LGBT friendly business community. In contrast, McDonnell who has known me for 15 years, worked on my campaign when I ran for office in 1994, and knows that I am active in the LGBT community has made ZERO outreach efforts to the LGBT community. Nor has his campaign picked up the phone and called me despite my invitations to McDonnell to attend LGBT events. Why? Because I am sure that his puppeteers at Regent University and The Family Foundation have forbidden it - just as they will control his approach to gays if he is elected governor. First, some highlights from the Post's editorial:
*
ROBERT F. McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, says his erstwhile view that homosexuality is, like drug abuse, an evil that "government must restrain, punish, and deter" has changed since he wrote that in his now-notorious dissertation 20 years ago. State Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate, has referred to himself as a "work in progress" on issues pertaining to sexual orientation. . .
*
Both men profess to have evolved when it comes to issues regarding sexual orientation, as many Americans have. . . . However, a closer examination of their records suggests that Mr. Deeds's evolution is the more comprehensive. By contrast, Mr. McDonnell's shift, if there is a shift at all, has been modest and relatively recent. Although he says he opposes bias on grounds of sexual orientation, he will not commit to backing legislation that would expand the state's nondiscrimination policy to cover gay individuals.
*
As a lawmaker representing Virginia Beach for 14 years, Mr. McDonnell consistently opposed legislation backed by the gay community. He voted against a bill, strongly supported by business groups, to let employers offer benefits to their employees' unmarried partners, gay or straight. He voted to screen prospective parents for "voluntary homosexual activity" before they could adopt a child. He voted for the Marriage Affirmation Act, which prohibits Virginia law from recognizing out-of-state civil unions. He voted to amend Virginia's constitution to prohibit civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.
*
As attorney general in 2006, Mr. McDonnell rendered an opinion saying Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) had acted unconstitutionally by issuing an executive order expanding Virginia's nondiscrimination policy to ban bias against gays in state hiring and employment; that power, he said, was the legislature's, not the executive's. On similar grounds, he argued that local governments could not include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. Several jurisdictions, including Alexandria, Charlottesville and Williamsburg, ignored him.
*
Mr. Deeds's record, confined to his votes in the state Senate, is more limited. However, his voting history has been generally more favorable to gay rights, including backing bills in recent years to allow local governments to extend health coverage to partners of their gay employees. In 2005, he supported the bill, which Mr. McDonnell opposed, to let businesses grant benefits to employees' unmarried partners, gay and straight. And following Mr. McDonnell's opinion, as attorney general, opposing Mr. Kaine's nondiscrimination policy, Mr. Deeds was a patron of legislation to ban bias based on sexual orientation in state employment. That bill failed but remains a top priority of gay rights groups that reasonably seek to codify Mr. Kaine's nondiscrimination policy. Their other legislative priority -- allowing businesses to offer benefits to workers' gay and straight partners -- is equally sensible. Both would stand a better chance of enactment with Mr. Deeds in the governor's office.
*
The other Post piece looks at the continuing mind set at Pat Robertson's Regent University where McDonnell received his law degree. Little has changed at Regent despite the efforts of students and faculty to claim otherwise - just as I believe little has actually changed in Taliban Bob's real views. The school continues to require adherence to an extreme right statement of faith by students and faculty and employees that leaves no support for gays or gay equality under the civil laws. And truth be told, I suspect that a majority of area residents wish Regent was not located here since it gives the entire region a bad reputation for being the home base of religious wingnuts. Here are some story highlights:
*
At Regent, a 70-acre campus of red-brick, white-columned buildings arranged around a huge wooden cross and a perpetual flame, some students and faculty have reacted to the flap about McDonnell's thesis with a dismissive shrug. But to others at the 31-year-old school, the controversy adds to their worry that the wider world looks askance at Regent's mission -- to churn out Christian leaders and change agents -- because of Robertson's inflammatory rhetoric and the school's founding as part of his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).
*
"We were pigeonholed as an extension of CBN," said Carlos Campo, Regent's vice president for academic affairs. "We have not drifted from that vision . . . Students and faculty agree that Regent, which has about 1,700 undergraduates and 3,200 graduate students, is mostly conservative or Republican -- the school's Democrats and Independents club has 10 members -- but they also contend that many students are more socially moderate than outsiders would imagine.

2 comments:

VD said...

As a devout Catholic, I really disagree with you on the issue of gay marriage and same-sex rights. However, you have to give Atty. Gen. McDonnell a break here when you say that he's being manipulated by the Family Foundation and Regent University over these issues.

Assuming that McDonnell is a practicing Catholic who goes to Mass and follows Church teaching, I think that he would still think that gays shouldn't be married, no matter whether he were influenced by the Republicans or not. He's still practicing his faith as it is when it comes to opposing same-sex marriage and other issues along that line. Indeed, if this man is trying to correlate himself with the Magisterium, I don't think any political party is necessary for McDonnell's opposition on the issue, for the Church's priorites go above politics.

And furthermore, I am a Democratic-leaning Independent who usually votes Republican due to the social issues. So if that can go for a socially conservative Democrat, it might as well go for a socially conservative Republican. Honestly, I don't think politics means anything in this case.

Michael-in-Norfolk said...

What you say about McDonnell may be absolutely true. The problem is that in this state and in this country other citizens have an equal right to freedom of religion and their civil rights should not be dependent upon whether or not they adhere to McDonnell's religious beliefs.

When one holds a CIVIL office, one does not get to impose ones religious beliefs on others. Yet that is exactly what McDonnell has tried to do during his years in the General Assembly and as AG.