A client sent me a link to an article put out by the Williams Institute at the University of California. The article is 18 pages in length and is an indictment of Virginia's legalization of religious based bigotry. Virginia, the same state whose statute for Religious freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson led to the inclusion of the First Amendment promise of freedom of religion in the United States Constitution. Christianists will argue that Jefferson would not have supported "sodomy." Of course, such statements ignore Jefferson's never ending thirst for new knowledge and his disgust with much of the Old Testament and belief that that Christianity had been fundamentally corrupted by the Apostle Paul - not to mention nearly the entire clerical class for more than a millennium - which led him to create his own version of the Bible often referred to as the Jefferson Bible. Here is an overview of Virginia's treatment of its LGBT citizens as analyzed by the Williams Institute: *
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS: No Virginia statute prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State employees cannot enroll their partners in their workplace insurance plans. In fact, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. Although two governors have issued Executive Orders protecting state employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion in the month following the most recent Order stating that the Governor had exceeded his powers and that the protection against sexual orientation discrimination was invalid. To date, attempts to enact state legislation to override the Attorney General’s Opinion have failed.
*
A similar struggle is going on between localities and the state Attorney General, as the Attorney General has left the validity of non-discrimination laws promulgated by local governments in doubt. The Attorney General of Virginia has issued opinions that Fairfax County School Board and Fairfax County as a whole could not enact policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, indicating that no local governing body in the state had such authority without authorization by the Virginia legislature.3 So far, the legislature has repeatedly refused to grant authority to localities that wish to adopt antidiscrimination protections for LGBT Virginians to do so.
*
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS: No Virginia statute prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State employees cannot enroll their partners in their workplace insurance plans. In fact, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. Although two governors have issued Executive Orders protecting state employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion in the month following the most recent Order stating that the Governor had exceeded his powers and that the protection against sexual orientation discrimination was invalid. To date, attempts to enact state legislation to override the Attorney General’s Opinion have failed.
*
A similar struggle is going on between localities and the state Attorney General, as the Attorney General has left the validity of non-discrimination laws promulgated by local governments in doubt. The Attorney General of Virginia has issued opinions that Fairfax County School Board and Fairfax County as a whole could not enact policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, indicating that no local governing body in the state had such authority without authorization by the Virginia legislature.3 So far, the legislature has repeatedly refused to grant authority to localities that wish to adopt antidiscrimination protections for LGBT Virginians to do so.
*
SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Virginia law prohibits a civil union or partnership arrangement that would accord the incidents of marriages to couples of the same sex. Civil unions from other jurisdictions are not recognized in Virginia. Virginia does not license marriage between couples of the same sex. The state does not honor marriages between same-sex couples obtained in an outside jurisdiction. Moreover, under Virginia law, “any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.”
*
GAY ADOPTION: Virginia permits any person or married couple residing in the state to petition to adopt. There is no explicit prohibition on same-sex adoption, but the law is unclear on whether same-sex couples may jointly petition to adopt. In 2005, the Virginia Anti-Gay Adoption bill was passed by the Virginia House of Delegates 71-24. It was then rejected by a Senate committee. The law would have required social workers to determine the sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents to prevent members of the LGBT community from adopting children in the state.
*
CRIMINALIZATION OF SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR: Although Virginia’s sodomy law was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2003 as a result of the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, Virginia has not yet amended its statute that outlaws sodomy.
*
As I perused the article, I was particularly surprised to find the following concerning a case currently on appeal to the Suprme Court of Virginia that I am all too familiar with:
*
Other Documented Examples of Discrimination: Virginia Museum of Natural History:
Other Documented Examples of Discrimination: Virginia Museum of Natural History:
*
Michael Moore, a Martinsville, Virginia resident and former employee of the Virginia Muesum of Natural History, filed suit against the museum in 2006 after he was forced out based on his sexual orientation. Shortly after gossip began to circulate about Moore's sexual orientation, the museum's Executive Director arranged a meeting with the Human Resources Manager. During the meeting, the Executive Director, fearing that Moore's known sexual orientation would jeopardize expected donations, asked the Human Resources Manager if Moore could be terminated. The Human Resources Manager explained that Moore could be terminated for a "valid and good reason," but explicitly stated that he could not be terminated just because he was gay. Shortly thereafter, the Executive Director questioned Moore about his sexual orientation during a performance evaluation meeting; Moore truthfully answered that he was gay. The meeting resulted in an unfavorable review and Moore was forced to resign. Following an investigation, the Office of Equal Employment Services concluded that there was "sufficient evidence to support that there was improper consideration of [Moore's] sexual orientation." Moore filed suit in a Virginia circuit court based on protection afforded to state employees by a gubernatorial executive order, because Virginia does not statutorily prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that the executive order does not provide for a private right of action.
*
Michael Moore, a Martinsville, Virginia resident and former employee of the Virginia Muesum of Natural History, filed suit against the museum in 2006 after he was forced out based on his sexual orientation. Shortly after gossip began to circulate about Moore's sexual orientation, the museum's Executive Director arranged a meeting with the Human Resources Manager. During the meeting, the Executive Director, fearing that Moore's known sexual orientation would jeopardize expected donations, asked the Human Resources Manager if Moore could be terminated. The Human Resources Manager explained that Moore could be terminated for a "valid and good reason," but explicitly stated that he could not be terminated just because he was gay. Shortly thereafter, the Executive Director questioned Moore about his sexual orientation during a performance evaluation meeting; Moore truthfully answered that he was gay. The meeting resulted in an unfavorable review and Moore was forced to resign. Following an investigation, the Office of Equal Employment Services concluded that there was "sufficient evidence to support that there was improper consideration of [Moore's] sexual orientation." Moore filed suit in a Virginia circuit court based on protection afforded to state employees by a gubernatorial executive order, because Virginia does not statutorily prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that the executive order does not provide for a private right of action.
*
And some people wonder why I recommend that gays considering a move to Virginia might be well advised to rethink that option given the state's hostility towards its LGBT citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment