Since I first became involved in LGBT activism, I have been disappointed time and time again in the main stream media's intentional failure to cover issues involving gay rights and/or exposing the lies and hypocrisy of our Christianist enemies. The problem is particularly acute in Virginia. My first exposure to this phenomenon was in 2003 when I worked with Wayne Besen to expose national ex-gay poster boy Michael Johnston as a fraud. Johnston was from the Hampton Roads area, had been a protege of Jerry Falwell, and was featured in a national ad campaign by a who's who of the Christian right, yet no newspaper in Virginia, including the local Virginian Pilot or the Daily Press chose to do any coverage of the fact that Johnston was a fraud and that he had been sleeping around with men in the Hampton Roads area using a false name and trying to infect his victims with HIV (Johnston has been HIV positive for years). Indeed, at times one would think our local news media is on the payroll of Pat Robertson given the selective treatment given to the lies and failings of Christianists. The Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History has been in the works for over three (3) years, yet until now, only the gay media has mentioned the case. This log jam finally ended on Friday when the Washington Post looked at the case. Here are some highlights from the Post's coverage:*
Whenever Gov. Bob McDonnell discusses the issue of discrimination protections in the state workforce, one thing he is always quick to mention with pride is that there have been very few allegations of discrimination on any grounds in the state workforce in recent years. And he is probably right -- such allegations may be rare. But they are not unheard of.
*
Take, for instance, the case of Michael Moore (not the filmmaker). This Moore contends he was forced to resign from his position as at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville in 2006 because he is gay. The Virginia Supreme Court heard an oral petition from his attorney to review his case just this week.
*
the facts of Moore's experience, as well as some of the legal arguments that have been made in the case by the attorney general's office, first under McDonnell and then under Bill Mims, would be interesting to those who have been closely following the discrimination issue.
*
For one thing, Virginia's Department of Human Resource Management found in January 2009 that Moore's sexual orientation was indeed a factor in the ending of his employment. But it found that other issues related to his job performance also played a role, and therefore he was not due back his job. You can read more about the department's finding on page 25 of this appendix to the suit.
*
Interestingly, the attorney general's office has consistently argued that the Executive Order former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) signed in 2006, which barred discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, did not give Moore a "cause of action" to sue in court.
*
That's intriguing, since the reason McDonnell gave for not reissuing Kaine's executive order was that it had indeed provided employees a "cause of action" to sue over discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He said that kind of legal protection could only be extended by the General Assembly. But McDonnell has argued that he could issue a nonbinding "executive directive" offering gays workplace protections because that course of action would not provide them access to courts.
*
In the nonbinding executive directive McDonnell issued on the topic after controversy erupted when sitting Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told colleges and universities that they did not have the authority to include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies, McDonnell indicated that he believed gays were federally protected against discrimination by the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. But in Belue's March filing, on behalf of the attorney general's office, he rejected exactly that argument from Moore, writing that the Equal Protection Clause is "irrelevant to the category of sexual orientation" and "overruled ... in public employment" by a 2008 Supreme Court case.
*
The Virginian Pilot, Daily Press and Richmond Times Dispatch have the same information as the Washington Post but in typical Virginia practice have chosen to not report on the case. Obviously, without media coverage, Bob McDonnell can continue to tell Virginians that anti-gay discrimination is not a problem.
Whenever Gov. Bob McDonnell discusses the issue of discrimination protections in the state workforce, one thing he is always quick to mention with pride is that there have been very few allegations of discrimination on any grounds in the state workforce in recent years. And he is probably right -- such allegations may be rare. But they are not unheard of.
*
Take, for instance, the case of Michael Moore (not the filmmaker). This Moore contends he was forced to resign from his position as at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville in 2006 because he is gay. The Virginia Supreme Court heard an oral petition from his attorney to review his case just this week.
*
the facts of Moore's experience, as well as some of the legal arguments that have been made in the case by the attorney general's office, first under McDonnell and then under Bill Mims, would be interesting to those who have been closely following the discrimination issue.
*
For one thing, Virginia's Department of Human Resource Management found in January 2009 that Moore's sexual orientation was indeed a factor in the ending of his employment. But it found that other issues related to his job performance also played a role, and therefore he was not due back his job. You can read more about the department's finding on page 25 of this appendix to the suit.
*
Interestingly, the attorney general's office has consistently argued that the Executive Order former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) signed in 2006, which barred discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, did not give Moore a "cause of action" to sue in court.
*
That's intriguing, since the reason McDonnell gave for not reissuing Kaine's executive order was that it had indeed provided employees a "cause of action" to sue over discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He said that kind of legal protection could only be extended by the General Assembly. But McDonnell has argued that he could issue a nonbinding "executive directive" offering gays workplace protections because that course of action would not provide them access to courts.
*
In the nonbinding executive directive McDonnell issued on the topic after controversy erupted when sitting Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told colleges and universities that they did not have the authority to include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies, McDonnell indicated that he believed gays were federally protected against discrimination by the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. But in Belue's March filing, on behalf of the attorney general's office, he rejected exactly that argument from Moore, writing that the Equal Protection Clause is "irrelevant to the category of sexual orientation" and "overruled ... in public employment" by a 2008 Supreme Court case.
*
The Virginian Pilot, Daily Press and Richmond Times Dispatch have the same information as the Washington Post but in typical Virginia practice have chosen to not report on the case. Obviously, without media coverage, Bob McDonnell can continue to tell Virginians that anti-gay discrimination is not a problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment