Daily Press: Gay Marriage Ruling Moves Virginia Toward the Right Side of History

The Neanderthals and"godly Christians" in the Daily Press' circulation area will have a cow over today's main editorial in that newspaper which "celebrates" the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling last week upholding Judge Arenda Wright Allen's February 13, 2014, decision that found Virginia's same sex marriage bans to violate the U.S. Constitution.  In the minds of these misogynists, religious freedom means that they get to force their toxic religious beliefs on all citizens.  That even the Daily Press - hardly the most liberal of newspapers - sees the ruling as moving Virginia toward the right side of history vindicates Attorney General Mark Herrings decision not to defend the animus inspired Marshall-Newman Amendment.  Here are editorial highlights:

The prospect of marriage equality makes many people uncomfortable. It makes some very angry. To stop it, opponents successfully amended the state constitution to define marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman, winning 57 percent of the vote in 2006.

But eight years later, the landscape has changed. . . . . preventing access to marriage, and the benefits it entails, is a losing cause. We celebrate this decision as a step forward for Virginia, one that moves the commonwealth away from discrimination and toward the right side of history.

The trend here is obvious. The United States is moving toward recognition of same-sex marriage. A great many court cases find judges reaching a common conclusion: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens and attempts to limit access to it amounts to a constitutional violation.

That was a key part of the Fourth Circuit's ruling, which upheld the decision made by U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen earlier this year. She found the commonwealth's marriage amendment, which reflects the Biblical definition of a union between one man and one woman, in violation to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Judge Allen took the additional step of drawing a parallel between this case and the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. That decision invalidated the commonwealth's anti-miscegenation laws, which banned interracial marriages.

It is coincidence that Virginia finds itself as a high-profile battleground once again in the national debate over marriage. But the nod to history was not lost on those writing for the Fourth Circuit majority, who made a point of calling Virginia's prohibition of same-sex marriage a "type of segregation."  We cannot disagree.

As we have said many times previously, gays and lesbians live and work in the commonwealth. They own homes, pay taxes and vote here. Like their heterosexual neighbors, they aspire to see their communities enjoy good schools, safe streets and a high quality of life.

The Fourth Circuit's ruling means Virginia is headed in that direction as well.  We celebrate these developments and look forward to the day, which now seems inevitable, when all our citizens are free to love and legally marry whom they choose.

It is no coincidence that many of those in Virginia either supported or are the direct descendants of those who supported slavery, segregation and Jim Crow laws, "Massive Resistance" and bans on interracial marriage.  It also is no coincidence that in each and every one of these past horrors in Virginia was justified by selective quotes from the Bible and claimed "sincerely held religious belief."  The toxicity of religion and the Bible seems to never end.

The Daily Press Is Schizophrenic on Gay Marriage

Personally, I am starting to think that the editorial board of the Daily Press is schizophrenic.  Or that it suffers from group amnesia.  How else to describe the editorials unleashed lambasting Attorney General Mark Herring for refusing to defend Virginia's unconstitutional same sex marriage ban.  The editorial board would have preferred that Herring ignore judicial decisions handed down AFTER last November's state wide elections that significantly changed the legal landscape not to mention key language in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor that eviscerated the very arguments put forth by former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to defend Virginia's anti-gay discrimination.  Now, in the wake of the ruling in Bostic v. Rainey, the same editorial board commends U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen for striking down the same same sex marriage ban that it wanted Herring to defend.  Either the ban is unconstitutional - which it is - or it is not.  You cannot have it both ways.  Here are highlights from the more recent editorial which acts as if the prior ones had never been written:

Today, the [Marshall-Newman] amendment teeters on the edge of irrelevancy, undone as much by legal argument as by changing public opinion.

The latest blow came last week when a federal judge struck down the law, but stayed the ruling pending further appeal. As supporters of marriage equality, we were pleased with the decision and maintain that eliminating such a discriminatory provision puts Virginia on the right side of history.

Like many states across the South, the commonwealth adopted its same-sex marriage law to reflect the Biblical definition of traditional marriage. But when it comes to government, marriage is a contract, not a sacrament. It should be grounded in law, not in scripture.

Defining marriage as only between a man and a woman uses sexual orientation to discriminate against one group of Americans. It says heterosexual couples alone should be entitled to file joint tax returns, have visitation rights in hospitals or be a spouse's beneficiary.

Lesbians and gays cannot enjoy those benefits because they do not have access to a marriage license. If they are married in a state recognizing same-sex marriage, those unions are not recognized here.

In her Wednesday ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen concluded the law violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that states may not deny "any person" the "equal protection of the laws." The clause, adopted in 1868, mirrors the limitation on federal government our Founding Fathers placed in the Fifth Amendment.

Yet, in going a step further, the judge tied this lawsuit to the groundbreaking 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down a law barring individuals of different races to be married in the commonwealth. It's a powerful argument with resonance here.
Nor can jurists like Judge Wright Allen set aside precedent set by higher courts. By all accounts, the judge here is religious and might otherwise embrace a traditional definition of marriage. But the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year on the Defense of Marriage Act contributes to a growing body of law favoring equality over marriage protection.

This case will continue its legal journey, next to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly after to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We continue to believe eliminating discrimination from the Constitution would be the best and most fair outcome for the commonwealth. We hope to see that realized.

So jurists such as federal judges cannot ignore rulings by higher courts but attorney generals not only can, but must according to the Daily Press.  The editorial board needs to get its head out of its ass.

Daily Press: Repeal the Marshall Newman Amendment

Despite the Internal Revenue Service's decision to recognize legal same sex marriages regardless of a couple's state of residency, married gay and lesbian couples in Virginia will be able to file joint federal tax returns next April.  Virginia - which has long boot strapped its tax returns on federal return forms and calculations - however will not recognize such marriages or allow joint returns.  That ruling is based on the opinion of closet case homophobe extraordinaire, Ken Cuccinelli.  Not surprisingly, Christofascists at The Family Foundation and other hate groups are lauding Cuccinelli's ruling.  The Daily Press (which has shifted from far right positions more recently) has condemned this discriminatory stance.  Here are editorial excerpts:

Our commonwealth continues to exhibit a discouraging propensity for ignoring individual rights through legislative fiat. The latest caveat illustrating that tendency is the state Department of Taxation's notice to gay and lesbian married couples.

According to the department's advisory, gay and lesbian married couples are not eligible for newly granted federal tax benefits.

That means, for now, while same-sex couples married in other states can file federal income taxes jointly, they must file as separate individuals for tax purposes in the state of Virginia.

The office of outgoing Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — who hung his hat, if not his career, on social issue crusades — maintains this is in keeping with the state's prohibition of same-sex unions. A 1975 law banning same-sex unions was reinforced in 2006 when Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a specifically heterosexual enterprise.

Ironically Virginia hasn't chosen to follow its own star regarding federal taxation policies for quite some time.. According to the taxation department's website:  "Since 1972, Virginia has conformed to federal income tax law. Whenever federal income tax law changed, the changes automatically affected Virginia income taxes, unless otherwise exempt. …."

Our founding documents — not the least of which is the 14th Amendment — go into specific detail about the rights of individual afforded by our Constitution. Then there's Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The "full faith and credit clause" means, among other things, that your valid Virginia driver's license is valid in Georgia, too. States honor and recognize the official acts of other states.  Government should not meddle in the private lives of its citizens. This concept is even more germane in the face of a changing society.

On these pages, prior to the Supreme Court ruling which affected DOMA interpretations, this Editorial Board advocated voiding discriminatory laws. That stance still holds true.  Virginians need to reconsider the constitutional marriage bans. All of our citizens deserve to expect fair treatment under the law.

Daily Press: Mark Herring for Attorney General

While the choice ought to be obvious to anyone who has followed their respective political careers, it is none the less a surprise that the Daily Press - which serves the Hampton, Newport News, Williamsburg and York County area of Virginia - has endorsed Democrat Mark Herring for Virginia Attorney General.  Apparently Mark Obenshain is too extreme even for the Daily Press' editorial board which tends to be far right in its political views (although not as bad as the Richmond Times Dispatch).  Here are highlights from the endorsement:

The choice for attorney general caused more debate for the Daily Press Editorial Board than any other statewide endorsement this year.

In the end, we are endorsing Democrat Mark Herring, in large part because we believe in his commitment to transparency and open access. This is a critical weakness in Virginia, given the state's tepid open government laws and inadequate ethics rules, which fed the flames of the Star Scientific scandal that impacted both the governor and the attorney general's office.

Mr. Herring and Republican nominee Mark Obenshain, both state senators, made it a point to distance themselves from many of the decisions Ken Cuccinelli has made in his four years as attorney general. Mr. Herring, for example, said the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) should be applied to both the attorney general's office and the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Obenshain said he would not have instructed colleges and universities to remove homosexuals from the list of groups protected against discrimination. Both disagreed with Mr. Cuccinelli's decision to sue the University of Virginia to gain access to a former U.Va. professor's research on climate change.

[T]he winner of this election will play a predominant role in interpreting and enforcing the laws of the state, and for that reason it is worth examining those voting records to see what they tell us about the differing philosophies of the two men.

Mr. Obenshain, generally sticking to the GOP party line, has too often voted against individual freedom and in favor of intrusion in the lives of citizens – such as his votes in favor of a law mandating unnecessary ultrasound procedures for women seeking abortions, and in favor of voter ID laws that seem to be aimed less at detecting fraud than at discouraging voting among demographic groups that tend to lean Democratic.

Both candidates said they would provide transparency and open access to public records, but we are at least a little bit leery of Mr. Obenshain's commitment to that principle in light of his vote earlier this year in favor of sealing the previously public records on concealed carry licenses. Mr. Herring voted to keep those records open.

The candidates both favor tighter ethics policies for state officials, but Mr. Herring went further in that regard – vowing that he would urge the new governor to establish an independent agency to advise officials, investigate allegations of impropriety and enforce state policies on gifts, conflicts of interest and other matters of ethics.
Mr. Obenshain refused to sign on for Gov. McDonnell's transportation bill, a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that provides critical funding for our highways and crossings. Mr. Herring's votes on gun legislation have consistently been more sensible than Mr. Obenshain's.

This race provides us with two strong candidates for attorney general. It is not an easy choice.  But our commonwealth is in need of transparency and public access to information. Because Mark Herring is more prepared to offer those things, we endorse him for attorney general.

Congratulations to Mark Herring.  Virginians need to get out and vote for him on November 5, 2013.

Daily Press Endorses Ralph Northam

In yet another sign that perhaps the moribund Daily Press is waking up to the fact that being a far right rag is not conducive to its continued survival, the Daily Press has endorsed Ralph Northam for Lt. Governor of Virginia.  While it would be hard for anyone remotely sane to endorse the GOP candidate, "Bishop" E.W. Jackson - I put bishop in quotes since Jackson formed his own tiny church and gave himself the title of bishop - more insane things have appeared on the Daily Press editorial page in the past.  Thankfully, the editorial board saw that Jackson is an extremist and, arguably, unfit for any elected office while Northam is an educated, rational man with a track record of problem solving.   Here are excerpts from the endorsement:

Ralph Northam has served in the state Senate since 2008. This year he has earned our endorsement for lieutenant governor, the position that serves as the president of that house of the General Assembly.

Mr. Northam, the Democratic nominee, impressed us as a plainspoken man who approaches issues in a thoughtful, even-handed manner. He has the right temperament to work with the governor and lead the state senate as a negotiator in search of bipartisan compromises.

We extended several invitations for Republican nominee E.W. Jackson to meet with us, but his campaign never arranged a time. It is a policy of the Daily Press Editorial Board that we do not consider endorsing local or statewide candidates without discussing their positions with them.

In that way, Mr. Jackson made our decision easy, by leaving us no choice but to endorse Mr. Northam. But had we been able to meet with Mr. Jackson, he would have had a hard time winning our confidence. Mr. Jackson, a bishop from Chesapeake who has never held elective office, has drawn considerable attention for incendiary comments about those with whom he disagrees. 

Many of these quotes come from sermons rather than stump speeches, such as last month when he told a church congregation in Northern Virginia that people who don't follow Jesus Christ "are engaged in some sort of false religion." Mr. Jackson has tried to say that his words from the pulpit should be seen as separate from the policies he stands for as a candidate. But it has to raise red flags when a candidate for statewide political office says, in any context, that homosexuals are "very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally." When he refers to Democrats as "the anti-God party," it does not fill us with confidence in his ability to reach across the aisle for the sort of productive negotiations that are critical to efficient government.

In recent years, our General Assembly has grown increasingly distracted by divisive social issues, often on women's health. The result has been indefensible legislation mandating needless and overly invasive ultrasounds and specifically targeting clinics that provide abortions. To this mix, we cannot afford to add a lieutenant governor who said, in a scripted and professionally filmed video: "Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide."

Mr. Northam, an Army veteran who served in Desert Storm, favors sensible gun laws that balance public safety with the Second Amendment rights of private citizens – though we take issue with him for supporting the legislation that sealed the public records on concealed carry license. He progressive views, tempered by his conservative upbringing on the Eastern Shore, make him a centrist. A doctor who specializes in pediatric neurology, he brings a distinctive perspective on issues such as health care, Medicaid and the relationship between doctor and patient.

Mr. Northam was one of the strongest supporters of Gov. Bob McDonnell's $6 billion transportation deal, a significant piece of legislation that will provide funds for badly needed repairs and expansions for this region's interstates and tunnels. In discussing jobs and the state's economy, he stresses sensible measures addressing transportation, health care and education aimed at making Virginia the most appealing place possible for businesses.

These two candidates for lieutenant governor offer a stark contrast in personalities and in approaches to governing.

Mr. Northam chooses his words carefully and addresses issues in measured tones. He has a diplomatic disposition that would serve him well as the president of a state Senate that has been too polarized in recent years.  For these reasons, we endorse Ralph Northam for lieutenant governor.

Amazingly, Daily Press Endorses McAuliffe for Governor

Yours truly with Terry McAuliffe earlier this year

In many ways, the Daily Press - which covers the Virginia Peninsula and Williamsburg area -  has become an utter right wing rag.  It's become so far right and so poor on its news coverage that the boyfriend and I dropped our subscription entirely.  Thus, my utter shock and amazement to see the Daily Press endorse Terry McAuliffe for Governor.  I nearly needed to have smelling salts administered to me.  That even the Daily Press is running from Cuccinelli speaks volumes about the extremism of this year's GOP statewide slate.  Here are excerpts from the column:

This year's gubernatorial candidates have not thrilled the majority of voters. Democrat Terry McAuliffe has never held public office, and there are concerns about his history of mixing business ventures with his work as a political operative. Republican Ken Cuccinelli, the sitting Attorney General, has his own ethics challenge with Star Scientific, mostly pertaining to substantial gifts he received from the CEO.

But no one is perfect, and voters must decide which man will best serve them. We believe Mr. McAuliffe is the more pragmatic choice to lead our commonwealth for the next four years.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of which man can break through the partisan gridlock and form a consensus on the critical issues Virginia faces. Mr. McAuliffe's strongest asset is his ability to bring together people with differing opinions and negotiate deals in which both parties can find satisfaction. The man is a natural deal maker.

By contrast, Mr. Cuccinelli has used the attorney general's job to take an active role in promoting his own agenda on cultural issues. He made it clear that his office would not defend members of the state's Board of Health if they challenged new legislation targeted squarely at clinics that provide abortions. He demanded research documents from a prominent scientist who formerly worked at U.Va. researching climate change, costing that institution hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal bills. He instructed state colleges and universities that they could not protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. 

Mr. Cuccinelli has a fatal flaw for one who would be leader of all Virginians: He cannot make pragmatic compromises that allow all sides to come away from the bargaining table feeling they have been heard. This is the problem that is crippling our national government today, and we cannot allow to make further headway in our commonwealth. Our Virginia forebears established this nation on personal freedom and respect for compromise, not rigid ideology.

Mr. Cuccinelli has divided not only Virginia's voters, but his own party. . . . . Ample proof lies in the large number of moderate Republican politicians and strategists who have lined up to endorse Mr. McAuliffe – from Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms to Boyd Marcus, who was chief of staff under former Gov. Jim Gilmore. If Mr. Cuccinelli cannot inspire strong support within his own party, how is he going to forge deals with a General Assembly composed of Democrats and Republicans of varying political leanings?

Mr. McAuliffe's extensive background in business would help him tackle the state's most pressing issues, which are directly linked to the economy. His opponents have criticized him as overly opportunistic, but he has been careful to stay on the proper side of the law and has shown an acute talent for bringing deals together and seeing them to fruition.

When Mr. Cuccinelli visited our editorial board four years ago during his campaign for attorney general, he vowed that his strongly held personal beliefs would not interfere with his responsibility to defend and uphold the laws of the commonwealth. We believe he broke that promise.

Trying to appeal to a broader base of Virginia voters, Mr. Cuccinelli is now once again promising that he would not use the office of governor to advance his social beliefs. Based on his past actions, we find that claim hard to accept.

This decision comes down to which candidate is best suited to develop and pass legislation that will benefit our commonwealth. We believe Terry McAuliffe is the best choice for Virginia. He will work to bridge party divides and find common ground to move our state forward. And that's what Virginia needs.

Yep, the Daily Press has Cuccinelli's number and thankfully see him as a lying ideologue.  Kudos to the editorial board.

Debate Over on Gay Marriage? Daily Press: Strike Down DOMA and Gay Marriage Bans

The quality of the Daily Press - the newspaper that serves the Virginia Peninsula area - has become so bad that I typically don't even read it, although we get the paper three days a week.  And if the quality of the news coverage is bad, the editorial positions of the paper are generally even worse and not a far cry from an echo chamber Rush Limbaugh and right wing pundits.  

Thus, imagine my utter shock when I happened to see the subscription pay walled main editorial yesterday that in a well reasoned manner urged the United States Supreme Court to not only strike down DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, but also all bans on gay marriage.  I literally nearly needed smelling salts.  I can only imagine the reactions from knuckle dragging readers in York County and in ultra-conservative pockets in the area.    Among other things the editorial cites the 14th Amendment of equal protection and equality for all citizens under the law, positions espoused in the Cato Foundation briefs in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and recent polls showing majority support for gay marriages.  The outraged letters to the editor should make for some fun reading!

All this raises the point of whether the debate on gay marriage is over outside of right wing media outlets and Christofascist organizations that use the dissemination of anti-gay animus as a main fundraising hook.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this question.  Here are excerpts:

[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.   “There’s no putting this genie back in the bottle,” Florida-based Republican strategist Ana Navarro said Sunday on CNN. “This is now undeniable. The shift is here. We’re not going back.”

A look inside the numbers makes the case even more strongly. It’s no secret that the issue divides strongly along generational lines, with 80 percent of those ages 18 to 29 supportive of gay marriage, compared with 44 percent of those older than 65. But what’s remarkable is that the generational divide on the question is stronger than the partisan one. In the Post-ABC survey, a slim majority of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents younger than 50 now support gay marriage.  

It’s not just national surveys where the shift is evident. In a Columbus Dispatch poll released Sunday, 54 percent of Ohioans favor repealing a 2004 ballot initiative that established marriage as between a man and a woman in the state’s constitution. (The measure passed with 62 percent of the vote nine years ago.)

But, the trajectory of the data suggests that ambitious Republicans who want to win statewide in swing states or get elected president in 2016 and beyond simply won’t proactively talk about the issue. Outside of Republican primary fights, gay marriage will disappear from the national political dialogue as an issue.  

And what of those Republicans who continue to support gay marriage bans and/or urge the Supreme Court to "go slowly" such as Peggy Noonan?  They increasingly sound like the pro-slavery and segregationist of years gone by and seriously need to listen to what they are saying and take step back in time and realize who history is going to remember them:

Noonan said on ABC’s This Week that Americans “don’t take it well” when the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the entire country — such as declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act . . . .

Noonan’s appeal to let the issue take time to “settle itself out” ignores the fact that activists have been fighting for marriage equality for nearly 40 years. And her insinuation that Americans won’t like it if the Court declares a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional ignores that support for marriage equality is at an all time high: a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage rights, up from 37 percent in 2003. That 58 percent includes 81 percent of youth . . . 

Does Noonan really want to be seen by future generations as an equivalent to George Wallace standing in the school room door?   With even the Daily Press on record for marriage equality, Noonan needs to pack up and surrender on this issue.

Will Washington Post Cut it Own Throat and Charge Internet Readers?

One of the phenomenons that has been interesting to watch is the reaction of old fashioned newspapers to the rise of the Internet and the exploding accessibility to news through alternate outlets.  Yes, most newspapers have a web version, but historically their main revenue has come from advertising sales in print editions.   Indeed, the two main local papers in Hampton Roads continue to operate their papers as a frame work for selling advertising and actual news content has become filler between the advertising pages.  Worse yet, as the ad revenues have dropped, writers and columnists have been eliminated and the quality of what news and opinion pieces continue to exist has plummeted thereby accelerating the death spiral.  Some newspapers have reacted by charging web readers - a move that I believe in the longer term will simply drive web readers away and ultimately lead to even fewer subscribers and readers.   

Two cases in point: the New York Times and the local Daily Press.  The latter requires that either one be a 7 day a week print edition subscriber or a paid online subscriber in order to access news articles online.  What's been my reaction?  I simply no longer even bother with the Daily Press and all links to that publication have disappeared from this blog.  That's right, they are 100% gone - as are blog readers who might have followed the link for the full article.  That translates to fewer over all visitors and fewer page view - which leads to advertisers being even less willing to purchase ad space in either version of the newspaper.  

The New York Times hasn't been quite as stupid as the folks at the Daily Press and one can still get 10 free articles per month (20 if one has two computers with different IPS addresses).  So what happens on this blog?  After the free articles for any given month have been used up, all links to New York Times stories disappear from this blog until the following month.  Meanwhile, there is reduce link trough traffic, fewer pages views, and advertisers are less willing to pay for advertising space.  As with the Daily Press, it is a case of being penny wise and pound foolish. 

Now the Washington Post seems poised to cut its own throat and implement some sort of pay for web access scheme.  My prediction?  People will not be willing to pay for it.  A piece on Andrew Sullivan's blog looks at the thoughts of other critics of what I suspect will be a failed strategy:

Rod Dreher, for one, isn't buying the WaPo's subscription strategy:

[I] visit its site multiple times per day, and often come away with articles to link to and comment on. Would I pay for it? No, I wouldn’t. If I lived in Washington, or wrote mostly about politics on this blog, I would. But I live in Louisiana, and besides, I already pay a lot of money to subscribe to a quality national newspaper, The New York Times. I keep going back and forth about whether to subscribe to The Wall Street Journal’s digital edition, because I love the Weekend Review section so much. The problem is that subscribing to the Times costs over $400 a year. Do I have an extra $300 lying around to subscribe to the Journal too? I do not. It has to be one or the other. I need to rethink which one it’s going to be. One reason I’ve stuck with the Times is that it’s much easier to use their links in this blog.

TNC, unlike Dreher,"read[s] the Post online enough to say that I would pay for this". But:

The problem with the Post is that the paper has been so decimated that you wonder whether they still have a product they can sell. I wonder if the Post basically got it backwards--they tried to save by cutting, but in cutting damaged the product (and the brand), and now the Post is trying to get people pay a much less substantial product. It seems it would have been smarter to charge when you had something you knew you could charge for.

In the case of the Daily Press, it truly is no longer worth paying for.  Indeed, the Press' headquarters building is now for sale  as a cost cutting measure.  Charging for online reading is only going to hasten the Press' death.  I hope the Post doesn't follow the Daily Press' model of slow suicide.

Daily Press Proves Itself a Fourth Rate Paper by Endorsing Taliban Bob

This area has two newspapers: the Virginian Pilot out of Norfolk and the Daily Press out of Newport News. Neither paper is first class, but the Daily Press generally makes the Pilot look good in relative terms and just did so again via its lame endorsement of Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell for governor of Virginia. Apparently, the editorial board swallowed each and every one of McDonnell's lies about being a moderate and utterly ignored McDonnell's legislative record and actions as Attorney General which confirm that he continues to be a puppet for Pat Robertson's vision of a theocratic government.

*

Equally baffling is the Press' claim that McDonnell has executive experience when he does not. Being Attorney General does not equate to executive experience since the AG's office only advises and defends the state and its agencies as a law firm might in the private practice realm. Also disturbing is the paper's endorsement of a man who has no viable plan to fix the state's transportation system when the Virginia Peninsula has a daily traffic nightmare problem. Long term economic prosperity depends on improved transportation and McDonnell is a zero on this front. Here are some highlights of the idiocy/fiction writing reigning at the Daily Press:

*

Bob McDonnell has spent the last several years on the path of moderation. By keeping to that middle path, he can be the governor Virginia needs in these tough economic times..

*

Alarms went off about McDonnell with the disclosure of his master's thesis from Regent University, written 20 years ago. That thesis, which promoted policies hostile to working women, homosexuality and even birth control, raised legitimate concerns, as it represents the self-described political agenda of McDonnell in his mid-30s. His voting record as a legislator echoed that agenda at times, and Deeds has relentlessly made it the negative centerpiece of his campaign, but, despite assertions by the Democrats, McDonnell's more recent record shows his political evolution into the more practical, moderate mainstream. That's the McDonnell who is ready to be governor, the McDonnell who has learned that the middle is not only where elections are won, but also where governing is effective.

*

In short, the Daily Press has confirmed to me why I almost NEVER bother to read it even briefly on line. The news that it carries is often three days old and its ability to analyze facts is none existent. It's a prime example of a newspaper that deserves to go out of business.

National Day of Protest and Responding to Hate Mongering

A good friend of mine who has worked with me on many activism projects helped organize the Norfolk, Virginia, protest on November 15, 2008. In addition, she sent a letter to the editor to both the Virginian Pilot - which gave the protest no coverage whatsoever - and to the Daily Press, which publishes to the Hampton, Newport News and Williamsburg markets on the north side of Hampton Roads. While the Pilot all too typically did not print the letter, the Daily Press published it on November 17th with no editing whatsoever. I fully agree with her views (particularly the need for main-line denominations to grow some backbone and challenge the haters) and wanted to share her words with readers. Here is her letter:

*
On Saturday, November 15th, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and their allies rallied across America, all at 1:30 ET, to protest California’s Proposition 8, and other anti-gay measures, passed on Election Day. Even though the local media, save WTKR Channel 3, chose not to cover the story, in Norfolk, we had a peaceful, yet vocal crowd of about 200 protestors. There was also a small group of Christian protestors on hand, yelling that gays are going to hell, and the like. This continued hate mongering is very disturbing to me.

*
I encourage all main-line Christians to talk about love, acceptance, and equal rights for all- just as Jesus did. Please stand up in your churches, your neighborhoods and at work and tell everyone you know if you do not share the same views as the Religious Right. That small minority is giving Christians a bad name and is turning many away from knowing the love of Jesus Christ because of their hate-mongering. This group uses false teachings as a way to raise money. Gays are just their current scapegoat of choice, a mantle that has been shared with blacks, immigrants, unwed mothers, and many others over the years.

*
Many Christians are disturbed that their congregations are shrinking and people are falling away from the Faith. I suggest that it is due to this ugly, fundamental minority of Christians. Because they are so vocal and organized, they appear to speak for all Christians, which we know is not the case. Until straight Christians across the country actively speak out and stand up for the true teachings of Christ, this abhorrent campaign of hate and bigotry will continue, alienating anyone who feels different.

*
I am Christian, and I am a lesbian, and I know my God created me and loves me exactly as I am. I am, however, one of the lucky ones. I encourage you all to reach out and open your hearts (and give your voices) to our lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender brothers and sisters. There are many out there who are hurting. With our civil rights being stripped away, little by little, state by state, the feelings of disenfranchisement and alienation are growing, even for someone as strong in the Faith as me. Please take a stand. Don't let hate rule America, ESPECIALLY in the name of Christ.