Richmond Times Dispatch Prints Anti-LGBT Ad

image via William Mccormack/Facebook

The Richmond Times Dispatch has long been viewed as a "conservative" newspaper - the paper's former right wing editorial columnist James Kilpatrick was even ridiculed on for years Saturday Night Live for his bigotry - but in recent years the paper seemed to be belatedly coming into the 21th Century.  Apparently, such was not the case given that the newspaper recently published an ad by a Christian extremist group attacking LGBT rights and pushing deliberate lies against the LGBT community.  Richmond has made great strides towards becoming a modern, progressive city.  It is a shame that its newspaper continues to lag behind.  One can only wonder if an ad by white supremacists or Neo-Nazis will be next. Perhaps no coincidentally, the ad was run shortly before Equality Virginia's Commonwealth Dinner that takes place this coming Saturday in Richmond.  Gay RVA looks at the disturbing ad that should never have been published by a reputable newspaper.  Here are highlights:

There’s hate speech in today’s paper. It’s right there in black and white, in the Richmond Times Dispatch. Headlined “Homosexuality (LGBTQ) & Culture Change,” there is a small line of text above the black-bordered essay that reads “Paid Advertisement.” But what follows is a clear-cut attack on LGBTQ rights and reproductive freedom, written in the kinds of hateful terms that any reputable publication should think twice about printing — even if they did get paid for it.

The advertisement was paid for by the Virginia Christian Alliance, and the essay it contains is attributed to Greene Hollowell, listed on Virginia Christian Alliance’s Board Of Directors page as Founder and Web Editor of the group.

Painting the struggle for LGBTQ rights as a sinister plot, the essay says that “the homosexual community saw how the culture was changed by using slogans like ‘a woman’s right to health care’ and ‘choice’… they organized and have been very successful in changing people’s minds by demonstrations, appeals for ‘fairness,’ comparisons to the African-Americans’ fight for freedom, and again, the Supreme Court’s rulings” At this point, things go from dog-whistle implications to outright anti-LGBTQ propaganda. “This has occurred despite the universal feeling of the not-so-distant past that the acts were so gross that they were referred to as ‘unmentionables.’ Through the years, it has been referred to as sodomy, homosexuality, gay, and now LGBTQ.” That’s right, folks — the newspaper just told you and everyone who cares about you that attempting to treat LGBTQ people fairly is a sure path to burn in the fires of hell. Either that, or they’re saying that supporting the LGBTQ community will straight-up get you killed — that last line could really be read either way. Regardless, not the sort of thing anyone wants to read in their hometown’s biggest and best-known print publication.

Virginia Christian Alliance previously grabbed headlines when they sponsored a 2015 bill introduced by the unlamented former delegate, Bob Marshall. The bill, 2015′s HB 1414, was known as a “conscience clause” bill, and was intended to allow for discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community under the guise of “religious freedom.” These sorts of bills continue to bedevil the LGBTQ community in this state and others to this day, though thankfully none have yet been passed here in Virginia.

LGBTQ people and their allies who read the Richmond Times-Dispatch today got to hear about how they were courting damnation. I hope the money that paid for that ad was worth risking a loss of support from the significant majority of Americans who support marriage equality (64 percent according to a 2017 Gallup poll). Maybe they were just hoping we wouldn’t notice.

Shame on the Times Dispatch.  Hopefully, the Virginian Pilot and Daily Press will not participate in publishing lies and hate-based propaganda if such an ad is submitted to them.  

Openly Trans Danica Roem Defeats Bigot-in-chief Bob Marshall

Tonight has been an amazing night watching Virginia elect Democrats and send a very loud message to Der Trumpenführer and Republicans who continue to campaign on a constant message of hate and division.  As a gay man, as sweet as the Democrat sweep of the statewide offices, the defeat of Del. Bob Marhall, a man who once basted that he wanted drive all gays from Virginia, go down to defeat to Danica Roem, an openly transgender woman was ever so sweet.  Particularly since Marshall wage an exceptionally aggressive war on transgender Virginians.  Back in April I had the the privilege of meeting Danica Roem at the Equality Virginia Commonwealth Dinner where I was an honoree.  She will be an amazing addition to the House of Delegates.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post on her victory:

Democrat Danica Roem ousted longtime incumbent Del. Robert G. Marshall (R) Tuesday, becoming the first openly transgender elected official in Virginia — and one of very few in the nation.

The race between Roem, 33, and Marshall, 73, focused on traffic and other local issues in Prince William County but also exposed the nation’s fault lines over gender identity. It pitted a local journalist who began her physical gender transition four years ago against an outspoken social conservative who has referred to himself as Virginia’s “chief homophobe” earlier this year introduced a “bathroom bill” that died in committee.

A crowd of Roem supporters inside the City Tavern in Manassas erupted when Roem’s victory was announced. They cheered even louder when Northam was projected to win the governor’s seat.

The contest was one of dozens of state legislative races where Democrats were pushing to gain ground in the Republican-majority General Assembly, buoyed by a surge of anti-Trump sentiment among Democrats and independents and hoping to provide an example for the nation of how to run in opposition to the unpopular Republican president.

Roem outraised Marshall 3-to-1, with nearly $500,000 in donations, much of it coming from LGBT advocates and other supporters across the country. She and her supporters executed an aggressive ground game, knocking on doors more than 75,000 times in a district with 52,471 registered voters, sitting for endless public appearances and interviews, and maintaining a steady social media presence.

Marshall, who was first elected in 1991, refused to debate Roem, kept his schedule private and declined most interview requests. 

While Roem campaigned mostly on local frustrations with traffic congestion along Route 28, she also talked about her gender identity when asked. The race took an ugly turn when Marshall and his supporters released ads highlighting  Roem ’s transgender identity and referring to the Democrat with male pronouns.

In the end, that tactic failed, with Roem leading by nearly 10 percentage points with 90 percent of the vote counted, according to preliminary, unofficial results.

In addition to calling him “a mirror” of Trump, Roem criticized Marshall as a lawmaker more concerned with advancing his conservative agenda than with dealing with local problems such as traffic.

That message resonated in communities along Route 28 — particularly Manassas Park, a rapidly changing area that has seen an influx of immigrants and millennials in recent years.Marshall lost there four years ago, when he defeated Democrat Atif Qarni by just 498 votes.

A state Republican Party flier accused Roem of “wanting transgenderism taught to kindergartners” — a reference to a radio interview in which she supported the idea of addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender matters in schools “in an age-appropriate manner.”

Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, said Marshall may have erred in making too much of Roem’s transgender identity while refusing to participate in public-policy debates.

Virginia Anti-Transgender "Bathroom Bill" Killed in Committee

With America entering a national nightmare today, there is a scarcity of positive news for LGBT Americans, especially in light of the who's who of homophobes that have been nominated by Der Fuhrer for his cabinet.  But there was piece of welcomed good news out of Richmond yesterday:  Del. Bob Marshall's bathroom bill that targeted transgender individuals and would have required public school personnel to "out" LGBT students to their parents was killed in committee. Remarkably, the committee was GOP controlled so the take away is that despite the batshitery underway in Washington, DC, Virginia Republicans did pay attention to the self-inflicted economic damage North Carolina suffered as a result of the passage of HB2.  The bill's patron, Bob Marshall, has a bizarre obsession with LGBT Virginians and has publicly stated that he'd love to drive us from Virginia.  Marshall isn't "conservative" - he's just plain mentally disturbed. The Washington Post looks at yesterday's welcomed development.  Here are excerpts:

A Virginia lawmaker blasted fellow Republicans as “disgusting” cowards Thursday for rejecting his bill to regulate the use of bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, highway rest stops and other government-owned buildings.

“You campaign one way and come down here and kill things silently,” Del. Robert G. Marshall (Prince William) fumed at members of a GOP-controlled House subcommittee after they used an unrecorded voice vote to dispatch with his bill.

Marshall had proposed legislation similar to what passed with great controversy in North Carolina last year.  . . . . He softened the measure somewhat as the House General Laws subcommittee took it up in an afternoon hearing, proposing an amendment to strike the word “original” from the legislation. The amendment would have allowed those who undergo sex-reassignment therapy or surgery and who have their birth certificates changed to reflect that to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity.

Marshall said the purpose of the bill was to protect women and girls from predatory men who might pretend to be transgender to gain access to areas where women are undressed. . . . Dubbing his bill the “Physical Privacy Act,” Marshall bristled at its more common description as the “bathroom bill.” 

A handful of conservative and liberal activists testified for and against the measure. Then, with no discussion among the subcommittee’s five Republicans and two Democrats, Del. Barry D. Knight (R-Virginia Beach) moved to lay the bill on the table. The action kills the bill unless the subcommittee reverses itself within a week’s time, Marshall said.

Marshall had never expected the bill would become law, at least not under Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who had vowed to veto it if it got to his desk. But he hoped to pressure Republican leaders to let it get to the floor of the House.

One of the most vocal conservatives in the General Assembly, Marshall has often accused Republican leaders of killing his social-issue bills to avoid controversy.

Republicans aren't avoiding controversy - they have simply finally awoken to Marshall's insanity and want nothing of it.  Chalk a defeat for the hate merchants at The Family Foundation who I am certain had a hand in this bill.

Virginia Republicans Compete to See Can Most Be Anti-LGBT

Del. C. Todd Gilbert

For years Delegate Bob Marshall has been an embarrassment to the Commonwealth of Virginia and brought negative national and international news coverage to Virginia. This session of the Virginia General Assembly there is apparently a contest among Virginia Republicans in the General Assembly to see who can propose the most anti-LGBT legislation and at the same time offer the most special rights to far right Christians - whom I refer to as Christofascists.  GOP Delegate C. Todd Gilbert  (who represents a backwater district in the Shenandoah Valley) seemingly is trying hard to outdo Bob Marshall in lunacy and anti-gay animus by introducing HB 773 which proposes the utterly ridiculously named "Government Nondiscrimination Act" which would allow "sincerely held religious belief" to be invoked to ignore any LGBT non-discrimination law that one did not like.  

In addition, the HB 773 would (i) undercut all pro-Transgender legislation and policies by focusing on what is between one's legs at birth, (ii) bar the revocation of licenses by licensing authorities, if a party's failure to comply with ethical and licensing requirements was based on religious belief or moral conviction," and (iii) eliminate the typical requirement that one must exhaust applicable administrative appeals processes before filing a lawsuit.   This latter provision would seemingly allow therapists and clinicians to engage in witch doctor like practices - e.g., ex-gay "cure" or reparative therapy practices - condemned by state licensing authorities so long as they could claim that they were acting in accordance with their religious beliefs.  

Here are some excerpts from Gilbert's bill that is nothing more than a license to discriminate law masquerading as a law to protect religious freedom:

§ 57-2.3. Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.
A. Notwithstanding any other statute, regulation, or administrative order to the contrary, a government entity shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, in whole or in part, on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (i) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman and (ii) the male sex and the term "man" and the female sex and the term "woman" refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics of the individual at the time of birth.

C. Any person that would otherwise be accredited, licensed, or certified for any purpose under state law but for a determination against such person, in whole or in part, on the basis that the person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction set forth in subsection A shall be considered to be validly accredited, licensed, or certified in the Commonwealth.

§ 57-2.4. Judicial relief.
A. A person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain compensatory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or any other appropriate relief. A person that prevails in any proceeding to enforce a provision of this chapter in any proceeding against a government entity, excluding criminal prosecutions, shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

In the past religious belief has NEVER been utilized to gran complete exemptions from compliance with generally applicable non-discrimination laws.  Now, with the Republican Party having become a sectarian party that has nothing but contempt for religious freedom except when invoked by the party's Christofascist base,   Gilbert's bill is disgusting and shows how far the GOP is willing to prostitute itself to religious extremism that are as motivated by hate almost as much the Islamic extremists that the GOP so loudly condemns.   The only good news is that Gov. Terry McAuliffe would veto the bill if it manages to pass the General Assembly. 

Personally, my contempt for the Republican Party of Virginia continues to grow  as does my revulsion for the self-anointed "godly folk."

Del. Bob Marshall: Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation is NOT A "Manufactured Issue"

Del. Bob Marshall continues to prove that he is a foul, homophobic a**hole.  As reported by the Northern Virginia Times, Marshall continues to want to extend licenses to discriminate laws in favor of Christofascists so that they can discriminate against LGBT Virginians (and probably others who offend their feigned religious sensibilities).   Worse yet, Marshall says that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a "manufactured issue."  Obviously, Marshall is blind to instances like when I was forced from a law firm that did not want an openly gay member of the firm since it might "offend the sensibilities of conservative clients." Anti-gay discrimination is very much alive and well in Virginia and I know have a number of friends who lost their jobs for being gay and I continue to receive calls at my office from individuals who have lost their jobs at the hands of "godly Christians."  Thankfully, Marshall is opposed in the November's election by a candidate who is not afraid to call out Marshall's bigotry and to use some brickbats in the process.  Marshall's opponent, Don Shaw (who has a gay son) is asking that people send Bob Marshall a message.  Please sign the petition (I have) and spread the word.  While you are at it, contribute to Don's campaign.  Here are details on the petition:

The Prince William Times recently published a story on the religious freedom bill passed in Indiana and Bob Marshall's similar efforts in Virginia. Below is an excerpt from the story:

Asked Friday if he planned to make another attempt, Marshall said, "I will have to see how completely gutless the Republican leadership is. They don't want to deal with this." Marshall said he considered the effort to extend protections to gays and others based on sexual orientation "a manufactured issue." He said, "Have you ever seen Wal-Mart or K-Mart with a sign saying 'We only serve heterosexuals.' How can you tell? I haven't the slightest idea how to fathom it."

The entire story can be found by clicking here.

Don Shaw believes discrimination based on sexual orientation does exist and is a real issue. Don also recognizes that LGBT rights are both a human rights and an economic issue. Don firmly believes that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender-identity, or sexual orientation have the right to work, live, and raise a family free of the threat of discrimination simply because of who they are.

SIGN THE PETITION below to tell Bob Marshall that discrimination based on sexual orientation is real and not a "manufactured issue."

We need to send Marshall into retirement in November.  Please support Don Shaw. 

Support Don Shaw - Let's Retire Bob Marshall

Don Shaw and his family

A few days ago I wrote a post about the need to defeat GOP Del. Bob Marshall in November.  Marshall is perhaps one of the most hate-filled homophobes in the Virginia General Assembly and once boasted that he'd like to drive all the gays out of Virginia.  I noted in the post that Marshall has a Democrat challenger who needs our support.  Much to my surprise, I received the following e-mail from Don Shaw, Marshall's opponent:

Thank you for the blog post yesterday.  It's definitely time to Retire Bob Marshall.  He has furthered his anti-LGBT hate agenda at the expense not only of those against whom he campaigns, but also at the expense of progress and economic security here in Virginia.  I'm a strong ally of the LGBT community not only because I'm a Democrat, but because I absolutely believe in equality for all.  As was mentioned in the WaPo article, my 23-year-old son is gay.  I am unequivocal in my assertion that equal rights should not be contingent on his sexual orientation, but on the fact that he is a person.  I also have a 21-year-old daughter who has special needs.  Contrary to what Marshall has said, she is not God's punishment for abortion.  On the contrary, she's a blessing I count fortunate to have received every single day.  I would be remiss if I didn't mention our youngest.  She believes, and I agree, that she deserves equal pay for equal work and that she should be able to make her own healthcare decisions.  My wife is a wonderful and accomplished person in her own right, without whom I wouldn't be where I am today.  My family keeps me grounded and inspired me to step up and run for office to put an end to the continuous social war being waged by Bob Marshall.

Anyway, I wanted to send you a personal note of thanks for picking up on the WaPo story and blogging about it.  I've read some of your entries; I wish I had the time to go back and catch up on all of them.  You have a powerful story in your own right and I thank you for sharing it.  

Please share information about the campaign liberally and encourage those in a position to contribute to do so.  We're fighting the good fight and we will win!  Thank you!

Best,

Don

Don Shaw

Democratic Candidate

VA House of Delegates

13th District

http://www.shawfordelegate.com

PLEASE SUPPORT DON'S CAMPAIGN AND MAKE A CONTRIBUTION (USE THE LINK ABOVE) WHETHER YOU LIVE IN VIRGINIA OR NOT.  SENDING BOB MARSHALL INTO RETIREMENT WILL PERHAPS SEND A MESSAGE TO THE GOP.

Will Indiana's RFRA Spur the Virginia GOP to Increase Legalized Discrimination?

TFF's Queen of Hate and Bigotry, Victoria Cobb

While Indiana has come up with a less than acceptable "fix" to the furor that the Indiana GOP unleashed on that state, including condemnation from a who's who of the business world, some of the usual suspects in Virginia may perceive an opportunity to increase the existing license to discriminate under Virginia's existing RFRA which parallels the federal act.  Leading the charge is Del. Bob Marshall and, not doubt acting as puppeteer behind the scenes is The Family Foundation ("TFF"), a toxic anti-gay hate group with strong white supremacists leanings.  With the entire House of Delegates up for re-election in November, it is a safe bet that TFF will be calling in chits from incumbent Republicans and would be Virginia GOP candidates.  It is also worth remembering that LGBT Virginians have ZERO statutory non-discrimination protections thanks largely to the efforts of TFF and its Republican minions. A column in the Roanoke Times looks at the maneuvering that has already started.  Here are excerpts:

The national controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has reignited the debate over the meaning of a 2007 Virginia statute.

It also has renewed discussion about the fine line between protecting religious liberty and what some view as a license to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
The Indiana law, criticized by the state’s business leaders as discriminatory and as a detriment to hiring the best and the brightest for their companies, this week prompted Gov. Terry McAuliffe to try to lure its businesses to the commonwealth.  . . . . McAuliffe spokesman Brian Coy on Thursday clarified that the governor didn’t want to downplay discrimination against gays and lesbians in Virginia, “but that doesn’t mean we aren’t in a place where we’re making serious progress.”

Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, said that with his letter, McAuliffe conceded that there is not discrimination of LGBT Virginians.  “It’s very hypocritical of the governor to come to the General Assembly and say we need a law elevating sexual orientation to a protected class and then go to Indiana and say that we don’t discriminate,” Cobb said. . . . “Our law has served us well, simply providing people of faith their day in court,” she said.

Carl Tobias, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that the cultural and judicial acceptance of same-sex marriage has reignited interest in passing laws to protect religious liberties.  “But RFRAs haven’t been used that way before, they have mainly been used by prisoners to gain protection for their religious beliefs,” Tobias said. “The concern is now that this will be turned into a device to discriminate against same-sex couples and LGBT people. That is a fairly legitimate concern.”

This year, during the legislative session, Marshall proposed his own tweak to Virginia’s law on religious liberty.  But his measure, that would have allowed anyone holding a state license, including business owners, lawyers and doctors, to deny services to gay people without facing disciplinary action, was defeated by a Republican-led House panel in January.  Virginia ACLU director Gastanaga said Marshall essentially “was trying to do the Indiana thing.”

The mere fact that some lawmakers want to strengthen Virginia’s religious liberty law is perceived as a threat by advocates for LGBT rights — in spite of legalized same-sex marriage and McAuliffe’s executive order protecting Virginia state employees from discrimination based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.  “Gay people can still be fired, be denied housing, be denied public accommodation,” said James Parrish, executive director of the gay rights group Equality Virginia.

“We get calls from people who were not hired because they are gay, and because gays and lesbians are not included as a protected class, there is no legal recourse,” Parrish said.  Said Gastanaga: “The reality is, we do not have a general non-discrimination bill. We have one of the weakest civil rights laws in the country. We are like Indiana in that respect.

Stay tuned for more Virginia GOP and TFF efforts to strengthen the right to discriminate based on false claims of "religious freedom."

House of Delegates Committe Kills "License to Distriminate Bill

Gay hater Bob Marshall

As noted previously, Del. Bob Marshall - possibly the most virulently anti-gay individual in Virginia - introduced a bill that would have allowed anyone holding a state issued license to discriminate against same sex couples or LGBT individuals in general.   The bill was beyond extreme as demonstrated by the fact that a committee in the GOP controlled House of Delegates killed the bill.  Meanwhile, of course, Del. Marshall had gain nationwide, if not worldwide, negative publicity for Virginia.   The Washington Blade has details on the killing of this "license to discriminate" bill.  Here are highlights:

A Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee on Thursday killed a so-called “conscience clause” bill that would have allowed state licensed or accredited business owners to deny service to someone based on their religious beliefs. 

House Bill 1414, which state Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William County) introduced last month, specifically cited “same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual behavior.”

“Equality Virginia applauds the subcommittee for voting against this discriminatory and destructive bill,” said James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBT advocacy group. 

“This bill would have hurt too many people, damaged our business climate, and highlighted Virginia as a hostile and unwelcoming place to live and work. The majority of Virginians agree that discrimination against LGBT people is wrong, and thankfully today’s vote reflects that opinion.”

Lawmakers tabled HB 1414 on the same day that Equality Virginia, Equality North Carolina and South Carolina Equality officially launched a campaign designed to highlight LGBT-friendly businesses.

 I can only imagine the wrath that those Republicans who voted to table the bill will face from the foul, hate-filled theocrats at The Family Foundation.

Has the Marriage Equality Backlash Just Begun?

Here in Virginia homophobe extraordinaire Del. Bob Marshal has introduced a bill which, if passed would give wholesale license to Christofascists to discriminate against gays based on religious convictions against same sex marriage or homosexuality in general.  Thankfully, Gov. Terry McAuliffe has vowed to veto the bill if it manages to pass the General Assembly.   Meanwhile, formerly far right conservative clubs such as the James River Country Club in nearby Newport News are accepting married same sex couples (the husband and I are now members of an old line yacht club).  Thus, the reaction to marriage equality in Virgina is divergent at best.  The same phenomenon is being witnessed across America, with anti-gay efforts wrapped in the smoke screen of protecting "religious freedom."  A piece in The Advocate looks at the situation.  Here are article excerpts:

Scott and Daniel Wall-DeSousa are now free to drive anywhere they like in the state of Florida. Previously, the state had refused to issue the couple accurate drivers' licenses after they married in New York and hyphenated their name, but state officials have since relented.

This is a victory for gay and lesbian couples in Florida, but we certainly haven't seen the last of bureaucrats and legislators creating roadblocks to same-sex couples who seek to wed.

Sometimes, those roadblocks will take the form of a minor headache and expense, like when clerks in several northern Florida counties stopped offering courthouse marriages for all couples rather than solemnize the unions of same-sex partners, or when a wedding planner informed a lesbian couple that she couldn't plan their wedding because she was overbooked — and also because she didn't "feel comfortable" with their sexual orientation. But in Virginia, where a proposed bill would let hospitals turn away LGBT patients, the consequences could be far more dire.

Around the country, other antigay legislation would rescind local nondiscrimination ordinances or force clerks to disobey pro-equality court rulings. Some lawmakers are pushing bills that would make it harder for LGBT people to do business, and others laws could facilitate evictions and firings.

With their marriage bans overturned after nearly 20 years, the only recourse available to antigay legislators consists of laws that make it easier to discriminate — often couched in language claiming to protect "religious freedom."

The take away?  Get ready for all kinds of batshitery under the guise of "protecting religious freedom."  

Marriage Bans are About Anti-Gay Animus

I have not studied all of the legislative and campaign history behind the gay marriage bans enacted in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, but if they are anything like what happened in Virginia before passage of the vile Marshall-Newman Amendment or what transpired in Congress before passage of DOMA, the effort was all about anti-gay animus and the desire of Christofascists to permanently denigrate gays and to make us forever inferior under the law.  "Protecting the sanctity of  marriage" had little to do with the real agenda.  This anti-gay animus was analyzed by the Supreme Court in the Windsor ruling and in Virginia, the foul anti-gay rhetoric of Bob Marshall and Ken Cuccinelli helped document the animus behind the Marshall-Newman Amendment.  Now, with the Court taking the appeal from the 6th Circuit, animus will again be prominent in the Court's focus.  A piece at SCOTUS Blog lays out why these marriage bans are all about animus.  Here are excerpts:

Were the thirty-one state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage enacted between 1998 and 2012, including four the Court decided Friday to review, the products of constitutionally repugnant “animus” – that is, a desire to disparage or injure gays out of fear, misunderstanding, or dislike?  Or, do they represent, as Judge Jeffrey Sutton maintained in the opinion for the Sixth Circuit that is now before the Court, a benign, even admirable, initiative by “people of good faith,” endowed with a “Burkean sense of caution,” to validate a “long-existing, widely held social norm”?  Who are we, Judge Sutton asked, to “indict” millions of voters who supported these mini-DOMAs?

The question of animus will be prominent – perhaps pivotal – in this final phase of marriage litigation.  So far, the arguments made by plaintiffs have been remarkably sterile, emphasizing formal equal protection and due process arguments and failing to say much about how the mini-DOMAs actually came into being.  But such a picture is incomplete.  To fully consider the constitutionality of the remaining anti-marriage laws, we must lift up these proverbial rocks to see what was festering underneath them.

When evidence of gratuitous or irrational intent to harm a group outweighs a law’s purported legitimate justifications, the law betrays an improper purpose and violates equal protection.  As the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed in Hunter v. Underwood, the same law can be valid or not under the Equal Protection Clause depending on whether it was “motivated by a desire to discriminate.”

The Court has demonstrated time again – in Underwood, as well as cases like Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, and Romer v. Evans – that in a purpose inquiry, history, circumstances, and objective evidence (both direct and inferential) about the enactors’ intent all matter. 


First, look at the record.  Spend a few minutes browsing news databases for coverage of the mini-DOMA campaigns and it confirms what you knew but may have forgotten: the campaigns were substantially characterized by negative code words, moral judgment, and disparagement (often implicit, sometimes explicit) of gays’ dignity.

A few weeks before Ohioans voted on their mini-DOMA, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Ohio’s secretary of state was “standing by remarks he made comparing same-sex couples with barnyard animals.”  (Judge Sutton apparently missed that report.) . . . . we can find plenty of animus propelling these initiatives if we’re simply willing to see it.

Then, look at the data.  Data from the American National Election Survey on attitudes toward various groups, known as a “feeling thermometer,” show that for much of the period when the mini-DOMAs were debated, Americans had quite frigid feelings toward homosexuals. 

Remember, this was wedge-issue politics.  Anyone who paid even modest attention to politics over the past twenty years knows that gay marriage was, until recently, one of the conservative movement’s most potent wedge issues to mobilize its base and drive up turnout.
Wedge issues are rarely helpful to “earnest and profound debate,” but they are kissing cousins with animus.  Politicians count on voters to react to wedge issues emotionally and reflexively, not with calm nuance and reason.

Query why mini-DOMAs go farther than necessary.  It is one thing for a state to reserve marriage licenses for heterosexuals.  It is another thing, as I have written, to claim to void or nullify marriages created by other states.  Almost all the mini-DOMAs do this, even for long-married couples who are migrating to a different state and did not evade their home state’s marriage laws.

The nearly universal principle of reciprocal state marriage recognition, according to a leading conflict of laws treatise, “provides stability in an area where stability (because of children and property) is very important, and it avoids the potentially hideous problems that would arise if the legality of a marriage varied from state to state.”  To impose such “hideous” burdens on a legally married couple is cruel.  But millions of Americans nonetheless decided it was acceptable to do that to gays and lesbians.

Moreover, if the amendments were simply intended to preserve a traditional definition of marriage, it was unnecessary to also prohibit, as most of them did, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or (in the words of the Michigan amendment) any “similar union for any purpose.”  These amendments permanently barred gays from seeking even some lesser forms of legal recognition for their relationships.  If voters knew what they were doing, then it is difficult to imagine a reasonable, non-animus-based explanation for such overreaching.

Finally, probe the frivolous justifications.  If the mini-DOMAs collectively stand for more than knee-jerk moral judgments by voters, whipped up by activists with their own agenda, then the states now defending them should be able to offer more substantial justifications than the fanciful and logic-defying idea – notably pulverized by Richard Posner, a jurist who took the argument seriously enough to actually think about it – that banning gay marriage somehow channels more children into mom-and-dad households and promotes “responsible procreation” by heterosexuals.  This argument, in one form or another, is pretty much the only substantive purpose that states have offered in post-Windsor marriage litigation.

[A]s a solid body of equal protection jurisprudence has demonstrated, they are often the tip-off that something more unsavory – animus, perhaps? – was actually at work.

Faced With legalization of Gay Marriage, Virginia Republicans Manuver to Block Gay Rights

Prior posts have noted the efforts of Del. Bob Marshall to legalized anti-gay discrimination on a broad scale.  Marshall - who has stated he'd like to drive all gays from Virginia - has many allies in the Virginia GOP and, most importantly, is pushing the anti-gay agenda of The Family Foundation ("TFF"), a hate group in all by formal SPLC designation.  Countering these efforts are Gov. Terry McAuliffe (about whom TFF has nothing good to say) and Democrat members of the Virginia General Assembly who want to drag Virginia once and for all out of a 1800's style theocracy.  The Washington Post looks at the vying efforts.  Here are highlights:

With the legalization of same-sex marriage in Virginia, Democrats and some Republicans have unleashed a torrent of proposals intended to reflect the new reality in time for the start of the legislative session on Wednesday.

Liberal lawmakers have jumped at the chance to remove language banning gay marriage from the state’s constitution and statutes — a move that could energize their most ardent supporters in a year when all 140 General Assembly seats will be up for grabs.

The proposals also could force skittish Republicans to take a stand on gay rights, possibly pushing them into an awkward balancing act between fears about primary challenges from the right and the potential for alienating moderate general-election voters. 

On Monday, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) said scrubbing the state code of references to “husband and wife” in exchange for the gender-neutral term “spouse” will help attract businesses to the state — the centerpiece goal of his governorship.

With gay marriage in particular, polls show that the overall electorate slightly favors it. Yet Republicans are unlikely to budge until the U.S. Supreme Court defines marriage once and for all.

“The lack of a clear and definitive answer from the Supreme Court and pending cases in other parts of the country creates legal uncertainty for the commonwealth. It is unlikely that the House would make significant changes to the law while this uncertainty remains,” said Matt Moran, a spokesman for Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), who himself faces a challenge from the right in an evenly split district.

Four Democrats — Sen. Adam P. Ebbin and Del. K. Robert Krupicka Jr. of Alexandria and Sen. Janet D. Howell and Del. Scott A. Surovell of Fairfax — filed resolutions seeking to remove the ban from the state constitution. Amending the constitution requires passage in two legislative sessions with an election in between as well as voter approval. 

Conservative activists say the proposals are nothing but red meat for the Democratic base, not unlike other parts of McAuliffe’s legislative agenda.

Susan Swecker, a longtime Democratic activist and national committeewoman, said Democrats’ bills show the party is “marching in lock step” with voters, who have rewarded Democrats with all five statewide offices.  “There’s been a sea change,” she said. “In the last 10, certainly 20 years, a change in how people feel about this issue.

Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) said such bills will have little chance until federal law includes the LGBT community as a protected class.

Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William) filed two “conscience clause” bills: One would block McAuliffe from making nondiscrimination against people because of their sexual orientation a condition of entering into a government contract. The other says anyone who gets a license or authority from the state would not have to serve or counsel same-sex couples if he or she has moral or religious objections. 

[James] Parrish of Equality Virginia called the licensure bill “extremist, hateful, and discriminatory.” He said: “Discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is still discrimination, and Virginia is better than that.”

Personally, I don't see any pro-gay measures passing the Virginia General Assembly - the Virginia GOP is too focused on groveling to Victoria Cobb, president of TFF and putative dominatrix of the Virgina GOP.   The good news is that Gov. McAuliffe will veto whatever batshitery the Republicans manage to pass during the coming legislative session.

Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays

Here in Virginia, GOP homophobic extremist Del. Bob Marshall has introduced a bill that would give broad license to discriminate against gays based on claims of "religious freedom."  The bill is so extreme that discrimination is licensed if gays and/or same sex relationships “violate the religious or moral conviction of such person with respect to same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual behavior.”  Marshall's bill is no doubt backed by the hate merchants at The Family Foundation, Virginia's leading hate group. But Marshall's efforts are part of the Republican play book across the country where Republican legislators - yes, it is ALWAYS Republicans - are introducing "turn away the gays" bills under the smoke screen of "protecting religious liberty."  A column in the New York Times takes on these crude, bigoted efforts.  Here are excerpts:

I’VE been called many unpleasant things in my life, and I’ve deserved no small number of them. But I chafe at this latest label: A threat to your religious liberty.

I don’t mean me alone. I mean me and my evidently menacing kind: men who have romantic relationships with other men and maybe want to marry them, and women in analogous situations. According to many of the Americans who still cast judgment on us, our “I do” somehow tramples you, not merely running counter to your creed but running roughshod over it.

That’s absurd. And the deference that many politicians show to such thinking is an example not of religion getting the protection it must but of religious people getting a pass that isn’t warranted. It’s an illustration of religion’s favored status in a country that’s still working out this separation-of-church-and-state business and hasn’t yet gotten it quite right.

Equality is increasingly being enshrined into law, and one response from those opposed to it is that the law shouldn’t apply to them.  Why? Because it contradicts their religious beliefs, which they use as a fig leaf for intolerance.

[L]ast year, more than 10 states considered legislation that, to varying degree, blessed discrimination based on sexual orientation by people claiming that it was a right, a matter of religious liberty. . . . .  A Virginia lawmaker introduced this sort of legislation just a few weeks ago.

But this is only the beginning, especially with the contest for the Republican presidential nomination gathering steam.    Several likely candidates — Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee — get a special gleam in their eyes when they’re denigrating gays

Another probable contender, Jeb Bush . . . . said that America needed to take care to “safeguard religious liberty,” and there are several problems with that formulation.

For starters, it perpetuates confusion, some of which is cynically engineered, about the consequences of marriage-equality laws. They do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque; no clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials. Civil weddings are covered. That’s it.

But also, “religious liberty” sounds disturbingly like a dog whistle to the crowd that wants specified, codified exemption from anti-discrimination laws . . . . As these lamentations about religious liberty get tossed around, it’s worth remembering that racists have used the same argument to try to perpetuate segregation. 

Christian fundamentalists in this country are practiced at claiming marginalization and oppression. “They’re always saying they’re kept out of the public square, and that’s baloney,” said Marci Hamilton, a constitutional law expert and the author of “God vs. the Gavel.” “They’re all over the public square.”  They and their churches inject themselves into political debates while enjoying tax-exempt status. They get public support in questionable circumstances.

 

Would we be content to let a Muslim store owner who believes that a woman should always cover her hair refuse service to women who do not? Or a Mormon hairdresser who spurns coffee to turn away clients who saunter in with frappuccinos?  I doubt it. So why should a merchant whose version of Christianity condemns homosexuality get to exile gays and lesbians?

I respect people of faith.  . . . . And I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts.  But outside of those places? You must put up with me, just as I put up with you.

Unlike the author of the column,  I don't respect most people of faith.  Certainly not religious fundamentalists who have chosen ignorance and bigotry over knowledge and tolerance to those who are different.   Rather than give them a license to discriminate, we need to restrict their rights in the public square and put religion back where it belongs: in homes and houses of worship and nowhere else.

Bob Marshall Again Puts Virginia and the Virginia GOP in a Bad Light

I continually wonder WTF is wrong with the voters of Del. Bob Marshall's district that they keep electing such a lunatic to the House of Delegates.  The man never introduces common sense bills, but instead every year introduces one or more bills that open the state and the Republican Party of Virginia to ridicule and derision.  As noted recently, this year he has introduced two anti-gay bills - both supposedly to protect "religious freedom" - which seek to put "godly Christians" above the laws that govern everyone else.  Indeed, Marshall is so extreme it's a wonder that he hasn't come out singing the praises of the shooter in the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo (Catholic League lunatic William Donohue has said the victims brought on - dare we say deserved - their own deaths since they offended religious sensibilities).  A piece in Slate shows how Marshall again has brought horrific coverage to Virginia.  Here are excerpts:

Nearly a year ago, Kansas legislators quietly attempted to legalize anti-gay segregation, abandoning the effort only after a national wave of outrage arose. Now a Republican delegate in Virginia is attempting to replicate Kansas’ effort—with a bill so extreme, so radically and viciously anti-gay, that it makes Kansas’ measure look moderate by comparison.

The Virginia bill, introduced by Del. Bob Marshall, is actually quite ingenious in its complete degradation of gay citizens. Like every “religious liberty” measure introduced over the past year, its true intent is to legalize discrimination against gay people. But whereas most of those bills attempted to allow discrimination in the realm of gay marriage—permitting, for instance, a florist to refuse to provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding—the Virginia bill has no such limitation.

Instead, Marshall’s measure would attach a “conscience clause” to any “license, registration, or certificate” obtained from the commonwealth, whether by a private business or a government agency.

This clause would allow all workers to refuse to “perform, assist, consent to, or participate in any action” that would “violate the religious or moral conviction of such person with respect to same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual behavior.” (Emphasis mine—though the scare quotes around “marriage” are in the bill.) In other words, workers in the state of Virginia need only declare that interacting with people who partake in “homosexual behavior” violates their “moral conviction”—and they will be free to turn them away.

Because the bill applies to both private and public enterprises, and because these enterprises almost always need some kind of “license, registration, or certificate” from the government, its reach is essentially endless.
Marshall, one of the more extreme anti-gay legislators in America, has a long track record with these kinds of bills. . . . Marshall is a fanatic, and it’s unclear if his new bill stands a chance of passing the heavily Republican House of Delegates. Still, Marshall’s measure is a useful reminder of the profound anti-gay animus that underlies every attempt to curtail gay rights in the name of religious freedom. No matter the rationalizations from the far-right media, bills promoting “religious liberty” are almost always simply pretext, a ploy to permit the debasement of gay citizens under the guise of principled “dissent.”

Conservatives have spent decades attempting to disguise their hatred of gays in the camouflage of sincerely held religious beliefs. Marshall and his allies unintentionally blow their cover, revealing the rank animosity behind their ostensibly respectable views. I have long insisted that “religious liberty” is nothing but a euphemism for a special right to discriminate against gay people. Thanks to legislators like Marshall, that once-controversial proposition is becoming more undeniable with each passing day.

It is time for decent people and respectable businesses to start avoiding Marshall's district in every way possible and while doing so, they need to make it clear that they won't return until Marshall is out of office permanently.