Virginia's History of Stonewalling Against Gay Rights

This weekend as many in New York City - and many other parts of the USA - recognize the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, an openly gay man is in the upper tiers of the Democrat presidential primary contest, Ralph Northam, the most gay friendly governor in Virginia's history occupies the Executive mansion in Richmond, and numerous LGBT individuals hold local and state elected office, Virginia still lacks any non-discrimination protections for LGBT employees or even those merely seeking housing. Why?  The answer can be summed up in one word: "Republicans." If a second word is needed, then I suggest "Christofascists."  These two groups have worked hand in glove for decades to thwart any advances in LGBT rights in Virginia and have stonewalled against any progress.  Thanks to them, same sex relationships carried the potential of a felony conviction until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' and Virginia's (and eleven other states') sodomy statutes in 2003. In 1975, a statute was enacted barring same sex marriage.  Not content with that message of hate, in 2006 the Republicans and Christofascists rammed through the so-called Marshall-Newman Amendment to the state constitution in a very disingenuous campaign only to have that struck down by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014, and 2015, respectively. Despite the latter rulings, thanks to Republicans, the 1975 statute and the Marshall-Newman Amendment remain of the books even though unenforceable. A piece in the Roanoke Times looks at Virginia's discriminatory history which can only be ended by voting control of the Virginia General Assembly to Democrats  in Virginia's November, 2019, elections.  Here are highlights:

You may hear the word “Stonewall” a lot today. It will not refer to the Stonewall we’re most familiar with.

The Stonewall in this case is not the Confederate general but the 50th anniversary of the so-called “Stonewall riots” in New York in 1969.

If you don’t know what those are, then consider this more of the history we never learned, perhaps because this history concerns what one 19th century poet delicately called “the love that dare not speak its name.”

The Stonewall Inn was a famous gay bar in New York City. On June 28, 1969, police raided the establishment, and violence broke out. The details are complicated . . . What matters is what happens next: The two days of street violence marked the beginning of a gay rights movement.

Some context for the times: Even the city’s most liberal newspaper, the legendary counter-cultural Village Voice, refused to print the word “gay” in advertisements. Within six months of the Stonewall riots, no fewer than three gay-related publications sprang up in New York. Within two years there were gay rights organizations in every major city in the western world.

Of course, the Stonewall riots weren’t really the starting point of the gay rights movement, just the modern one. France was the first country to legalize homosexuality — in 1791. . . . .However, the Stonewall riots served as an ignition spark that galvanized a movement, in much the same way that Rosa Parks getting arrested served to ignite a civil rights movement for African-American equality that had been going on for a long time.

Social movements do not always move in straight lines, and Virginia provides a good example. In the years following Stonewall, Virginia took one step after another to crack down on anything that resembled gay rights. Meanwhile, gay Virginians — who, of course, had been there all along — were becoming more and more visible.

In 1975, Virginia decided to ban same-sex marriages. The idea of such a thing had not crossed the public mind before then, but now it had and Virginia wanted to make sure such a thing didn’t happen here. That same year, Roanoke had at least three establishments catering to a gay clientele. The first had been quietly operating since 1953 — the Trade Winds, on what is now Elm Avenue and Franklin Road. Others opened in 1973 and 1975. By the time The Park opened in 1978, Roanoke counted six gay bars, although many people were unaware any of them existed. Such was the nature of Roanoke, and the nature of the times. Roanoke’s gay community first gathered for a “Pride in the Park” event in 1990; the organizers also made sure it attracted no media attention. They later described the event as “real scary” because the 300 to 400 attendees weren’t sure how the event would go.

Subsequent “Pride in the Park” events were publicized, but many in Roanoke were still unaware there was any gay community here at all until one tragic night in 2000. That September, a Florida drifter targeting the gay community walked into the Backstreet Café on Salem Avenue and opened fire — killing one man and wounding six others. Even in those pre-social media days, Roanoke was national news. And Roanoke’s response? Nearly 1,000 people marched through the streets to decry the shooting. The Roanoke Times reported the reaction to the shooting this way:

It has led untold numbers of gays to reveal their orientation publicly for the first time, produced Roanoke’s first gay political action committee in years, persuaded two lawmakers to reconsider their opposition to adding sexual orientation to hate crime laws, and brought international attention to Roanoke’s heretofore barely visible gay citizenry. Until now, average straight Roanokers probably didn’t think they knew any gay people, said the Rev. Catherine Houchins, a lesbian minister. “Now they’re finding out we’re their neighbors, their customers ... their employers, their employees.”

In some ways, the Backstreet Café shooting was Roanoke’s Stonewall riot — except that no one died in New York. Someone here did. Yet six years later, Roanoke still voted against one major goal of the gay rights movement — the right to marry.

A mere statue against same-sex marriage wasn’t considered strong enough. In 2006, the General Assembly passed and sent to voters a proposed constitutional amendment than would write the ban into the state’s fundamental law. Called the Marshall-Newman Amendment after its sponsors — Del. Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, and state Sen. Steve Newman, R-Lynchburg — the amendment passed by 57% to 43%.

In 2014, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring declined to defend the amendment in federal court, calling it unconstitutional. The courts later agreed, striking down that provision of the state Constitution — a year before the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage everywhere.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, though, the Marshall-Newman Amendment remains part of the state’s Constitution — unenforceable but still on the books in case some future U.S. Supreme Court changes its mind.

Today, there are openly-gay elected officials in Blacksburg, Roanoke and the General Assembly, something unthinkable at the time of the Stonewall riots. One of the top-tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination is gay and that’s not even the most interesting thing about Pete Buttigieg’s background. Yet in Virginia (and lots of other states), someone can still be fired simply for being gay. In some ways, Virginia still stands like a stone wall.

Alliance Defending Freedom Added to Certified Hate Group List

In a long over due move (at least in my opinion), the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") has added the Alliance Defending Freedom ("ADF") - a purported "Christian" law firm - to its list of certified hate groups. ADF is the group that represented those seeking to uphold Virginia's unconstitutional Marshall-Newman Amendment.  For those unfamiliar with SPLC, it describes itself as follows:

The SPLC is the premier U.S. non-profit organization monitoring the activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists – including the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazi movement, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, antigovernment militias, Christian Identity adherents and others.  We’re currently tracking more than 1,600 extremist groups operating across the country. We publish investigative reports, train law enforcement officers and share key intelligence, and offer expert analysis to the media and public.

So why has ADF been added to the list of SPLC hate groups?  Because it fosters hatred towards LGBT individuals, seeks to have us re-criminalized, and spreads deliberate lies and untruths about LGBT individuals and our lives that range from claims about greatly reduced life spans, to equating homosexuality with pedophilia even though most pedophiles are heterosexual men.  With ADF (and most of the "family values groups I have monitored for close to 20 years), the truth simply doesn't matter.  ADF wants nothing less than a Christian theocracy in America and other parts of the world.  It describes the separation of church and state to be a myth.  Here are highlights on what ADF is all about and the untruths it disseminates:  

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that specializes in supporting the recriminalization of homosexuality abroad, ending same-sex marriage, and generally making life as difficult as possible for LGBT communities in the U.S. and internationally. 

In Its Own Words: 

The only surprise is the rapidity with which this degradation of our human dignity has occurred. It has occurred, with raging effect, and within twelve months, on the heels of government mandated recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ – an oxymoronic institution if ever there was one. And, for its radical adherents, this has led to a deification of deviant sexual practices. It has further resulted in the inevitable and aggressive persecution of devout Christians who refuse to bow to the false god of sexual license.”—ADF-affiliated attorney Charles LiMandri, “The Tyranny of Made-Up Sexual Identities, 2015

“[C]ontrol of the educational system is central to those who want to advance the homosexual agenda. By its very nature, homosexual acts are incapable of bearing fruit – indeed, strictly speaking, they are not sexual, as they are incapable of being generative or procreative. Thus there is the need to desensitize and corrupt young minds, both to undermine resistance to the agenda and for recruitment among those that are at an emotionally vulnerable stage of development.”
— Then-senior ADF Legal Counsel (Global) Piero Tozzi, speaking at the World Congress of Families gathering in Madrid, Spain, 2012

“We mention the new promotion of pedophilia in the context of talking about the influence of homosexual behavior on college campuses, because, despite all objections to the contrary, the two are often intrinsically linked.”

—Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, 2003

The founding board and original funders included James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ; D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries (now D. James Kennedy Ministries); and Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association. Its original purpose was to oppose the ACLU and other “radical groups” as well as to fight for “religious liberty.” Since its founding, the ADF has expanded its operations abroad as it battles abortion, LGBT equality, and what it considers the “myth” of the separation of church and state.

[T]he ADF is attempting to do away with the separation of church and state and graft its version of conservative Christianity onto the legal profession and the culture at large through its legal strategies and the training of thousands of attorneys and by advocating for policy changes on state and federal levels.

The ADF’s longstanding antipathy toward LGBT people has become public through its work on lawsuits, various statements it has made, and materials it has offered on its website over the years. It has also promoted the idea of a “homosexual agenda” — a nefarious scheme to destroy Christianity and, eventually, civilization through LGBT people’s efforts to secure equality under the law. To those who believe in this conspiracy theory, LGBT people are not really seeking equality; rather, they are actually seeking to destroy such things as Christianity, the family and culture.

[T]hey then go on to warn people about homosexuality, to support the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of so-called “ex-gay” therapy, to falsely link homosexuality to pedophilia, and to claim that schools are “indoctrinating children” into homosexuality. “Lately,” the authors breathlessly claim, “homosexual behavior on college campuses is taking a dangerous new turn — the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children, known as pedophilia.” Despite all objections to the contrary — virtually all real medical associations have debunked the once-common claim that gay men molest children at higher rates than straight men — Sears and his co-author insist that homosexuality and pedophilia “are intrinsically linked.”

As I said, this designation as a hate group is very long overdue.  The next group that needs to be added to the list is The Family Foundation based in Richmond to which all Virginia Republicans bow and genuflect. 

Thomas Shuttleworth RIP: Virginia Marriage Case Attorney Dies

I have known the senior members of the Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecocklaw firm, the firm that launched the challenge to Virginia's anti-gay animus motivated Marshall-Newman Amendment on behalf of fiends, Tim Bostic and Tony London, since the early 1980's.  We all originally belonged to the same law firm which in later years became a part of the Richmond based Williams Mullen mega firm.  Yesterday, Thomas Shuttleworth passed away after a battle with Parkinson's disease.  His obituary can be found here in the Virginian Pilot.    Back on May 15, 2014,  HRBOR's May Third Thursday event hosted by the law firm Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock.    It was moving hearing Tom speak at the event and I was very touched when he gave me a big hug.  I feel lucky to have known Tom. A piece in the Daily Press reviewed the beginnings of the lawsuit that brought marriage equality to Virginia.  Here are excerpts:

At their Norfolk home that June night, Bostic and London considered the pros and cons of pushing the issue in court. They came to their decision within 30 minutes, Bostic said. Just then, he said, a younger and less established gay couple walked past their home.

"If Tony and I wouldn't do it, who will?" Bostic said.

Meanwhile, Ruloff talked to Tom Shuttleworth, the senior partner at the Virginia Beach firm, Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock. Shuttleworth was quickly on board. "It's going to be a long, hard challenge, but if they're up for it, we're up for it," he said.

Over the next couple weeks, one of the Virginia Beach firm's associates, Charles Lustig — whom Ruloff called the law firm's resident "constitutional scholar" — researched the issue and drafted the lawsuit.

On July 18, 2013, Lustig walked into the U.S. District Court in Norfolk and handed the complaint to a counter clerk. Former Gov. Bob McDonnell, former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George E. Schafer III were named as defendants.

Lustig wrote: "By denying those individuals the same 'marriage' designation afforded to opposite-sex couples … the Commonwealth of Virginia is stigmatizing gays and lesbians, as well as their children and families, and denying them the same dignity, respect, and stature afforded officially recognized opposite-sex family relationships."

A week after the suit was filed, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer, Matt McGill, learned of the case through news reports.

McGill works with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, an international law firm based in Los Angeles that was heavily involved in the push to legalize same-sex marriage in California. McGill then called Erik Porcaro, a childhood friend — and an attorney with the Virginia Beach law firm.

Bostic said he found it amazing that the lawyers involved on the plaintiffs' side are mostly "older straight white men."

"They don't have any dog in this fight," he said. "That they're willing to put themselves out there and support us, it's kind of awe-inspiring. It's humbling."

And yes, the husband and I were there when Tim and Tony got married thanks to Tom Shuttleworth's willingness to put himself out there for what was right.  Tom, you will be missed.  My condolences to Tom's family. 

Tim Kaine Is A Consistent LGBT Ally

As the Democrat National Convention gets underway some Bernie Sanders supporters continue to whine that Tim Kaine is not "progressive enough."  Personally, I believe that such views are the result of lack of knowledge about Tim Kaine - a man who is a household name in Virginia, especially among Democrats.  On the issue of LGBT rights, Kaine has been a consistent ally and has pressed for the advancement of LGBT rights and fought against the Christofascists in Virginia and elsewhere. GayRVA has a piece that gives a brief retrospective on Tim Kaine's efforts in the realm of LGBT rights.  Here are highlights: 

Tim Kaine was brought onto the Democratic Presidential ticket as Vice President last week and that’s good news for Virginia’s, and the country’s, LGBTQ population.

In Hilary Clinton’s intro speech she called Kaine “a progressive who likes to get things done” and commented on his “commitment to social justice” during his tenure in the Commonwealth. Mostly notable, however, was his commitment to LGBTQ issues as best he could in his role as Governor from 2006- 2010 as well as his more recent time in the Senate.

He took time in his first 2016 campaign speech to recall those efforts when he asked people to remember the importance of America’s “rainbow of cultural diversity that embraces all people…regardless of sexual orientation.”

Kaine’s first year as a Virginia Senator  earned him a score of 90 from the Human Right’s Campaign. He lost 10 points for failing to endorse the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act, but made up for it in other ways.

In 2015 he co-sponsored the Equality Act, which seeks a federal law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace and housing. And later that year he introduced  Equal Dignity for Married Taxpayers Act which aimed to provide equal treatment for LGBTQ couples under federal tax laws.

Kaine’s support for LGBTQ rights stretches back before his time in the Senate.

When he was on the campaign trail in 2011, Kaine spoke out against a law which allows state-funded, private adoption agencies the right to deny adoptions to same-sex couples.

“I think the best interest of the child is a pretty hard standard to argue with and I think that ought to be the standard,’’ Kaine told the Washington Post. “I don’t think we should be putting artificial barriers in front of the judges who are sitting there with the family.”

It was during this interview he also told the post his views on same-sex marriage had changed and he now supported marriage equality.

But even before that, when he won in 2006 and became Governor of Virginia, one of his first executive orders was to provide protections for LGBTQ state employees.

Kaine also campaigned against the Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which was put on the ballot the year he entered office.

“Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) urged Virginians to vote against a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, saying the ballot question puts thousands of unmarried couples at risk of losing a slew of benefits,” read a Washington Post article published in a few months before the referendum.

[I]f his record over the last decade is any indicator of his views on these issues, he should make a great ally in the Whitehouse.

In Wake of Marriage Ruling, Virginia Code Needs an Overhaul

While the Supreme Court has struck down all state marriage bans and found a constitutional right to same sex marriage, here in Virginia, the Code of Virginia still requires a major overhaul in order to bring it in alignment with the high Court's ruling.  Many provisions as worded still make references to "husband and wife" and will continue to impair the rights of same sex couples.  For example, question about how married same sex couples can hold title as "tenants by the entirety with right of survivorship."  While most of the statutory provisions refer to "spouses,"  One section does not: 

§ 55-20.2. Tenants by the entireties in real and personal property; certain trusts.

A. Any husband and wife may own real or personal property as tenants by the entireties. Personal property may be owned as tenants by the entireties whether or not the personal property represents the proceeds of the sale of real property. An intent that the part of the one dying should belong to the other shall be manifest from a designation of a husband and wife as "tenants by the entireties" or "tenants by the entirety."

B. Any property of a husband and wife that is held by them as tenants by the entireties and conveyed to their joint revocable or irrevocable trusts, or to their separate revocable or irrevocable trusts, shall have the same immunity from the claims of their separate creditors as it would if it had remained a tenancy by the entirety, so long as (i) they remain husband and wife, (ii) it continues to be held in the trust or trusts, and (iii) it continues to be their property

This provision is important because it protects jointly owned property from creditors of only one of the spouses.  A piece in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the need for significant changes to the Code of Virginia.  Here are highlights:

[N]ow, following the final resolution of one of the nation’s most divisive social issues, work already has begun in the state legislature and in the regulatory and administrative agencies to update hundreds of sections and regulations in the Code of Virginia to reflect the inclusion of legally recognized marriages between same-sex couples.

Possibly the biggest challenge — the issuing of marriage licenses to include same-sex marriages — already was implemented nine months ago, when gay marriage became legal in the commonwealth. On Oct. 6, the Supreme Court left standing a decision from lower federal courts that invalidated the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

[L]awmakers and attorneys for the state also must address areas such as tax, inheritance and property laws; medical care; end-of-life decisions; adoption; child custody; and many others.
 

“It certainly will be a massive undertaking in terms of the number of areas of the law that might be affected,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Virginia and the author of the modern Virginia Constitution.

[D]uring this year’s General Assembly session, Del. Marcus B. Simon, D-Fairfax, sponsored legislation that would have revised references to certain gender-specific terms in the code, replacing “husband and wife” with the gender-neutral “spouse.”

“The bill would have simply said that any reference to husband and wife could be read as spouse and references to mother and father could be read as parent, to reflect the new reality that same-sex marriage is permitted and is the law of the land, even in Virginia,” Simon said in an email Sunday.

But Republican state legislators remained leery of adopting regulatory changes ahead of a final Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, blocking attempts by Democrats to update the code.

That changed Friday in light of the Supreme Court ruling, when House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, announced that Republican leadership would no longer stand in the way of updating state laws to reflect legalization of same-sex marriage.

However, in addition to updating existing code sections, gay-rights advocates are asking for new legislation aimed at protecting same-sex couples from discrimination.

“We still are a state where openly gay or transgender people can be fired at work, denied housing and denied services and businesses in restaurants. There are people in the state who will not be putting their wedding photos on their desk because of that,” Parrish said.

The question that remains is what is going to happen with Marshall’s marriage amendment, backed by 57 percent of Virginia voters in 2006, after the highest court in the land has deemed it unconstitutional.

To remove it would require a new amendment, which the state legislature would have to pass twice, with one House of Delegates election in between, before it would be put before voters on a ballot.

Time will tell if the Virginia GOP lives up to its promise to update the Code.

Anti-Gay Johnny Joannou Faces Primary Challenge

Challenger, Steve Heretick

Some would argue that Del. Johnny Joannou has been a Democrat in name only.   On important issues, he has repeatedly sided with far right Republicans in contrast to fellow Democrats.  On gay rights issues, Joannou has been most disappointing.  When Tracy-Thorne-Beglund was up for appointment to the bench in Richmond, Joannou failed to support him and took the coward's approach of not voting at all.  When Attorney General Mark Herring made the determination not to defend Virginia' foul Marshall-Newman Amendment, Joannou joined the Republican chorus of critics.  The political blog Blue Virginia has called Joannou outright homophobic.  And on an issue important to hundreds of thousands of Virginians - i.e., Medicaid expansion - Joannou again sided with the forces of backwardness in the Virginia GOP.  It is far past time that Joannou be pushed into retirement.  Thankfully, as the Virginian Pilot reports, Steve Heretick, a Portsmouth attorney and former Portsmouth city councilman, is challenging Joannou in the June 9th primary.  It is crucial that people turn out and vote for Heretick.  Here are highlights from the Pilot:

Voters might be more focused on beaches than ballots, but the June primary contest for this House of Delegates seat is high stakes.

That's because the Democrat who wins will likely have an easy road come November in the heavily Democratic 79th district, which covers parts of Portsmouth and Norfolk.

Del. Johnny Joannou, 75, a Portsmouth attorney and fixture in the statehouse for decades, is facing a rare challenge.

Steve Heretick, 54, a Portsmouth attorney and former Portsmouth city councilman, is looking to unseat him in the June 9 election.

Heretick is going after Joannou on two main issues: Medicaid expansion and tolls.

He criticized Joannou for being the only Democrat in the 2014 General Assembly session to vote against expanding Medicaid - as allowed under the president's Affordable Care Act - to insure as many as 400,000 low-income Virginians. The measure failed in the General Assembly.

"We have the best health care technology and close to half a million working people in this state who have already paid for it who can't access it because of people like Johnny Joannou," he said.

Heretick also accused Joannou of not doing enough to stop the tolls that started last year on the Downtown and Midtown tunnels. The tolls were the result of a deal brokered by former Gov. Bob McDonnell and the Virginia Department of Transportation with a private company to build a new Midtown Tunnel and other road projects.

Specifically, Heretick said Joannou could have used his status as a member of a powerful House budget committee to try to block the deal. Joannou is one of six budget "conferees" in the House.  "You get one of these issues in a generation - and he didn't do a thing," Heretick said.

 Again, if you live in the  79th district, which covers parts of Portsmouth and Norfolk, get out an vote for Steve Heretick.

It Is Time to Retire Del. Bob Marshall

Speaking of Republicans who are a scourge on decency, here in Virginia, no one is more anti-gay and opposed to modernity and equality for all citizens than Del. Bob Marshall.  Marshall has been a blight on Virginia's reputation for years and can be relied upon to back every racist and reactionary cause favored by the Virginia GOP.  Indeed, Marshall is usually leading the Virginia GOP effort to return to the 1950's.  Marshall - along with the rest of the House of Delegates - is up for re-election this year and his anti-gay batshitery and support for Indiana's license to discriminate law is rightly becoming an issue in his re-election campaign.  Marshall needs to be defeated and sent into permanent retirement.  The Washington Post looks at how events in Indiana are becoming an issue in Marshall's re-election effort (NOTE: like every good Christofascists, Marshall is lying when he says the Indiana statute is no different than Virginia's statute):

The national firestorm over an Indiana law that some say legalizes discrimination against gay and lesbian people has spilled over into a Virginia House of Delegates race.

Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William) is defending the Indiana law, to the chagrin of his Democratic challenger, Don Shaw, who called the effort “offensive.”

“Virginia has the same law. We passed it in 2007. The sky did not fall!” Marshall wrote in a letter to the Indianapolis Star.

Marshall wrote the letter in response to one that Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) wrote to the newspaper imploring Indiana businesses to consider relocating to Virginia for its “open, inclusive and thriving business environment.”

Shaw and the governor’s office said there are significant differences between Virginia’s law — and similar ones in other states — and the law under scrutiny in Indiana.

They say Indiana’s law was designed to give private companies legal cover for discrimination against gay and lesbian people, while Virginia’s law seeks to protect an individual’s freedom of religion from government intrusion.

Shaw said he is running in part to support laws protecting his 23-year-old son, who is openly gay.  “Bob Marshall wants to basically allow people to discriminate against my son and I don’t think that’s right,” he said. “I want to live in a robust and thriving Virginia economy and I believe Bob Marshall is doing everything he can do to prevent that.”

During the recent legislative session, Marshall introduced two bills that Shaw said mirror the Indiana law.  One would have blocked McAuliffe from making nondiscrimination against people because of their sexual orientation a condition of entering into a government contract. The other said 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.

Marshall, one of the most conservative members of the Virginia House, was the author of Virginia’s now defunct 2006 ban on same-sex marriage.

Businesses in Marshall's district need to make it clear that Marshall is a liability to economic growth and prosperity and that he must be defeated in November.

MAKE A DONATION TO SHAW'S CAMPAIGN HERE.

Plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey Get Marriage License

Our friends, Tim Bostic and Tony London, who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Virginia's same-sex marriage ban (i.e, the Marshall-Newman Amendment), get the first marriage license issued to a gay couple in Norfolk at the Clerk's Office of the Norfolk Circuit Court office Monday, Oct. 6, 2014. (Photo by Patrick Wilson | The Virginian-Pilot).  George Schaefer, Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court was one of the defendants in Bostic v. Rainey, et al.  

Personally, I find some sweet irony in the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its rejection of the same sex marriage case appeals the day after the hate merchants at The Family Foundation ended its ridiculous 40 day "fast" for marriage.  Maybe Victoria Cobb - Virginia's "queen of mean" - needs to get the message that she and her fellow bigots are on the wrong side of the fight.

What IF SCOTUS R Rejects the Same-Sex Marriage Appeals?

The Bostic plaintiffs

There continues to be much breathless watching among LGBT rights groups - and among anti-gay hate groups - to see whether the United States Supreme Court will take one or more of the same sex marriage case appeals from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal that have struck down state gay marriage bans.  With the Court still shifting through the piles of appeals that have been filed, it may be days or weeks before we know with certainty what the Court will do.  But, as a noted in a previous blog, the Court will have to do something: either take one or more of the cases or reject the appeal which will by default affirm the Court of Appeals rulings.  A piece in th Virginian Pilot looks at this latter possibility.  Here are excerpts:

The fastest and surest path to marriage for same-sex couples in some parts of the United States would be for the Supreme Court to surprise everyone and decline to get involved in the issue right now.

A decision by the justices to reject calls from all quarters to take up same-sex marriage would allow gay and lesbian couples in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin to begin getting married almost immediately. Rulings in their favor have been put on hold while the Supreme Court considers their cases.

And if the high court leaves those rulings in place, same-sex couples almost certainly would win the right to marry in six other states in short order because those states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — would be bound by the same appeals court decisions.

That would bring to 30 the number of states where same-sex marriage is legal, plus the District of Columbia.

Yet almost everyone who follows the issue for a living or otherwise thinks the Supreme Court will step in and decide gay marriage cases this term. The cases were on the agenda when the justices met in private Monday to decide new cases to hear this term. The court could announce a decision as early as this week.

If the court were to reject the appeals, it would leave untouched the laws in the other 20 states that still enforce same-sex marriage bans.

Both sides in the dispute also say the justices have an obligation to settle an issue of such national importance, not abdicate that responsibility to lower court judges. Opting out of hearing the cases would leave those lower court rulings in place.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to be addressing that concern when she said in July that the court would not duck the issue, as it did for years with bans on interracial marriage.

Yet more recently, at a forum in Minnesota, Ginsburg suggested the court might refrain from taking any action unless an appeals court were to uphold a same-sex marriage ban, which would create a split among appeals courts that typically triggers Supreme Court review.

The take away?  For now we wait, but here in Virginia, a failure of the Court to take the appeal in the Bostic case would make same sex marriage a reality in Virginia very quickly.  

Supreme Court Could Get Over a Dozen Marriage Case Petitions

Later this month the U.S. Supreme Court will have its first opportunity to decide whether it will take up a gay marriage case appeal and, if it does, which one or collection of appeals.  With every federal court to have considered the issue of state gay marriage bans except one striking such bans down, one would hope that Justice Kennedy will decide to finish the work that was started and join the liberals on the Court to invalidate state gay marriage bans once and for all.  A piece in The Advocate looks at the upcoming decisions to be made by the Court.  Here are excerpts:

There are just two weeks left until the U.S. Supreme Court meets to decide which marriage cases it will take up in its next session, but the marriage equality landscape could still shift significantly between now and then.

At the moment, there are seven cases from five states ready for the Justices to consider. In all seven cases, gay and lesbian plaintiffs have been unanimously victorious, with a series of strongly worded rulings from multiple courts finding that bans on same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

But it's possible that nine more states could see progress in marriage litigation before the Supreme Court's first conference on September 29. Rulings are due in the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, which include Nevada, Ohio, Michigan and more. A ruling in any of those cases could complicate the Supreme Court's plans.

If a decision came from either the Ninth or Sixth Circuits, the Court might decide to put off a decision on which cases to take. That would be particularly likely if the decision was at odds with the previous victories for the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit gave hints during oral argument that its ruling would be generally similar to the victories that have come before, but the Sixth Circuit judges are harder to read.

And of course, the Supreme Court could always opt not to take any case at all.  Meanwhile, litigation continues unabated in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, with courts so far unwilling to pause lawsuits while they wait for the Supreme Court to return from break.

Thus, we continue to find ourselves in a waiting game.  It goes without saying that the husband and I await the day that Virginia's anti-gay animus inspired Marshall-Newman is struck down definitively once and for all. 

Anti-Gay Prince William Clerk Petitions SCOTUS in Bostic Case

Gay hater, Michele McQuigg

Nasty, homophobic, cow Christofascist Michele McQuigg, Circuit Court Clerk for Prince William County, Virginia, through her extremist counsel from the miss named Alliance Defending Freedom (a group that in reality wants a Christian theocracy) has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which affirmed the unconstitutionality of Virginia anti-gay animus motivated Marshall-Newman Amendment and related statutes.   If I hold special animosity towards McQuigg, it is because she intervened in this case for the sole purpose of defending hate inspired discrimination against same sex couples.  Whatever I may think of Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, he was sued in Bostic v. Rainey and did not voluntarily seek out litigation.  Not McQuigg, she sought to be involved and one can only hope that history views her akin to white robed KKK members seeking to deprive blacks of their legal rights.  Here are details from the Daily Press on McQuigg's mission of hate (the filing can be found here):

Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michèle B. McQuigg — being represented by an Arizona-based conservative Christian legal organization — filed a formal petition on Friday asking the high court to reverse two recent federal court rulings throwing out Virginia's gay marriage ban.

Lawyers with that organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the court decisions are telling Virginia and its citizens they must "redefine marriage from a gendered (man-woman) institution to a genderless (any two persons) institution."

"Whether the Constitution itself requires such a fundamental redefinition of marriage is an exceedingly important question that should be settled by this Court," the petition says. "The time for answering that question — the time for deciding whether the People throughout the various States are free to affirm their chosen marriage policy — is now."

Though McQuigg was not initially sued in the case, she "intervened" as a defendant in January after signals that newly-elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring "would renounce … defense of the challenged marriage laws," the Alliance said.

Since then, McQuigg, who issues marriage licenses as part of her job, has become the Virginia ban's most outspoken defender in the case.

"Throughout this litigation, McQuigg alone has raised and defended all of Virginia's compelling interests in regulating marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Friday's appeal says. Because of that, the Alliance asserts, the Supreme Court would "benefit" by granting a hearing "through this petition."

Indeed, some of the language in McQuigg's petition casts the issue in broad historical terms.

"For millennia, marriage has served the vital social purposes of steering naturally procreative relationships into committed unions and connecting children to both their mother and their father," the filing says. "Man-woman couples, unlike any other relationships, uniquely implicate these important societal interests."

As passed in a 1975 law and 2006 state constitutional amendment, the ban also outlaws civil unions, bars adoption by same-sex couples, “voids” the recognition of gay marriages from other states and doesn't grant property, medical and contract rights to same-sex couples.

Friday's filing was the third "petition for a writ of certiorari" asking the high court to take up the case.

The first came Aug. 8 by the Virginia Attorney General's Office, asking the high court to affirm the lower court decisions. The second was Aug. 22 by Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George E. Schaefer III, who contends states should be free to define marriage.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take up the issue, a hearing could be set as early as next spring. Ultimately, the court could uphold 31 existing state bans on same-sex marriage, or could outlaw all the bans at once.

And in a separate kind of filing on Wednesday, the case's plaintiffs — despite winning in the lower courts — also exhorted the court to hear the matter.

Supreme Court Stays Virginia Marriages, Inflicts Harm on Gays and Their Families

As many past posts on this blog have laid out in detail, the only true objection to same sex marriages derives from religious based bigotry.  All the other "arguments" do not hold water - as a string of federal court rulings have laid out in detail - and the Christofascists, their political whores in the Republican Party, and bigoted United States Supreme Court justices want to punish gays and withhold civil legal rights solely because of non-adherence to Christofascist hate, ignorance embracing and fear based religious beliefs.  Sadly, today the United States Supreme Court stayed the ruling of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which would have allowed gay marriages to commence tomorrow morning in Virginia.  While one can hope the Court will ultimately strike down same sex marriage bans nationwide very soon, the short term results are that gays and their families are harmed while vile, nasty individuals like Victoria Cobb of The Family Foundation, Virginia's principal hate organization, bigoted cows like Michele McQuigg, Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk, and arrogant asses like Antonin Scalia for at least a short while longer can preen, pat themselves on the back for their self declared piety, and deprive other Americans of civil legal rights while granting special privileges to one religious faith group.  I suspect that the Founding Fathers, who were rightly suspicious of religion and opposed restricting civil rights based on religious belief would find the Court's action today abhorrent.  The Washington Blade has details on the Court's unfortunate action.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to a stay Wednesday on a federal appeals court’s ruling against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, blocking same-sex marriages from taking place this week in the Old Dominion.

Without explanation, the court announced in a single-page order it has stayed the ruling by the U.S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals in Schaefer v. Bostic, which affirmed Virginia’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts is responsible for stay requests in the Fourth Circuit, the order indicates he referred the matter to the entire court. The vote by the Supreme Court on the decision isn’t included in the order.

The court adds that if the court ends up declining a writ of certiorari to hear the case, the stay will terminate automatically. But if the court decides to hear the case, the stay will continue until judgment is issued.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said the stay decision from the Supreme Court “underscores of the urgency” of a national resolution in favor of marriage equality.

“Americans across the country are being deprived of the freedom to marry and respect for their lawful marriages, as well as the tangible protections and precious dignity and happiness that marriage brings,” Wolfson said. “It is time for the Supreme Court to affirm what more than thirty courts have held in the past year: marriage discrimination violates the Constitution, harms families, and is unworthy of America.”

Prior to the announcement from the Supreme Court, the anti-gay legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Virginia’s marriage ban on behalf of McQuigg, followed up with a response insisting that a stay on the Fourth Circuit decision is necessary to prevent harm to the state. 

As noted before, I hope history views Victoria Cobb, Michele McQuigg and Antonin Scalia, et al, with the same scorn as segregationists of the past and judges who ruled in favor of slavery and later segregation and bans on interracial marriage.  Hate and bigotry are still hate and bigotry no matter how one tries to wrap it in feigned religiosity.

 

Hate Group Files Stay Request with SCOTUS in Virginia Marriage Case

While not yet officially designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ludicrously named Alliance Defending Freedom - which claims it fights fro religious freedom but in reality works to force Christofascist beliefs on all Americans - has filed an Application for a Stay of Mandate with the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostic v. Rainey, et al., after the United States Court of Appeal for the fourth Circuit refused to stay its ruling that Virginia's bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution.  ADF is representing nasty bigot Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk, Michele McQuigg who wants to keep LGBT Virginians inferior under the law because we do not subscribe to her hate and fear based religious beliefs.  The good news is that ADF has a profound track record of losing cases.  The bad news is that many speculate that the Supreme Court will grant a stay pending an appeal from the 4th Circuit.   The full application can be seen here.  Here are further details from the Washington Blade:

The court clerk defending Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage filed a petition on Thursday with the U.S. Supreme Court calling on justices to block a lower court decision allowing gay couples to wed in the Old Dominion starting next week.

“Unless this Court issues the stay requested here and makes clear that the courts of appeals should stay their mandates in these cases, it is likely that other circuits will mistakenly follow the Fourth Circuit’s lead,” the brief states. “Yet that would invite needless chaos and uncertainty rather than facilitate the orderly and dignified resolution of a constitutional question of enormous national importance.”

The brief, signed by Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione, argues the Supreme Court should grant a stay because justices are likely to consider take up a same-sex marriage case on appeal with a fair prospect of reversing lower court decisions overturning bans on gay nuptials.

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, same-sex couples could start obtaining marriage licenses from clerks’ offices in Virginia after the Fourth Circuit issues the mandate on its decision, which is set to occur 8 am on August 21.

The petition from Alliance Defending Freedom was delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts, who’s responsible for stay requests for the Fourth Circuit. Roberts can decide the matter on his own, or refer the request to the entire court.

It remains to be seen what action the Supreme Court will take, but justices have previously granted stays on similar decisions in favor of marriage equality.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, nonetheless said he sees room for the Supreme Court to deny a stay this time around in the Virginia case.

“A lot has changed since the Court issued a stay in Kitchen, which was the first district court decision in the entire country striking down a state marriage ban after Windsor,” Minter said. “There are now many other such decisions, in every corner of the nation. The Court could decide that a stay is no longer warranted.”

In the event the Supreme Court declines to issue a stay, the Virginia decision would become binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. Minter said whether clerks in other Fourth Circuit states — West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina — would then have the authority to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples “would depend on the specifics of state law.”

“But whether immediately or with some short delay to get implementing orders, I expect that marriages would commence in those states very quickly,” Minter said.

Michelle McQuigg - the face of anti-gay hate