Are Some Blacks Seeking to Alienate Gay Voters?

One thing about today's Republicans for good or for bad is that they are unified and focused on defeating those they deem "other." Sadly, Democrats seem more concerned about infighting amongst themselves and alienating those who, in my view, should be their natural allies. A case in point is the rift between some blacks and their apparent quest to dish Pete Buttigieg.  The irony is that both blacks and gays have been subject to centuries of discrimination, much of it based on selected Bible passages, yet what ought to be a unifying experience of being denigrated and diminished by white heterosexual society has some arguing that only they are true victims of discrimination.  Never mind that gays, unlike blacks, continue to lack statutory employment, housing and health care non-discrimination protections in the majority of the states. What prompts me to say this is the attacks Buttigieg is under for saying that as a gay man, he knows about living with discrimination and, therefore, can empathize with the discrimination that blacks face.  True, white gays can often "pass" in society in a way that blacks cannot, but we do know the harm of discrimination.  I was fired for being gay and my whiteness did nothing to protect me. I've been screamed at and call "faggot' - ironically, mostly by blacks - and find myself hated by some simply for who I am.  Both gays and blacks need to remember that we have a common enemy: Donald Trump and today's GOP.  Thus, the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend should apply. The Washington Post looks at what I see as Buttigieg's good faith remarks that have been grasp by some as a basis for attacking him.  Here are highlights:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has delivered a provocative response in recent days to those who challenge his empathy with black Americans: His experience as a gay man helps him relate to the struggles of African Americans.

That has angered some African Americans, who view it as an attempt by a privileged white man to claim a type of victimhood that is distinct from the black experience in America, even while others take the comments more favorably.

Oliver Davis, a black council member in South Bend, Ind., where Buttigieg is mayor, said that African Americans, unlike gay people, don’t have the option of “coming out” at their chosen moment — as did Buttigieg, who disclosed his sexual orientation after he had been elected mayor.

LGBT activists see something different in Buttigieg — a barrier-breaker from a group that has long faced bigotry and violence, a face of the latest struggle for inclusion. And while some successfully conceal their difference, say leaders of the movement for gay equality, that decision can come with its own steep costs.

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, which helped lead the fight for same-sex marriage, said Buttigieg’s message is not “an attempt to appropriate someone else’s experience.” Rather, he said, the mayor is saying that “because he, too, has had to deal with his own struggles, that has made him more aware of the need to connect with the struggles of others.”

That question — how to square Buttigieg’s privileges with the adversity that comes with anti-gay prejudice — is becoming sharper as the 37-year-old Afghan war veteran rises in the polls and scrambles for ways to connect with black voters. And it renews the issue of how Americans, of any background, will respond to the candidacy of an openly gay man, one who holds hands with his husband and publicly discusses his decision to come out.

Buttigieg has shot to the top of the polls in Iowa and is gaining strength in New Hampshire, two largely white states — but he trails badly in South Carolina, the first primary state with a sizable African American population. A recent poll gave him less than 1 percent support among black Democrats there.

The mayor’s current efforts to find common ground are prompting raw feelings, including his comments at the last Democratic debate when the question of race arose.

“While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me,” Buttigieg said.

That drew a sharp response, including from Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful and the only black woman in the U.S. Senate.

“I think Kamala had a point, and I understood what she was saying,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, said in an interview, though he added that Buttigieg had been misunderstood.

He said Buttigieg is doing his best to reach out. “He’s evolving,” Sharpton said. “Do I think he’s where he needs to be? No.”

The prospect of tension between the black and gay communities worries some people in both groups. “Can’t y’all stop this mess?” Alvin McEwen, a black LGBT activist from South Carolina, recalled thinking to himself amid the furor following Buttigieg’s comments.

“No group wants to have the autonomy of their narrative taken by another group,” McEwen said. “But it also typifies how both communities want to grab on to power and don’t want to listen to each other.”

Asked about the comments during his recent campaign swing in western Iowa, Buttigieg said he was not trying to compare the black and gay experiences, only to say that he is driven to fight for African Americans the way others have fought for him.

“Having seen that, having seen how that alliance can make an impact, makes me reflect on how I can turn around and make myself useful, not only to the LGBT community but to people whose life experiences are very different,” he added.

“Let’s not get caught up in who understands discrimination the most,” Barber said. “Let’s deal with the real issue, which is that the same entities that are against gay folks are the same entities who are against black folks, and that we ought to be united in fighting discrimination in any form it arises.”

Buttigieg from the outset of his campaign sought guidance in how to frame his gay identity when talking with black voters. Two weeks after announcing his run for president, he lunched with Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a famous restaurant in Harlem.

“He wanted to genuinely know how I felt the African American community would relate to an LGBT candidate,” Sharpton said. The activist told Buttigieg something other black leaders have also said — that the level of homophobia in the black community has been greatly overstated.

In Virginia's 2017 elections, Justin Fairfax, the black Lt. Governor, eked out victory by the narrowest margin of the three statewide candidates and was arguably put over the top by the LGBT vote. Had Virginia gays employed the mindset of Buttigieg's critics, perhaps Fairfax would have been defeated.   The focus needs to be on unity and fighting our common enemies.  

Transgender Student Sues Gloucester County School Board

Some of the outlying areas of Hampton Roads often seem to go out of their way to be backward and to reject modernity in general.  Not surprisingly, many of these areas are Republican controlled.  Why accept modern science and knowledge when one can be a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.  Urging on these backward motivations, of course, one can typically find the "godly folk."  Gloucester County - across the York River from Yorktown - is one such area of Hampton Roads.  Now, given its backwards policies towards transgendered students, the Gloucester County School Board finds itself the target of a federal lawsuit.  The Washington Blade has details.  Here are highlights:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against a Virginia school district over its controversial policy that requires students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their “biological gender.”

The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia brought the case against the Gloucester County School Board on behalf of Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy who has been required to use a unisex restroom in the nurse’s office since the policy took effect in December. 

The lawsuit claims the policy violates both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX that prohibits schools that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex. It also states that Grimm is “currently the only student in his school who must use separate private restrooms.”

“The distinction stigmatizes Gavin and marks him as different from the other students; it isolates Gavin from his peers and it exposes him to serious psychological harm,” reads the lawsuit. “To avoid the stigma of having to use separate restrooms, Gavin has tried to avoid using any restroom during the school day.”

Grimm and his mother, who is also named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, are seeking “preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the school board to allow Gavin to use the boys’ restrooms at school.” They are also seeking unspecified damages.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia alleged in a complaint it filed with the Educational Opportunities Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in December that the school board’s policy violates Title IX. Kim Hensley, the only member of the Gloucester County School Board who voted against the policy, told the Washington Blade late last year she feels it could potentially jeopardize the district’s federal funding.

Gloucester County School Board Chair Randy Burak on Thursday did not immediately return the Blade’s request for comment on the ACLU lawsuit.

Let's be candid.  The purpose of the policy IS to stigmatize Gavin.  And to protect little Johnny and Suzie from  having face the reality that some people are different and that they just need to get over it.

America's Institutionalized Racism

The news reports continue to swarm with articles about the shooting of Michael Brown, and unarmed 18-year-old black man who was shot to death Saturday by a policeman in Ferguson, Missouri.   Although it has a high black population, Ferguson's police force by some reports is almost all white.  The shooting has lead to stories of the worries of black mothers and what many of them try to instill in their sons in the face of a world that for them will be far more dangerous than for most of us. Sadly, young black men face a form of automatic discrimination all too often and encounters with the police are all too often deadly.  As a white male, I cannot imagine what such a world does to one's soul.  It is bad enough in our society to be gay in many parts of the country, but at least as a white gay male, I don't face the level of automatic discrimination and danger that these young men face.  A column in the New York Times looks at the world these young men - and racial minority members in general - face.  Here are excerpts:

There is an eerie echo in it all — a sense of tragedy too often repeated. And yet the sheer morbid, wrenching rhythm of it belies a larger phenomenon, one obscured by its vastness, one that can be seen only when one steps back and looks from a distance and with data: The criminalization of black and brown bodies — particularly male ones — from the moment they are first introduced to the institutions and power structures with which they must interact.

Earlier this year, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released “the first comprehensive look at civil rights from every public school in the country in nearly 15 years.” As the report put it: “The 2011-2012 release shows that access to preschool programs is not a reality for much of the country. In addition, students of color are suspended more often than white students, and black and Latino students are significantly more likely to have teachers with less experience who aren’t paid as much as their colleagues in other schools.”

Attorney General Eric Holder, remarking on the data, said: “This critical report shows that racial disparities in school discipline policies are not only well-documented among older students, but actually begin during preschool."

But, of course, this criminalization stalks these children throughout their school careers.

A 2010 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that while the average suspension rate for middle school students in 18 of the nation’s largest school districts was 11.2 percent in 2006, the rate for black male students was 28.3 percent, by far the highest of any subgroup by race, ethnicity or gender. And, according to the report, previous research “has consistently found that racial/ethnic disproportionality in discipline persists even when poverty and other demographic factors are controlled.”

The bias of the educational system bleeds easily into the bias of the criminal justice system — from cops to courts to correctional facilities. The school-to-prison pipeline is complete.

A May report by the Brookings Institution found: “There is nearly a 70 percent chance that an African American man without a high school diploma will be imprisoned by his mid-thirties.”

This is in part because trending policing disparities are particularly troubling in places like Missouri. As the editorial board of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch pointed out this week: “Last year, for the 11th time in the 14 years that data has been collected, the disparity index that measures potential racial profiling by law enforcement in the state got worse. Black Missourians were 66 percent more likely in 2013 to be stopped by police, and blacks and Hispanics were both more likely to be searched, even though the likelihood of finding contraband was higher among whites.”

Parents can teach children how to interact with authority and how to mitigate the threat response their very being elicits. They can wrap them in love to safeguard them against the bitterness of racial suspicion.

It can be done. It is often done. But it is heartbreaking nonetheless. What psychic damage does it do to the black mind when one must come to own and manage the fear of the black body?

[H]opelessness takes hold when one realizes that there is no amount of acting right or doing right, no amount of parental wisdom or personal resilience that can completely guarantee survival, let alone success. 

Brown had just finished high school and was to start college this week. The investigation will hopefully clarify what led to his killing. But it is clear even now that his killing occurred in a context, one that we would do well to recognize. 

This reality is a national disgrace!  Where are the professional Christians and "godly folk" demanding institutional change?  Oh, I forgot something: if they are like Virginia's foul "Christian" group The Family Foundation, they are thinly veiled white supremacists.  They simply don't care about blacks and non-whites.  Or worse yet, they actively hate them.  All they see is skin color.

Why ENDA Needs to be Enacted Now

Gay marriage continues to get plenty of news coverage and for good reason.  But in the process the sad state of affairs that exists for LGBT individuals in 29 states gets lost in  the process. What am I referring to?  The fact that we can be fired at will for the mere fact that we are LGBT and that we have ZERO legal protections from such firings.  In its main page editorial the New York Times goes full court press and argues that ENDA - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - needs to be enacted NOW.  Here are some editorial highlights:

The overwhelmingly supportive response to Jason Collins, who came out last week as the first openly gay male athlete playing in a major American team sport, is an encouraging measure of the nation’s civil rights progress. But his barrier-breaking announcement a dozen years into his N.B.A. career also carries a reminder of a reality millions of gay people live with every day: being open about their sexual orientation could put their job and career at risk. 

A pair of landmark cases pending before the Supreme Court will help decide the future of same-sex marriage. But even if the justices do the right thing and issue a broad ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, that would not prohibit workplace discrimination, a profound impediment to real equality. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community remains vulnerable to employment discrimination in more than half the country.

Mr. Collins’s announcement coincided with the reintroduction in the House and Senate of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an overdue measure to outlaw employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It has been stalled in Congress for years. But the idea that job applicants and employees should be judged on their professional credentials and the caliber of their work, and not be penalized because of who they are, is a basic fairness principle, and one that polls indicate most Americans support. 

Some conservative opponents of the act, known as ENDA, contend it would threaten religious freedom because its exemption for employers affiliated with religious organizations is too narrow. Actually, the proposed religious exemption is far too broad and needs to be scaled back. .   .   .   .    as it is now drafted, the exemption — extending well beyond just houses of worship to hospitals and universities, for example, and encompassing medical personnel, billing clerks and others in jobs that are not directly involved in any religious function — amounts to a license to engage in the discrimination that ENDA is meant to remedy.

It is one thing for religious groups to further their religious mission by favoring people of their own faith in hiring, as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act permits. It is quite another to allow the firing of a lesbian physician or transgender nurse when a hospital that is not affiliated with a religious group happens to merge with an institution that is. 

Congress has a duty to stop dawdling and approve a strong bill. In the meantime, President Obama, a supporter of ENDA, can take a significant step toward ending discrimination in the workplace by issuing an executive order barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors. He has the power to protect millions of American workers, and it is about time he used it.

Is There a Pattern: Chick Fil-A Locations and Past Bigotryeas

Click on image for larger and clearer view

I found the image above - watch it for a few moments - at The Immoral Minority, a blog that in my view makes the case for the proposition that morality is not determined by the church you attend or the faith you purport to embrace. Rather, it is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey.

As the rotating images indicate, Chick Fil-A is mostly concentrated in the South - a region notorious for past discrimination and bigotry against blacks, women voting rights, interracial couples and, of course gays.  Oh, and did I mention the very same region coincides with the Bible Belt, the home of countless modern day Pharisees who trash the Gospel message they purport to base their lives upon. 

Multiple Human Rights Act Complaints Filed Against Chick Fil-A in Illinois

Chick Fil-A COO Dan Cathy may yet come to rue the day that he shot off his mouth and admitted that his company is homophobic.  As the New Civil Rights Movement is reporting, multiple complaints against Chick-fil-A were filed with The Illinois Department of Human Rights by The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) - Illinois' largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights advocacy organization - on behalf of as yet unnamed claimants.  The thrust of the complaints is that Chick Fil-A's homophobic policies and pronouncements violates Illinois law, specifically Section 5-102(B) of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits a ‘public accommodation’ from making protected classes ‘unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable.’  While it is hard at this point to know where the filings will go, they nonetheless guarantee more negative publicity for Chick Fil-A.  I continue to believe that as more people come to realize just how nasty the groups are that Chick Fil-A funds are in fact, more people will join boycott efforts against the company.  Or at least those who are not Kool-Aid drinking Christianist cretins will avoid the company.  Here are excerpts from the New Civil Rights Movement story:

Today, multiple complaints against Chick-fil-A were filed with The Illinois Department of Human Rights by The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) on behalf of unnamed claimants. The complaints, according to a press release, quoted below, and official documents released to The New Civil Rights Movement, “allege that Chick-fil-A’s ‘intolerant corporate culture’ violates Illinois law, specifically Section 5-102(B) of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits a ‘public accommodation’ from making protected classes ‘unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable’.”

Chick-Fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy has repeatedly made disparaging remarks about same-sex marriage. Chick-Fil-A CEO S. Truett Cathy is quoted in a 2007 Forbes profile stating he would probably fire someone who has been sinning.

The claimant, who quotes Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy’s widely-puiblicized anti-gay comments, adds:

“Although I would like to be treated equally and with dignity and respect at Chick-fil-A restaurants, the company’s widely published corporate philosophy, culture and policies make clear to me that as an unmarried homosexual in a “non-traditional” family unit, I am inferior to married heterosexuals and therefore, unwelcome, objectionable and unacceptable to Chick-fil-A.”

The complaint notes that Chick-Fil-A licensees ”have contractually agreed to follow, comply with and refrain from rejecting the statements of corporate policy and ‘values’ as stated by Chick-fil-A’s COO, Dan Cathy,” and “have contractually agreed to be part of the Chick-fil-A ‘brand’ and ‘values’ as determined and dictated by the Chick-fil-A licensor.”

 Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable,” said Jacob Meister, Governing Board President of The Civil Rights Agenda and the attorney who filed the complaint, a press release, continued below, states. “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”

The Civil Rights Agenda is quick to point out that this is not a First Amendment Issue. “This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religious liberty as some might suggest,” insists Martinez. “This is about Chick-fil-A having a policy, a corporate culture, which promotes discrimination. The COO in his personal capacity can say or think whatever he wants, it may be hateful, but it is his right. But when he speaks on behalf of the company, and the company starts implementing policy that reflects that hatred it is against the law in Illinois.”

One can only hope that Chick Fil-A's bigotry ends up carrying a high price.   As for Chick Fil-A franchisees, they need to either rise up in revolt or live with the regime that they bought into when they purchased their franchises.

More Anti-Gay Bigotry in Tennessee

As bad as things are for LGBT citizens in Virginia, the state of Tennessee and a number of Kool-Aid institutions in Tennessee seem to be working hard to make the bigotry and batshitery of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli look moderate in comparison. First we saw the enactment of state legislation in Tennessee that rescinded the efforts of cities and localities to ensure non-discrimination. Now we see private and "Christian" schools enacting policies that are starkly anti-gay. Apparently, the desire to conduct the equivalent of fellatio for the gratification of gay haters outweighs the desire to provide an atmosphere where modern, progressive businesses might actually want to locate to Tennessee rather than fleeing the state screaming. The latest episode of anti-gay hate and extremism comes from Rossville Christian Academy, a private 4K-12 school that according to WREG-TV 3 has adopted the following policy:

"Homosexuality is forbidden in scripture (Romans 1:27, Leviticus 18:22). A staff member or student who promotes, engages in, or identifies himself/herself with such activity through any word or action shall be in violation of this policy. Should the administration determine a violation of this policy, the person involved will be subject to disciplinary action with the possibility of permanent dismissal. Any applicant who is not in compliance with this policy will not be admitted."

Not surprising, part of the "statement of faith" required of attendees at Rossville Christian Academy reads as follows:

The Holy Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is the word of GOD and the final and supreme authority for faith and life. It is the inspired word of GOD and is without error in the original writings.

Yep, that's what passes for enlightenment at Rossville Christian Academy. Although, I guess one shouldn't be surprised since the chairman of the board of the school goes by the name of "Bubba Bateman." Why not just get your child a lobotomy rather than send him or her to Rossville Christian Academy where they will receive the academic equivalent of a lobotomy. Interestingly enough, at least one parent is waking up to the batshitery that goes on at Rossville Christian Academy. Here are more highlights from WREG-TV 3:

At least one Rossville, TN, parent is questioning school policy after her child's school sent an updated note defining its position on homosexuality. "My initial reaction is that it was specifically aimed at one person, and I felt very sad about that," said the parent, who did not want to be identified.

News Channel 3 took the policy to University of Memphis Law Professor Steve Mulroy who said the policy is legal. "It's entirely legal. There's no federal or state anti-discrimination law that protects gay people," Mulroy said. Mulroy, who has fought for gay rights in Shelby County, says there are a few scattered local ordinances across the country that protect gays, but none in Tennessee.

We contacted several Rossville Christian Academy board members for interviews, but they either did not return our calls or denied our requests. The parent we spoke with says she will not go as far as to remove her child from the school at this point, but will continue to question policies. "If you're going to single out one thing that you say is a sin, then maybe we have to address every single thing," she said.

I'm sorry, but I see conservative Christianity as a blight and threat to democratic society. To be totally candid, I see those who blindly and slavishly follow the message of fear and hatred of others that is the core of this toxic version of religious belief as suffering from nothing less than a form of mental illness. Yes, some of it is due to the foul environment in which they were raised, but at some point if one has a modicum of decency and intelligence, they cannot help but reject such a limiting and hate based belief system.

Scalia Continues to Want to Impose His Religious Views on U.S. Constitution

Personally, I find Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to be a Christianist nutbag. The man is utterly incapable of removing his own religious beliefs from his interpretation of the U. S. Constitution and other laws. Sadly, he subscribes to the typical Christianist approach of "my way or the highway" and is a prime example of those who seek to infuse one particular religious view into the laws - grant special rights, if you will - and by doing so undermines the very Constitution that he has sworn to uphold. Be assured if things were different and citizens were discriminated against because they held to a particular Catholic matter of dogma, Scalia would be screaming bloody murder and would do all in his power to end the religious based discrimination. In my view, the man is a hypocrite and blow hard. Speaking at Hastings University, Scalia has pontificated that the U. S. Constitution not only does not bar discrimination base recently on sexual orientation, but it also does not bar discrimination based on sex either. So much for equal protection under the civil laws. Here are highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:
*
The U.S. Constitution does not outlaw sex discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a law school audience in San Francisco on Friday.
*
"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
*
The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.
*
"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."
*
Scalia said Friday he's not a purist and is generally willing to accept long-standing court precedents that contradict his views. One exception, he said, is abortion, in which he continues to advocate overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and later rulings that have narrowed but not eliminated the constitutional right to terminate one's pregnancy.
*
He also described the legal underpinnings of the court's 1965 ruling declaring a constitutional right of privacy - the basis for Roe vs. Wade - as a "total absurdity."
*
Having Scalia on the Court is as basically little different than if Pope Benedict XVI were on the Court - women are inferior, abortion should be illegal in every case, and gays are inherently disordered to Scalia's way of thinking. Someone should have asked Scalia if he, like Benedict XVI, supports covering up for priests who are sexual predators except for when caught by the media.

U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 - The Will of the Majority is Not Sacrosanct

One of the arguments that the whining Christianists such as Maggie Gallagher are using to condemn Judge Walker's ruling striking down proposition 8 is that it overturns the will of the majority. Taken literally and to its logical conclusion, this argument would allow a majority of voters to strip away the rights of any minority group it chose to target. In making this argument - as I have noted before is all too typical - the anti-gay forces are ignoring an inconvenient piece of history. In this instance it is the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), which likewise arose from a California constitutional amendment that would have allowed property owners to refuse to rent or sell property to blacks. Here's the historical background from the case:
*
The California Legislature, during the period 1959-1963, enacted several statutes regulating racial discrimination in housing. In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and referendum, Art. I, § 26, was added to the state constitution. It provided in part that neither the State nor any agency thereof "shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses."
*
The California Supreme Court held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws that bore on the right of private persons to discriminate, that it invalidly involved the State in racial discrimination in the housing market, and that it changed the situation from one in which discriminatory practices were restricted to one where they are "encouraged," within the meaning of this Court's decisions. The court concluded that Art. I, § 26, unconstitutionally involves the State in racial discrimination, and is therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

*
Confronted with this set of facts - which certainly can be compared to the goals of Proposition 8 in terms of encouraging discrimination against gays and lesbians - the U.S. Supreme Court held in part as follows:
*
Second, it [the California Supreme Court] held the intent of § 26 was to authorize private racial discriminations in the housing market, to repeal the Unruh and Rumford Acts, and to create a constitutional right to discriminate on racial grounds in the sale and leasing of real property. Hence, the court dealt with § 26 as though it expressly authorized and constitutionalized the private right to discriminate. Third, the court assessed the ultimate impact of § 26 in the California environment, and concluded that the section would encourage and significantly involve the State in private racial discrimination contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
*
The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources.
*
Here, the California court, armed as it was with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning the passage and potential impact of § 26, and familiar with the milieu in which that provision would operate, has determined that the provision would involve the State in private racial discriminations to an unconstitutional degree. We accept this holding of the California court.
*
the section [Sec. 26] will significantly encourage and involve the State in private discriminations. We have been presented with no persuasive considerations indicating that these judgments should be overturned.
*
Reitman when combined with the case law and facts cited by Judge Walker makes a strong case that the will of the majority does NOT trump the federal constitution. For the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger would also require the Court to get around the clear ruling that discrimination cannot be made legal via an initiative derived amendment to a state constitution. Stated another way, the majority cannot strip away federal constitutional rights via state constitution amendments.

William and Mary Fraternity Snubs Governor Bob McDonnell

In yet another display of the fact that bigotry and lack of respect for all citizens can carry a price, the William and Mary chapter of the country's oldest black fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, was invited to Richmond Thursday night to receive the 2010 Governor's Community Service and Volunteerism Award, given by the Governor's Advisory Board on National and Community Service and Office of Volunteerism and Community Service. In a snub to Taliban Bob, the fraternity said no thank you and turned down an invitation to the Governor's mansion. McDonnell's recent proclaimation of April as "Confederate History Month" not surprisingly, did not sit well with the all black fraternity. Way to go Bob - generate yet more negative publicity for the state!! Three months into McDonnell's term, one has to wonder who the Hell is advising him? Pat Robertson, Victoria Cobb from The Family Foundation, Bozo the Clown, or members of the Klan? It has been one PR disaster after another. Here are some highlights from the Daily Press:
*
Gov. Bob McDonnell's recent proclamation naming April Confederate History Month has prompted members of College of William and Mary's chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. to decline the governor's invitation to appear at the Governor's Mansion to accept an award.
*
The university's chapter of the country's oldest black fraternity was invited to Richmond Thursday night to receive the 2010 Governor's Community Service and Volunteerism Award, given by the Governor's Advisory Board on National and Community Service and Office of Volunteerism and Community Service. The chapter was one of eight groups or individuals to be given the award, said William B. Morris III, president of the William and Mary's Alpha Phi Alpha chapter.
*
Initially honored with the award, the organization's happiness quickly turned to outrage when the governor announced he was proclaiming April Confederate History Month. Noting the fraternity has had such notable members as Martin Luther King Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, the chapter decided they would accept the award, but would not attend the ceremony, Morris said.
*
In a letter to the governor, the chapter said they would not be attending the awards ceremony because their organization stands for "social justice and advocacy for underrepresented and marginalized populations; populations that were taken advantage of by the Confederacy."

McDonnell In Hot Water Over Nonviolent Felons' Rights

For someone who claims he is "against discrimination of any kind," Gov. Bob McDonnell has a strange way of showing. Particularly after his "Confederate History Month" debacle earlier in the week. In Virginia the sad reality is that blacks make up a disproportionate number of convicted felons - a group that automatically losing its voting rights - often in my view because of lack of legal counsel and bigoted judges. With blacks being, therefore, disproportionately disenfranchised the issue of restoring voting rights is a perennial issue with blacks and civil rights activists seeking to speed up a slow and cumbersome process while the GOP controlled House of Delegates opposes changes because - God forbid - those re-enfranchised blacks might vote for Democrats. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but I suspect not. In today's Virginia GOP, blacks, gays, Hispanics, non-Christians and immigrants are not only unwanted in the state but also not welcome at the polls if truth be told. The Washington Post has a story that looks at McDonnell's latest gaff. One would think he was getting his PR advice from the Vatican in light of the self-inflicted wounds. Here are highlights:

*
For the second time in a week, Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has angered black leaders and civil rights groups, this time when they learned of his plans to add another step for nonviolent felons to have their voting rights restored.
*
McDonnell (R) will require the offenders to submit an essay outlining their contributions to society since their release, turning a nearly automatic process into a subjective one that some say may prevent poor, less-educated or minority residents from being allowed to vote. "It's another roadblock," Sen. Yvonne B. Miller (D-Norfolk), a member of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, said when she was told of the change.
*
McDonnell has not restored any felon's rights since he was sworn into office Jan. 16, although applications have started to be processed. The new process is still being developed and is several weeks away from being implemented. Polarek said she does not know whether she will need more money or staff to read the essays or speed up the process.
*
Under Virginia's constitution, people convicted of a felony automatically lose the rights to vote, serve on a jury and own a gun. About 300,000 felons who have served their time do not have those rights. A governor can restore those rights to felons who appear to have redeemed themselves.
*
Only Virginia and Kentucky require an act of the governor to restore voting rights to felons. The vast majority of states, including Maryland, automatically restore voting rights after a sentence is completed. The District allows felons to vote upon their release from prison.
*
[Gov.] Kaine restored the civil rights of a record 4,402 felons during his term, and Warner restored rights to 3,486. Republican predecessors James S. Gilmore III and George Allen restored rights to 238 and 460 felons, respectively. In the past, Republicans have asserted that Democratic governors have restored voting rights to more felons than have Republican governors because felons are more likely to vote for Democrats.

McDonnell's Confederate History Month Proclamation - Is He Tone Defeaf?

I will admit that I am a Civil War buff and have nothing against recognizing Virginia's history. Indeed, on my mother's side of the family from New Orleans, I have my own Confederate ancestors, one of whom was in a Union prison camp. But only a month after he and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli generated worldwide negative press for Virginia on the state's support of discrimination against its LGBT citizens, was it a good idea to potentially give the appearance that the state is racist and anti-black too? Truthfully, I'm not sure what Bob McDonnell was thinking other than seeking to pander to the far right elements in the shrinking Republican Party of Virginia base who long for the days when, as one former classmate described the mindset, "men were men, women knew their place, and as for blacks, every white man could own one." No, it wasn't George Allen, although I can imagine him saying that too and, unlike this other classmate, it would not be a joke. Virginia has many pressing problems and stirring up more racial unrest and images of state supported discrimination does nothing to address them. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, reviving a controversy that had been dormant for eight years, has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in Virginia, a move that angered civil rights leaders Tuesday but that political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base.
*
The two previous Democratic governors had refused to issue the mostly symbolic proclamation honoring the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. McDonnell (R) revived a practice started by Republican governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had included in his proclamation.
*
McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states.
*
The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation.
*
The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War."
*
The Virginia NAACP and the state's Legislative Black Caucus called the proclamation an insult to a large segment of the state's population, particularly because it never acknowledges slavery.

"Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed," said Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D-Norfolk), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. "Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."

Bob McDonnell Wants to Close What Once was Virginia's Lone Blacks-Only Park.

Virginians continue to reap what they sowed by electing faux moderate Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia. In addition to the hugely publicized elimination of employment protections for gay state employees in his new Executive Order (it is virtually all over the Internet), McDonnell has also tipped his hand as to the latent racism so prevalent in Virginia's GOP establishment and party base. How so? McDonnell has targeted for closure a state park which was once the only state park which allowed blacks to visit - even though other parks have had lower attendance and this park remains hugely popular with black Virginians. Sadly, McDonnell's move mirrors the undercurrent of racism that I believe prevails within the national GOP where blacks and Hispanics and other minorities are not deemed "real Americans." McDonnell has been in office less than two months and his actions so far bode for a very bleak four years for Virginia. Voters across the USA need to watch what happens in Virginia under McDonnell because it is a harbinger of what the national GOP would like to inflict on the nation as a whole. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot.

*

One of the five state parks Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to close to save money has a singular distinction in Virginia history - it contains what once was the state's lone blacks-only park. And growing awareness of that fact has caused some legislators to call for rejecting that aspect of the governor's recommendation in efforts to narrow a $2.2 billion state budget shortfall.
*
"It's going to be problematic for that to get passed," Norfolk Democratic Del. Kenny Alexander said of the proposal to shutter Twin Lakes State Park in Prince Edward County. Alexander, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said he expects his group to include the park in a statement it plans to issue next week about budget priorities.
*
[I]n 1950. . . state officials established Prince Edward State Park for Negroes in response to a lawsuit from a black citizen who had been denied admission to another state park. Venerated civil rights attorney Oliver W. Hill Sr. spearheaded that lawsuit, . . . To this day, Twin Lakes remains popular among African American visitors, many of whom hold family reunions there, explained local historian Lacy Ward Jr., director of the Robert Russa Moton Museum in nearby Farmville.
*
While more than one-third of Virginia's 35 state parks had fewer visitors than Twin Lakes' 102,000 last year and the park's nearly $2.4 million economic impact is greater than some others, . . . McDonnell administration officials say the selected parks were included in the proposed budget cuts based on "objective criteria."
*
Virginia has a long and sordid history of discrimination - something that Bob McDonnell seems intent on continuing under his regime. Virginia is for Lovers as long as they are white, straight, and preferably evangelical Christians and far right Roman Catholics. The rest of us are more or less not welcome.

A Decade of Progress on LGBT Rights

As hard as it is at times to accept still being a second or third class citizen in the majority of states in the USA, many of us - myself included - tend to forget that progress has been made over the last decade. In Virginia (and 12 other states), until the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, same sex physical relations could lead to felony charges and imprisonment. Even if the sexual relations occurred in the privacy of one's home between consenting adults. Obviously, the fact that progress has been made is no reason to give up on the struggle for full equality under all aspects of the civil laws - include the civil marriage laws. However, it can be useful when feels beaten down and pessimistic on where things are headed to stop and look at what improvements now exist as compared to a decade ago. The Movement Advancement Project has a new study that documents how life has in fact gotten better than it was even if the journey is far from over. The report can be found here. Here are some highlights:

*
This brief report, prepared jointly by MAP and the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr., Fund, tracks 36 indicators of legal and social progress since the year 2000. The metrics are organized in eight topical areas affecting the lives of LGBT people:
*
The report concisely shows how the past 10 years have been a period of dramatic gains in equality for LGBT people in America. Two-thirds of the 36 benchmarks show significant advances, including sharp increases in the number of LGBT Americans protected by nondiscrimination and family recognition legislation at the state level. Less than one quarter of the indicators are negative, and four metrics show little change (either positive or negative).
*
•Protection from discrimination
•Recognition of LGBT families
•Protection from hate violence
•Safe and accepting school climate
•Relief from HIV and AIDS
•Service to country – military
•Service to country – public office
•Societal acceptance of LGBT people
*
Some of the positive changes are as follows.
*
States outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation: from 12 up to 22, - Up 83%
*
Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on sexual orientation: from 51% up to 88% - Up 73%
*
States extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: from 0 up to 5 - Up from 0
*
States with broad relationship recognition laws short of marriage: from 1 up to 6 - Up 500%
*
States with safe school laws citing sexual orientation and gender identity/expression for protection: from 1 up to 13 - Up 1200%
*
Portion of the public who favor allowing openly-homosexual military members to serve openly: from 62% up to 75% - Up 21%

*

Yes, there have been set backs too. Still, the net change is positive. Not surprisingly, Virginia is generally NOT included among states showing improvement. Obviously, if that continues, Virginia will become increasingly non-competitive in attracting progressive businesses and the "creative class."

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules for Gay Marriage

In yet another case where a state supreme court must consider the meaning of full civil equality under the law, the Connecticut Supreme ruled today that civil unions are discriminatory against gay and lesbian couples. It appears that the state legislature is poised to also pass legislation in favor of full marriage equality for gays. If one remembers that we are talking about the CIVIL laws, it should be a no brainer that this is the only possible result if one is applying the state constitution to provide equal CIVIL rights. Of course, this simple reasoning and logic is beyond the mental capabilities of Christianists who cannot separate their religious fanaticism from civil government and civil laws. Needless to say, the will be spittle flying and teeth gnashing among the demented Christianist crowd. The Court's decision can be found here. Here are some highlights from the Hartford Courant:

*

The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

*

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

*

The [lunatic] opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. "Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government.

*

The court's ruling today will likely be the final judicial judgment in the case because it it based on the state constitution, rather then the U.S. constitution. But the often emotional, contentious debate over gay marriage is far from over.

More Christianist Misconduct at Military Academies

The New York Times has another disturbing story concerning Christianist members of the U. S. military trying to impose their religious views on cadets at the nations military academies. Unfortunately, some of the offenders are senior officers who, in my view, should be removed from commands - and ideally forced out of the military - if their cannot separate their apparent desires to be preachers from being military officers. They do NOT get to do both. All too typically, the religious nutcases cannot fathom the concept that their private religious views need to remain just that - private. They do not get to trample over the religious freedom of others in uniform, including their right to subscribe to no religion if they so choose. They whine about people restricting their freedom of religion but do not give a rat's ass about anyone else's rights. In the final analysis, they are obnoxious, self-centered, self-fish people who have no place in uniform. Obviously, having the delusional Chimperator, a definite religious lunatic, as commander-in-chief has not helped the situation. Here are highlights from the NYT story:

*

Three years after a scandal at the Air Force Academy over the evangelizing of cadets by Christian staff and faculty members, students and staff at West Point and the Naval Academy are complaining that their schools, too, have pushed religion on cadets and midshipmen. . . . critics say the new complaints raise questions about the military’s commitment to policies against imposing religion on its members.

*

At the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., nine midshipmen recently asked the American Civil Liberties Union to petition the school to abolish daily prayer at weekday lunch, where attendance is mandatory. The midshipmen and the A.C.L.U. assert that the practice is unconstitutional, based in large part on a 2004 appellate court ruling against a similar prayer at the Virginia Military Institute. The civil liberties group has threatened legal action if the policy is not changed. But the academy is not persuaded.

*

In interviews at West Point, seven cadets, two officers and a former chaplain said that religion, especially evangelical Christianity, was a constant at the academy. . . . But most of their complaints center on Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, until recently the academy’s top military leader and, since early May, the commander of the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii. The cadets and staff said General Caslen, as commandant of cadets at West Point, routinely brought up God in speeches at events cadets were required to attend.

*

"Nowhere does it say that you have to be a good Christian officer or Jewish officer or Muslim officer: You need to be an officer dedicated to the Constitution of the United States,” said Steven Warner, who graduated from West Point last month. “They tell us as an officer you have to put everything aside, all your personal stuff. But religion is the one thing they encourage you to wear on your sleeve.”

*

“There is this massive sense of two things: that you are not wanted and you are made to feel like last-class citizens,” said Mr. Weinstein, a former Air Force officer. He added that he had been contacted by 31 cadets and staff members from West Point, including those who raised concerns about General Caslen, and 56 people from the Naval Academy, including 39 midshipmen. Almost all are afraid to go public.