Republicans Won’t Stop Killing LGBT Rights in Virginia

It's election day in Virginia and so much is at stake in terms of Virginia's future.  This is especially the case with LGBT rights which Virginia Republicans have blocked for decades now leave LGBT Virginians with no state level employment non-discrimination protections and even without public accommodation and housing non-discrimination protections.  While Republicans have run extremely dishonest campaigns trying to sound almost like typical Democrats, make mistake that these campaign efforts are a lie and that should Republicans retain control of the General Assembly, nothing will change and LGBT rights advances will continue to be killed.  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at this truth.  If you are LGBT or have LGBT friends or family members, it is imperative that you go vote for the Democrat candidates in your House of Delegates and Senate districts. Here are article excerpts that explain why:

Republicans in Virginia have controlled the House of Delegates for almost two decades, since taking control after the 1999 general election.

During that time, though public attitudes around LGBTQ rights have shifted and widespread acceptance of LGBTQ individuals has increased, the Virginia GOP is still partying like it’s 1999, using their power — particularly in the House — to continually halt or kill pro-equality measures.

That remains true even though polls show a majority of Virginians support making it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

The GOP is even out of step with its own base — a poll earlier this year found that a majority of Virginia Republicans support protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.
[T]he House of Delegates has remained stubbornly opposed to allowing any such legislation to escape to the governor’s desk.

With that in mind — and a general election set for tomorrow, Nov. 5, that could hand control of the House to Democrats — here’s some of the most notable times Republicans have killed progress for the LGBTQ community in Virginia:

Yanked three pro-LGBTQ bills, fearing they might pass

In January this year, Republican leaders in the House killed three separate pro-LGBTQ bills. Two of the bills would have prohibited discrimination in public employment and housing, and a third would have provided more expansive protections for LGBTQ people in public accommodations, credit, and public contracting. The bills, as with many before them, were killed by Republican-stacked subcommittees, with advocates blaming Speaker Kirk Cox, alleging that he feared at least two of the bills would have passed a full vote in the House.

Killed every pro-LGBTQ housing and employment bill

In 2018, Cox once again stepped in to ensure that four bills designed to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing and employment died in subcommittees — after Cox engineered those committees to heavily favor conservative lawmakers from GOP-leaning districts. This, despite wide support for the bills including from a number of housing, building, and realtor associations.

Rejected protecting transgender people from healthcare discrimination

Also in 2018, Republicans voted to allow anti-transgender healthcare discrimination to continue. A Democrat-sponsored bill would have prevented insurance companies from refusing to cover medically necessary treatments or procedures for trans patients, but all GOP members of a House subcommittee rejected it, effectively killing the bill.

Stopped an attempt to ban anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy on minors

Again in 2018, Republicans — this time in a Senate committee — killed a bill that would have prevented licensed therapists and counselors from subjecting LGBTQ minors to conversion therapy. Widely debunked and considered harmful and detrimental to mental health, conversion therapy purports to “change” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. But rather than vote to protect children from being subjected to methods that include public shaming, forced vomiting, and electroshock therapy, they instead rejected the bill on a party-line vote. (And it’s not the first time. Republicans rejected a similar ban in 2015.)

Defeated bills to deal with anti-LGBTQ hate crimes

It really was a busy year for killing pro-LGBTQ legislation, as in 2018 Republicans also shut down attempts to deal with crimes that target LGBTQ people — a decision made even as the number of anti-LGBTQ homicides hit a record high.

And that’s just in the last couple of years.

We’ve only highlighted as far back as the start of the 2018 legislative session, but Republicans have killed countless pro-LGBTQ measures over the years, covering a number of LGBTQ issues, from nondiscrimination protections, to legalizing same-sex marriage, to including LGBTQ people in hate crimes protections:

2017: Two pro-equality bills designed to ban discrimination against LGBTQ people in housing and employment passed the Senate before being killed in the House by a Republican-controlled subcommittee.

2016: GOP Delegates killed eight LGBTQ-related bills by punting them to a process that subjects legislation to further review and analysis, effectively tabling them indefinitely. Among those punted were six bills granting protections in public employment, private employment, housing and public accommodations, as well as a measure that would have banned the practice of LGBT conversion therapy on minors. House Republicans then killed two nondiscrimination bills — which had passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote — that would have prohibited discrimination in housing and employment.

We haven’t even mentioned the anti-LGBTQ legislation…

While Republicans in Virginia were busy voting down, tabling, delaying, or otherwise killing pro-LGBTQ legislation, they were also introducing various bills that actively discriminated against the LGBTQ community, including: a “religious freedom” bill that removed penalties for those who discriminated against LGBTQ people (it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe after passing both the House and Senate); passing an almost identical bill in 2016, which was similarly vetoed; introducing three separate bills in 2017 targeting transgender people in public accommodations, allowing contractors to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and banning trans students from accessing facilities that match their gender identity; and in 2016 threatening nine separate pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation targeting same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.

And again, that’s just in the last few years.

Democrats expect a “sea change” in LGBTQ progress should they flip the House or Senate

Democrats are arguing that the only hope for progress on LGBTQ rights in Virginia is for voters to flip the House — and the Senate, too — and give Democrats a chance to pass pro-LGBTQ legislation.

As Kathryn Gilley, communications director for the Democratic Party of Virginia, told Metro Weekly last week, “If Republicans were going to do something to help the LGBTQ community, they would have done it by now.”

“They have had a majority in the House of Delegates for 20 years,” she said. “We’ve seen their stance on LGBTQ rights, and it’s not good.”

Again, if you have LGBT friends or family members, if you don't vote Democrat today, you are actively voting to harm your friends and family members.  It truly is that simple. Vote Democrat!

The Threat of White Supremacy and Far-Right Extremism

White supremacists on the University of Virginia grounds in August, 2017.

If one were to believe the Trump/Pence regime and Republicans eager to give Trump politico fellatio, all violent, extremist motivated crimes in the USA are committed by Islamic extremists and undocumented Hispanics.  Truth be told, these allegations are all lies - like almost everything that comes out of Trump's mouth - inasmuch as the vast majority of ideologically/religiously based murders are committed by white supremacists and other far right groups. An op-ed in the New York Times authored by Thomas T. Cullen, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, looks at this reality and the need for both law enforcement and the media to face this reality.   In addition, it stresses the need for new legislation to enable law enforcement to address this growing threat of domestic terror.  Here are op-ed excerpts:

Last week, federal agents in Maryland arrested a United States Coast Guard officer and said he was plotting to assassinate Democratic members of Congress, prominent television journalists and others. The officer, Lt. Christopher Hasson, apparently was inspired by a right-wing Norwegian terrorist who slaughtered 77 people in 2011, stockpiled firearms and ammunition and researched locations around Washington to launch his attacks, according to investigators. Fortunately, the F.B.I. arrested him before he could act.

This frightening case is just one of several recent reminders that white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States.

Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the federal and state levels, has been slow to respond. . . . But there are steps that can be taken to help the police and prosecutors address this growing threat — including, on the federal level, a domestic terrorism law.

In 2017, hate crimes, generally defined as criminal acts motivated by the victim’s race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, increased by about 17 percent nationally, to 7,175 from 6,121 (the number of police agencies reporting crimes also rose, by about 6 percent); in my state, Virginia, they were up by nearly 50 percent, to 202 from 137.

Killings committed by individuals and groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly. Seventy-one percent of the 387 “extremist related fatalities in the United States” from 2008 to 2017 were committed by members of far-right and white-supremacist groups . . . Islamic extremists were responsible for 26 percent.

Virginia, too, has experienced extremist violence. In August 2017, several hundred people — mainly young white men heavily influenced by white-nationalist propaganda — converged on Charlottesville, ostensibly to protest the possible removal of Confederate monuments from public parks. Among other odious acts, these “Unite the Right” protesters marched with lighted torches on the campus of the University of Virginia. They chanted “Jews will not replace us!” before attacking a small group of students and counterprotesters at the base of a statue of Thomas Jefferson.

The following day, some of these Unite the Right enthusiasts attacked and injured counterprotesters in Charlottesville. Their violence culminated when a white supremacist from Ohio drove his car into a crowd of people, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring about 30 others.

In 2009, Congress took an important step in arming federal investigators to deal with hate crimes by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This law makes it possible to prosecute as hate crimes violent acts committed against victims because of their race, color, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity or disability.

But the hate crime law has its limitations. First, it requires proof that an individual acted because of a specific proscribed animus enumerated in the statute. That means investigators must uncover concrete evidence that the defendant was primarily motivated by, for example, racist or anti-Semitic views. Although this evidence exists in many hate crimes, it proves elusive in others.

Second, because it is a federal statute, prosecutors must prove a “jurisdictional” element, such as travel by the defendant across state lines. For those hate crimes that do not involve interstate travel or communication, the law can’t be invoked.

State officials can update and strengthen existing hate-crime laws, many of which do not include protections for some of the categories of people listed in the federal hate crimes law. Although many states have expanded these protections, the Indiana State Senate this week moved to weaken a proposed hate crime bill. In addition, states can authorize localities to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations that will likely result in widespread violence and other criminal activity, like the rally in Charlottesville.

At both the federal and state levels, immediate steps are required to curtail the alarming rise of hate crimes and extremist violence in this country.

With family members living in Charlottesville, I know how disturbing this growing menace is for even those who are not the direct victims of extremist violence.  Sadly, expect Republicans to deny the reality of where the threat truly lies and block much needed legislation.

Rick Perry's Anti-Gay Agenda

It's hard to determine who hates LGBT citizens more, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann (putting aside, of course, the fact that Bachmann appears to be living with a closeted gay man). It seems that if elected and given the chance (and a GOP majority in Congress), both appear to be of a mindset where gays might be well advised to consider getting the Hell out of the USA. Perry for instance would re-criminalize sodomy which under the Texas statute struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas included just about all sex acts other than the missionary position (Virginia's statute which remains in the Virginia Code is similar). It's a scary world when people like Bachmann and Perry are considered serious contenders for the GOP nomination. Personally, I view both Perry and Bachmann (and Santorum) and their Christian dominionist supporters as an example of mass scale mental illness/insanity. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Think Progress provides a sampling of Perry's agenda against LGBT citizens.

Perry’s anti-gay record should speak for itself:

1. Perry has come down fiercely against gay marriage, both in Texas and nationally. “Gay marriage is not fine with me,” Perry told Tony Perkins of the anti-gay Family Research Council last month. Contrary to his states’ rights rhetoric on issues like health care and education mandates, he is in favor of a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. While serving as governor, he pushed for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Texas. After voters approved the amendment, he signed it symbolically at a Christian school, declaring that now gay marriage is “beyond the reach of activist judges.”

2. He supports a Texas law that criminalizes sodomy, even though it has been unconstitutional since 2003. When asked for his views on the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling an anti-sodomy law unconstitutional, Perry responded with, “I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books.” He later blamed the decision on the Supreme Court’s “nine oligarchs in robes” in his second book, Fed Up! Texas lawmakers have introduced legislation to repeal the statute during three separate legislative sessions, and yet Perry has not supported any of them. In 2010, he even ran for re-election on a GOP platform explicitly supporting the criminalization of gay sex.

3. Perry criticized President Obama for signing hate-crimes legislation in 2010. When running against U.S. Senator Kay Hutchinson in 2009, his campaign conducted a series of robocalls calling out Obama for “making homosexuality a protected class” by signing hate-crimes protections for the LGBT community into law. Instead, he is looking to hire Robert Black, one of his former staffers who is prone to hateful speech himself. Black made the papers in 1998 for likening the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay conservatives, to the Ku Klux Klan and characterizing the organization as “deviant.”

4. He is cultivating relationships with anti-gay hate groups. As has been widely reported, the American Family Association–which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated an “anti-gay hate group”–organized and funded in large measure Perry’s Aug. 6 prayer rally in Houston. The Response, which drew around 30,000 attendees, was also affiliated with pastors who described the gay movement as coming from the “pit of hell” and who blamed Hurricane Katrina on gays. He has also reportedly spoken with several members of the New Apostolic Reformation in a June closed-door meeting aimed at developing a counter-strategy to Obama in 2012. Rachel Maddow described anti-gay sentiment as “prominent in NAR preaching, where hurricanes, tornadoes, dead birds and the rise of the Nazis are all blamed on gays and lesbians.”

5. And if you don’t agree with him, Perry thinks you should live elsewhere.When asked by a local NBC anchor for his response to the gay veterans protesting the new constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2005, Perry retorted, “Texans made a decision about marriage and if there’s a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live.”

Oklahoma Hate-Rrimes Exclusion Bill Killed

In a refreshing move, the proposed bill in the Oklahoma legislature that seeks to exempt Oklahoma from compliance with the federal Matthew Shepard - James Byrd Hate Crimes Act has been killed in the Oklahoma House. While the bill passed the Oklahoma Senate, it is encouraging that some sanity remains in the legislature. Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, purposely became a sponsor of the bill that originated in the Senate for the express purpose of making sure that the bill did not secure passage. As previously mentioned, the bill also cited the incorrect federal statutory provision and even if passed would have failed to accomplish the goal of its wingnut backers. Here are some highlights from the Tulsa World:
*
OKLAHOMA CITY — A controversial hate-crimes bill did not get a hearing Monday in a House committee. Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, became the House author of Senate Bill 1965, by Sen. Steven Russell, R-Oklahoma City. Shelton said he took control of the bill to kill it and asked that the bill not get heard in the House Judiciary Committee. Russell said he had substantially rewritten the bill from its original version.
*
Russell said the law is needed to protect free speech after the passage of a federal law that added sexual orientation or gender identity to the categories protected under the federal hate-crimes law. President Barack Obama signed the law in October.
Oklahoma’s existing hate-crimes law does not include sexual orientation or gender identity.
*
Shelton said SB 1965 would have prohibited Oklahoma law enforcement agencies from cooperating with any federal agency in the investigation of a federal hate crime.
But Russell said his bill had been misinterpreted. He said he was concerned that pastors who preached against homosexuality could be prosecuted if someone, as a result, took action against a gay person.
*
Laura Belmonte, vice president and co-founder of The Equality Network, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization, said the group will be monitoring the legislative session to ensure that Russell does not insert the bill’s language into another measure.“This is a bill that really denies Oklahomans equal protection under federal law,” Belmonte said. “It puts law enforcement in the position of breaking federal law, directing them to obstruct access to evidence.

Oklahoma Lawmakers Pass Wrong Hate Crimes Bill

A while back I wrote about the passage of a bill by the Oklahoma State Senate that sought to nullify the effectiveness of the federal hate crimes bill that protects victims of violence based on their sexual orientation. The Bible beaters in Sally Kern land, however, are none too bright apparently - something I don't find surprising - and in passing their Christianist supported bill, the morons screwed up the bill's language and rather than blocking the hate crimes bill they targeted, ostensibly their bill barred the state from reporting hate crimes based on race and religion instead. Personally, I find the idiocy of the Okies hysterical and it truly suggests that someone will be finding their ass in a sling now that the state has made itself look even more ridiculous. Not only are the homo haters bigots, but they are incompetent bigots to boot. Here are some highlights from The Advocate:

*
Lawmakers in Oklahoma thought they’d figured out a way to exempt the state from enforcing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Act, which added protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal hate crimes act. But thanks to “a legislative error,” the Oklahoma senate has instead passed a bill that sidesteps protections based on race and religion.
*
Senate Bill 1965, passed on March 10, states that local enforcement agencies should not enforce any sections of federal law listed under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245 unless they are already covered by state law. But it’s Section 249, not 245, where sexual orientation and gender identity protections are listed. Section 245 outlines protections based on race and religion.
*
Now that the mistake has been made public, the bill has little chance of getting through the House, according to Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign’s state legislative director.
*
Just perhaps the state would be better served by less Bible beating and religious based hate and more learning how to read and double check citations.

Insane Christianists Fail to Get Arrested

Even though the Matthew Shepard-James Bryd Hate Crimes Act is now the law of the land, the far right Christianists continue to disseminate lies and untruths about the Act and continue to depict themselves as a persecuted segment of society. How Christians can be a "persecuted minority" when they constitute a majority of U.S. citizens is of no concern to the loopy religious zealots and professional Christians who seek to squeeze every possible dollar out of bigots, homophobes, and the ignorant. In order to try to maintain the drumbeat that they are being persecuted by "thought police" some of the most unhinged of the Christianists held a protest yesterday in Washington, D.C. - likely hoping that they would be arrested to aid their persecution complex. Unfortunately for them, they were largely ignored and found themselves surrounded by gay activists. Here's some video of their delusional rants:

Dana Milbank has a hysterical column on the "persecuted" Christians' non-event. Here are some highlights:

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking. Anything other than sex "between a male and his wedded wife," announced the Rev. Paul Blair, "is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination." No arrest was made.
*
The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."
*
Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: A couple of dozen gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs announcing "Gaga for Gay Rights" and "I Am a Love Warrior." By the end, the gay rights activists had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers.
*
The gay activist smiled. "God," he said, "works in mysterious ways." In this case, God took the form of Chuck Fazio, from DC Podiums. Fazio was hired by the religious conservatives to provide the sound system for the event, but upon learning of their cause, he decided to donate his proceeds to the gay rights activists and to give them a chance at the microphone before shutting down the amplifiers. . . . . But there was no evidence of persecution at the corner of 10th and Pennsylvania. In fact, the cops at one point intervened to help the ministers, by ordering the gay rights activists to move away.
*

Inshort, the "protest" turned into a farce and helped to underscore the dishonesty of the professional Christians and just out of touch they are with objective reality, not to mention the plain language of the Hate Crimes Act.

Pastors Will Try to Incite a Religious-Based Hate Crime

If any indication of how perverted many self-proclaimed Christians and professional Christians (i.e., Don Wildmon, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et al) have become, now some pastors intend to try to incite religious based hate crimes against gays to see if they are prosecuted under the newly passed federal Hate Crimes law. Their goal? To depict themselves as martyrs no doubt and then rack in money as they whine about being persecuted for their religious beliefs. These folks are beyond sick and continue to give Christianity a bad name among thinking, rational people. To me, it seems that the Christianist are becoming increasingly unhinged and down right depraved if they are willing to deliberately seek to cause LGBT citizens to be brutalized or even killed. If this is what "deeply held" religious belief leads to, then we'd be far better off in a world of atheists. Queerty has some details on this warped religious based hatred. Here are some highlights:

*
Religious conservatives argued endlessly that the Matthew Shepard Act would infringe on religious freedoms because, if a pastor were to preach homophobia at the pulpit and a member of his parish went out and killed a queer, the murderer's religious beliefs would be used against him in court. So now that LGBT hate crimes legislation has passed, what better way to test the theory than to make it happen?
*
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission's Gary Cass says his group is planning something called the "Rally for Religious Freedom," a demonstration in front of the Department of Justice in Washington, that will be shouting anti-gay rhetoric to the heavens. On Nov. 16, ministers will gather — with megaphones, or at least a podium, we're guessing — and read from the Bible about how we're all sinners, we're ruining American families, and how we get too much airtime on Bravo.
*
It's all in an attempt to get Attorney General Eric Holder to address what Cass & Co. view as conflicting legislation. Says Cass: "We're going to declare the whole counsel of God, including those parts that some may consider 'inciting a hate crime' to see if the attorney general is going to come down and arrest a group of peaceful clergy exercising their First Amendment rights."

*

The actual Hate Crimes law does not infringe on freedom of speech, but the truth and objective facts have never mattered to these folks who live in some bizarre alternate universe that I'd rather not even contemplate. When does extreme religious belief become evidence of serious mental illness? Trying to talk to people like Cass and other extreme homophobes is pointless. The goal for GLBT activists is to build a strategy and approach that gets the general public to comprehend just how dangerous these Christianists are not only for gays but all citizens who believe in freedom of religion. As one reader commented, these people want nothing less than a form of Christian sharia law. That ought to terrify everyone.

What the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill Really Says

I posted earlier today about the explosin of lies coming from the Christianists over the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill (the photo at left is where Shepard's was found bound and beaten) now before the U.S. Senate. An anonymous commenter in a snide tone - it's always the anonymous commenters that are snippy and nasty - asked why I had not documented that the Christianists statements were not true. In fact, I have quoted portions of the bill (S. 909) in prior posts, but to prove to those who do not want to believe that "Godly Christians" lie incessantly, here are some more exerpts. Note that the bill talks of acts of BODILY INJURY, not speech or sermons:

*

‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
*
(a) In General-
*
(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
*
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
*
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
*
(I) death results from the offense; or
*
(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
*

*

(c) Definitions- In this section--

(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
*
(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
*
(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
*

(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.

*

Of equal importance are the following exemptions from application of the Bills protections based on sexual orientation or gender expression:

*

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
*
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

*

Again, there is no way to put it nicely. Daddy Dobson, Janet Folger Porter and the rest of the professional Christian hacks decrying the hate crimes bill are LIARS and they are lying DELIBERATELY. They care NOTHING about the truth and are nothing less than shameless demagogues who are likely putting money in their pockets derived from the the ignorant, bigoted, or uninformed. Their conduct is anything but Christ like.

Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate?

Like many other LGBT bloggers I have been less than thrilled with Barack Obama's delivery - or should I say total lack thereof - on LGBT issues notwithstanding all the grand rhetoric during the campaign to secure our votes, money and labors for his campaign. I continue to have the sick feeling that perhaps we were cynically played for suckers. Not only has Obama been missing in action when it comes to moving forward, but now even the White House website has been waffling back and forth when it comes to LGBT civil rights issues. As John Aravosis noted on Friday at America Blog:

*

It's been a disturbing 24 hours. But the White House has just updated its Web site to indicate that it continues to support the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

*

There was some concern that the Obama administration was backing off the President's repeated promise to lift the ban after the White House Web site yesterday changed its commitment to "repeal" DADT to a promise to only "change" the policy in a "sensible way." This led many observers, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, to worry whether the White House was backing off of its repeated commitment to, as President Obama himself promised, "fully repeal" the DADT policy.

*

The White House Web site has now been updated, again, and the "repeal" language is back. And while it's couched in the same terms about being done in a "sensible way," I would assume that all administration policy is implemented in a "sensible way," so this should have no bearing on whether President Obama will keep his promise to fully repeal the ban.

*

I hate to say it, but all of us need to constantly pressure the White House to remind Obama that we expect him to deliver as promised. Yes, there are a lot of issues in front of him, but delivering on LGBT equality is one of the steps needed to undo the tragic last 8 years of misrule by the Chimperator and his Christianist puppet masters. If Obama will not move forward on LGBT issues for the right reason, then he needs to be prodded along by the knowledge that there will be adverse consequences if he doesn't deliver. We all might further add that we're more than a little sick and tired of him listening to pathological liar and blow hard Rick Warren.

*

In yesterday's Washington Post, Richard Socarides, former special assistant to President Bill Clinton, has some suggestions for how Obama should proceed to move forward on LGBT issues and take advantage of the current disarray of the Republican Party. Here are some highlights from Socarides' column:

*

In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.

*

What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.

*

But recent victories on gay marriage, a youth-driven paradigm shift in public opinion and the election of our first African American president make this a uniquely opportune moment to act. I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform. So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?

*
It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly. This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

*

And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew." Here is what Obama should do to seize this opportunity:

*
First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign.

*

Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.

*

Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.

*
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.

*

Does Obama have the guts to take such bold action? Did he mean any of the bold statements he made on LGBT issues during the campaign? The only way we will find out is to hold his feet to the fire - as well as those of our representatives in the House and Senate - and demand action with a clear message that our votes, money and campaign efforts should not be taken as guaranteed in the future.