Virginia House of Delegates Passing License to Discriminate Law

GOP Del Scott Taylor (at left) who voted against discrimination

My February VEER Magazine column - the issue should be at newsstands now - looked at the anti-gay bills introduced by Republican members of the General assembly.   Among the most heinous was  HB 773 - farcically named the "Government Nondiscrimination Act"  -which would allow one's religious belief to trump Virginia's non-discrimination laws and prohibit any government entity from taking any action against a person on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman as determined by anatomy and genetics of the individual at the time of birth. Today, on a [partisan vote, the bill passed the House of Delegates.  Among thos voting for passage were GOP Delegates Adams, Albo, Anderson, Austin, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Bloxom, Byron, Campbell, Cline, Cole, Collins, Cox, Dudenhefer, Edmunds, Fariss, Fowler, Freitas, Garrett, Gilbert, Greason, Habeeb, Head, Helsel, Hodges, Hugo, Ingram, Jones, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LaRock, Leftwich, LeMunyon, Lingamfelter, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, Miller, Minchew, Morris, O'Bannon, O'Quinn, Orrock, Peace, Pillion, Pogge, Poindexter, Ransone, Robinson, Rush, Ware, Webert, Wilt, and Wright.  Local GOP Delegates Taylor, Stolle and Villanueva had the decency to vote "No."  The Washington Post has these details (note the broad scope of the license to discriminate that would be granted):

The Virginia House passed a bill Tuesday that would prohibit the government from punishing people and businesses who discriminate against same-sex couples, transgender individuals and those who have sex outside marriage.

Supporters say the Government Nondiscrimination Act is needed to protect what they call religious freedom in the face of shifting cultural attitudes toward gay rights and the legalization of gay marriage. Opponents say it’s a “license to discriminate,” with broad-reaching consequences.

The bill passed the Republican-controlled chamber 56 to 41, with seven Republican members voting “no,” two not voting and one absent. Although the vote is a win for the socially conservative wing of the party, the fact that some Republicans voted against it reflects a divide within the Republican Party in Virginia and the nation.

Before the vote, Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax), who is openly gay, gave an emotional floor speech urging his colleagues to consider the sweep of history before they cast a vote that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has said he would veto the measure if it passes the Senate and reaches his desk. But, Sickles said, “Your kids will be looking back at what you do today and how you vote on this bill.”

He went on to read from the program of Equality Virginia’s annual dinner, noting prominent businesses and political donors that support gay rights, including utility giant Dominion, whose ad trumpeted the “power of diversity,” and Lutheran Family Services.  He received a standing ovation from House Democrats.

The bill’s sponsor, Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), defended the bill, which he said would provide reasonable accommodation for deeply held religious beliefs.

Under the bill, an individual, corporation, partnership, association, trust, society or any other legal or commercial entity can cite religious belief in defense of its opposition to gay couples, transgender people or unmarried couples without fear of losing tax benefits, grants, contracts, loans, scholarships, certification, accreditation or jobs. There are exceptions for hospitals making decisions about visitation or emergency medical treatment.

Tennessee Governor Protects Vanderbilt University’s LGBT-Inclusive Nondiscrimination Policy

In a move that will no doubt have the knuckle dragging Bible beaters calling for his head, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) has committed to vetoing the bill that threatens to cut off state funding for Vanderbilt University (my maternal grandfather was a Vanderbilt medical school alumni) because of its policy requiring all on-campus organizations to abide by the university’s non-discrimination statement, which includes sexual orientation protections. Like most top tier universities Vanderbilt realizes that anti-gay bigotry is not good for recruiting students or faculty members.  That concept, of course, is lost on the GOP controlled legislature that wants to move the state backward in time to the Middle Ages.  Think Progress looks at Haslam's eleventh hour development of a spine.  Here are highlights:

For the past few months, Vanderbilt University has faced strong pushback from Christian student groups over its policy requiring all on-campus organizations to abide by the university’s non-discrimination statement, which includes sexual orientation protections. The groups claim that by being forced to allow gay students to participate and run for officer positions, they themselves are being discriminated against for their faith. The university has stood by its policy, arguing that because all students pay fees, all students should have equal access to campus resources.

This week, the issue escalated as the Tennessee legislature passed a bill threatening to cut state funding to any university that does not allow its religious student clubs to discriminate according to their beliefs. Though he does not agree with Vanderbilt’s policy, Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has committed to vetoing the bill — his first veto in office — because he considers it government overreach:

HASLAM: It is counter-intuitive to make campus organizations open their membership and leadership positions to anyone and everyone, even when potential members philosophically disagree with the core values and beliefs of the organization. Although I disagree with Vanderbilt’s policy, as someone who strongly believes in limited government, I think it is inappropriate for government to mandate the policies of a private institution.

Despite the veto, the debate will surely rage on. A nation-wide group known as the Christian Legal Society (which also has a Vanderbilt chapter) took a similar fight at a public college all the way to the Supreme Court a few years ago and lost. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court found that “all-comers” policies were viewpoint neutral, and thus are no more unfair to Christian groups than any other student groups.

This is yet another case of Christianists demanding special rights - i.e., the right to discriminate - not granted to others.  It's always about the wants and bigotry of the Christianists who believe that they should be free on any limits on their displays of bigotry.  Just like the way they think they are exempt from the Commandment that forbids lying and bearing false witness against others.

Will Social Issue Torpedo Christie and McDonnell?

Will the slavish groveling and politico fellatio that Virginia's Bob McDonnell and New Jersey's Chris Christie to Christian extremists come back to bite them in the ass (and Christie has a huge ass) as they jockey for position as a vice presidential nomination? Some are asking that question. Being viewed as a social issues extremist could potentially keep them of the ticket or as occurred with John McCain, a toxic VP pick could scuttle the entire ticket. While Christie's bugaboo could be his veto of a same sex marriage bill passed by the New Jersey legislature - with polls showing a majority in that state supported that bill - McDonnell may have many more issues that will make him appear far out side the mainstream of Americans. Which, of course he is in fact. Probably the most delusion bill is the so-called "personhood bill" but he also will be plagued by the anti-woman bills and anti-gay bills passed by the GOP controlled General Assembly on the orders of The Family Foundation, an organization deserving of hate group classification by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Its head, Victoria Cobb, in my opinion wouldn't know how to tell the truth even if it beat her about the head with a 2x4. Here are highlights from an ABC News story that looks at how social issues could trip up the ambitions of these puppets of the Christian Right:

Vetting a running mate, as Sarah Palin’s run for VP showed in 2008, is a critical ordeal for a party’s presidential nominee. But already two of Mitt Romney’s top choices for the bottom half of the ticket are embroiled in emotional social issues in their states that could spill over onto the national stage if they are picked for the GOP ticket.

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill passed Thursday by the state assembly. And in Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell might be forced to approve or dismiss a bill that defines life as beginning at conception, not birth.

In both cases, the potential running mates’ predicaments underline the dilemma of being governor of a state while under consideration for the VP spot on the presidential ticket.

In recent years, more Americans have said they are comfortable with gay marriage. In May, for the first time, a majority of Americans approved of it, according to the Gallup poll. Christie, a conservative who was courted by the right wing of his party to run for president this year, has staked himself to the right of the mainstream by vetoing New Jersey’s gay marriage bill, but at the same time has won cheers in the conservative camp for his position.

McDonnell’s situation in Virginia is murkier. The state’s House of Delegates passed a bill that gives a fetus the same rights as a grown person, defining conception as the beginning of life, a key distinction for opponents of abortion rights. If the State Senate approves it, the bill goes to McDonnell. McDonnell’s office said he hasn’t made up his mind on what he would do yet.

Signing the bill would surely please conservatives while possibly diminishing McDonnell’s appeal among independents on a ticket with Romney.

Time will tell whether McDonald places his own ambition ahead of following the orders of the most hate-filled and bigoted elements in Virginia today. If he does veto the personhood bill, it will be most entertaining to watch the flying spittle and conniptions among the Kool-Aid drinkers of the far right.

New Jersey Legislature passes Marriage Equality - Christie'sBalance Act Intensifies

As the New York Times is reporting, the New Jersey Assembly passed a marriage equality bill today thereby throwing a hot potato in the lap of the New Jersey's porcine governor, Chris Christie. Asa Salon piece sets out, Christie is now caught between appeasing the anti-gay Christofascist base of the Republican Party and not alienating the wider New Jersey electorate, the majority of which supports same sex marriage. First these details fr0m the Times article:

The New Jersey Assembly on Thursday passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriages, setting the stage for an expected veto by Gov. Chris Christie.

The 42-33 vote sends the bill to Christie, who won't take immediate action. The Republican governor who opposes gay marriage had promised "very swift action" if the bill passed both houses of the Legislature, but the Assembly isn't required to send the bill to his desk until the close of business Friday. The Senate approved the bill Monday.

"Without question this is a historic day in the state of New Jersey," Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver said after the vote. She said she had never been more proud of the Democratic caucus for doing "what citizens sent us here to do: to deliberate, to use the legislative process to represent the interests of all New Jerseyans."

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor; Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won't happen.

With that in mind, Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a longer view. They say there's no rush for an override vote, especially because the Legislature has been unsuccessful in every prior attempt to override Christie, most notably to reinstate a surcharge on millionaires.

Instead, they plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — currently 52-42 percent in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.

The risk for Christie if he vetoes the bill is that he himself is up for re-election in 2013 and in a close race, the veto could come back to bite him in his very ample ass. But if he doesn't veto the bill, the Christofascists may desert him and otherwise make his life Hell. Personally, I have little sympathy for Christie's dilemma. Yes, doing the right thing will not sit well with the hate merchants in the GOP base. But often doing the right thing doesn't win one short term popularity. Especially with bigots. Here are highlights from Salon on Christie's catch 22 situation:

There are two elections on the horizon that Chris Christie has a particular interest in. The first is in New Jersey next year, when he’ll seek a second term as governor. The second is in 2016, when he’ll make a logical presidential candidate — if he wins reelection in ’13 and if the Republican nomination is open.

On the one hand, support for gay marriage among New Jersey voters is solid — 52 percent favored it and 42 percent opposed it in one recent poll, while another pegged the margin at 48-37. Among independents, support is even higher. And the trajectory seems clear: Just five years ago, those overall numbers were reversed when the topic was polled. Given how rare Republican victories in New Jersey are (Christie’s 2009 win marked just the fifth statewide triumph for the GOP in 37 years, and only the second that was won by more than a point), Christie has to be very careful as he approaches his reelection race. He doesn’t have much margin for error when it comes to alienating swing voters . . . . and swing voters in New Jersey are generally fine with gay marriage.

But Republican voters nationally are not, and it will be a long time before they are (if they ever are). So if he wants to preserve his viability for ’16, Christie cannot be known as the New Jersey governor who enacted same-sex marriage. But he also can’t position himself as a hard-line, stop-at-nothing-to-derail-it opponent of it; to do so would reek of the cultural conservatism that has made most national Republicans unmarketable in New Jersey and endanger Christie’s reelection prospects. And if he gets the boot in ’13, it could sink whatever ’16 ambitions he has.

Christie’s workaround has been to oppose gay marriage while calling for a public referendum. . . . .Democrats in the Legislature have the votes to make sure one never takes place.

But yesterday’s state Senate vote offered another potential way out for Christie: a legislative override. . . . . This presents a Machiavellian possibility for Christie: Wink at them, continue voicing his opposition, then throw up his hands as the Legislature overrides him and takes the issue off the table.

[D]on’t expect an override any time soon. But if popular support keeps growing and Christie finds himself staring at a difficult reelection race in ’13, it might start to make sense.

The cynic in me hopes that Christie vetoes the bill, the legislature overrides the veto and Christie is voted out in 2013. It would be the best of all worlds and Christie would receive a well deserved punishment for caving into the forces of hate and bigotry in the GOP.

Super Committee Fails and Obama Threatens to Veto Attempts to Unwind Cuts

The so-called Super Committee in the Senate has admitted defeat in reaching a budget compromise to address the nation's deficits. All sides have a share of the blame for the failure, but ultimately, the most blame not surprisingly falls on the GOP which sought to protect wealthiest Americans over the rest of us. Now, beginning January 1, 2013, automatic spending cuts will kick in and one of the biggest casualties will be the GOP's sacred cow - defense spending. Not surprisingly, some in the GOP are talking about undoing some of the automatic cuts. Enter Barack Obama who in a stunning example of a suddenly found backbone has said that he will veto any such legislation. This threat, if followed through upon, will put the GOP in the bind of either sacrificing defense or making the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes. It's truly a fun situation to contemplate. The Washington Post looks at the unfolding saga. Here are highlights:

A special congressional committee created to try to curb the national debt abandoned its work and conceded failure Monday, the latest setback in a long effort by Washington to overcome ideological differences and stem the rising tide of red ink.

In a joint statement issued hours before a midnight deadline, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the panel said that they were “deeply disappointed” by their inability to reach an agreement and that they hope for progress in the months ahead.

The breakdown left the nation facing the prospect of automatic reductions to government agency budgets in January 2013 — an outcome that both parties agree could damage the military and government services such as law enforcement, food inspection and transportation safety.

Some GOP lawmakers immediately issued statements vowing to stop the Pentagon cuts. But President Obama sought to block that effort, threatening Monday to veto any legislation aimed at softening the impact of the cuts unless Congress approves a broader debt-reduction plan. Obama urged lawmakers to revisit that task as soon as they return from the Thanksgiving break.

“Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” the president said in a televised statement that marked his reentry into the debt debate after weeks of keeping his distance as Congress flailed.

Although the supercommittee’s failure will not result in an immediate calamity, analysts said it probably will further erode public confidence in Washington — particularly in Congress, which already is held in historically low regard.

At a scathing news conference, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) blamed Obama and lawmakers in both parties for the stalemate, calling the supercommittee collapse a “damning indictment of Washington’s inability to govern this country.”

Although Republicans offered to raise taxes by $300 billion over the next decade, they insisted on conditions that all but guaranteed that the wealthy would not be hit hard. And Democrats refused to agree to deep cuts in spending on health care for the poor and the elderly unless the rich were forced to make greater sacrifices.

Bush D. C. Veto Threat

Dondon009 had this story on his blog (I love the poster set out above) and I could not resist posting portions of his comments and the poster here:

President Bush issued a warning to Congress on Wednesday that he will veto budget appropriations for the District of Columbia unless the measure contains language barring the district from using any of the money for its domestic partner registry.

The registry allows same and opposite-sex unmarried couples to register their relationships.Three quarters of the District of Columbia's budget comes from local revenue - city taxes and fees. But, about $120 million in additional funds comes from the federal government. That money is contained in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

Under Republicans the legislation stated that none of the federal money could be used to support the partner registry.When Democrats took control of Congress the requirement was removed.

In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: "The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples.

Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule."

The Domestic Partner registry includes such partner rights as hospital and nursing home visitations, medical decisions, and inheritance rights.

Wow, such an ominous threat to heterosexual marriages!!! For Don's complete post see: http://dondon009.blogspot.com/