Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has not wasted time carrying out his conservative social agenda. He has sent a letter to the state’s public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — advising them that they have no authority to ban such discrimination.
Cuccinelli (R) told the colleges and universities that only the General Assembly can extend legal protections to gay state employees, students and others. The letter states: “It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.”
This could result in a serious confrontation between the state and the schools.
For the full story, click here.
“It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.”
It is my advice that as an AG you don’t have the right to determine ipso facto the Constitutionality of your prime facie discriminatory action. Anti-discrimination laws are a minimal threshold and there is no problem with an institution, state sponsored or no, going beyond that threshold.
You might as well just held up a big sign that says “I’m a homophobic Nazi.”
See you in court.
Well, Ken has now shown that under his worsted wool 130′s are the robes of a bishop. No real surprise here to anyone following the election, but, as usual, the reflexive cafeteria conservatives around these parts will find, to their utter amazement, that they elected another theocrat carrying Holy Water for Robertson, et religiosos. Lincoln was right when he said that “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” but apparently you can fool enough non-critical thinkers (read that as those willing to accept things because some authority from the first century says they should) to win an election. Voters in the majority get the government they richly deserve.
Will this not have a serious impact on Higher Ed funding and financial aide? I do believe that if they accept federal and state funds they cannot discriminate against anyone particular group to the exclusion of others.
AY:
You’re right AY. This is a toothless gesture designed to appease the Roger Chillingworth’s among us. Federal law protects gay students under Title IX. The US Department of Education issued the following guideline in 2001:
“Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, [13] sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX …”
“Also, under certain circumstances, courts may permit redress for harassment on the basis of sexual orientation under other Federal legal authority. See Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446, 460 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a gay student could maintain claims alleging discrimination based on both gender and sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution in a case in which a school district failed to protect the student to the same extent that other students were protected from harassment and harm by other students due to the student’s gender and sexual orientation).” (fn 14)
Somebody should tell our Attorney General about the manifest public policy of the United States,existing federal case law constituting exposure to the State for discrimination claims, and the Supremacy Clause. All foreign concepts it seems.
Maybe we should begin thinking about adapting the words of Martin Niemoller’s famous quote to include some other groups:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the gays and lesbians, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not gay or lesbian.
Then they came for the atheists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not an atheist.
Then they came for the liberals, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a liberal.
Then they came for the people with brains, and I did not speak out–
Because I didn’t have a brain.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
Elaine M:
Niemoller’s words were applied to a ruthless gang of criminals adept at political manipulation and extortion. What we have here is the priesthood-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight. Dolts, hucksters, and demagogues for sure, but decidedly not evil with the requisite cunning to be so considered. A difference by several orders of magnitude from those Teutonic barbarians.
Make that “… without the requisite cunning …”
mespo–
I’m not so sure about the evil. There are plenty of people here spewing prejudice and hatred–and lots of folks are listening. We also have lots of crazy right-wing militia and hate groups.
“A difference by several orders of magnitude from those Teutonic barbarians.”
To be sure, “Dolts, hucksters, and demagogues” in the US may not have the same kind of power–but I think we have plenty of folks in our country who can be just as barbaric. Think KKK, the lynching of Black people, and the killing of civil rights workers. That was decades ago–but just rub under the surface a little. Remember Matthew Shepard? Or the Black man who was dragged to death in Texas a few years ago?
This is borderline SCAD (state crime against democracy) which is a symptom of a social dementia of sorts, according to The American Behavioral Scientists Journal, which has dedicated an entire volume to developing a treatment to cure the malady.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/03/scads-of-inkblot-denial.html
Maybe we can all get along with this:
Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
But then again there are people like me and we like to complicate things and know the full story.
The Full Original Copy of the Serenity Prayer
by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)
God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.
http://www.thevoiceforlove.com/serenity-prayer.html
Elaine I am sure you could add to and even make the above more comprehensive and even more eloquent.
FYI, AA has been granted the right to use this without compensation to the original copyright holder. It is my understanding that 1/2 of all royalty’s are split between the family and AA.
Of course I could not leave out WIKI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
Given what I’m seeing, Elaine M. has it right. Though it may seem that this is just a matter of one AG who “needs to go”, we’re in fact dealing with a much more serious problem.
The Niemoller quote is one that we all need to keep in mind. What he describes is, in fact, happening here, though in a somewhat different fashion. Most aren’t seeing it yet, because the criminal activity, harassment, “political manipulation”, etc. are taking place “below the radar” of most/many.
Mespo, you wrote: “Niemoller’s words were applied to a ruthless gang of criminals adept at political manipulation and extortion.” This is exactly what’s taking place here in these United States — we’re in a world of trouble. No exaggeration. These things don’t start all at once — they creep up on us, as Niemoller accurately stated.
I’m not a legal scholar — I’m an ordinary person. And what I’m seeing is a creeping, insidious “movement” that needs to be exposed. Believe me, the folks who are involved in the activities to which I’m referring have “the requisite cunning”, and then some. And they’re most certainly evil.
(I’m not saying that this AG is involved in the activities to which I’ve alluded — I don’t know. But he’s certainly contributing, in his own way.)
Elaine,
You wrote: “I’m not so sure about the evil.”
I am. And I wish I weren’t… (Thank you for posting the Niemoller quote.)
Thanks AY for the “full original copy” of the Serenitiy Prayer.
And the song “Keep on Smilin’” comes to mind.
People in Virginia will support any wingnut with any agenda against any group as long as their taxes don’t go up.
This is one crazy place!
an updated version of the original by Wet Willie…
Could someone tell me how to post You Tube videos here?)
anon nurse wrote:
“…we’re in fact dealing with a much more serious problem…”
I agree and the name of that more serious problem is the cancers of conservative and religious driven politics still infecting on feeding on the body of our democracy while it’s trying to heal. Those twin tumors are bent on the destruction of the healthy body of small “d” democracy as it doesn’t fit into their royalist, elitist or monarchist model.
I note with interest that the Virginia Employment Commission adopts this language in its anti-discrimination policy:
“It is the policy of the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) to provide equal opportunity in employment to all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color,
religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation , or political affiliation. The policy permits appropriate employment preferences for veterans and specifically prohibits discrimination against veterans.”
Quick! Ken get down there right now with your “equal protection” eraser!
A barbarism only matched by it’s toothlessness.
Methinks he doth protest overmuch. I do not know any straight men who are actually straight that go on and on and on about the gay, though they cannot stop talking about it, thinking about it, authoring caustic diatribes, fixating on that other guy’s round hairy caboose and its militant agenda, so free, so bold, jutting out maddeningly so…one does not get worked up like this over that which does not touch one in some way.
Poor schmuck. Deep disappointment awaits; this is not where the country is headed.
Unless we elect Sarah Palin to anything but Occupier of the Cone of Silence.
66% of folks 18-39 still support the Big O and they will not permit this nonsense. Anti-gayism is mostly generational, so the advice can only be, grow up.
anon nurse–
These were the parts I adapted from the Niemoller quote I found on the Internet:
Then they came for the gays and lesbians, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not gay or lesbian.
Then they came for the atheists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not an atheist.
Then they came for the liberals, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a liberal.
Then they came for the people with brains, and I did not speak out–
Because I didn’t have a brain.
At the risk of being severely chastised, is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?
For example I use a wheelchair but I don’t think the ADA really does much for me except those great curb cuts. If someone gives me a hard time as far as denying me employment I already have redress. Why do I need additional rights that someone not in a wheelchair doesn’t have? Aren’t we all supposed to be considered equal under the law to begin with?
If gay and lesbian students are discriminated against dont they have the freedom to take it to court?
Now if Cuccinelli said that gays and lesbians are not able to petition the court and they are somehow less than a citizen, then he should be removed from office.
rcampbell:
Well said. I think of Karl Rove and his (and other’s) desire for a “permanent conservative majority”.
Hopefully, good people and common sense will “win the day” but, from my vantage point, there are many who are quite ruthless and, truly, will do almost anything to prevail. And they’re working hard to accomplish their goal/s. In an interview, Gail Collins recently said that Democrats are oftentimes “too nice”. Let’s hope it isn’t our undoing.
Elaine M – Thanks for the clarification. I realized that you had put your own spin on the Niemoller quote and then, in haste, (and because I’m a little too serious at times, these days, often for good reason), I mispoke in my comment. Ah, carelessness, in times of great trouble. (I like your twist to the original.) I need to lighten up a bit — get out and soak up a little of the rather rare, winter sunshine.
Byron,
The easiest way to deny you access to the courts or any place else is to take away the curb cuts, not provide accessible parking, nail your door shut, glue your drawers shut, put nails in your windows so that they may not be raised. Then how could you complain? You do have the right to sue somebody, don’t you?
AY:
can you explain for the layman?
After I posted I saw that Mespo had posted a Virginia Statute about discrimination which was my point. Aren’t we all covered anyway without additional considerations given?
This should provide a rallying point for passing ENDA, which is more popular and more broadly beneficial than gay marriage.
Byron,
Some people need splaining to in plain english. Like Scalia. If it ain’t written it don’t apply.
Did I hear someone say Cone of Silence?
Byron, Old Sport, the protections have to come FIRST or there IS no redress. Remember: we began in a world where you can be tossed out of a job or apartment or loan agreement simply for going up the down staircase. In most states, most lovingly in the Old Sooth, these state laws still exist in a piecemeal fashion.
Our laws reflect the character of who we are, not *what* we are, however hard we try to hide from this seemingly very annoying fact.
I invite you extend your Cone of Self-Respect to include thems that ain’t you.
Byron’s thinking is a bit like the “anyone can go to an ER” response to health care, forgetting that ERs cost money and many hospitals have closed them.
taking people’s rights awy is largely unprecedented outside of the Jim Crow laws.
I could be wrong but here is how I read this case.
The Attorney General seems to be saying that he could institute
legal action against public universities if they continue to list LGBT people as a protected class. That part seemed pretty straight forward. But what if his opinion means that universities can’t pursue a de facto nondiscrimination policy, that is they can leave them out as a protected class on their official policy statement but still continue to not discriminate against LGBT people. If that was true and then that would mean that is essentially illegal NOT to discriminate against LGBT people (I think). In which case that would set off a firestorm of litigation in probably state and federal court, which I would hope would result in rulings against the Attorney General.
Rich, the ER Proviso is among the more sick responses to our health care problems. Once it is determined you have a chronic disease, including everything from diabetes to cancer to any one of thousand disorders requiring ongoing care, the ER cannot help you. And, once this determination is made, you cannot be insured.
I frankly do not understand the mindset of people like this AG who clearly see profit in tearing down those with whom they disagree. In his capacity, one is a predator by choice.
FTR, this AG would be a BIG hit among those he derides. Maybe someone made a pass at him at a formative age and no adults were present to tell him to grow up? (shake head)
You mean he can clean sweep our asses out of town. That’s bull. He probably is a Massia or Asburn. The closeted are always the worst. Lets all gang up and do him.
You know why Hoover was in office so long? He sucked the best.
By failing to take the crazies seriously we allowed Sarah Palin a wide and brightly lit stage. She has honed her skills even to the point of impressing a guy like Jon Stewart. Initially she was viewed as an oddity but now, based on the number of supporters she has amassed, she is a real force with which to be reckoned.
Anyone who doesn’t take that seriously dismisses it at their own peril.
Blouise – Many didn’t take GWB seriously and we know only-too-well how that turned out…
(She impressed Jon Stewart? Really?)
“This could result in a serious confrontation between the state and the schools.”
This ‘WILL” set off a serious confrontation. In our area, Virginia tech has already said its rules will remain in place and the any changes to University rules are controlled by the Board of Governors. Radford University has no plans to change their protections, but says they will look into it.
Cucinelli could have just left this alone but he has a serious social agenda. Practically on day one he said he would challenge in court a “Pro Choice” vanity plate, matching the “Pro Life” vanity plate approved by the legislature last year. An incredibly he said he thought he could win in a suit to prohibit a corresponding plate.
The governor is speaking out of at least both sides of his mouth, saying he wont tolerate discrimination, but making no comment on the Cucinelli letter.
These radical righties are just looking for a fight and to continue to extend and impose their views in the ‘culture wars’. Of course McDonnell went to Liberty law school, so WTF would you expect.
Of course, on the budget pain front, which McDonnell says will make “real Virginians” suffer, education and health services are being slashed.
anon nurse
Blouise – Many didn’t take GWB seriously and we know only-too-well how that turned out…
(She impressed Jon Stewart? Really?)
=============================================================
Yeah … last week on the Daily, he ran clips of her stand-up routine on The Tonight Show and said he had to admit it was good for a first timer. I didn’t mean to imply he was impressed with her politics but from his tone and delivery (he complimented her “smarts”) one came away with the impression that even Stewart was beginning to understand her appeal. He ran additional clips of Romney appearing, at the same time as Palin, on Letterman and then contrasted the styles clearing showing Romney as the loser. Getting even tacit approval from Stewart is a clear way into the 18-36 year old demographic.
Everyone keeps saying she can’t win but I’m not sure winning an elected office is what she’s after … in my humble opinion, she wants to be a king-maker … far more power, not as many legal potholes, and a lot more money.
Blouise predicts, “[Palin] wants to be a king-maker … far more power, not as many legal potholes, and a lot more money.”
Just what the world needs, a latter-day Anita Bryant.
The problem is, outside of her cult following who think it is THEM to whom she personally winks, no one takes her seriously, nor should they. 18-36 year olds are not interested in Sarah’s 19th century agenda no matter how many times she appears on John Stewart.
You can begin with her “real Americans” argument, and slide quickly downhill from there.
I have listened intently for months and months to the “you better watch out” argument regarding Sarah Palin, and it has yet to materialize.
The better argument seems to be, is this the BEST the GOP has to offer?!?
James:
”
Byron, Old Sport, the protections have to come FIRST or there IS no redress. Remember: we began in a world where you can be tossed out of a job or apartment or loan agreement simply for going up the down staircase. In most states, most lovingly in the Old Sooth, these state laws still exist in a piecemeal fashion.
Our laws reflect the character of who we are, not *what* we are, however hard we try to hide from this seemingly very annoying fact.
I invite you extend your Cone of Self-Respect to include thems that ain’t you.”
We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t say they are exclusive of gays and lesbians. Why do certain segments of our population need “additional” rights? Don’t we all have the same rights?
I would no more discriminate against a gay or a lesbian than I would an African American or a woman or a white male or a disabled person. It isn’t right and it should not be tolerated. But I don’t think I, as a handicapped person, should have additional rights that able-bodied people don’t have. How does that jibe with the Constitution?
Byron contends, ” It doesn’t say they are exclusive of gays and lesbians.”
Byron, are you intentionally daft? Please hear this:
1. There are places in this country where you can be tossed out of a job, denied housing, denied medical care, and even denied a loan if you’re in the “wrong” bank in the “wrong” county of the beloved Old Sooth, all because you might “look” LGBTI, let alone actually do it.
2. People in such positions, as a matter of state or federal law, have no legal recourse to object. In other words, they do not appear, in practice, to have the same rights as you.
3. So long as we have 1. and 2., protections are needed at the federal level.
So, what aren’t you getting? Do you actually KNOW any LGBTI people? Of those people, do you LIKE any of them? LOVE any of them? Until you can claim the last, your arguments remain exceedingly dull, and will not survive another generation.
James
1, March 6, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Blouise predicts, “[Palin] wants to be a king-maker … far more power, not as many legal potholes, and a lot more money.”
Just what the world needs, a latter-day Anita Bryant.
The problem is, outside of her cult following who think it is THEM to whom she personally winks, no one takes her seriously, nor should they. 18-36 year olds are not interested in Sarah’s 19th century agenda no matter how many times she appears on John Stewart.
You can begin with her “real Americans” argument, and slide quickly downhill from there.
I have listened intently for months and months to the “you better watch out” argument regarding Sarah Palin, and it has yet to materialize.
The better argument seems to be, is this the BEST the GOP has to offer?!?
=============================================================
Perhaps, and hopefully, you are right.
Byron, I would also add than many states do not allow partners of LGBTI couples any legal access to life-saving or end-of-life decisions in an emergency. A spouse or family member would not be questioned; a life-long partner would be denied.
With no legal recourse to object.
So why aren’t federal protections needed, exactly?
Byron–
“At the risk of being severely chastised, is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?”
Still, our federal government has a discriminatory policy called DADT. Capable gays and lesbians–some of whom speak Arabic languages or have other specialized skills–have been kicked out of the military. Yet, felons and skinheads are being inducted. It doesn’t appear that gays and lesbians have full protection under the US Constitution.
Well said, Elaine M.
And Blouise, thanks for the additional information on SP. (She’s apparently been discussing a reality show with a producer and networks execs, so there may be a Palin reality series (without her family) — a sort of “Alaska Docudrama”, according to Huffington Post.)
James:
”
Byron, I would also add than many states do not allow partners of LGBTI couples any legal access to life-saving or end-of-life decisions in an emergency. A spouse or family member would not be questioned; a life-long partner would be denied.
With no legal recourse to object.
So why aren’t federal protections needed, exactly?”
I think they are called power of attorney agreements.
I have one gay friend, but then I don’t get out too much. But why do I need to have a gay friend to think that gays should be granted more rights than anyone else has?
I hate to keep going back to the handicapped thing, but if a restaurant doesn’t have access I go to one that does. Since I do okay financially I spend a few bucks that that restaurant doesn’t get. Their loss not mine.
I was once told by a certain company that they wanted an engineer that could walk, I said fine, I have plenty of clients and wouldn’t want to do work for a simple fuck like you anyway. Who gives a shit what someone thinks of you? If you care about getting positive reinforcement from people you will die on the vine. I don’t make a big deal out of being in a wheelchair and people look past it. I once had a client tell me I couldnt walk and chew gum at the same time (he was a little pissed off), I told him he was right. He got a kick out of that and got over his anger and we worked the problem out.
Gays are no different than anyone else, we all have red blood and the same wants, needs and desires. Why should anyone of us be given additional rights?
Elaine:
If you are gay and you meet all the requirements and want to serve I see no reason why you shouldn’t.
anon nurse–
Just think–Sarah Palin on her own weekly reality TV show! I’m beginning to imagine what it might be like…
Episode 1: Got ‘Em in the Crosshairs–In which Sarah will show viewers how to shoot wolves from a helicopter.
Episode 2: Moose in a Noose–In which Sarah lassoes, kills, and skins and moose without mussin’ her hair or her manicure.
Episode 3: Moose on the Menu–In which Sarah and Rachel Ray whip up a batch of moose meat stew in thirty minutes.
Episode 4: Just Say “No Way”–In which we learn about safe sex through the abstinence only program.
Thanks, Elaine. If we could all be so clever…
Byron, there several holes in your argument.
You have not addressed my comments directly, nor Elaine M, when we present you with cases where the law is unequal, and there is no legal recourse to object.
Your power of attorney document is flawed because if you had an emergency in a state which did not honor such things, you would be denied at a critical time. And your “don’t go there” logic flies in the face of personal liberty.
You equate civil rights with positive reenforcement, and this comes right out the wheelchair talk. There exists a false equivalence between a wheelchair disability and being LGBTI. Fred Phelps will not show up at your funeral with sign which reads, “God Hates Gimps.” So give the pity-party (though you claim not to be throwing one) a rest.
You are correct we are no different under the law. Yet, the law continually discriminates preferentially against our LGBTI citizens, and I’ve given you plenty of examples of how that is true. You have effectively refuted none.
Love a gay person and get back to me. And enjoy your ADA.
James – Well said. (My apologies with diminishing this thread with the off-topic nonsense about Sarah Palin.) Your last paragraph is especially powerful.
Byron -
No, I don’t have the same rights as you. If you were turned down for a job, and the prospective employer was dumb enough to say he was really looking for a woman for that job, you would have recourse to the courts. If I’m turned down and the employer says it’s because he doesn’t hire fags, I have no recourse under federal or Michigan law. Not that I’d want to work for him at that point, but it sure would be fun taking him to court and making him pay up.
I’m also familiar with the problems of the disabled, because my partner is in a wheelchair because of MS. We’ve never encountered actual non-compliance with ADA among businesses, but we don’t patronize those that give lip service to compliance. Examples include insufficient disabled parking places (evidenced by the fact one can never find an unoccupied place), parking places with no cross-hatching next to them that would allow one to actually transfer from a car to a wheelchair, and restaurants with roundabout access involving detours through the kitchen, storage area, and trash dump. Same reason I won’t knowingly give a penny to any businesses owned by ExxonMobil.
And yes, in principle, powers of attorney should work for end-of-life decisions and hospital visitation, but there are hospitals that refuse to accept such paperwork (at least if they suspect it involves queers), and will always defer to family members.
Sorry, but I really don’t see that anything I’m asking for is any kind of special right. These are just the rights that straight Americans take for granted (and whether or not being gay is innate and immutable, rights including against employment discrimination, and hate crime legislation, have been passed in favor of the religious a long time ago – are those special rights as well?).
Don K and James:
Personally I dont like it anymore than you do, I think all people ought to be treated equitably.
What I have a problem with is using the force of government to attach extra rights to a group of people, whether they be minorities, gays or the disabled. The protection is already in the Constitution. Why should the government protect one group of citizens over another? Unless some sort of force is initiated by another group they should not. And if force is initiated the redress is through the courts not through federal law granting most favored person status.
Personally I think the whole gay marriage ban is ridiculous. But I do not understand how they can ignore a power of attorney unless they do it in general as policy with no consideration other than it is not the policy of the hospital or there is a state law against it. Do they only enforce it for gay couples or are straight couples who are unmarried included as well? If they only enforce it for gay couples then the hospital should be legally taken to task.
The problem as I see it is the protections afforded every citizen need to be enforced not that gays need additional rights.
And James I am not having a pity party, I am using my experience as an illustration. But I do agree with Don K, those friggin handicapped spots are always taken up by someone with grannies tag and there are not enough van accessible spaces.
James, may I ask why Fred Phelps is of any concern? He sounds like a moron. What should happen is that when Fred shows up and starts ranting, he should have the living shit kicked out of him and nobody “sees” a thing. A couple of times “at bat” and I bet ole Fred starts preaching love and tolerance.
James-why do I need to love a gay person to understand this? I love my son and daughter and would not want them discriminated against for being tall. Seems to me it is the same principle.
And by the way I think the ADA is a bunch of shit, but I do like the curb cuts.
Byron, the answer is simple: we do not yet live in your Utopia.
We live in the world where not only LGBTI people are denied basic rights, but in some areas of our country, women are effectively denied their full range of reproductive choices because there are no clinics to service them. The mentality that wants to put gays to death wants to do the same to women who disobey. This mentality cannot say it aloud anymore in most circles. So it will do what it can to deny basic rights, whatever the real, human cost.
And you are missing the point: there exist hospitals — most, in fact — where if you are not spouse or family, they are free to turn you away, period. They cannot be “legally taken to task” because they are supported by law. This is what you do not see. Moreover, if my partner needs life-saving decisions, shall I go to court and ask massah judge first? How long will that take? Why do straight folks go on in, but I have provide papers?
When your Utopia comes to fruition, civil rights laws will no longer be necessary. Please wake me when it happens.
Until then, feel free to dream on.
If I were gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered I would be so-o-o gone from that state. Life’s too short.
James:
I dont live in a utopia, I have never heard anyone say that gays should be put to death. Although, based on reports, I know those people exist. It certainly isnt a perfect world.
I would like to know how/why hospitals can ignore a power of attorney. And I would also like to know if an unmarried straight couple came in with a power of attorney would they be sent away. I would think that if they allowed a straight couple access but a gay couple none, the gay couple would have a serious windfall profit paid for at the hospital’s expense.
Byron–
“I dont live in a utopia, I have never heard anyone say that gays should be put to death.”
Once again, let me remind you of what happened to Matthew Shepard.
And don’t forget this:
Lauren Ashley Pictures: Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays “Put to Death”
CBS News (2/23/2010)
Excerpt:
As the California courts decide the legality of gay marriage, Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley has thrown her tiara into the ring and believes that God thinks gay men should be “put to death.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6235745-504083.html
Byron, really? You’ve never heard (alleged) “christians” refer to the bible as the basis for putting our GLBTI citizens to death?
Your claim strains credulity. Just because you’ve “never heard of it before” does not mean it does not exist. Ditto hospital visitation and decision-making rights.
I invite you to avail yourself of the fabulous oracle at your fingertips and get educated before you make your proclamations.
Have you ever been gay rolling in a wheel chair? Its not as easy as you’d think. Those fairy’s fly quicker than the gas out of my ass. The women folk are harder to swat than the men folk. Them women is some honery folks, heck I would be too if I was them. They got more hair on the face than I got on my legs.
How do you explain this. The men folk is women and the women folk is men. Man that is a drag to say. Will you send them to my cousin in Missouri after you done with them? Amon Re. he taught me all I needed to knows bout this. As kiddos, I was always swatting his ass. Now I know he licked it.
no comment
James/Elaine:
I also heard about 2 gay guys in Arkansas killing and torturing a kid but I don’t think gay guys kill and torture kids, just those 2.
So what is your point?
Just because I am in a wheel chair does not mean that I am not in support of these deviants being taken down. Those poor kids that they tortured. Will they stop at nothing.
Even if I wasn’t in a wheel chair, I would still roll gays. They have a lot of money I have heard. They just suck the way to the top.
Byron–
One point I tried to make in an earlier comment was in response to a comment in which you said that the US Constitution already protects individuals from improper treatment. I respnded that with government policies like DADT, it appears that gays and lesbians aren’t afforded full protection under the US Constitution.
In my comment at 10:33 am today, I was responding to a statement you had made about had never having heard anyone say that gays should be put to death. Well, I did hear someone say something of the kind.
In my comments, I never implied that no gays or lesbians ever commit crimes.
There are some “fringe” individuals and groups that target gays and lesbians for harassment–and violence. Some also picket at their funerals.
You might find the Web site of the Westboro Baptist Church an interesting one. Here’s the URL of its main page:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Here’s a clip from FOX with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes talking to one of the crazy people from WBC.
Ohhh…I have seen this woman on tv before, on 20/20 I believe. She is NUTS ( in a very bad, untreatable way )
Thanks for posting the video, Elaine M. She is “crazy”. And hateful.
Canadian Eh & anon nurse–
Shirley’s gone at least a hundred blocks past crazy. Imagine what her gray matter must look like? (Think–The Picture of Dorian Gray.)
I doubt any pharmaceutical company has developed a drug that could treat this gal yet–or ever will.
Elaine,
I am betting that you are absolutely correct…on all counts. Is this not the same woman who was staging rallies at each site when fallen soldiers were being returned home to the States?
Canadian Eh–
I know her group pickets at the funerals of gays. I believe her group also stages the kinds of rallies you speak of. They’re a group of people filled with hate, which is reflected in the kinds of signs they carry.
One of my former elementary students was killed in Iraq a few years ago. I know there was concern among his family, friends, and the community where he grew up that a group was planning to picket at his funeral. Think how evil one has to be to do something like that!
Evil to the bone. Whether one agrees with the current actions in the middle East or not, these are young men & women being taken in the primes of their lives. They leave behind parents, sibings, spouses, children and many other who have loved them dearly all because they have served their country. While I wholeheartedly agree with free speech, the actions of this group in particular border on being considered hate crimes.
James
“Methinks he doth protest overmuch. I do not know any straight men who are actually straight that go on and on and on about the gay, though they cannot stop talking about it, thinking about it, authoring caustic diatribes, fixating on that other guy’s round hairy caboose and its militant agenda, so free, so bold, jutting out maddeningly so…one does not get worked up like this over that which does not touch one in some way”
LOL – so true. (not that gay people want dickheads like uccinelli on their team)
Here is an interesting video on Uganda’s “kill gays” bill.
Elaine:
I understand your point(s). I find comments like that of Miss Beverly Hills and that other person offensive. But I still think you cannot extend additional rights to people based on race, sex, religion, etc. We should all be protected equally under the law.
Byron–
I don’t see them as additional rights. I believe people like me want to ensure that the same rights are afforded to all citizens. At the present time–as I see it–they aren’t afforded to gay and lesbians.
Elaine:
then isn’t the answer in the courts?
Byron,
The answer is really unconditional acceptance by everyone for everyone. Although he was talking about religion, I think it applies here as well…the late great John Lennon…” Imagine all the people, living for today “!
Canadian Eh:
that is the answer but you are living in my Utopia per James above.
Byron,
Well I’m not living there yet, as I know it’s not the reality for a lot of people…however I hope to see it one day before I leave this world!
Why do people give extra rights to them Homo’s? I think they should live the death as the bible teaches. The pope is a head of the largest queers ever. He should be ashamed in hiding behind his dress.
A fairly outrageous story has surfaced about a Boulder, Colorado Catholic School expelling a pre-schooler because his parents are gay. The reason given is that inclusion of the child might confuse him. Really? The pastor has posted his rationale in his website. This is the world Ken Cuccinelli wants but as applied to secular schools. It’s worth a read into the heat of darkness. You’ll find my comment there too:
http://www.fatherbillsblog.com/heart/2010/03/what-wisdom-is-at-work-in-not-having-children-of-a-gay-marriage-in-a-catholic-school.html
Good for them.
GRIW:
“Good for them.”
****************
Right you are (though likely not in the way you intended). I do admit some glee that the parents of this child have separated him from the corrosive religiosity and hypocrisy of this “church” but I still think the compassionate churchman needs to be called to account. Don’t you?
How did them folks adopt a kid? That could never happen in my state. We don’t let them folks get married. They can’t have kids, unless they do it the greek way and then we don’t like them either cause they is mostly attorney people.
Mespo,
Wow. That is an outrageous story that you linked to. Is this how any religion welcomes one of God’s children? By expelling the child because of what the Church alleges are sins of the parents? Mespo, there is no reason for any Christian school to take any child and hold their parents up for scorn! That Pastor and his superiors should be held up for public scorn so that they can feel the pain of such sinful conduct. WWJD?
raff,
A “pastor” with the wedgie from Hell.
(Holds envelope to head Karnak style)
What would Jesus do?
And for my next impression . . . Marcel Marceau.
I bid you all good day and will return as the boxes allow.
Byron–
“then isn’t the answer in the courts?”
Is that the most practical way to address the problem?
[[is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?]] — Byron
Sure, Byron, it’s possible, and I won’t chastise you.
That said, given what I learned about Robertson and his ilk over two-plus decades covering both religion and politics, this explanation doesn’t conform with Occam’s razor.
[[I don't live in a utopia]] — Byron
That’s right. You live in a country in which a majority of Supreme Court justices believe, or say they believe, that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say “Gays have equal rights,” then gays don’t have equal rights. And the Ken Cuccinellis of the world apparently see things as these justices do.
The fact that you even raise the issue of “extra rights” suggests you have some self-education ahead of you. Please start now.
Just for the record, folks, NOT all Virginia residents voted for Cuccinelli or McDonnell. I am a VA resident and didn’t vote for either one of them. I knew both of them had what I considered to be extremist conservative religious viewpoints on many issues, which is why I did not want them in positions of power. Unhappily for those of us who value progress over repression, we got stuck with the extremists instead.
Mespo:
Right you are (though likely not in the way you intended).
****************************
I agree. Bigoted acts like this latest one committed by the r.c.c. (not that this latest one is by any means the first) inspired me to give it a new name; the church of cruelty and oppression. As far as I’M concerned, it has been living up to that name for centuries.
The less children that are “educated” by this toxic institution, the better. The catholic church did this child a huge favor, although I’m sure they don’t see it that way.
Byron:
At the risk of being severely chastised, is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?
***************************
I don’t think so, I think he’s purposely discriminating due to religious bias. If I recall history correctly (and I could easily be off base here), this was a very similar argument being used AGAINST the Bill of Rights being created. Some legislators didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was necessary because those issues had been addressed by the Constitution. Thankfully, James Madison didn’t agree and fought tooth and nail to get the BOR written and passed. I believe he knew that if there wasn’t such protection in place by law, certain groups of people would be persecuted by the majority. Back to the present. Folks in the gay, lesbian and transgender community have the same right to attend colleges and universities as straight folks do.
Ocean56:
I completely agree that they do. But I am having a hard time comprehending why anyone would say they dont. If that is actually what Cuccinelli is saying, it is my opinion, he should be removed from office and the quicker the better.
My contention is that we dont need aditional rights for groups of people, we all have the same rights or at least should.
Elaine, you might be interested in this news out of the US supreme court – re Fred Phelps and his evil little band of crazies:
“The Supreme Court, taking on the emotionally charged issue of picketing protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in wartime, agreed Monday to consider reinstating a $5 million damages verdict against a Kansas preacher and his anti-gay crusade…
The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to private remarks made about a private person, occurring in a largely private setting. The family of the dead soldier had won a verdict before a jury, but that was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court, finding that the signs displayed at the funeral in western Maryland and later comments on an anti-gay website were protected speech. The petition for review seeks the Court’s protection for families attending a funeral from “unwanted” remarks or displays by protesters.
In March four years ago, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq. His family arranged for a private funeral, with Christian burial, at St. John’s Catholic Chruch in Westminster, Md. When word of the planned funeral appeared in the newspapers, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has gained notoriety in recent years by staging protests at military funerals, decided to stage a demonstration at the Maryland funeral. In response to such protests, some 40 states have passed laws to regulate funeral demonstrations.
The Rev. Phelps’ church preaches a strongly anti-gay message, contending that God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality, particularly in the military services. The church also spreads its views through an online site, http://www.godhatesfags.com. When the Snyder funeral occurred, the Rev. Phelps, two of his daughters and four grandchildren staged a protest nearby. They carried signs with such messages as “God Hates the USA,” “America is doomed,” “Matt in hell,” “Semper fi fags,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The demonstration violate no local laws, and was kept at police orders a distance from the church. After the funeral, the Rev. Phelps continued his protest over the Snyder funeral on his church’s website, accusing the Snyder family of having taught their son irreligious beliefs.
The soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro Church under Maryland state law, and won a $5 million verdict based on three claims: intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (The verdict included $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $2.1 million for punitive damages; the punitive award had been reduced from $8 million by the trial judge.) The Fourth Circuit Court overturned the verdict, concluding that the protesters’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was only a form of hyperbole, not an assertion of actual facts about the soldier or his family. While finding that the Phelps’ remarks were “utterly distasteful,” the Circuit Court said they involved matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuality in the military and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.
In Albert Snyder’s appeal, his lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s protection of speech about public issues, especially the Justices’ 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, does not apply “to private individuals versus private individuals.” If it does apply, the petition said, “the victimized private individual is left without recourse.” The Circuit Court decision, it added, encourages private individuals to use hyperbolic language to gain constitutional protection “even if that language is targeted at another private individual at a private, religious funeral.”
Even if the Hustler decision does apply to the kind of remarks at issue, the petition asserted, the case also raises the issue of whether those who attend a funeral are like a “captive audience” and thus need protection against intruders who were not invited.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/court-to-rule-on-funeral-pickets/
Ocean56:
“Some legislators didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was necessary because those issues had been addressed by the Constitution. Thankfully, James Madison didn’t agree and fought tooth and nail to get the BOR written and passed. I believe he knew that if there wasn’t such protection in place by law, certain groups of people would be persecuted by the majority.”
*************
Actually, Madison was not the ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights that you might assume he was. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, “[I have] always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”
Even his presentation of the BOR to Congress was likewise reticent: “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless.”
“Neither improper nor altogether useless” are not exactly words of adulation. It is testament to Madison’s faith in State Constitutions and the will of the American people that such safeguards would be unnecessary. Alas, his faith in state legislative pronouncements and the will of the American people was somewhat idealized. His “not altogether useless” provisions have served as the bulwark against many of the abuses we have seen heaped on the masses of other nations lacking these cataloged individual rights. Great men are great; they are not, however, omniscient. And truth, it seems, is much more complex than fiction.
Mespo727272:
Actually, Madison was not the ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights that you might assume he was. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, “[I have] always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”
*************************************
Hi Mespo. Obviously I was mistaken in my earlier post; thanks for setting me straight. I’m still very glad we do have the BOR in place, though.
Canadian Eh and Elaine -
CE, you wrote: “Evil to the bone.” Definitely, the personification of evil. Elaine, your comments about way “past crazy”, are apt as well.
When I see clips like this, it’s crystal clear what we’re up against.
(Elaine, I know that I ended that sentence with a preposition.
) In a hurry. Off to work.)
[[At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect,]] — James Madison
Jamey never met Tony Scalia.
Governor Bob has laid the proverbial hammer down on Reverend-General Ken and his “discriminate-all-you-want-you-ivy-tower-guys” opinion from hell. Gov. Bob tell us–in an Executive Directive– that such discrimination is illegal under any number of federal laws and case opinions, and crazy too, by the way. Whined Michael P. Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, a private Christian college in Loudoun County: “The deeper message it sends is that people who think homosexuality is a sin are wrong. They are irrational.” Yep, that’s about right. Now you guys are catching on!!
“Way past crazy” sums it up. Have you seen the video they put out a few years ago? It would be funny, but for all the kids they are brainwashing. I do love the upside down Canadian flag at the end, though.
Interestingly, I read somewhere that attitudes towards gays and lesbians were not as negative in Kansas (or maybe just Topeka)as they are in similar states/cities and the existence of the WBC was credited for that – the theory was that they are so extreme that other (otherwise sane) people are totally turned off. I don’t know if that’s true, but it seems there can be silver linings in this cloud of cult-like idiocy. For example:
http://dinosaurmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/thank-you-westboro-baptist-church.html
ECookie:
that was a very disturbing video on many levels.
That little girl at the end was a very sad site.
Bat shit crazy doesn’t quite cut it, they aren’t crazy. They are doing this willingly, they hate life on earth at the bottom of it. Scary stuff and definitely the American version of the Taliban. Hell they probably have student exchange with the local Kabul chapter.
empirecookie–
Holy sh*t! That’s one scary group of people!!! There they are swaying from side to side and smiling while singing about God hating people and how it’s too late for them to be saved.
The scariest part is these people can vote…and procreate–and indoctrinate their young.
Dumb cannot be saved, I knows its myself.
From the “Kook Kuccinelli Kollection:”
Not content to anger GLBT citizens, environmentally conscious citizens, uninsured citizens, and thinking citizens, ol’ General Ken is now angering Roman goddesses. As many know, the Roman goddess Virtus adorns the Great Seal of Virginia that was standardized in 1776 by a committee led by legislative lightweights such as George Wythe, George Mason, Robert Carter Nicholas, and Richard Henry Lee.
Perverts all according to prudish Ken who is appalled that women have breasts and has decided to redo the seal to cover up the offending mammary. Virtus now wears something akin to a Redskin jersey and she proclaims “Sic Semper Tyrannis.” Poor Ken must have not been breast fed, or he’s gone the way of Ashcroft and become a misogynist. Either way we get the “Tyrannis Anus” for Attorney General. I just knew this guy was going to be a disaster!
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=600&sid=1947347
Mespo:
thanks for posting that, what a load he must be. These people are something else. Let the theocracy begin. First they came for titties and then they came for beer . . .
The left doesn’t like cigars or trans-fat and now the right doesn’t like sex. What is left?
EC,
From spending a lot of time in Kansas City and Topeka I’ll say that what you’ve read about tolerance in KS is essentially true. Westboro’s Hate Brigade are widely considered an embarrassment to the state by people from all walks of life. When one mentions Westboro in conversation up there (for example at a party or after work drink) someone inevitably mutters “Jackasses” or “Freaks”. And this sentence always makes its way into the conversation: “I really just wish they’d go away.”
Kansas may have a lot of right wing nitwits, but Kansans are generally not homophobes in the metropolitan areas. Out in western Kansas it may be a different story, but KC/Topeka/Wichita are all fairly live and let live.
Now this used to not be the case. I recall when I was a child (the 70′s) a park in KC (technically in Missouri) frequented by gay men after hours as a cruising spot was on the news frequently for reports of drunks from Westport and the Plaza going out to “roll some queers”. But times change. They always do. Sometimes they bring a good change.
Mespo:
you will be happy to know that KC has lifted the ban, the shield is off the breast and it has been set free.
Your vigilance has been rewarded.
Byron:
Common sense, it seems, has returned to the Office of the AG, if only for a time.