Charlottesville, Virginia Considering Same-Sex Mariage Ordinance

Charlottesville City Hall

Charlottesville, Virginia, the home of the University of Virginia is among the most liberal cities in Virginia outside of perhaps Alexandria located just across the Potomac from Washington, D.C. Now, Charlottesville is considering an ordinance that will drive Ken Cuccinelli, the lunatic "Bishop" W. W. Jackson, and Mark Obenshain to have spittle flecked conniption fits: an ordinance extending benefits, including health care, to city employees with same-sex partners who were legally married outside Virginia.  The animus based Marshall-Newman Amendment seeks to bar any legal recognition of same sex relationships whatsoever.  Hence, such an ordinance would be tantamount to giving the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who pushed passage of the Amendment - and falsely advertised what it would mean - the middle finger.  The Daily Progress has details:

The Charlottesville City Council is considering an ordinance extending benefits, including health care, to city employees with same-sex partners who were legally married outside Virginia. In Monday’s council meeting, Councilor Dave Norris presented the legislation, which is identical to a July proposal in Richmond City Council.  

“Spouses, at such time it is permitted by state law, should be defined to include same sex partners in marriages that legally occurred in another state,” Richmond’s ordinance summary reads. “With the recent Supreme Court opinion regarding the Defense of Marriage Act … this definition of spouse is consistent with the federal definition of spouse.”

“I thought it was something that Charlottesville should do,” Norris said.

“The value in taking a symbolic stance is that Charlottesville supports equality,” Norris said.
Norris said he would like to see if there are ways to proceed with the ordinance “in the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and fairness,” he said. “But it may end up that it would be symbolic.”

Vice mayor Kristin Szakos, who also supports the ordinance, said she thinks it can be a message of intent, even if it is not able to be acted upon.

Szakos said the city does currently provide “certain benefits to married couples,” but is not able to extend some benefits, including health care, to same-sex partners.


“If public response is any indication, the proposal will be supported overwhelmingly,” he said.  “I’ve heard only positive responses so far,” Szakos said.

Charlottesville needs to pass the ordinance and grant benefits.  Let Cuccinelli then file suit to enforce and unconstitutional Amendment.  Although Cuccinelli doesn't grasp the concept, the U. S. Constitution trumps the Virginia Constitution.

Read More

The Brain Drain at Virginia Colleges and Universities

Backwardness and bigotry do have their price.  And it is often an economic price but it can also involve the less tangible loss of talent to more progressive areas.  Here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia there is an ongoing loss of young college educated individuals.  They go off to college and never come back because the area is lacking in progressive ideas and opportunities.  Instead, they flock to Washington, D.C., New York and other progressive meccas which also offer more job opportunity.  And in Southwest Virginia, companies do not want to relocate to that backward region that makes even Hampton Roads look progressive in comparison.  Now, Virginia's backwardness and anti-gay fixation is harming the state's flagship public colleges and universities which are seeing top academics leave for institutions of learning in more progressive, gay friendly states.  The Washington Post condemns what is happening and calls on Virginia to drag itself out of the 19th century and provide domestic partner benefits to same sex couples (gay marriage is, of course, the real solution).  Here are editorial highlights:

NOT LONG AGO, a tenured professor at the University of Virginia’s College of Arts and Sciences moved to a university in New York because her same-sex partner, diagnosed with cancer, couldn’t get covered by her health insurance in Virginia. A physician at U-Va.’s medical school decamped for an Ivy League school because state law doesn’t recognize her relationship with her partner or their children, so she couldn’t get them coverage.

How many more talented minds have to leave before Virginia takes concrete action to protect publicly employed academics and thus the quality of their universities? 

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer that the federal government must treat same-sex marriages the same as heterosexual ones, gay and lesbian academics are weighing a new set of incentives to leave public universities and colleges in the commonwealth.

“We already have lost valued gay and lesbian faculty to our competitors who do not discriminate,” Mr. Trammell told The Post’s Nick Anderson in an interview. “With changes in federal benefits soon available to legally married gay couples, we will lose more.”

A number of Virginia’s public university presidents pushed for the state to address this very problem in 2009. They have been ignored by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and the outspoken anti-gay rights attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II (R).

U-Va., an academic powerhouse, is one of eight so-called “public Ivies.” It tied for second place in this year’s U.S. News & World Report rankings of the nation’s public universities. Unless the university fixes this situation quickly, its standing and prestige may suffer.  

[T]here is troubling evidence that the state may face an accelerating brain drain of gay academics. And when they leave, in many cases they take their grant funding with them. For example, he detailed how a tenured professor in Virginia Commonwealth University’s pharmacology and toxicology department moved to a private nonprofit research institution in North Carolina that offered full benefits to her partner of 20 years. When she left, she took along her grant of more than $1 million — a loss for Virginia and a win for North Carolina.

Even in states that, like Virginia, don’t recognize same-sex marriage, some public universities have expanded health-care benefits to include same-sex couples. The University of Missouri, for instance, recently adopted a more inclusive plan. There’s no reason that Virginia shouldn’t be able to do the same — especially at Thomas Jefferson’s university.

Naturally, the closeted Ken Cuccinelli vehemently opposes any recognition of same sex couples and has claimed that Virginia's public colleges and universities cannot provide non-discrimination protections to LGBT employees.  Should Cuccinelli win in November, expect the exodus from Virginia to accelerate.

Read More

Willaim & Mary Rector Warns Virginia on Gay Marriage Ban

William & Mary is one of Virginia's academic jewels and is also the second oldest university in America with only Harvard being older.  As such, William & Mary competes on a high level for the best faculty and researchers.  And now, William & Mary's outgoing Rector is warning that Virginia's ban on gay marriage will harm William & Mary and by extension, Virginia's other top colleges and universities because top academics simply will not want to take positions that would require moving to a socially backward, anti-gay state.  Ken Cuccinelli and his equally insane GOP ticket mates may scoff, but bigotry does carry a price.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post: 

Jeff Trammell, a D.C. lobbyist and gay Democratic activist, was elated when the Supreme Court ruled in late June that the federal government must treat legally married gay couples the same as married heterosexual couples.

But as the outgoing leader of the College of William and Mary’s governing Board of Visitors, Trammell also worried that the ruling would make Virginia’s vaunted public universities less attractive for gay academics.

The high court decision adds “a substantial incentive for our gay and lesbian faculty and staff to leave the Commonwealth’s public universities and colleges,” Trammell wrote to other Virginia higher education leaders in a June 26 e-mail, hours after the ruling was issued.

Trammell had earlier noted — in a letter on June 11 — that the presidents of the University of Virginia, George Mason University and William and Mary had pushed for the state to allow public universities to offer domestic partner health benefits in late 2009. That effort stalled after Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) took office in January 2010.

We already have lost valued gay and lesbian faculty to our competitors who do not discriminate. With changes in federal benefits soon available to legally married gay couples, we will lose more. Two able individuals told me [recently] that they are leaving for another state — one a top professor [in a science-technology field] and another a university administrator just recruited to Virginia a few years ago.

At a minimum, the state should immediately allow our public colleges and universities to offer health insurance and other equal benefits to the same-sex partners of their faculty and staff. The commonwealth is undervaluing our universities and their attractiveness to businesses that prize education. Everyone, Democrats and Republicans, needs to come together to end this discrimination.

Some gay and lesbian faculty and staff — including at the University of Virginia, George Mason, Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Tech and William and Mary — have sent me their stories: senior professors whose partners had cancer and no health insurance; researchers who left the commonwealth, taking major grants with them; faculty who, unlike their straight colleagues, are paying out of their pockets for costly individual policies for their partners and who resent the discrimination; young professors and administrators who are looking to leave the state; and so forth.

Read More

Louisiana Police Arresting Gay Men Under Unconstitutional Sodomy Law

In various posts this blog has noted GOP gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli's obsession with gays and re-instituting Virginia's sodomy statue which was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and more recently by a ruling of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Why some ask is this so important to Cuccinelli?  A situation out of Louisiana demonstrates why maintaining sodomy statutes is so important to the Christofascists and zealots like Cuccinelli.  It allows them to entrap gays and hit them with felony charges rather that the mere misdemeanor charges that would apply to prostitution and/or soliciting for sex.  The Virginia statute governing prostitution and solicitation reads as follows:

§ 18.2-346. Prostitution; commercial sexual conduct; commercial exploitation of a minor; penalties.

A. Any person who, for money or its equivalent, (i) commits adultery, fornication, or any act in violation of § 18.2-361 or (ii) offers to commit adultery, fornication, or any act in violation of § 18.2-361 and thereafter does any substantial act in furtherance thereof is guilty of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Any person who offers money or its equivalent to another for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts as enumerated in subsection A and thereafter does any substantial act in furtherance thereof is guilty of solicitation of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, any person who solicits prostitution from a minor (i) 16 years of age or older is guilty of a Class 6 felony or (ii) younger than 16 years of age is guilty of a Class 5 felony. 

Virginia's sodomy statute which applies to married heterosexual couples too as written reads as follows:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty. 

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony . . .

Note that ONLY when a minor is involved does the charge increase to felony status.  However, under the sodomy statute (which is still on the books in Virginia thanks to the efforts of Cuccinelli and Del. Bob Marshall), any solicitation is a felony even when a minor is not involved.   As a result, the sodomy statute is the preferred vehicle to harass and prosecute gays.  Cuccinelli claims the sodomy statute is needed to protect minors, but in fact the current prostitution statute already covers minors and increases the offense to the felony level.

But back to the situation in Louisiana.  As John Becker at The Bilerico Project report, Louisiana is doing precisely what Cuccinelli wants to do: target gays under an unconstitutional law in order to charge them with more serious offenses with much more severe punishments:

Sheriff's deputies in the Louisiana parish (county) of East Baton Rouge are entrapping, arresting, and booking gay men in undercover sex stings, according to an investigation by the Baton Rouge Advocate.

It's not about prostitution, as no money ever changes hands and no sex-for-money deals are worked out prior to arrest. It's also not about public sex (although such a sting would still be problematic, for reasons I've discussed previously). No, these men are being targeted, solicited, and then arrested simply for consenting to sexual activity at a private residence.

Since 2011, the newspaper found that least a dozen men have been arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish in similar sting operations, the most recent taking place just ten days ago. And how does the office of Sid J. Gautreaux III, Sheriff of East Baton Rouge (right), justify them? Why, by pointing to Louisiana's anti-sodomy law, of course! Casey Rayborn Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office, told the Advocate:

"[The anti-sodomy law] is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature. Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted."

When Lawrence was handed down in 2003, Louisiana's then-attorney general issued a statement declaring the state's anti-sodomy statute unenforceable. The unconstitutional ban remains on the books because legislators have so far refused to repeal it, but the state legislature's obstinance doesn't miraculously grant local officials the power to enforce voided laws.

In each of the cases examined by the Advocate, District Attorney Hillar Moore III has refused to press charges due to the absence of any actual criminal activity. So this clearly has nothing to do with enforcing the law or preserving the peace, and everything to do with singling out and humiliating gay men.

Sheriff Gautreaux's shameful stunt has disturbing echoes of an earlier time in America when gay sex was illegal and LGBT establishments and cruising grounds were frequently raided by police in order to shame and intimidate the local LGBT community, satisfy the public's lust for all things salaciously taboo, and fulfill society's seemingly endless desire to claim moral superiority.

Read More

Bostic, et al v. Robert McDonnell, et - A Challenge to Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

Last week I wrote about a challenge to Virginia's gay marriage ban that was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Norfolk Division, which is sometimes known as the "rocket docket" because the Court is known for moving lawsuits along and not tolerating dilatory games by defense counsel.  Today, I was able to secure a copy of the complaint via my law firm PACER account.   The basic players in the case are the plaintiffs, Timothy B. Bostic, a Professor at Old Dominion University and his partner, Tony C. London, a successful Norfolk area realtor.  They have been a couple for over 25 years.  The defendants are Defendants are Robert F. McDonnell, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, anti-gay zealot, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and George E. Schaefer, III, the Clerk of the CircuitCourt for the City of Norfolk, whose office refused to issue a marriage license to the plaintiffs.

In the wake of the ruling in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, the complaint not surprisingly alleges that Virginia's anti-gay marriage (i) ban deprives the plaintiffs of due process and equal protection under the United States Constitution - which trumps the Virginia Constitution even though Ken Cuccinelli doesn't get that basic fact - and (ii) was motivated by discriminatory intent and anti-gay animus.  The suit also seeks relief against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   It is not without irony that the Complaint leads off with a reference to Loving v. Virginia in which Virginia was taken to the woodshed and whipped for its anti-miscegenation law that did to mixed race couples what the Marshall-Newman Amendment sought to do to gay couples.  Here are excerpts from the complaint:

More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that "[m]arriage is one of the 'civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,12 (1967). But today, as a result of both state statute and the state constitution, the Commonwealth of Virginia denies its gay and lesbian residents access to marriage. Article I, §15-Aof Virginia's Constitution provides that "only a union between one and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." Va. Const., Art. I, § 15-A. 

Similarly, Va. Code § 20-45.2 states that a "marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited" in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This code section also states that "[a]ny marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable." Virginia law also prohibits civil unions among same-sex individuals. Va. Code § 20-45.3. 

This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks (1) a declaration that Virginia Code §§ 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 and Article I, § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution provisions that expressly deny gay and lesbian individuals the opportunity to marry civilly and enter into the same officially sanctioned family relationship with their loved ones as heterosexual individuals— are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing these provision against Plaintiffs.

Gay and lesbian individuals have faced a long and painful history of societal and government-sponsored discrimination in this country. Although their sexual orientation bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society, gays and lesbians have been singled out for discriminatory treatment. They have faced unconstitutional criminal penalties for private sexual conduct between consenting adults, harassment, hate crimes, and discrimination in employment and many other areas. They have even been the subject of laws stripping them of rights afforded to all other citizens.

Virginia law, unlike the law in many other states, even prohibits gay and lesbian couples from entering into civil unions. Virginia law also fails to honor the laws of thirteen other states and the District of Columbia, which allow for same-sex marriage, by providing that such marriages are"void in all respects" and by stipulating that any contractual rights from such valid marriages "are void and unenforceable" in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The inability to marry denies gay and lesbian individuals and their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage. The inability to marry also deprives same-sex couples of numerous benefits associated with marriage . . . 

The avowed purpose ofthis statutory and constitutional regime is "to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon", those who seek to enter into same-sex marriage in Virginia. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. (2013)(slip opinion at 21).

As a result of both state statute and state constitutional law, Plaintiffs are barred from marrying the individual they wish to marry, cannot enter into the separate-but-unequal bond of a civil union, and cannot marry in another state and have Virginia recognize the benefits of such unions.

The disadvantage these laws impose upon gays and lesbians is the result of  disapproval or animus against a politically unpopular group. Accordingly, these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by casting gays and lesbians into disfavored legal status and categorizing them as "second-class citizens."

The full complaint can be found on a companion post at The Bilerico Project.   I would encourage readers to review the full Complaint.  At trial, the plaintiffs' counsel should be able to introduce a great deal of evidence on the anti-gay animus that motivated Virginia's gay marriage bans, including statements by Ken Cuccinelli, Del. Bob Marshall (from whom the amendment took its name) and others.

This post would not be complete without acknowledging some of the blow back I have received from previous posts about the case.  It seems that some of what many of us living in "red states" view as the self-anointed "gay elite" are displeased that the plaintiffs proceeded to file their lawsuit rather than wait for permission, if you will, from Lambda Legal, the ACLU and others.  These the "gay elites" primarily sit safely in gay friendly jurisdictions like New York and Washington, D.C., and lecture those faced with no rights or legal protections, give them a pat on the head and then tell Virginians and others "be patient, we know best."   One must not forget that when the Hollingsworth v. Perry suit was filed, these same elites argued against the case being brought.  Ted Olsen and David Boies proved them wrong.

As for the legal team representing the plaintiffs, they are top notch litigators and are from an "A(v) rated law firm.   The senior partner in the firm, Thomas Shuttleworth, is admitted to practice before the U. S. Supreme Court and has been ranked among the best lawyers in America.  A number of the more senior partners in the firm were former law partners with me years ago and I can say from first hand experience (i) they are superb trial attorneys, and (ii) they play to win.    There is never any guaranteed result in litigation, but the plaintiffs have chosen very competent attorneys.  If Lambda Legal and others are pissed off, they should have been ready to file in Virginia once the ruling in Windsor was handed down.

Read More

Poll: Majority of Virginians Support Same-Sex Marriage

The hysteria at The Family Foundation ("TFF") and other falsely self-described "family values" organizations in Virginia whose real agenda is to impose their extreme hate filled religious beliefs on all citizens must be building.  As noted, a new poll reveals that 55% of Virginians now support  gay marriage.  Victoria Cobb and her fellow haters must be absolutely beside themselves.  And the timing of this new information could not be worse given that a lawsuit challenging the foul Marshall-Newman Amendment (which was spearheaded by TFF and proven gay haters like Del. Bob Marshall and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli) is likely to be filed any week now.  Note: the poll was done by bi-partisan polling organizations.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has details on the new poll findings.  Here are excerpts:

A new poll shows that Virginians’ views on same-sex marriage have shifted in its favor seven years after voters easily passed an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

About 55 percent of Virginia voters now believe that marriage between people of the same sex should be allowed, while 41 percent oppose it, according to a poll released today by the Human Rights Campaign — the nation’s largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, will be in Richmond today to discuss the poll results and endorsements of the Democratic candidates for statewide office, Terry McAuliffe for governor, and state Sens. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk for lieutenant governor and Mark R. Herring, D-Loudoun for attorney general.

A bipartisan team of pollsters, from the Democratic-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and Target Point Consulting, a Republican organization, conducted the survey . . . .

In Virginia, where the American Civil Liberties Union announced this week that it will file suit in federal court to challenge the state’s 2006 constitutional amendment, the latest poll is the latest signal that the ground is softening.

The new poll shows that while Northern Virginia leads support for same-sex marriage with 68 percent, it also finds majority support in central (53 percent) and Eastern Virginia (51 percent).

The main opposition to gay marriage in Virginia remains centered in the Southwester and Southern tier of the state - regions not coincidentally with high unemployment which cannot attract modern, progressive businesses and employers to move to their areas.  At the same time, population in the gay friendly areas of Virginia is increasing while it is declining in the gay hating/GOP loving parts of the state.   Bigotry does carry an economic and a political price.  Not that the Virginia GOP has figured out yet that it is committing a slow form of suicide.

Read More

Lambda Legal Announces Plans for Marriage Equality Case in Virginia

Just this morning I noted in an earlier post how the decision in Windsor would likely trigger a flood of lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans in anti-gay states like Virginia.  Now, Lambda Legal has announced plans to file a legal challenge in Virginia to the vile Marshall-Newman Amendment.  I hope it is filed very soon because it will make it all the more difficult for Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli to dodge his extremist positions on so-called social issues.  As Attorney General, he will have to file a response to the lawsuit and layout his anti-gay bigotry for all to see.  Here are details from Lambda Legal's blog (the full press release is here):

Lambda Legal and the ACLU are planning a new federal lawsuit seeking the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Virginia.

Virginia couples who have suffered from discrimination and are interested in sharing how marriage discrimination harms their families or being a part of a campaign for the freedom to marry are encouraged to fill out a survey.

Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office, says:

The end of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act opens a new chapter in our work to ensure same-sex couples and their families across the country are treated with dignity and respect. We know that many same-sex couples and their families have waited a long time and we are excited to announce that the campaign for the freedom to marry is coming south.

We do not want a country so divided by unfairness and discrimination. Same-sex couples are in loving, committed relationships in every region of our nation and should be treated the same way, whether they live in Maine or Virginia. This is one America.

State laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage not only harm those couples by denying them state rights and responsibilities, but also currently pose obstacles for legally married couples and surviving spouses seeking numerous federal protections and benefits, such as Social Security.

Lambda Legal will file a marriage lawsuit in Virginia as co-counsel with the ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia in the coming weeks.

Read More

The Coming Texas Gay Brain Drain

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, gays living in states with gay marriage bans will find themselves unable to receive federal benefits - Social Security in particular - that same sex couples in states with gay marriage will now enjoy.  The result?  The anti-gay states will find themselves even less competitive when it comes to attracting gay entrepreneurs and gay friendly businesses.   As I have often noted, but for family circumstances, I would leave Virginia in a heart beat.  Hopefully, with the changes wrought by the Windsor decision, more gays will begin to move to gay friendly states and big business will be motivated to take on the power of the Christofascists in states like Texas and Virginia.  A piece in The Dallas Voice looks at what may happen in Texas.  Here are highlights:

Although same-sex couples legally married in other states may receive some federal benefits if they live in Texas, they won’t receive as many federal benefits as couples living in marriage-equality states.

And because it could be anywhere from a few years to a decade or more before Texas recognizes same-sex marriages, some experts believe the talent pool for employers will shrink as LGBT Texans leave the state and others opt against relocating here.

Bob Witeck, president of the Washington, D.C.-based LGBT marketing company Witeck Communications Inc., first analyzed the concept of “gay brain drain” in 2004 when Massachusetts began allowing same-sex marriage. Now, 13 states allow same-sex marriage, covering a third of the nation’s population, and the playing field has put marriage-equality states ahead.

Places with marriage equality like New York, Washington, D.C. and California that also have a lot of talent compete with states like Texas and Illinois for employees and companies to boost state revenue. But unlike Illinois, which is in line to have marriage equality, Witeck said Texas is lagging behind strong business states because of its focus on social issues.

GOP politicians in Texas haven’t caught up to conservative business leaders — many of them also Republicans — who value the economic opportunity from LGBT equality and same-sex marriage.

“It deepens the challenges in corporate America to speak to these inequities,” he said. “It’s going to create the impression that [marriage-equality states are] forward thinkers and the others are not.”

Perry may soon find the reasons companies aren’t bringing their businesses to Texas. He signed HB 2482 in June that will create a study to determine why major companies have chosen to invest or relocate to other states after considering Texas.

Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said while a gay brain drain is possible, the full effect of the high court’s rulings may not be felt for a few years.  “I think there will be some danger of something like that happening,” Henson said. “It’s too early to tell. …What we’re more likely to see than a brain drain is a reluctance of people who want marriage equality to move here in the short term.”

For places like Dallas, Austin and Houston where companies and cities have LGBT-inclusive polices, officials and employers are concerned about losing talent and being able to recruit future talent. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said he’s concerned about LGBT people leaving the city and avoiding moving to Texas altogether.

John Cramer, CEO of AT&T’s LGBT resource group LEAGUE, said management at Dallas-based AT&T has already discussed the possibly of being able to retain and attract LGBT employees and have begun brainstorming on how to remain competitive.   “AT&T is looking into this issue and met with folks inside and outside the network to see what other companies are doing,” Cramer said.

In Virginia, the lunatic GOP slate of statewide candidates is gaining national media coverage on their extremism and anti-gay vitriol.  Even if Ken Cuccinelli doesn't want to accept reality, he and his Christofascist supporters are dimming Virginia's economic future.

Read More

Why Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Violates the 14th Amendment

One should never expect modern day Virginia to do the right thing willing.  At least not so long as the Virginia Republican Party is controlled by far right Christian extremists and their equally self-centered Tea Party cousins, the vast majority of whom describe themselves as "conservative Christians."  Lobotomized Christians might be a more apt description, in my opinion.  While the recent U. S. Supreme Court rulings did not directly impact Virginia's foul anti-gay Marshall-Newman Amendment (which amended the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights to take away rights), language in United States v. Windsor has set the stage for a constitutional challenge under the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution which - contrary to what Ken Cuccinelli believes - DOES supersede Virginia's Constitution.  A column by Delegate Scott Surovell sketches out why Virginia will eventually see its anti-gay marriage ban fall.  Here are highlights:

There are two important issues.  First, whether Virginia allows gay marriages to take place in Virginia.  Second, whether Virginia recognizes gay marriages performed in other states.  The Supreme Court has not addressed Virginia's power to ban gay marriage.  However, United States v. Windsor puts Virginia in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The way the law stands today, the Supreme Court has not told Virginia that it must legalize gay marriage nor has it said Virginia's gay marriage ban is constitutional.  But it has effectively told Virginia that we must recognize gay marriages created in other states.  Virginia's Constitution specifically prohibits this and  puts Section 15-A of the Constitution of Virginia in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

United States v. Windsor makes clear that government must recognize unions created in other states.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.   The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. . . .

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose in equality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.  

The due process and equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment explicitly apply not only to the Federal Government, but also to the states. 

No state may abridge the privileges and immunities of any of its citizens, or deny them due process of law or equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment contained this language to prevent southern state legislatures from economically and politically disenfranchising freed slaves after the Civil War through the Black Codes which restricted black's movement, required year-long labor contracts, prohibited gun ownership, and made Blacks incompetent witnesses in court.  Virginia can no longer marginalize gay residents. 

There is an entire moral, religious, ethical backdrop to all of this which could fill ten articles.  I'm only focusing on the basic constitutional analysis above in this article.  Aside from the legal issues, I also believe it's morally wrong to marginalize people for who they love. 

I agree with his analysis and the only question is how long it will be before a federal lawsuit is filed challenging the constitutionality of the Marshall-Newman Amendment under the United States Constitution.  For me, that day cannot come soon enough.

Read More

Organization for American States Backs Anti-Discrimination Resolution

The United States finds itself increasingly out of step on gay rights compared to other nations in the western hemisphere.  While the State Department speaks nice words against anti-gay discrimination in Africa and elsewhere overseas, the fact that gays face open, stat endorsed discrimination in states like Virginia is conveniently overlooked.  Now, the Organization for American States has adopted an anti-discrimination resolution that ostensibly the USA doesn't comply with.  The Washington Blade looks at the development and how the Obama administration continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to gay rights.  Pretty words are not what is needed.  We want and need to see real action.  Here are highlights from the Blade article:

The Organization of American States on June 5 adopted an anti-discrimination resolution that includes sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

“Every human being is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection against all forms of discrimination and intolerance in whatever aspect of public or private life,” it reads.

The resolution the OAS adopted during its annual meeting that took place in Antigua, Guatemala, also said member countries have an obligation to prevent “all acts and demonstrations of discrimination and intolerance.” These include hate and bias-motivated violence and using the Internet and other media to incite “hate, discrimination and intolerance” against marginalized groups.

Anti-LGBT discrimination and especially violence remain serious problems in the hemisphere in spite of recent advances on same-sex marriage and other issues in countries that include Brazil and Uruguay.

The U.S. State Department has spoken out against anti-LGBT violence in Jamaica and other countries that include Honduras and Perú.

Wilson Castañeda Castro, director of Caribe Afirmativo, a Colombian LGBT advocacy group that works in cities along the country’s Caribbean coast, attended the OAS meeting in Guatemala.  He told the Washington Blade earlier this week his group welcomes the anti-discrimination resolutions.

“This has been a triumph for the region’s LGBT and Afro-descendent movement,” Castañeda said.

Note the language of the resolution :  "member countries have an obligation to prevent “all acts and demonstrations of discrimination and intolerance."   Here in Virginia, one can be fired for being gay - even by state agencies and departments - and we can be refused housing and accommodations.  And, of course, our relationships receive no legal recognition and we are deprived of over 1000 legal rights.  Let's be real.  America's behavior- and laws like DOMA - makes a mockery of the new resolution.

Read More

Even if DOMA Falls, Many Gay Couples Will Remain Second Class Citizens

With more and more people waiting for the Supreme Court's rulings in Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case) and United States v. Windsor (the DOMA case), increasing analysis indicates that absent a nationwide ruling for gay marriage, a striking down of DOMA alone will leave many same sex couples screwed.  We will remain second class citizens unless we emigrate from our home states to states that recognize full gay marriage.  That, of course, is precisely the goal of hate groups like Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage which seek to keep discrimination and mistreatment of LGBT citizens alive and well as long as possible.  They don't give a damn about "protecting marriage."  No, it's all about keeping gays inferior under the law.  A piece in the New York Times reviews the limited impact that the striking down of DOMA will have for most of us at least unless and until federal regulations and in some cases legislation is rewritten.  Here are highlights:

A Supreme Court ruling this month that could overturn the ban on federal benefits for same-sex couples is presenting the Obama administration with a series of complicated and politically sensitive decisions: how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The decisions could affect Social Security checks, immigration laws and military benefits for same-sex couples, among other issues, with the outcomes based on whether the couples live in a state that allows them to marry. 

Gay rights advocates, aware that a Supreme Court ruling that overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act would be the beginning of their push to have the federal government recognize same-sex marriage, are urging White House officials to plan to modify hundreds of mentions of marriage throughout federal statutes and regulations.

If the justices do strike it down, they will sweep aside a law that has for years prohibited gay couples from receiving a vast array of federal benefits that married couples take for granted. But whether gay couples actually get those benefits would depend on where they live — and how vigorously President Obama seeks to change the legal language that determines whether a couple is married in the eyes of the federal government. 

For Mr. Obama, who appears eager to have his legacy defined in part by the advancement of civil rights for gay Americans, his administration’s actions after the ruling may be as important as the ruling itself.

Activists, however, are warning gay couples not to expect that federal benefits would arrive immediately, because government agencies vary widely in how they determine whether a couple is legally married. 

Some federal agencies, like the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration, make that determination by looking to the state where a couple lives. Even with the 1996 law overturned, those agencies would deny benefits to gay couples who live in one of the 38 states that do not allow same-sex marriage.

Other agencies, like the Defense Department, already base their decision on the location of a couple’s wedding, regardless of where the couple lives now. The same-sex spouse of a service member would get health care benefits no matter where the couple lives, as long as the two married in one of the 12 states where same-sex marriage is legal. 

“Without sweeping decisions from the court, we’ll continue to have a patchwork across the country that denies all families equal protection,” Mr. Sainz said. “We are going to fight for full equality in all 50 states, including marriage.” 

It's not encouraging.  Those of us in Virginia - one of the most anti-gay states in America - will still be largely screwed and not equal citizens.  And should the GOP statewide ticket of gay haters be elected in November, an already bad situation will become far worse.  As I've said before, if family circumstances were different, I'd leave Virginia in a hear beat.

Read More