From the Washington Times:
By Bob Lewis ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHMOND — Virginia’s Senate has passed a bill that would write into law executive orders by the past two governors that ban bias in the state work force based on sexual orientation.
Sen. Don McEachin’s bill advanced from the Democratic-controlled Senate on a nearly party line vote of 23-17. One Republican, Sen. Fred Quayle, joined the Democratic majority.
Democratic Govs. Tim Kaine and his predecessor, Mark Warner, issued executive orders during their tenure banning discrimination in state government hiring and workplace protection.
Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has not reissued such an order but says Mr. Kaine’s is still in effect while he studies whether such orders are legal.
The measure faces a tougher fight in the Republican-dominated House.
Now wait a minute. Are we to understand that Democrats are opposed to discrimination and Republicans are in favor of discrimination? When is discrimination ever acceptable? In what ways does the State discriminate against gays when the ban isn’t in effect? How can Virginians have this kind of vacillation based on who is governor? I am embarrassed for my own state unless this issue is corrected.
“When we allow one group to look down upon another, then we may for a short time bring hardship on some particular group of people, but the real hardship is and real wrong is done to democracy and to our nation as a whole.”
–Eleanor Roosevelt
“Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has not reissued such an order but says Mr. Kaine’s is still in effect while he studies whether such orders are legal.”
Nothing has changed. He’s studying the order to check the legalities and potentials for lawsuits. How does that translate into “Republicans are in favor of discrimination”? I’ve seen several people on this board praise President Obama for his deliberativeness on issues such as Afghanistan, while others complained he was dithering. Can’t McDonnell deliberate a little, too, while keeping existing laws in place? Let’s judge him when he acts.
Looks like a queston to me. The article says that the bill will have a harder time getting through the Republican House of Delegates.
The measure faces a tougher fight in the Republican-dominated House.
If that article is accurate, what conclusions does one naturally draw?
McDonnell doesn’t make permanent laws. He can only issue executive orders, like Kaine and Warner did. If he does nothing, Kaine’s order stays in effect.
Wow, yeah, Democrats are opposed to discrimination and Republicans are in favor of discrimination… yawn.
Oh boy!
The rainbow flag!
Republicans in favor of discrimination against gays!
I’ll be embarrassed of my state if they don’t do things my way!
Good God.
Sorry you don’t like the decorations Slowpoke, Isn’t the thread about sexual orientation? I thought the rainbow flag represented different sexual orientations.
How about some points about why they should or should not pass the bill? Consider it the post a story starter.
It isn’t about me getting my way. I belong to the majority orientation and I don’t work for the state. The embarrassment would be if a bunch of good ole boys voted that it was ok to discriminate against ‘them thar queers and she-males up thar at the statehouse.’
Is there a link somewhere to the actual bill?
It seems we should be looking at legislation that protects everyone from discrimination, not legislation that targets discrimination against very specific groups. After all, we are one nation, under (fill in your own pc higher power, I guess), aren’t we?
That being said, why is Obama dithering on repealing the entirely boneheaded “don’t ask, don’t tell” bit of nonsense? Why not just impose very strict nonfraternization rules and be done with it? What do I care whom off-duty soldiers sleep with?
I think this is it:
SB 66
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/sb66/
Is Obama “dithering”? Or just letting the military carry the water and get a comfort level?
Slowpoke, you don’t consider the fight against gay marriage to be an example of discrimination?
Now, if only we could cease discrimination against pedophiles and rapists and necrophiliacs, and every other pervert in the world, will liberals FINALLY just STFU?
@Rick Bentley is there a “comfort level” benchmark?
As has been stated MANY times before, John Doe, homosexuals are NOT criminals. The other groups you mentioned are. You may considers them perverts, but the law does not consider them criminals. They are just another group of people, and they have their rights.
John Doe, I am not even going to consider that statement a serious one. Obviously we are not talking about lawbreakers. Your remarks are simply disrespectful.
Plenty of people who aren’t liberals oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think you might have misread the name of this blog.
My gut tells me McDonnell would sign this if it came across his desk, and he might even reissue the executive order if the House decides to pander to racists. Did you notice how many minorities were shipped in from around the state in McDonnell’s mini SOTU address? He does not want to be seen as a backward social issues Republican, and neither should any Republican in the 21st century.
But in defense of pandering to racists, what do you expect Jackson Miller and Bob Marshall to do if they get 10 times more emails from people opposed to equal opportunity for minorities? Isn’t it their job to vote as their emails tell them to?
@Emma
Emma, you are right. Unfortunately, there is a history of specific discrimination against people whose sexual orientations outside the norm; therefore, the laws are now being proposed to protect the group which is being discriminated against.
I liken the movement to Suffragists and African Americans who had to win their rights as a group…which is unfortunate. Liberty and justice for all should mean just that, but it doesn’t.
This is just a political stunt by the Senate. There is really no way in a job interview to know whether someone is a homosexual or not. It is so hard to find people with good professional skills that the issue is really a moot point. It is not relevant except for the military. So there really is no need to define homosexuals as a new protected class.
I will say this though. Employers look for people that work hard and do not cause disruptions. Someone that comes across as overtly sexual (inappropriate clothing, innuendos) will have a hard time finding a job/getting promoted no matter whether the person is homosexual, heterosexual, or somewhere in between.
Kelly, actually I wish I thought you were correct. Women are hired all the time for showing a little cleavage. They also get promotions for the same thing. Over the ions people have been discriminated against in the work place for sexual orientation. Examples are too numberous to count.
I do not agree with Emma that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is nonsense. Military deployments sometimes require people to work together in extremely close quarters (showers, latrines, quarters, self-aid/buddy care). Circumstances may require gays and straights to interact very personally and even touch/massage/hold each other. Is the straight guy supposed to just get over it, especially if the idea is revolting? So it is not just a matter of live and let live as it is for civilian employment.
People often point to foreign militaries as examples that gays in the ranks are okay. But these other militaries have very little combat experience compared to the U.S. And they are not nearly as effective as the U.S. military. What’s the rush to change the only really effective organization in the government?
Yea, Israel springs to mind. No combat experience?
I actually thought that argument had been settled back in 1992.
One of the biggest flaws of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is that it sets up the potential for blackmail or a witchhunt. You do as I say, I keep quiet. You don’t give me what I want, I will out you. You’re my friend, I keep quiet. I need you out of my way, I out you. And it’s simply institutionally codified lying. Agencies that are a little more savvy about this issue realize that a person trying to keep such a secret can be compromised, and would prefer their employees be openly gay rather than hide. Much less of a national security risk.
And the old shower argument? Please. Just because the troops aren’t allowed to talk about their sexuality openly at present doesn’t mean they’re not looking at you now, kelly.
How did this thread become a homophobia support group?
Honestly, homophobes are many times more alien to me than homosexuals.
@Emma
That’s brilliant, Emma. Thanks for pointing that out. I certainly never could have figured that out on my own.
WT: You’re always quick to try to neutralize opposition by throwing out accusations of racism or homophobia. How very typical of you.
I am amazed at the expertise of those who instantly dismiss opposition to gays serving openly in the military. Perhaps some of you should consider a military deployment before assuming that you know all the answers.
So I guess women shouldn’t serve either, including those in the medical professions, because they might have to massage or hold men?
We really need to get over this gender thing.
I don’t think people will ever get over the gender thing.
It’s human nature. A few jerks abusing the situation doesn’t help it ease up either.
I believe Emma is making a very valid point about blackmail and the looking. Secrets don’t usually work too well in any environment. I can remember the days when the FBI and whoever else came around investigating neighbors for government jobs. That was the first question out of their mouth. Perhaps not direct at first, but the conversation quickly digressed. Those dudes didn’t like the ‘I don’t know’ answer or ‘I never noticed.’
@Witness Too
>>> Honestly, homophobes are many times more alien to me than homosexuals.
Well, there’s a revelation. Now *WHY* would that be? Hmmm?
Lemme ask… Do you prefer the whisker biscuit or the meat-on-a-stick for your early dine? Hmmm?
————
Hey MH! There’s bait for your new moderation button! Tee-hee.
@Posting As Pinko We can extend that logic and suppose female military nurses can only care for male troops, and male nurses only for females. Lots of touching in that profession, as I well know–and sure, there are just ZILLIONS of healthcare professionals lined up to fill the ranks, aren’t there?
Geez, these rules create quite a mess, don’t they? Or maybe we can just leave the issue alone and let the troops do what they are doing to protect us, without the threat kicking out people who only want to serve to protect the rest of us.
I have to say that you all are making valid points. However, for an organization as large and complex as the military, there is no perfect solution.
1) First of all, most men do not mind being touched, cared for, or massaged by women. We are definitely okay with that 😉
2) I agree that secrets represent a security risk. But anything that could break unit cohesion is a bigger risk (in my opinion). Life-and-death decisions have to be made in an instant and hesitation can prove to be disastrous. If a person’s motives are not completely trusted, then the response time of his fellow soldiers may increase. Slow responses in combat could get people killed.
(Did anybody see ‘Black Hawk Down’? A guy who fell off a rope started the chain of events that led to the incident at Mogadishu.)
This is certainly a controversial issue. Is it worth the risk to change the policy? Some guys in the military are okay with it; others are not. I certainly do not see this as a black-and-white issue. It certainly is not as clear cut as contributors on this blog make it.
I don’t consider it……period. As far as gay marriage is concerned……what is the government doing involved with marriage in the first place?
Slow, are you suggesting that govt should not be dealing in marriage at all and it should stick to civil unions?
Snoverkill? That took a few minutes.
I don’t know what Slow is saying but if it is that, I am not sure I would disagree with him. Civil government should deal in civil contracts and marriage should be left to religious authorities. I believe that the Israeli’s handle it that way (Wolfie, you mentioned them earlier as far as don’t ask don’t tell in the military).
The only thing I can think of that the government should do with regard to marriage is issue a license (so genealogists like me can look crap up later), but other than that, I don’t think any government intervention is required for marriage, education, retirement entitlements, environmental protection, and a host of other things.
Let me go a bit further. Marriage and Pair Bonding exists to procreate and provide for the children (at it’s most basic animal level). Two dudes can’t smack their yogurt cannons together and make a baby, so no marriage. I have no problem with them spending their whole lives together happily, I think they should be able to visit each other in the hospital, all that stuff. I have never met a gay person that I didn’t get along with and recognized what wonderful people they are, got zero problem with gay people, they’ve been around as long as civilization (and probably before). Marriage? What for? No matter how long me and some other dude smack our pee-pees together, nothing interesting’s gonna happen.
What if a woman finds out she is not able to have children, Slowpoke? Should she be barred from marriage also under your reasoning?
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
I suppose she could keep it a secret, lest the government find out. Don’t ask don’t tell?
Can I just agree about marriage. I would like to see civil unions licensed and anything more or less, let the churches do it.
Slow, education- time honored tradition. It should stay in the state and the feds should get out of it. I don’t mind a national standard but not a manatory one.
Retirement entitlements-I am assuming you mean social security- yes. Of course I want to keep it. What would you do about widows, widowers and orphans? I sure don’t want it cut off now. I am not sure I like how it works always.
environmental protection- That is part of the government’s responsibility, to protect us from harm. Man is greedy and would have destroyed this country had someone not stepped in. Does it go too far? Sometimes. I think you want to live in a far simpler world than we actually do. What would you do about lead in the paint and poison in the dog food? Industry is greedy.
Slow, do you object to a civil union? I don’t care who has a civil union. Where I would draw the line is more than one civil union at a time. It just gets too complicated otherwise.
@Moon-howler
Got no issues with civil unions. Takes care of the whole inheritance and medical issues, right?
I know I shouldn’t say this probably. But I really laughed out loud when I read your post. At the risk of alienating some people, I have to say that you sometimes describe things in such detail without giving the detail. Thanks for the chuckle after the last couple of days of white stuff.
Rez, I smiled too.
I resisted the urge to say that maybe some folks made something interesting happen but figured that would set off a firestorm. Then someone would ask me how I knew. Then I would have to say I am neither male or gay…blah blah blah….
No, because women “who can’t have children” get pregnant all the time. Unless the uterus literally falls out, who’s to say she can’t have children? Now two men? Two women? Don’t think you can show me that one. Sorry, you thought you had me there, didn’t you?
Good Point….Interesting to me.
Yeah, Pulitzer-Prize-winning stuff, huh? 🙂 Wanna hear something funny? My wife called me “retarded” when she read what I wrote.
I have an aunt who remarried after my uncle died. She was in her late 60’s and was no longer able to have children. Should the government had stepped in and made her prove her fertility?
I don’t know why I bother. We are talking about equality, same as we were in the 50’s and 60’s, only now we are progressing futher, perhaps beyond your comfort level and that’s okay.
But stop using sophomoric logic to justify prejudice. You either stand by your prejudices or you don’t. No hiding behind childish squeals over shower stalls and holding and rubbing. Just admit you’re backward like that and we can agree to disagree.
I actually think Slow was speaking of the original concept of marriage–invented to protect women and children. Slow knows I don’t often defend him, but on this one tiny little point I will cut him some slack.
And now I am going to roar with laughter at Mrs. Slowpoke. If I didn’t think Sarah Palin could slap me around I would tell Mrs. SP I agreed with her.
Slow, you’re killin’ tonight 🙂
If one chooses to add their own religious beliefs to one’s own marriage, that is his or her right. However, no matter how anyone says marriage started, it is a legality issue now.