What’s next?

Posted on October 22, 2006 by David

Leesburg Today
October 13, 2006
By David Weintraub, Lovettsville

Maureen Whalen (Letters, Oct. 2) must have an unusual definition of the term “harm,” to say the least. The so-called”Marriage Affirmation Act”to which she refers has already been used by a Virginia court to overturn a custody agreement and deprive a child of one of her parents, in defiance of federal law. It has resulted in an exodus from the Commonwealth of people who can’t or won’t risk becoming a test case for the integrity of their medical directives and other critical legal contracts. And it has resulted in Virginia losing business. The American Psychological Association has decided to move its annual meetings, worth millions of dollars in revenue, out of Virginia, because of concerns that the legal contracts of some of its members and employees will not be honored. That is just the beginning.

As if this is not enough, the harm threatened by the proposed amendment is far greater.

Ms. Whalen erroneously believes that Ballot Question #1 would simply “write the same provision into the Virginia Constitution.” Because it would affect not just gay couples, but also all unmarried straight couples in Virginia, it represents a vast, and permanent, expansion of government power to intrude into family life. There are many, many more straight unmarried couples in Virginia than there are gay couples.

Virginia doesn’t have any activist judges. Judges in Virginia (unlike in Massachusetts) must be re-appointed by our conservative legislature, meaning that there is zero chance of a judge overturning the definition of marriage in Virginia law. The real issue is whether Virginians are willing to risk the unpredictable consequences of inviting government into our personal relationships. If we give the courts the power to decide whether a contract between two individuals “intends to approximate” a right, benefit, obligation, quality or effect associated with marriage, what’s next?

Read it all, and then vote no on Ballot Question #1.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , | Comments Off on What’s next?

Family values “provocative” and “disappointing”

Posted on October 21, 2006 by David

Focus on the Family is having a conniption fit about remarks made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, acknowledging and welcoming family members of newly sworn in Ambassador Mark Dybul.

From the transcript Remarks at the Swearing-in Ceremony of the Honorable Mark Dybul as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator:

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome.

It’s important to have the support of wonderful family. How shocking. Indeed, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family was not only “shocked,” but also “astonished,” “dismayed,” “disappointed,” and possibly some other inappropriate mental states not reported.

“That’s astonishing that that fact would be underscored, highlighted by the Secretary of State. This is very provocative and very disappointing.”

In response to our inquiries, Minnery heard from the State Department.

“Secretary Rice’s Chief of Staff called to say it was a mix-up, that somebody should have checked this mother-in-law business, didn’t do it and it got out.”

Perhaps, but such nuances are Rice’s stock and trade. Besides, she was standing right next to Dybul’s partner who was holding the Bible for the swearing-in. Peter Sprigg is with the Family Research Council.

“It’s not that it shows they’re pushing an agenda in favor of same sex marriage, but it shows that they’re really rather apathetic about the efforts to defend traditional marriage.”

We’re sorry that this unwanted intrusion of the reality-based world into federal government functions is causing dismay among the Dobson set. Maybe they should just demand that a prohibition on recognizing a legal status for unmarried couples that approximates some aspect of marriage be stapled to the Constitution. Oh, wait – they are.

That ought to take care of such “nuances” as mistakenly identifying an Ambassador’s family as the Ambassador’s family.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Human Resources are for all humans

Posted on October 20, 2006 by David

I love this. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch asks:

It’s tempting to conclude current events have rendered satire inoperative; how do you lampoon that which is already extravagantly absurd?

Meanwhile, in other “news,” we find the following headline:

Pro-Homo Employer Declares War On Normality And Its Advocates

Oh, my. This concerns a Harrisonburg man, Luis Padilla, who apparently was fired because he displayed a sign on his vehicle on company property saying “Please Vote for Marriage Nov. 7.”

This would seem at first blush to be strictly a First Amendment issue. As offensive as this sentiment may be, Mr. Padilla’s co-workers have no fundamental right to not be offended by his views – any more than Mr. Padilla has the right to not be offended by the display of family pictures on a gay co-worker’s desk.

However, seeing as how news of this event first came to us from the always entertaining and inaccurate Some Families Foundation, we suspected that there might be more to this story than they would lead us to believe. As it turns out, Mr. Padilla was employed in the human resources office of Cargill. It is the specific responsibility of a human resources office to uphold the employment policies of a company, which include its non-discrimination policies. This is not just a random position, but one that has specific requirements having to do with, well, tolerance. Cargill wants someone in that position who can be trusted by employees to treat everyone fairly. In their judgment Mr. Padilla was openly advertising an unwillingness to uphold their policies.

As Cargill attorney Al Sufka told the Daily News Record

“When ordered to do something relatively simple – remove from his truck two signs that other employees could have reasonably construed as a show of hostility and intolerance toward homosexuals – Mr. Padilla decided to ignore the warning and disobey the order.

“By refusing to obey the order, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted to enforce and promote our employment policies because his personal beliefs mattered more to him.”

Would Mr. Padilla have put aside his personal beliefs to uphold Cargill’s policies when it came to doing his job? Maybe, but it’s really beside the point. In Cargill’s judgment, the appearance that he would be discriminatory toward gay employees was enough to prevent the effective performance of his job. If there was a dispute involving an employee, how could they possibly have confidence that the situation was being handled without bias? Padilla’s employers determined that he wasn’t the right person to do this job, which seems reasonable from a business perspective.

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth and playing victim about this from the anti-gay right, along with a failure to mention the human resources position and the statement cited above. Nor does there seem to be any acknowledgement or condemnation of the fact that it’s perfectly legal in Virginia to fire an employee on account of their sexual orientation. Hmm.

Someday I would like to hear a cogent explanation of the idea that when someone is merely prevented from violating the rights of others, that is a violation of their rights. Extra credit if you can explain what special right is being asserted.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

We were wrong

Posted on October 18, 2006 by David

UPDATE: From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Delegates won’t back marriage measure
Proposed ban of same-sex unions too broad, say previous supporters

October 19, 2006
By Pamela Stallsmith

Three Richmond-area House Democrats — including a Baptist minister — who supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage now say they’ll vote against it because it’s too broad.

House Minority Leader Franklin P. Hall; Del. Dwight Clinton Jones, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of South Richmond; and Del. A. Donald McEachin of Henrico say the three-sentence proposal that will face state voters Nov. 7 goes far beyond simply defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The other two sentences hold the potential for far-reaching legal and economic consequences, the lawmakers said at a Capitol news conference yesterday. They voted in favor of the amendment during the General Assembly.

Three other local lawmakers, who voted against the measure in the legislature, reiterated their opposition and urged Virginians to vote no — state Sens. Benjamin J. Lambert III and Henry L. Marsh III and Del. Jennifer L. McClellan, all of Richmond.

Jones, the Baptist minister, seems to be expressing some anger about the assumption that there is only one position he could possibly take on this issue.

“Over the past 37 years that I have been marrying individuals, I have never once had a request for same-sex marriage,” said Jones, adding he takes umbrage that it’s been made an issue of faith.

“It’s unneeded,” said Jones, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. “Voting against the amendment does not suggest that an individual does not believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

For all the talk from amendment proponents about their “faith,” there is no indication that that faith includes anything approaching compassion. Perhaps the willingness of these lawmakers to speak out and risk the wrath of Victoria Cobb and her faux Christian values will start a much needed conversation about what faith really requires in this situation. Delegate McEachin explains his change of heart this way:

“Like the blind man cured by Jesus, even after much prayer, the first time I looked at this amendment, I didn’t see its breadth or its basic meanness,” he said. “Only after I was touched a second time was I able to see this amendment in its true light.”

This is much more than a few legislators changing their minds, or as Victoria tries to spin it, playing “partisan politics.” This is the rebellion of principled people of faith who are fed up with the assumption that their faith requires cruelty and exclusion.

(Corrected version) So say Delegates Donald McEachin, Franklin Hall, and Dwight Jones. Delegate Jennifer McClellan, and Senators Benjamin Lambert and Henry Marsh appeared at a press conference with them.

They have just announced their change of heart on the Marshall/Newman amendment. They were orginally part of the much trumpeted “bipartisan majority” of Virginia legislators to vote for the amendment. They now announce that they will be voting NO, and urging others to do the same.

Significantly, four of the six are members of the Legislative Black Caucus.

More when there’s press coverage.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

New Commonwealth Coalition ad

Posted on October 18, 2006 by David

Watch the new ad, “Emergency” …

This is exactly what voters need to see. This amendment isn’t about “marriage” at all, it’s about making sure that people who have committed to taking care of each other aren’t allowed to do that – just because they don’t conform to the immoral desires of an angry minority.

PM makes a good point, though, wishing that there was an ad addressing child support: “After a couple is divorced, custody and child support remain an issue. It looks like to me that if, say, a deadbeat dad refuses to pay support, and gets a court order, he can tell a Virginia court to stuff it.” Whether or not that is likely to be upheld, the amendment certainly is an invitation to those who have partnership obligations in other jurisdictions to come to Virginia to try to get them dissolved. Given the courts’ ruling in the Miller-Jenkins case, that’s exactly what would happen.

The problem is that there are so many horrible ways that this amendment could be put to use, it’s impossible to pick just one.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off on New Commonwealth Coalition ad

Dear Jerry: Bite me.

Posted on October 18, 2006 by David

I believe we’ve been pretty clear about Foley, et al.

This certifiable piece of work just threatened our community with extermination if we don’t return to the closet. At least that’s how I read it. What do you all think?

Posted in Observation | Tagged | 4 Comments

Dead heat

Posted on October 17, 2006 by David

A poll released today by the Washington Post confirms what the Commonwealth Coalition found back in July: When voters have information about the entire amendment, support for it plummets.

The vote stands at a dead heat when the arguments for and against are presented. This is the actual question:

(Supporters say the measure would mean that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in the Commonwealth of Virginia.) (Opponents say the proposed language is too broad, and would endanger contracts made between unmarried heterosexual couples.)

With these arguments in mind, if the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Amendment One?

When simply asked about the language of the amendment, without hearing the arguments for and against, voters support it 53% to 43%, which still reflects a trend of eroding support.

Several political scientists who have studied state ballot measures said the polling data from Virginia appeared to defy expectations, given the commonwealth’s reputation as a conservative state.

“This is quite a surprise,” said Daniel A. Smith, an associate professor of political science at the University of Florida. “In an ostensibly conservative state like Virginia, you’d expect to see the numbers up around 60 or 70 percent.”

What does this mean? That our message doesn’t have to be complicated. Simply hearing the opposing arguments is enough to completely close a 10 point gap. This amendment can be defeated, and we know exactly what we need to do to defeat it.

What would it be worth to you to defeat this amendment? Two hours of your time?

Contact us | Contact the Commonwealth Coaliiton

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged | Comments Off on Dead heat