Posts Tagged ‘Governor’

Worried About Virginia

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

If you thought my satire about a Virginia referendum to reject suffrage was too hyperbolic, check out what Rachel Maddow has to say about Virginia’s newly elected governor and attorney general:1

Excerpts: (starting at about 1:00)

Virginia… elected an attorney general named Ken Cuccinelli, who has called being gay “intrinsically wrong,” and has said that it does not comport with natural law….2

…Virginia’s new governor-elect Bob McDonnell just a few years ago said that certain homosexual conduct could and should disqualify a person from being a judge because of violating Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law.3

  1. To clarify: I’m not calling what Maddow said as hyperbolic. I’m saying that my satire might not be as “out there” as it might seem at first glance, as there’s plenty of evidence that McDonnell and Cuccinelli are both noted regressionists. [<]
  2. See Shannon questions Cuccinelli’s stance on gay employees, Richmond Times Dispatch [<]
  3. See Sex Law Is No Judging Criteria, Daily Press [<]

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage1 and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures. 

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

  1. IMDb: Outrage [<]

Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal”

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a favorite phrase among many a Christian in today’s society. When Governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric in her now infamous interview that her gay friend “happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made,”1 the obvious implication is that she thinks being a homosexual is the equivalent of making a poor decision, “sinning,” if you will. And you know what? She has every right to feel that way. Many people would argue that she is wrong, but it is not illegal to hold that view. What should be illegal, however, is the attempt of anyone to use that belief as an excuse to give homosexuals less rights than heterosexuals. And whether or not it is a “choice” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Did Gov. Palin “choose” to be a fundamentalist Christian and a Republican? She might argue that she was born that way, or she might agree that it is a choice, but her rights remain the same regardless, simply because she is a human and an American. I am probably using Palin in my example, admittedly, because she is such an easy target, but Democrats fare no better in this issue. I am appalled that both the red and blue presidential and vice-presidential candidates are unable, or unwilling, to see the inherent dishonesty in claiming “tolerance” on the one hand and denying homosexuals basic human rights on the other. I am even further appalled that the tolerant and progressive step forward that has been taken in California is now threatened by the passage of Proposition 8.

One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.2 This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.

So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.

What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.

I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8. 

UPDATE 1:

On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.6 The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”7 They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.

UPDATE 2:

This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA.  You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here.  In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising!  As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage.  Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!

UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)

According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.”  The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:

This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!

-Laura 

—–

Related StOP articles:

Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”

Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002993.html [<]
  2. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm [<]
  3. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage [<]
  4. http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=108 [<]
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement [<]
  6. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD93SKREG0 [<]
  7. http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=2 [<]

Let’s Talk About Family Values – But Your Family, Not Mine

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

So, as a GOP nominee, I get to chastise others for their lack of “family values,” and use “family values” as a platform for my evangelical support, but the moment anyone dares to look at my family as an example, I get to set up a wall of privacy that even my opponents fear to breach? Sure, we don’t want to make politics into a battle of who has fewer skeletons in the family closet, but when we allow politicians and the government in general to dictate things like family planning, sex education in public schools, and what sort of sexual orientation is acceptable in the lives of the citizens of this nation, then that door should swing both ways, allowing potential constituents to examine whether the politician practices that which is preached.

Look at what happened to Al Gore when he suddenly became famous for his fight against human-made global warming — critics immediately researched Gore’s possessions and discovered that he wasn’t living as green as what many people assumed. He made changes to try to fix that image, but it was certainly a stain that was probably justified, considering the circumstances.

Obama even supports the notion that family and children of candidates should be taboo topics:

“Let me be as clear as possible,” Obama said. “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”1

Should we accept the position that off limits are the family lives of politicians who make it a part of their platform that the government should rule the lives of its citizens on issues like abortion,2 sex education,3 stem cell research,4 same-sex partnership,5 making children in public schools learn creationism (intelligent design) side-by-side with evolution,6 and indoctrinating kids with the idea that the founding fathers put “Under God” into the pledge?7

I say, if your politics includes invasion into what should be my personal life, then, by reason, I’m going to invade your personal life in kind, with observation and criticism.

  1. Obama says Palin’s family off limits, CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/obama.palin/index.html [<]
  2. “I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.” http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm [<]
  3. “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.” http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx [<]
  4. “According to an October 2006 profile in the Anchorage Daily News, Palin opposes stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and state health benefits for same-sex partners.” http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm [<]
  5. “I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman.” http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm [<]
  6. “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information…. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher.” http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm [<]
  7. “Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm [<]

Sexual Education and the Implications of Senate Bill 155

Sunday, February 10th, 2008

Every year, the U.S. experiences as many as 850,000 teen pregnancies. Those under the age of 25 contract an average of about 9.1 million STDs. 70% of females and 62% of males lose their virginity by the age of 18.1 In a study commissioned by Congress, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. concluded that abstinence-only programs have no effect on the age students first have sex and no effect on their number of sexual partners.2

Clearly, education is the key. When northern Virginia began requiring “family life education” as part of their public school curriculum in 1987, teen pregnancies dropped by fifty percent, and teen abortions went down sixty percent.3 Students receive instruction in “family living and community relationships, abstinence education, the value of postponing sexual activity, the benefits of adoption as a positive choice in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, human sexuality, human reproduction, dating violence, the characteristics of abusive relationships, steps to take to avoid sexual assault, and the availability of counseling and legal resources, and, in the event of such sexual assault, the importance of immediate medical attention and advice, as well as the requirements of the law and the etiology, prevention and effects of sexually transmitted diseases. “ Yet, an important aspect of sexual education has been missing from this curriculum, i.e. information on birth control.

Last Wednesday, February 6th, the Virginia Senate rejected a bill, SB 155, which would have added to the curriculum the requirement for education on the various methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate’s education and health committee cleared the bill with a 9-6 vote, but on the floor the bill narrowly missed passage with a vote of 17-22. It seems common sense that our children should be given proper information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and a recent survey showed that 82% of parents in the U.S. support programs that would discuss these methods,4 so why was this bill rejected?

Republican lawmakers accused the FDA-approved list of contraception of being too broad and unreliable. “Quite frankly, this list is rather staggering in terms of its scope, and in terms of its relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness,” Sen. Mark D. Obenshain said, referring to a spermicide on the FDA list that is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The spermicide he was referring to does have a comparatively high failure rate,5 but that is exactly the reason we need to educate students on these methods. Does the Senator really believe that the potential failure rates would not be discussed alongside the benefits? That, of course, would be one of the most important aspects for students to learn about. The patron of the bill, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, responded, “How better should our children be introduced to this laundry list? Should they go into the store, whether it’s the CVS or some other place, and guess at the efficacy of these products or guess how to use these products or guess as to whether these products are appropriate or not, or should they learn it in a classroom setting?”6

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, one of two Democratic Senators who joined with Republicans to kill the bill, said he worried about Catholic students in public schools. “This was one of those efforts where the intent was right, but it could get in the way of families’ beliefs,” Houck said. This is a poor argument, as parents have always had the right to remove their children from the program if they feel it is inappropriate or conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The “Some Families” Foundation, while rallying for opposition to the bill, wrote in an action alert, “The bill…would replace current abstinence-based Family Life Education programs with a controversial contraception-only curriculum.”7 This is a blatant untruth! All the current teachings of the benefits of postponing sexual activity would remain in place. The education on contraception would merely be an addition to the existing criteria. In an action alert email, they stated, “This bill is the highest priority legislative initiative for Planned Parenthood. That pro-abortion group had close to 500 people here yesterday to argue for its passage. Some of their activists were still in high school. Are we going to let them go into our schools to recruit the next generation of pro-choicers without putting up a fight? These are our children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and great grandchildren. No! We cannot let them win this critical battle. The education of our children is too important to trust to ineffective and dangerous contraception-based programs.” Ineffective and dangerous? Study after study confirms the inefficacy of abstinence-only education. Teenagers are going to have sex. To think that telling them “No” is going to somehow stop them from behaving contrary to their nature as human, sexual beings, is both naïve and the real danger to our students.

Based on the blaring inconsistencies in the opposition’s arguments and their willful ignorance of the hard evidence against them, could there be another, underlying reason for their vicious attack on this bill? In October 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine submitted plans to close a budget shortfall. One of the ways in which he accomplished his goal was to eliminate a $275,000 matching grant for a federal program which provided funds for fourteen nonprofit groups that taught abstinence only, making Virginia the fourteenth state to refuse to support abstinence-only education. Kaine’s communications director, Delacey Skinner, stated, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based.” Kaine cited recent studies which have found that in order to truly protect teenagers against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.8 Social conservatives reacted very angrily to the Governor’s decision and accused him and Planned Parenthood of hiding the decision until after the November election. Their accusations were unjustified, as Kaine’s budget amendments had been public for six weeks prior. Considering the close timing between these two incidents, it seems highly likely that Republican’s residual anger over the Governor’s decision had a considerable impact on their decision to reject SB 155.

Statistics aside, studies aside, evidence aside, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to provide accurate, useful information to our students at a time when they need it most. When students are well-informed, they can make well-informed decisions. Withholding that information is tantamount to lying to our children and can only cause confusion and detrimental consequences. Please take the time to write to our politicians and express your support for comprehensive sexual education for our students. We owe it to their futures.

-Laura

  1. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm [<]
  2. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf [<]
  3. (Sen. Barker, D-Fairfax) http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/measure … nia-senate [<]
  4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603764/ [<]
  5. http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html [<]
  6. http://www.examiner.com/a-1206268~Contraceptive_education_bill_killed.html [<]
  7. http://www.vbdems.org/?p=2177 [<]
  8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01716.html [<]