Do Gay Virginians Have Cause to Give Thanks?

» 7 Comments | Post a Comment

For gay and lesbian Virginians, the election results earlier this month must have seemed dismal. Not only did Maine voters overturn a state law granting marriage rights to homo sexual couples -- making Maine the 31st state to enact such a prohibition by referendum -- Virginians elected a governor and attorney general with fervently conservative leanings on social issues.

In his now-infamous thesis, Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell denounced "the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state." (During the campaign, he effectively portrayed the thesis as ancient history.) Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinnelli made his views plain during this fall's campaign, when he said this: "My view is that homosexual acts -- not homosexuality, but homosexual acts -- are wrong. They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural-law based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that."

Understandably, the gay community might be tempted to think November represented two giant steps backward for equality. But that might be taking too dark a view.

For one thing, McDonnell's election does not necessarily represent a radical change at the Executive Mansion. During the 2005 campaign, Gov. Tim Kaine said "gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination." But Kaine -- like McDonnell, a devout Catholic -- also opposed same-sex marriage, civil unions, and adoption by gay couples.

Shortly after taking office, Kaine reiterated an executive order Gov. Mark Warner issued near the end of his term expanding the prohibition on discrimination in state employment to cover sexual orientation. McDonnell opposed it -- but on narrow constitutional grounds, arguing that such a policy change properly fell under the purview of the legislature. What's more, in a later (2007) opinion, McDonnell held that UVa could permit the same-sex partners of students and employees to join the school's gym.

This year, in response to questions from the gay-rights group Equality Virginia, McDonnell wrote that it was his "firm belief that government should not discriminate based on . . . sexual orientation." He also stipulated, concerning his opinion about Kaine's executive order, that "the issue is not the merits of the Governor's policy . . . ." Lawyerly evasion -- or a subtle hint?

Here are some other tea leaves worth pondering -- some of them courtesy of a friend with a strong interest in the issue:

Although both Creigh Deeds and Steve Shannon voted for Virginia's marriage amendment as it moved through the General Assembly, they both opposed its passage when it reached the referendum stage. Deeds actively sought Equality Virginia's support this year, and Shannon pounced on Cuccinelli's comments about homosexual behavior.

Contrast that with the tenor four years ago, when Henrico Del. Brad Marrs wrote a fundraising letter trying to make hay out of the fact that one of his opponent's campaign donors was homosexual. Marrs clearly thought that gay-bashing would redound to his advantage. The ploy blew up in his face, and Marrs lost his seat. Few Virginia politicians today would make the same mistake. Even Cuccinelli was careful to differentiate between homosexual acts and homosexual persons.

(Few, but not none: In Lynchburg, the GOP denounced Del. Shannon Valentine for taking campaign donations from Equality Virginia, terming the issue a "test of integrity." Valentine's Republican opponent, riding a wave of support from Liberty University, edged to victory.)

Now consider a different letter -- from David Lampo, of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia, and other gay Republicans to the GLBT community last last month. While acknowledging that McDonnell is not exactly a champion of gay rights, it noted, inter alia, his UVa gym ruling and his support for legislation establishing hospital visitation rights for domestic partners.

"McDonnell has repeatedly and without equivocation said that government should not discriminate in employment or services based on sexual orientation. No other Republican candidate for statewide office has ever done that," the letter said. It predicted that, should he win, "McDonnell will be a Governor with whom the GLBT community can work."

We'll see -- and here's one way to put that thesis to the test.

Virginia law currently prevents private companies from offering group life insurance to same-sex partners. That's absurd. Republicans opposed to collectivized health care at the federal level all agree: The government shouldn't tell private companies what coverage they may and may not offer.

Although the state has removed similar restrictions on health insurance, bills to remove such restrictions on life-insurance policies have died in the General Assembly. Perhaps they could pass in the upcoming session -- if McDonnell lent his support.

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.

--Judge Learned Hand.



Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or .

Advertisement

 
View More: bart hinkle,,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by metakaren on December 03, 2009 at 2:40 pm

If collecting the social security benefit of my same sex life partner of the past 30 years makes me special, then yeah.  I’d like to be “special.“  And in the event that I go first I’d like her to be treated “specially,“ too.  It would be so nice to be special.

Flag Comment Posted by goldwaterlives on November 24, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Well, Dave, you’re right.  You did cut to the chase and stated what should be obvious to all.  The only “special rights” that exist today are those given to straight couples who get a marrige license.  Your problem is that you’re confusing your religious values and definition of marriage with the separate civil institution, which is what the marriage license is all about.  It is not and should not be a religious document but a civil one that sets up certain legal rights for the couple involved.  It should not incorporate any particular religious point of view.  You value your religious rights but are so quick to deny pro-gay denominations the right to practice their views.  You can believe what ever you want to but you do not have the right to force your views on other people.

Flag Comment Posted by Dave on November 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Well, you’ve seen through my rhetoric and cut to the chase. Marriage is between a man and a woman - period. Equal personal rights are extended to every citizen - every individual - including gays. There is no collective ‘right’ for this group or that group - only individuals. That is also cutting to the chase, since groups in this country want to muddy the waters to get - special favors according to race, creed, ethnicity or whatever. Be careful what you ask for, since once we extend rights to all under any and every circumstance, then there will be rights for none. It seems counterintuitive, but every passing day proves the point.

Flag Comment Posted by goldwaterlives on November 24, 2009 at 11:24 am

Dave, I don’t know what planet you live on, but gays and lesbians lack many of the same legal rights that you do.  We just discussed the law preventing life insurance benefits from private firms.  There are no legal protections from employment discrimination by the state government, and although we have laws covering the private sector for race, creed, national origin, and a host of other groups, they don’t cover gays.  Why is it these laws are fine when they include everyone else, but if you include gays, it’s suddenly “special rights?“  And of course the biggest “special right” of all is the marriage license, given only to straight couples who agree to a whole host of legal obligations and restrictions.  You are enjoying “special rights” like no gay or lesbian ever has, and yet you accuse gays of wanting “special rights.“  Dave, look up the word “hypocrisy.“ Or maybe, better yet, “bigotry.“  You are the essence of it.

Flag Comment Posted by Dave on November 24, 2009 at 11:11 am

Because they already do. This is not about ‘rights’. This is about special treatment. I don’t see gays and lesbians getting frog-marched off to extermination camps. I don’t see them being hunted in the streets. I do see them marching in the light of day with the blessing and protection of civil authorities. Yet, this article implies that’s not enough. We all have to be compelled to give them special consideration because they are so oppressed…. There’s a logical disconnect. If someone has a problem not being treated ‘more equally’ than others, that’s too bad.

Flag Comment Posted by goldwaterlives on November 24, 2009 at 10:50 am

Commenter Dave:  You need to read more closely.  We already removed the restrictions on health care in 2005, and it works fine.  The additional cost for those companies that choose it is extremely small, as it would be with life insurance.  Why is it you have such a bee in your bonnett about gays and lesbians having the same legal rights that you have?

Flag Comment Posted by Dave on November 24, 2009 at 9:38 am

Ok, remove the government restrictions on group health insurance for gay couples. What happens when private insurers, based on actuarial evidence, implement their own restrictions? Discrimination! Call the EEOC! The government must DO SOMETHING to save these poor, persecuted, set-upon people from those mean health insurers. Government intrusion is only bad if it comes from the politically-incorrect.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement