“He holds himself out as being married,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is running for U.S. Senate. He said Thorne-Begland’s “life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution.”

It’s not good enough, you see, that Thorne-Begland’s marriage is not recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nor is it good enough that he and his husband can’t even obtain recognition of a civil union, domestic partnership, or any other “legal status that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage” or obtain a status to which are assigned “the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

No, that’s not enough. Like Haman, little Bobby Marshall wants Tracy Thorne-Begland to bow down. Because Bobby Marshall was able to insert his tiny god of fear into the Virginia Constitution, he now believes he is entitled to demand “submission” to it. Those who fail to bow down to his little god must be punished. That is just how stark this is.

Republican activist and attorney Brian Schoeneman hits the nail on the head:

The argument that Marshall makes that questions Thorne-Begland’s integrity and claims he couldn’t take the oath to support the Virginia Constitution is, quite frankly, disgusting. Not only has Thorne-Begland already taken that oath as an attorney and in his official capacity as a deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney, there is nothing in his background to indicate he has ever violated it. Advocacy against laws one disagrees with isn’t violating an oath – it’s something inherently American and something we Republicans have long valued.

And exposes the sheer hypocrisy, given that other nominees had engaged in outspoken advocacy on other matters, from the Second Amendment to labor rights:

The fact that Thorne-Begland was discharged from the Navy for being gay is irrelevant. He believed that his rights were being trampled upon and spoke up, going to court to defend them. There is nothing wrong with that. This is the exact same behavior we Republicans praised when Dick Heller and the other second amendment activists filed suit to overturn DC’s unconstitutional gun laws. We praise activism in defense of rights, especially where someone gives up so much for the fight. In the Heller case, Dick Heller didn’t have to get arrested or lose his job – he simply had to apply for a permit and be denied.

These are actual conservative values, not the spiteful Thought Police mewlings of Marshall and his little band of sycophants, who are even now being pitifully defended with the argument “you can’t prove they voted no because they agreed with Marshall.”

Meanwhile, I have news for little Bobby: I’m married, too, to the love of my life. A lot of us are. There isn’t a thing you can do about it. The harder you try, the more ridiculous and embarrassing and marginalized you and those like you will become.

We knew this a long time ago, and now you know it, too:

What Marshall, Gallagher, and other architects of current constitutional mischief are well aware of is that anti-gay bias will in the future become as socially unacceptable as racism. As Gallagher puts it, “..we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities.”

They also are well aware that what will drive these shifts in public opinion is the ability of the public to observe for themselves the humanity of their GLBT neighbors and our families. That is, in a nutshell, the “gay agenda”: To be seen as who we are.

The carefully crafted language of the Marshall/Newman amendment is designed to discourage this visibility as much as possible, by making it too risky to be honest about our committed life partnerships. The very thing that demonstrates our humanity and family values is also the thing that demonstrates our “intent to approximate” the rights, obligations and significance of marriage: Making the statement before friends, family, the community, and the universe that this is my beloved, this is my family.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall, for openly admitting that your amendment is not really about marriage, but in fact is intended to discourage GLBT people from living lives of honesty and integrity. It’s actually very clever. It also ultimately will fail.

One of the favorite techniques of Colson and his acolytes is to stand reality on its head by casting themselves, although they are the ones working to deny religious freedom and civil rights to others, as the oppressed and persecuted. Hence Stonestreet, in a recent column, claims for himself and his audience the role of Esther. You all know the story, right? Haman, the Jew-hating dictator, is a prime minister whose king has unwittingly taken the Hebrew Esther as his wife. When Haman is angered by Mordecai and is about to respond in a genocidal rage, Esther outs herself to save her people.

Stonestreet equates the situation of the Hebrews, in exile under the rule of Haman, to the circumstances of “Christians” today when they are restrained in any way by the civil rights of others. My husband gently pointed out to him the irony of his words: That the behavior Stonestreet is encouraging is very much like Haman’s inclination to dehumanize the Hebrews and see them as something other than just people, perhaps objectifying them as the “lobbyists” or “homosexual activists” of their day.

Stonestreet didn’t seem to understand. “Hamaan wasn’t grumpy at the Jews because of their propaganda or lobbying,” he responded. “They were exiles. He just didn’t like them.”

Not exactly (and one would expect a Prison Fellowship Ministries “Centurion” to know his bible a little better than this). Haman was “grumpy at the Jews” (!) because Mordecai refused to bow down. Had Mordecai accepted Haman’s authority by denying his own religious identity, Esther never would have outed herself, and no one would have been the wiser. Haman didn’t object to Jews, really – only those Jews who insisted on following that commandment “Thou shalt worship no other gods before Me.” The other Jews, the nice ones who didn’t assert their Jewishness, he had no problem with. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

Understand that what our Mr. Marshall and the so-called Virginia “Family” Foundation have just said about their attack on Tracy Thorne-Begland is exactly the same thing:

Marshall, the Family Foundation of Virginia and others who raised concerns about Thorne-Begland’s nomination said they did not object to him because he is gay, but because of his outspokenness on the subject of gay rights.

“It’s not that he’s gay, but that he is not closeted or ashamed that troubles these people,” says Sullivan. Exactly. Stonestreet has no problem with ashamed and closeted gay people (who he refers to as “people who struggle with same-sex attraction”) either, only with those gay people who see no reason to “struggle” with who they are, who refuse to bow down.

The cowardly act by Marshall and his fellow bronze age culture warriors has not gone over well. It seems that a lot of people in the conservative/Republican camp got the memo, and are starting to really understand that, as Dick Cheney said, freedom means freedom for everyone.

Most on one of the local conservative blogs see right through the excuses, which is encouraging. There are only a very few anemic voices trying to make excuses for Mr. Marshall. And at least one commenter understands the meaning of this precisely:

I take Bob Marshall at his word when he says he did not torpedo the nomination of an extremely well qualified judicial candidate simply because he was gay. That is ridiculous! Marshall blocked the guy because he wasn’t ashamed of being gay and in the closet.

And remember: Anyone who fails to bow down to these s0-called Christians is guilty of persecuting them.

Well, it turns out that the speaker in the video is a “protected person,” a resident of an assisted living facility and diagnosed with schizophrenia. She is a regular at these public meetings; the council members are familiar with her and listen to her politely. Her brother Patrick acts as her conservator:

He said he’s disappointed the video garnered such attention and jokes without the whole story.

“To me, it shows how little society really cares about people with mental health issues,” Patrick Svoboda said. “She does have a very tender heart … but anything she says is certifiably schizophrenic … she’s not some crazy conservative.”

He said her family has tried to get her help multiple times, but unless she harms herself or others, there’s not much more they can do.

Ms. Svoboda apparently has spoken about a number of other topics that are not quite tethered to reality, things like “subliminals” coming through electronic devices. But in this case, she was misread as a legitimate spokesperson for anti-gay causes. Here is a statement from her speech, seemingly made in opposition to an anti-discrimination ordinance:

“A huge percent of gay men in school grounds molest boys, partly because they don’t have AIDS yet,” she said.

In a way, you can see why the mistake was made. The above quote cannot be distinguished, in either tone or absurdity, from statements made by the Sterling Supervisor/anti-gay charlatan in his fundraising letters, for example:

“Forcing the Boy Scouts to hire homosexuals is the same as being an accessory to the rape of hundreds of boys.”

Or:

“You’ll see two men hand in hand, skipping down to the adoption agency to ‘pick out’ a little boy for themselves.”

More from Ms. Svoboda:

“Hillary Clinton’s roommate four years in college was a gay woman. To avoid going gay like Clinton did, college students need single rooms and single gender dorms.”

“P-E-N-I-S goes into the anus to rupture intestines,” Svoboda notes. “The more a man does this, the more likely he’ll be a fatality or a homicider.”

The five minute speech was described by the Huffington Post as “a graphic homophobic rant” – which with equal accuracy describes the public utterances of anti-gay figures like Peter LaBarbera, Bryan Fischer and Ken Hutcherson (like Delgaudio, all leaders of SPLC identified anti-gay hate groups). Likewise, it resembles the speeches of local public commenter Paul Gozé. Gozé memorably had his mic cut off by then School Board Chair John Andrews, after repeatedly making graphic sexual comments and bizarre attacks on LGBT people and our allies, such as claiming that anyone in the room with an opposing view was a “homosexual activist” trying to “gain sexual access to children.” As far as I am aware, none of the individuals named above have been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder.

Upon learning “the whole story” about Ms. Svoboda, some of those who had ridiculed her as a homophobe recanted. Jim Burroway removed the video from his website, saying he was ashamed to have not realized she was mentally ill. As one of many commenters pointed out in his defense, when the likes of Bryan Fischer, et al, are actually asked for comment by pundits, or flown in at taxpayer expense to testify in legislative hearings, “the line between mental illness and hate filled ignorance is often hard to distinguish.”

My question is this: If we recognize that this woman isn’t responsible for her hate speech because of delusions brought on by illness, and if people feel remorseful for having ridiculed her, then why would anyone treat comparable hate speech and delusions as if they are legitimate “beliefs” deserving of our respect? If an elected official makes remarks that are indistinguishable from the remarks made by a woman with schizophrenia who is legally incompetent and not responsible for her actions, why on earth would anyone take him seriously about anything, or try to justify voting for or donating to him?

How pathetic this is. I don’t know whether the other activists I’ve mentioned are delusional or fraudulent, so I’ll only ask Mr. Delgaudio’s apologists. There are really only two explanations. Either you think the wacky statements of both Ms. Svoboda and Mr. Delgaudio make sense (God help you), OR you realize that Mr. Delgaudio doesn’t really believe those wacky statements himself, that he’s just a fraud preying on people like Ms. Svoboda, and that’s fine with you as long as you get something you want (again, God help you). So, you proud Delgaudio supporters: which one do you admit to?

See the post below this one. Did they read the memo? Did they understand it? No. Virginia Republicans just rejected the election of Tracy Thorn-Begland to the General District Court because he’s gay, and for no other reason. They just don’t get it.

I would so like to have been proven wrong for once. Alas, Virginia is poised to be a national laughingstock, again. There’s sure to be plenty of embarrassing video footage.

From wtvr.com:

Delegate Bob Marshall said he will seek to remove the name of Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland from a list of proposed District Court judicial appointments.

“I don’t even think it’s proper to put his name forward because of his behavior,” said Marshall, who called Thorne-Begland “a homosexual activist,” in a press release.

Thorne-Begland has been nominated to serve as a judge for Richmond’s General District Court, but, Marshall challenges the nomination on the grounds of the prosecutor’s sexual orientation.

“We have a constitution which says marriage is between one man and one woman and if he’s taking an oath, he has to uphold and defend that as a judge,” said Marshall.

“If his lifestyle is exactly contrary to that… I don’t see how he could do that,” he said.
Thorne-Begland lives with a partner and they have two children.

“I don’t know why the folks on the courts committee didn’t catch this before…but they didn’t…but it’s up to us to act as a backstop,” said Marshall, whose request has so far been denied by House Republican leadership.

Thorne-Begland was one of the early, prominent challengers to the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” regulation. He served as a Navy aviation lieutenant and was discharged once he disclosed his sexual orientation on national television.

Yes, we knew this already. In Bob Marshall’s twisted and frightened mind, when a gay person is honest about who they are and lives with integrity, that makes them a “homosexual activist.”

But, as a measure of how far the mainstream has actually shifted, nothing beats this much less reported, but must-read document. As Sullivan points out, this is the GOP establishment addressing, bluntly, the GOP establishment. The warning from “highly respected Republican pollster” Jan van Lohuizen really couldn’t be more factual and dispassionate about the situation they are now facing:

In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

And this is what that looks like graphically:

We often hear about how this shift in public opinion is a generational one, to which opponents of equality typically respond that as the young people who now support marriage equality age and start families, they will become more conservative and see the error of their ways. That may be a comforting thought to those who bear no responsibility for Republican strategy, but in fact:

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position [emphasis added].

The next item shows how out of touch the typical Republican elected official is with actual Republican public opinion, when you consider their legislative behavior (I’m talking about you, Virginia “Family” Foundation sycophants):

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

These are not marginal majorities, either, but overwhelming ones. Another Republican pollster (Fabrizio) found in 2006 that nearly 80% of Virginia Republicans supported employment nondiscrimination measures, for example. Here van Lohuizen furnishes some talking points to get the GOP back on track:

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

So, equal rights are not “special rights” after all? No kidding.

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

As we’ve been saying pretty much forever, LGBT people simply need to live our lives with honesty and integrity, and tell our stories. Reality wins.

Conservative fundamentals:

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

Exactly. And although he doesn’t say it explicitly, marriage equality is also a fundamentally conservative position. If you want to encourage in people the opposite of personal responsibility, stability, commitment and sacrifice, make it difficult or impossible for them to marry and have a family. The fact that so many of us have gone ahead and done these things anyway, in spite of the obstacles created by alleged “conservatives,” only underscores the fact that the need for family and intimacy is a powerful human drive. Again, reality wins.

Will GOP operatives listen? I’m not holding my breath. Infected by cartoonish figures like Dick Black and Mike Farris, and with its public policy agenda written by the Virginia “Family” Foundation on the basis of an equally cartoonish vision of Christianity, Virginia Republicans are racing full throttle in the opposite direction. At best, they can see the writing on the wall and respond by trying to obscure their pre-modern positions, as Dick Black did in his most recent campaign. This is only subterfuge, not a correction of past wrongs. And an explicit correction of those past wrongs is the only thing that will ensure a future for what is rapidly becoming known as the anti-reality party.

Virginia has adopted a simple, straightforward mechanism for correcting one’s gender marker on a driver’s license, one that comports with the reality of legal gender transition:

As of April 25, 2012, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) implemented a new, and much simpler, policy for changing one’s gender marker on a VA driver’s license. Individuals can now use the Gender Change Request form, known as DL-17, which requires only a signature from a licensed provider, including a doctor, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, social worker, or counselor attesting to the fact that the applicant is a patient of the provider and that the applicant’s “gender identity” is either female or male and “can reasonably be expected to continue as such for the foreseeable future.”

The previous policy made access to a corrected driver’s license attainable only by those trans Virginians with the financial resources required for gender reassignment surgery. It required either a corrected birth certificate (unavailable under any circumstance in some states), or a court ordered “change” of gender, only obtainable with proof of surgery. This ridiculously high bar for obtaining a Virginia identification card that accurately reflected their gender put the safety of many trans people at risk.

Virginia, with its anti-civil rights history, is one of the last places we would have expected to adopt this reasonable, reality-based policy. Congratulations and kudos to those who made it happen.

With the new policy implemented only days after the historic EEOC ruling affirming that discrimination on the basis of gender is, well, discrimination on the basis of gender, we can say that that the past week has been a very good one for justice.

You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.

Letter Writer:
I’m 40 years old and have had a sex change. I’ve been watching your program and was wondering if God forgave me. Should I live as I am now or go back to my birth gender?

Pat Robertson:
This is a very serious question and I appreciate it. There are people who are born with various types of hormonal activity in their bodies and they feel more male than female, and more female than male. I know a plastic surgeon here, in this area who indeed does that sort of thing and, ah, to accommodate what is going on in peoples lives.

Terry Meeuwsen:
This is a very legitimate hormonal thing happening.

Pat Robertson:
Exactly. So, it is not a sin. So you don’t need to feel guilty.

[He goes on to say...]

So you say, will God forgive me. Of course He will, He does. This isn’t something that you have sinned and if you wish to get back and your 40 years old, it’s not exctly too late. I know as I say, one man who can do a sex change reversal.

Terry Meeuwsen:
God is interested in what his heart, attitude is, speaking spiritually.

Pat Robertson:
God does not care what your external organs are. The question is whether you are living for God or not. Yes, He loves you. Yes, He forgives you and He understands what is going on in your body.

h/t Transgriot

These types of attacks only take focus away from the issues Loudoun County residents are concerned about, such as education, transportation and taxes. – Loudoun County Republican Committee Chair Mark Sell, in response to a petition calling for hate group director Eugene Delgaudio’s resignation from public office.

Mark Sell, second from right, participating in a Delgaudio hate group stunt.

Government Launches Prison LGBT Affirmative Action Plan

The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons announced this month a new plan to begin recruiting employees who will serve as lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) representatives for each prison facility, CBN News reports. The LGBT representatives will serve as members of each prison’s affirmative action committee, and will devote 20 percent of their workday to “coordinat[ing] activities and programs designed to cultivate LGBT cultural awareness both within and outside the institution.” Pat Nolan of Prison Fellowship Ministries said: “No sex is allowed in prison, so why on earth would the central office require that there be a person in every prison to promote the sexuality of one part of the population? It’s truly bizarre and it makes no sense at all from a management-of-the-prison perspective. It seems to us this is just a political move; it has nothing to do with running better prisons.”

Nolan isn’t that dumb. He knows that there should be zero-tolerance for prison rape and he knows that sexual minorities are preyed upon. But his job, or a major part of it, apparently, is to continue to spread anti-gay propaganda, at the expense of the GLBT prison population, which is why PFM does not qualify to receive a Loudoun tax exemption.