My congress critter, Congressman Moran, was at the office where I work for about an hour today. At the end of his visit he took questions from us. I asked him about the chances of getting the hate crimes bill and the employment non-discrimination act through congress were. He didn’t seem optimistic because of a threatened veto by Bush.
Just one more reason that January 9, 2009 can’t get here fast enough.
With the recent announcements of the departures of Rove and Gonzales, I can’t help but feel some happiness. Rove seems to have few redeeming qualities as a human being and Gonzales seems to be a walking, or at this point stumbling example of how Bush values loyalty over competence and commitment to the Constitution.
Still, part of me is scared. Every time someone leaves it seems like Bush appoints someone even worse to the job. Gonzales followed Ashcroft. Alito followed Miers. Could this just give him an opportunity to pick someone even worse.
I saw an article about Gonzales departure on the BBC website. I should have saved it, but I wasn’t thinking that far ahead when I read it. I was kind of amazed at how so many senior Bush officials were described as “long time friends.” At least George & Friends will be gone in 16 months. The only question is whether the people who follow will actually try to govern by consensus or by arrogance.
Last night, before a national audience, six Democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum that was televised on Logo. It wasn’t a debate; the candidates were on the stage individually being questioned by a panel. They weren’t asked the same questions though there was a fair amount of overlap.
Two Democratic candidates didn’t participate because of scheduling conflicts.
Not one Republican candidate accepted the invitation to participate.
I don’t think this could have happened eight years ago. Not many candidates were willing to be seen as too friendly to LGBT issues and most of them tap danced around the issues. This year there were six on stage at a national gay event and at least one of the Democratic candidates who couldn’t participate is also on record as being very supportive (Senator Biden).
I came in expecting this to be a mostly content free show with softball questions lobbed up to candidates but it wasn’t. They asked good questions and mostly got real answers (by real I mean they didn’t sidestep the question and answer a different question).
Let’s start with the worst of the bunch from my perspective. Bill Richardson looked uncomfortable and floundered a bit. He seemed ill prepared and didn’t impress me. Even so, he’s generally a supportive politician. And he was the worst of the bunch.
Clinton and Obama both are strong supporters of the LGBT rights and really only miss on the marriage issue (both support civil unions). They are willing to settle for civil unions and their answers were a little too politically calculated for my taste.
Edwards is similar except he’s honest about not support marriage. He does support civil unions. I respected his honesty.
Kucinich isn’t as polished as the above candidates but he’s there 100%. He supports marriage rights. Same for Gravel, even though he hasn’t been active in politics for 26 years.
Speaking solely on LGBT issues, I’d rate them in this order:
1. Kucinich, Gravel
2. Edwards
3. Clinton, Obama
4. Richardson
Except for marriage, there isn’t a huge difference though Richardson didn’t come off as being strongly supportive while the others did. Frankly, any of the would be a thousand percent improvement over the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Bush is now making claims about Iran supporting terrorism inside of Iraq. The problem is after his previous claims of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and Iraq supporting terrorism and Iraq having nuclear material, his credibility is a bit lacking. It certainly isn’t hard to believe that Iran would be supporting terrorism within Iraq but he’s going to have something of an uphill battle in convincing us.
And, even if he does, what can we do about it? The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have us so occupied that countries like Iran and North Korea are emboldened to take steps they might not have taken had we not committed ourselves to a senseless and open-ended war.
The worst part is that had we stayed out of Iraq, it wouldn’t be providing such a ripe breeding ground for terrorism. Yes, George, you’re really winning that “war on terror.”
HB1727 has an innocuous title: “School boards; policies concerning non-curriculum-related student organizations,’ but when you see what it says and who introduced it and take a look at some recent history, it is revealed for what it really is: an attempt to keep students from participating in Gay-Straight Alliances at school.
The text of the bill reads: “Requires that local school boards obtain express written permission from a parent or legal guardian before any student becomes a member of or attends the meeting of a non-curriculum-related student organization. The permission must clearly evidence that the parent or legal guardian has given informed consent as to the particular student organization.”
On the surface it doesn’t sound bad, but Delegate Lohr, the bill’s chief patron tried last year to prohibit GSA’s in Virginia with the HB1308. Thiat bill sought to “prohibit the use of school facilities by any student club or other student group that encourages or promotes sexual activity by unmarried minor students.” It also provided that the Attorney General’s Office would provide legal defense on behalf of the local school boards.
That bill passed the house but didn’t make it out of the senate. He promised to come back in 2007 with another attempt. And HB1727 is it.
Of course, GSA’s aren’t there to promote sexual activity of any sort. They are there to promote understanding between gay and straight students and to help students who may be questioning their own sexuality have a peer group where they can discuss their issues without fear of reprisals. Delegate Lohr’s intent with this bill is to make it difficult for student’s to participate in GSA’s on the theory that students will either be afraid to tell their parents or that parents will withhold permission. The fact that many students are afraid to tell their parents is one of the main reasons why GSA’s are needed in the first place.
This bill must not become law. Delegate Lohr’s bill would place an extra burden and cost on school systems that are already struggling to make ends meet. Now they have to print and store permission slips each year just because Delegate Lohr doesn’t want students to be able to discuss real issues affecting their own lives. Non-curricular after school activities enrich the lives of many students. Let’s not jeopardize them all just because of some homophobia on the part of Delegate Lohr. Please let your delegate and senator know that you don’t support this bill. You can find who your state senator and delegate are at: http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform.
