E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Critics denounced a vote Tuesday by Virginia lawmakers rejecting a gay prosecutor for a judgeship in the state’s capital, saying the representatives were on the “wrong side of history” and pushing a “form of bigotry,” according to local local media reports.
Tracy Thorne-Begland, a prosecutor for 12 years in General District Court in Richmond, was the only one of more than three dozen judicial nominees who failed to win approval from the House of Delegates, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. The final tally was 33 for and 31 against, while 36 either didn’t vote or abstained. Fifty-one votes were needed to approve.
Thorne-Begland’s nomination for the bench in the same court where he was a prosecutor came under scrutiny last week after the Family Foundation of Virginia, Republican Delegate Robert G. Marshall and others said they opposed his nomination because of his candor on gay rights. They said they didn’t object to him because of his sexuality, The Washington Post reported.
“He holds himself out as being married,” Marshall said, according to the Post. In Virginia, where gay marriage is not legal, he said Thorne-Begland’s “life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the (state) Constitution.”
But Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring described the decision as an “embarrassment” for Virginia that cast “a definite pall on the state,” and said Thorne-Begland would have done a great job.
“It's hard to think about what happened in the General Assembly and not conclude that it's a form of bigotry,” Herring told reporters, the Times-Dispatch reported.
"We are on the wrong side of history," said Democratic Sen. A. Donald McEachin, of the rejection. "This is not our finest hour."
Thorne-Begland told the Times-Dispatch after the vote: "I look forward to continuing to serve the citizens of the city of Richmond and the great Commonwealth of Virginia."
Thorne-Begland announced he was a gay Navy officer some two decades ago on the television program “Nightline.” That led to an honorable discharge for the decorated officer under the military's former "don't ask, don't tell," policy, according to the Times-Dispatch.
That policy, repealed in 2010, banned gay men and women from serving openly in the military.
The Virginia assembly’s decision came a week after North Carolina voting down gay marriage while President Barack Obama became the country’s first president to support same-sex unions. A Gallup poll released last Tuesday found that 50 percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage while 48 percent were opposed. It was the second time that at least half of Americans had backed same-sex marriage.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Catholic college drops student health insurance, cites birth control mandate
- Cities struggle to keep Memorial Day, Fourth of July celebrations
- F-22 flights restricted due to oxygen system complaints
- Video: Brutal violence escalates in Mexico drug wars
- Marines sold stolen combat weapons to gangs, China
- Fire captain demoted for Trayvon Martin Facebook post
Leave a Comment:
So much for "liberty and justice for all", huh?
No one took away their LIBERTY did they? The MAJORITY, 38 states, have VOTED against it. We don;t have a MONARCHY where obama rules by EDICT. that's a 3rd world concept. Maybe the homosexuals should migrate somewhere where they can issue edicts, like some 3rd world country.
The Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The rights we have in this country are called inalienable rights for a reason - no one can take them away from us. The fact that a number of states have laws against same sex marriage means nothing, as those laws will be found unconstitutional when they reach the Supreme Court.
Yes, well a MAJORITY believed slavery was acceptable; a MAJORITY believed women should not have the right to vote; a MAJORITY believed in Jim Crow. Just because a MAJORITY wants something doesn't mean it is right. They are on the WRONG side of history. Also, a MAJORITYnation-wide now favor gay marriage. Also, President Obama won with a 53% MAJORITYof the popular vote and 365 electoral votes, unlike Bush who lost the popular election and yet stole the Presidency anyway. He then went on to rule by EDICT, single-handedly starting an illegal war and barely getting Congress to rubber-stamp his decision and that as an after-thought using intelligence that he KNEW was false, and then implemented the Patriot Act that severely restricted rights. He also conducted illegal wire-taps and operated illegal prison where people were held indefinitely without charges being filed or given access to legal representation and subjected to unfair, biased kangaroo court trials.. Now maybe bigots like yourself should migrate to some third world country where civil rights are routinely denied and tyrants can assume power without being democratically elected.
Too bad "critics" don't get to vote on it.
@Don-907787
Do you want a gang or mob to decide your family's welfare for you? Civil equality isn't something you cast a vote on. Equality means EQUAL, not un-equal based on what's between your legs or even despite what is between your ears.
The fight against injustice will NEVER cease.
Waa,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, ha,ha. The man is fine as a prosecutor, but, because of His homosexuality He could never be a fit judge? Waaaaa,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Bigotry remains the most reasonable basis for state sponsored lobotomies. Waaa,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, ummmm.......................................
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
The law isn't constitutional; wait until it gets to the Supreme Court.
@Don, it appears you are under the mistaken impression that President Obama action with regards to DOMA is the first time any such thing as ever happened.
Here are 11 other instances: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/presidential-decisions-not-to-defend-the-constitutionality-of-federal-law-a-brief-history/
Apparently, Virginia is out to trump their vaginal probing bill, in the "Moments of Great Conservative Stupidity" game.
It's called checks and balances. If you believe DOMA is Constitutional, please show us your case...
Listen, Conservatives, I try really hard to find common ground with you all. I love when I agree with you guys or we can meet in the middle, or you know, we're NICE to each other, but REALLY??? You all don't get to pick and choose who gets to participate in our society, based on who you believe to be an "abomination". This man was capable, competent, and fit for the job. You voted him down, NOT on the merits of his work, but because you don't like who he sleeps with.
That's just creepy.
Don-907787 banned, continuing a history of comment spamming. Don't comment spam, folks. Compose original responses. If you think a comment deserves a larger audience, consider publishing it as an article.
Just how much of this obvious discrimination is due to absolute politics and how much is because "Ew...he's gay!"
Yet another state not worthy of my income tax dollars.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose which States our tax dollars went to?
Yep, that would be nice.
Time for the South, along with Texas and Arizona, to break off the Continent and float out into the Atlantic and form their own theocratic, slave-holding dictatorship. Good riddance.
Odd how libs try to equate the view that homosexuals are somehow victimized, comparing it to slavery. That is BEYOND contemptible. No one is beating them, taking them from their country, keeping them in chains. How dare you compare the two.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
If you knew anything about medicine, then you'd know that FDA policy is far dated. You'd also know that there are more complications with heterosexual drug users then gay men and woman. Do you even know how many medical professionals and scientists are gay? Or how many 'straight' brothels there are, hepatitis infections (which is way more contagious then HIV) exists? If anything, gay men and woman are more conscience and aware of their status than you're typical 'monogamous' straight couple.
In fact, the drive for marriage equality is the basis for the monogamous argument. Did you know that marriage is a commitment between two individuals? Often times for monogamy. If your argument is against the proliferation of STDs, then you SHOULD support marriage -regardless of genitalia.
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Don, that post hasn't gotten any smarter since the first time you posted it.
Or the second or third time either Astro.
Oh don't worry I'm sure he'll try a 4th or 5th time. Cause the answer from that type of individual is... if something isn't working, try the same thing but harder. Hey, what do you know that explains "tax breaks for the rich".
Kat: I would be even NIVER if we could pick what programs our tax dollars go to.
You don't think homosexuals are victimized? Get your head out of the sand. They're beaten up all the time, ridiculed, denied civil rights--especially in the bigot-riddled South. How dare you be so naive!
http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/u-s-to-take-another-look-at-gay-blood-donation-ban-20110726
The antiquated ban on gay men giving blood is about to be lifted. But if this is your argument against homosexuality, does that mean you feel that lesbianism is just fine?
So much for the "Virginia is for Lovers" slogan. The Republicans have changed it to "Virginia is for Haters".
I guess it is somewhat like the California Democrats changing the Golden State to The Entitlement State.
Nice attempt to change the subject, GC. How many times do you think you'll have to try it for this article?
As many times as I want Toasty. Sorry, but accept it.....You and your kind do not control my thinking like Obama controls yours.
Just pointing out that it'll make you look stupid and disingenuous. Believe me, you see that on Newsvine ALL THE TIME.
ahhh yes the LEFT saying those who DON'T tow the line for a degenerate behaviors are HATERS. Odd, how the most VILE comments come from the LEFT. Like comparing homosexuals treatment to that of slaves. That's beyond the pale. There is NO comparsion, yet they try to CREATE one. No one buys that line. You are the haters, as can be seen by how you refer to thos who DISAGREE with you. You're all for free speech, until someone says something you DON'T like. Then you want speech codes, you want boycots, you want YOUR WAY. It's not now the MAJORITY view in this country, and it NEVER will be. You are of course free to leave
Hey Don. Ta da!
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Posted a third time. You're not getting any smarter, Don.
Uh, Don? DOMA IS unconstitutional.
I was under the impression that spamming the same @!$%# repeatedly ... ESPECIALLY offtopic @!$%#... was frowned upon by newsvine.
Tyler caught him with his pants down.
I am so embarrassed that this kind of thing is going on in this country in 2012. This is truly a giant leap backwards for Civil Rights... and they didn't even try to hide it! It actually speaks volumes about what they would do if they could get away with it.
What are they so afraid of? Who is beind this?
In Virginia, I'd be lookin' at Governor Bob "Hey! Make me your Vice-President" McDonnell. He's been trying like he!! to institute a theocracy based on the thesis he wrote while at Regent "God likes us but not you" University since he got into office.
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Jesus Christ, the Teabaggers are just doubling down on hate, aren't they?
Did not realize that Obama was a Teabagger since he was against gay marriage (until it came election time). Jesus Christ, liberals are doubling down on hypocrisy. And that is not a question, that is a statement of my opinion.
In case you haven't noticed GC, it's the teabaggers who have been attacking gay people these last few months. It was the teabaggers in congress and the state legislatures who have been repealing anti-discrimination laws across the country. It was the teabaggers who booed a gay soldier last year, and it was the teabaggers who rejected this man based solely on how he was born. Sorry, but they are the problem, not the president.
GCCal, that is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. I, too, was against gay marriage at one time, but my position, like the President's, has evolved over the years (although I changed my opinion years ago).
There comes a time when you have to look in the mirror, and question why you are for or against something. I'd rather have someone who can evolve in what they believe, instead of someone who is dogmatic about a position, and clings to it, no matter how stupid it is, and regardless of who it hurts.
What happened in Virginia is shameful.
The correct word is "devolved".
Forgive me, Lonesome, but I do believe I used the correct word for what I am trying to say.
Don't have any further comments for Toast........true hypocrite.
kat................Why is it you and your liberal friends say that when you and the dems change positions, it is "evolving", but if someone on the right changes position you call it flip flopping. You think my post was ridiculous.....well, no more than yours with that type of logic. The dems (as are the repubs) are famous for changing positions depending on the winds of poltics. I realize, but you fools do not........thus you and Toast are true liberal hyporites.
By the way, I didnot vote against gay rights here in California, but many, many, many of your democratic friends must have because this state is loaded with liberals. You know as in the cesspool of liberal state of mind.
You have to ignore Lonesome, kat. It's people like that, with their latent homosexual tendencies, who often shout the loudest about the superiority of their moral position.
GCC, I very rarely respond to bigotry and ignorance, but this ex-miliary wife, and mother of two military sons (one of whom is a disabled Iraqi vet and the other just completed two tours of Afghanistan), was once against gay marriage. But then, on my job, I met a gay couple who had adopted unwanted and abused children. I've worked with this man for nearly 15 years now, and his kids grew up to be some of the finest young people I have ever met. Yet, because he is gay and gay marriage is not recognized in my state, when his partner who contributed as much to the raising of these kids as he did, fell ill, paying his medical costs nearly bankrupted him.
I, on the othe hand, was rasied by a hetrosexual man, who beat my mother for fun. I can tell you, first hand, that when I was married to an active duty soldier, many of the toughest, hardest fighting, bravest men were actually gay.
I am a proud Democrat who owns guns and knows how to use (my sons taught me), and wouldn't associate myself with a party that harbors such hate and bigotry against other tax-paying, Americans.
I won't resort to name-calling; I have no need. You've shown yourself for what you are.
Thanks for the support, Gordy!
Thanks for cluing us in that your opinion ain't worth squat.
No GC, I think you need to answer for your opinions. Do you yourself boo soldiers?
Kat,
So your support for homosexual marriage is based on one homosexual male couple who did a good job of raising their children when you compare them to the heterosexual man who beat your mother for fun. If you ever encounter a homosexual couple that engages in domestic violence in front of their children how will you resolve that?
Thanks to your sons and husband for their service to our country.
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Gay parents have been found to engage in abuse of children at a far lower rate than heterosexual parents. I mean no hatred toward heterosexual parents - millions of them are wonderful, supportive, hardworking people who do America proud. But the statistics are true. It seemed that your criticism of Kat was based upon her use of anecdotal evidence, so here's a bit of fact to back Kat up. Feel free to check out the studies yourself; I'm not that person who posts millions of links you'll never click on.
Queers are good parents. I myself work in foster care and adoption, and could tell you hundreds of stories of heterosexual parents that would make your hair curl. It's possible that heterosexual parents, who may become parents accidentally or when they are not prepared for whatever reason, more easily fall into situations in which they are less educated, struggle financially, or are raising children alone. Those factors aren't an excuse for child abuse, but they could be part of the explanation for the higher rate among hetero parents. Speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable to make such a guess. Gay parents have to want children so much that they'll go through the adoption, surrogacy, or artificial insemination routes to have a family. Much more deliberate, and likely to happen among parents who both want children very much and have the resources to care for them without undue stresses. You know, it's funny - the rate of child abuse in lesbian-headed households in statistically...zero. That's right, zero!
Don, you'd prefer the DOJ spend tax dollars defending a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Yep, mund I've ran into similar stats in researching the area. Parents who deliberately have children often make much better parents that those that accidentally have them. Much of the problems with parenting today comes from individuals who didn't plan on having kids and end up in a situation they are not really prepared for... It's rather hard for a gay couple to accidentally have a kid. Unless they're randomly walking around naked and accidentally fall on someone. (reference to a case some time back where a teen raped an old lady and claimed he "fell" on her and couldn't remember why he was walking around naked).
@Don - reported for spamming
I believe that the point here is that there is little difference between the "man/woman" model and same sex marriage. There is certainly the potential for bad parenting in both marriages. There is the potential for domestic violence, for inept child rearing, for loving relationships and for involved parents in marriage, no matter WHO is married. That would mean that the ONLY reason to disallowed same sex marriages is because of what happens in the privacy of a couple's bedroom. And that is simply no one's business.
This is just a preview of what will happen nationwide, if the republicans are allowed to take control. Democrats, Blacks, Hispanics, and Gays all need to come together and make sure this has NO chance of happening!
This appears to be both Dems and Reps not wanting to approve the nomination. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Virginia, yet he somehow claimed he was "married". Citizens have every right to expect their judges to be impartial and uphold the law as it exists, not what they might want laws to be.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
We get it, Don. Please stop posting the same thing over and over.
I see what you're saying, Peter, but I do not agree. If this man has been married in another state, then why wouldn't he describe himself as married? His being gay does not preclude him from serving as a judge any more than a person being black, female, Jewish, or any other effective minority status would. You argument has been made many times, but under judicial scrutiny it simply doesn't hold up. The latest example is the upholding of Judge Walker's ruling in California last year.
Well, the American Taliban Party is hard at work I see, their brethren must be very proud of them over there in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Let's see, war on women, war on gays, war on the poor, war on children, war on education, war on health care, war on the elderly I wonder who else they can attack and beat down. Actually I'm sure they will think of something soon.
The Republican party will make an official announcement this Friday that they are changing their party name to the American Taliban Party of America. How fitting!!!
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Quit blaming the Republicans for this. There were 36 that didn't have the "balls" or "pusxies" to vote. Place the blame where it belongs. Those that don't vote (the games of abstain be damned) need to be removed. If you believe there were no Democratcs amgonst them, flame on.
No one intentionally votes for an elected official that won't vote. Or at least I hope so. More and more I wonder who voted for these people we don't like. I hope they don't vote again.
Nice spin, Bill, but it won't work. Everyone knows who is against what around here.
They should be ashamed of themselves!!! whether they agree with his sexuality has nothing to do with the job this man has done and from what I am reading he has done a good job. All bigots no matter what nationality you are should be put on an Island by themselves and let them get rid of each other that way!!!
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
Homosexuality is immoral. If someone wishes to engage in aberrant behaviors in the bedroom, well fine! But don't bring it into the society!
When will the homosexual war on morality, marriage, traditional American values stop!
Hey, Lonesome. He won't be having sex during working hours, if that's what you're concerned about. I'm pretty certain he'll refrain from that until he gets home to his bedroom. The question is whether or not he is qualified to be a judge. Looks to me like you think he is not. That's the same position that many Americans held about African-Americans not too long ago. Personally, I think your position is immoral. At least from a Christian perspective.
Aside from the main point of the article, MSNBC keeps toting the Gallop poll claiming the results of 50% on one side and 48% on the other shows that at least half of Americans favor something. I am calling BS. First of all even though Gallop does show cross-tabs by party they don't report the frequencies of party identifiers (for example another recent poll had party id distributed something like 36% D, 23% R and 40% I). Further, Gallop does provide margin of error +- 4% which means the real number could actually be 46% to 52% the other way. I sum, there is no way to know which side the majority is on. The only valid conclusion is to state that at best America is evenly split. But with these results 52% of the population could really be against same sex matrriages. Nice job of distorting information once again.
The abolishing of slavery was so hotly contested in the US, that entire states left the union. In 1920, disapproval for the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was opposed by 60% of Americans. 54% of Americans felt that the Brown v Board ruling was more trouble than it was worth. Civil rights are not subject to public sentiment.
The ones who didn't vote need to grow a pair and own up to their bigotry!
Has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry....that is only in your mind......it is called politics....that is the reason they abstained.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Where's the story of the others that were rejected? Maybe they were rejected because they were white or oriental or catholic or Muslim .......
Being homosexual doesn't award special privileges.
Cunical, no one is saying homosexuals deserve special privileges, where did that come from in this discussion? The person we are talking about was purposely discriminated against by the fact that he is a homosexual. Discrimination has no place in this country, period, end of story.
I am profoundly ashamed to be an American at this time in our history. As a nation, we are such blatant hypocries. We go around the world telling other countries that they must support the civil liberties of their citizens while waving the flay and all the "good" that American stands for and how we are the role model because we embrace the rights of our citizens, but then we openly discriminate against one group based solely on their sexuality. Our rhetoric needs to align with our deeds, but it doesn't and that's why we have, as a nation, become a really bad joke.
Good idea.....renounce your citizenship and move to Iran
Should have used spell check? Hypocrites. I guess the swell of disappointment in my soul made my fingers type way too fast.
I live in Virginia and I can tell you first hand this state is full of old ,red neck, racist bigots.
They don't care about his sexuality?
So, gays are entitled to equality except when they aren't allowed equality because the state says gay couples aren't entitled to the rights same sex couples have.
Sounds legit.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
You truly don't know how to do anything other than cut and paste do you.
This spamming is making this thread almost unreadable. Can't anyone delete the spam comments?
Ok Libs, let's let the people vote for judges like we do in PA. How many votes would an avout homosexual get? Let's do the math. 32 states voted DOWN making homosexual marriage NORMAL. What's that say about the MINORITY view, on this and any other issue ?
Every vote taken is MAJORITY rule. If we start saying, but this minority is IMPORTANT and they shouldn't allow things that are important to them to be voted on. Ok, let's then just do away with elections and allow the minority to APPOINT leaders, according to those who cowtow to CERTAIN groups.
How would that work out?
Your reply makes no sense. Civil liberties are not something that can or should be voted on by the citizens of this country. Have you ever read the constitution? What a moron.
Well rek, I see NO refernece in the Constitution to the "RIGHTS" of a degenerative MINORITY. And I note you didn't retract the remark that homosexuals CAN'T give blood that I posted from the FDA website. Still in DEINAL?
There is NO where in the Constitution that grants anyone exemption from Majority Rule. Every law in this nation is enacted by the MAJORITY, not the MINORITY. If laws were subject to just a MINORITY rule, how would we determine which to observe? We the PEOPLE by majority RULE elect our leaders, and compel them to vote on OUR behalf, as our REPRESENTATIVES. We expect they will reflect MAJORITY opinion.
38 STATES have voted AGAINST homosexual marriage. That's a MAJORITY of the country, and by default, the MAJORITY of the people in the MAJORITY of the states. Deal with it.
And the majority doesn't rule when it comes to the rights of the minority in a Constitutional Republic.
Try again.
He isn't the only one who bid on one of the posts and wasn't appointed. A post in my district had been open for some time due to "budget worries". I hope that he is better than the one that let a 19-time convicted child molester off on probation. I know that "he" is the correct pronoun because a woman lost, too.
Actually, it isn't we who need to MOVE GCCAL. It's you who want that perverted minority to be seen as NORMAL. Ever heard of a HETEROSEXUAL bath house, like those in San Fran, with signs on the wall about washing after sex?
Or rest stops that are used by these NORMAL people as places to pickup PARTNERS and have sex in them? How much of this BEHAVIOR is normal?
Why does the FDA PROHIBIT homosexuals from giving blood?
Don you seem to know a hell of a lot more about the homosexual lifestyle and whatever goes on in it than I do. That raises some serious questions about your sexuality man. But with that said, bigots are bigots and regardless of how any sector of our society conducts themselves in or out of the bed is none of my, or your business. And working for the government you are patently wrong in your statement that the FDA prohibits homosexuals from donating (it's not giving) blood. There are no forms that ask you if you donate blood if you are a homosexual, but then you would be too stupid to know what is reality........oh wait, I take that back, you know a lot about homosexual lifestyles. Blood donations are all screened for all types of disease that anyone can carry. Where do you come up with this stuff? Get real man.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Is it any wonder that Lonesome Rhoades has that as a screen name? It must be very lonesome to be so isolated in your bigoted mind and hence no one wants to associate with you with that type of mind mindset, unless you're 80 years old, then you might, just might have an excuse. But smell the coffe and wake up, this is 2012. Times and thinking have and will continue to change and you cannot stop it. Immoral? Hell, war is immoral, drinking is immoral, and the list goes on and on according to the bible. But if you are going to bible thump your thinking throughout your life and ascribe to those bigoted beliefs then you will forever be lonesome.
I watched a PBS documentary on how homosexuals behave in San Fran one time. I also saw something on the lcoal news that showed how homosexuals were using a public park to have sex. People, NORMAL people, stopped using the park as when they went there, they were subjected to seeing behavior that was NOT normal occurring in front of their children. So, they didn;t use the PARK anymore. Like those rest stops they commandeered for their 'USE'. Seems that became quite UNPOPULAR also as they used it as a rendezous point for other degenerates.
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Beause someone recognizes that homosexuals aren't normal, doesn't make them bigots. It's our belief that their behavior results in the spread of disease, their sexual appetite is not normal. They average 50 or more sexual partners a year. That isn't normal sexual behavior, it's perversion
Again Don, you know way too much about gay lifestyles to really be a straight man. And damn, if I could get laid 50 times a year or more......well obviously if there is any truth to that statement, like your idiotic statement about the FDA banning gays from giving blood, sign me up for being gay.
Ah yes rek the typical DENIAL we expect from those who don't WANT the TRUTH about their sacred cows KNOWN. Here's the NOTICE on the FDA website you heathen:
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men
Questions and Answers
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with
other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of
the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors.
This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and
certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have
recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral,
and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based
Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also
consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive
2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate
blood?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the
presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who
receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially
infected blood and blood products.
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following
considerations regarding risk of HIV:
number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific
point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher
than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors
(American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who
have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to
donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex
with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times
higher than repeat blood donors.
donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
Google "fda bans homosexuals from giving blood" anyone else who DOESN'T believe this!!
Pardon me, Don, but what's truly abnormal is your compulsive reposting of outrageous maniacal comments that have nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Not only are your views about sexual orientation glaringly inflammatory (not to mention absurd—50 or more partners a year?!?), but they betray a perverse obsession that could quite reasonably be considered a clinical issue. I pray God will lead to to whatever help you need.
Mr. Thorne-Begland is a widely respected veteran prosecutor here in Richmond, and he continues to do his job in an exemplary professional manner. His judicial nomination had bipartisan support. The fact that he's built a personal life that includes stable, well-adjusted children and a loving, committed monogamous relationship with his spouse is a wonderful testament to real family values and integrity. Many so-called "traditional families" aren't so fortunate.
Regardless, Mr. Thorne-Begland's personal life has never had any bearing on his professional performance in service to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it should not have been perceived in any way as a relevant factor in his judicial nomination. The personal lives of his fellow nominees were certainly not considerations, and yet they were all approved without incident. No matter how much you may attempt to insist otherwise, fear and bigotry are the real culprits behind this travesty. America is better than that, and though this hasn't been our finest hour, the day is coming when we will overcome such obstacles as we have done with similar challenges so many times before.
Is this Sharia law now?? Because he is gay and lives an honest life he is now illegal to work in VA?? What is 'submission' to the state's constitution really mean? Is he illegal?? What an incredibly sad statement this is and how obvious is it that those who did not vote did not have the courage to stand for their convictions - whatever they may be. The UNITED States is no more, the divide is clear and stark. And, remember, Virginia was one of the first states to take the hard line and not allow marriage equality in any form - this includes denial of civil unions or even certain legal documents a couple may have to protect themselves. their assets and families. I, being a lesbian American, am further aliented from another part of our beautiful country with the passage of the hate amendment in NC. I feel that I live in a fenceless internment camp that restricts my ability to move safely in my own country. I would never consider a transfer to any of the hate states and that restricts my ability to earn a living. If I could restrict my tax dollars from going to any hate state I would do it but sadly my taxes go to support the dysfunctional and out of touch states. If every LGBT person and supporters did not go to work for one day many major industries would feel the pain. If we only shopped at supportive retailers and lived in supportive communities that would send a message. The fact that so much focus is on my life and not the nation's people is a tragedy. Fair minded people must make their voices heard and their support visible - allies and LGBT alike must stand for something so why not STAND ON THE SIDE OF LOVE? That's my faith's (Unitarian Universalist) motto and while I am very much afraid these days I will stand tall and speak the truth even when my voice shakes. "It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression." Harvey Milk
Yeah, King Obama, like most LIBS appoints himself CHIEF JUDGE ALSO. Seem there's NOTHING he can't do! Like decide if a LAW is Constitutional:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
WASHINGTON -- In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
Is there NOTHING this man CAN'T do???
We can do without them for a day, a week, a year, a LIFETIME. We really don't need degenerates at all. Our medical bills would be lower as we won;t have to subsidize the treatment of their diseases they contract and pass to one another, then cry 'innocent victim' when they want the rest of us to foot the bill for their BEHAVIOR issues.
Don-907787 - you need a box of kleenex for all the whining you do.
Then you need a class in social science's and diversity. You''re a rotton soul.
Just report as no-value his King Obama and FDA posts, they're nothing but spamming over and over again.
I hope everyone follows Alls advice. This thread is becoming almost unreadable because of this crap. Don''t encourage the troll to keep posting by responding to him.
I am an orthodox, conservative Lutheran pastor. All I have to say about this is that if that man (or any person for that matter) is professionally qualified, GIVE HIM THE JOB! His sexual preference has no more to do with his ability to be a judge than the color of his hair.
PD_REV, it BECOMES an issue when they try to LEGISLATE from the bench. They tend to LEGISLATE their own OPINIONS irrespective of what the law and the will of the PEOPLE may be. It's NOT just a STATE issue in their mind, they're TRYING to have OBAMA issue an EDICT declaring it. Like our Presidents REFUSAL to uphold the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, he instructed the AG NOT TO DEFEND IT. That violates his oath to defend and uphold the Constitation and the LAWS of this NATION.
That IS THE LAW, he is required to defend US LAW, not to pick and choose according to his BELIEFS. He's part of the EXECUTIVE branch, NOT the legislative branch or juducial. Its' Constitutionally is NOT for him to decide. This is NOT a monarchy!!
You have zero proof he would not have ruled on the bench as he is required to as a Judge, and not an activist. He was denied despite his nearly spotless record, despite being by far the best candidate they had.