By Peter Galuszka

All the talk of a “new” Virginia that is somehow the apple of Richard Florida’s “New Urbanist” eye got a drubbing this week when the General Assembly voted against a gay man for a judgeship, showing just how badly the social right-wing is running amok and how more thoughtful people can’t control them.

Tracy Thorne-Begland, an openly gay man who had been in the Navy for 20 years and had served as deputy commonwealth’s attorney in Richmond, was rejected as a new general district court judge. He was strongly opposed by the Family Foundation lobby and ultra-rightist Del. Bob Marshall who told CNN that “sodomy is not a civil right.”

Even Atty. Gen. Kenneth Cuccinelli had said that sexual orientation should not be a criteria for deciding judgeships. Ditto Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling. The man who looks the most gutless in this sorry episode is Gov. Robert F. McDonnell who had supported Thorne-Begland then left him twisting in the wind. The freshly rightist General Assembly had made McDonnell look so Neanderthal on gay and women’s issues just as he was making progress resetting himself as a moderate in a ploy to make him a vice presidential candidate.

The pathetic thing about all of this is that Virginia just can’t shed its historic tendencies for bigotry against African-Americans, gays or brown-skinned foreigners.

Over a vacation, I finished Robert A. Caro’s “Lyndon Johnson, The Passage to Power” which is part of a trilogy. This book covers LBJ from 1960 to 1965 from his hapless vice presidency to his dynamic leadership as the new president after John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

At one point, Johnson needed Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator and Kingmaker Harry F. Byrd to agree to a tax bill that would meet Byrd’s demands as head of the Senate Finance Committee to bring down the federal budget (sound familiar?). This was part of Johnson’s agenda for sweeping civil rights reform, which Byrd would naturally oppose.

After all, writes Caro, Byrd was openly hateful of African-Americans and had a very bad reaction when Virginia was forced to conform to the 1954 Brown versus Topeka decision by the Supreme Court that integrated schools and school buses. Caro writes:

“When a federal judge had issued a ruling to enforce it (integration)  in Byrd’s native Virginia, the senator had pointed out the dangers. Six-year-old children of both races were going to be “assembled in little huts before the bus comes, and the bus will then be packed like sardines,” he said – and everyone knew what would come of that: What our people fear most is that by this close intimate contact future generations will intermarry.” Intermarriage! Miscegenation” the mongrel race. . . “

Substitute ‘gay” for “African-American” and you get Marshall, who is today’s “Byrd.”

Odd that one of our esteemed bloggers has just returned from a “New Urbanist” conference in Florida where he waxed eloquent on the teachings of Richard Florida, who believes that a “creative class” of innovators, many of them gay, will be more important than corporations in defining the future of cities. This is a world view one often reads in Bacon’s Rebellion – how Virginia fits very neatly into the Florida ideal.

What the Thorne-Begland decision shows, unfortunately, is that this world view is so much dreamy bullshit. The Old Dominion will never really advance until it sheds its Old Bigotry.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Peter, I have never implied that Virginia “fits nicely” into Florida’s ideal, and I challenge you to find evidence that I have. What I have done is highlight Florida’s argument that tolerance and openness are necessary for attracting the creative class. One of Virginia’s great challenges, as I see it, is attracting the creative class. Unfortunately, we fall far short. Discriminating against Tracy Thorne-Begland for being gay will not help Virginia develop a reputation for tolerance and openness.

    Speaking personally, I see no reason why Thorne-Begland’s sexual orientation should be relevant as a district court judge. Conceivably (if you were a social conservative, which I’m not), it would matter if he were an appellate judge or a Supreme Court judge where he could influence the interpretation of state law. But eliminating him from consideration for a lower court entirely on the basis of his sexual orientation strikes me as petty and vindictive.

    My sole consolation from this episode is that both Bolling and Cuccinelli have commented negatively on the action.

    1. thebyurokrat Avatar
      thebyurokrat

      Bolling and Cooch said that a candidate’s homosexuality shouldn’t be the “only factor” in determine their fitness for appointment.

      The correct answer is that it should not be a factor at all.

      But you’re right. As long as the GOP continues to kowtow to social retrogrades, our State will continue to be portrayed as an ignorant backwater.

  2. larryg Avatar

    re: “sodomy is not civil right”. I give credit to Marshall for standing up for his beliefs even if he IS a bigot. It’s amazing to me that the man is a successfully elected representative from a relatively urbanized area.

    But what about the others in the General Assembly who voted no with explanation or worse avoided voting at all and hid in the shadows? As despicable as Marshal’s attitudes are – those who were feckless were worse.

    Virginia seems to lurch from one embarrassing incident like this to another -and all the efforts of the govt to attract business to Va is blunted because companies need educated young people and educated young people don’t want to live in a place governed by folks like Marshall.

    We never did beat those who opposed the black man in Va. We had to wait until they died and now we have to put up with their offspring.

    1. thebyurokrat Avatar
      thebyurokrat

      Sodomy is a civil right, though. In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas held that state laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional.

      If the government is constitutionally prohibited from preventing you from taking in action, what else is such activity but a civil right?

      Sideshow Bob is (as usual), flat-out wrong.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    To be sure, I thought your work from West Pal Beach was very good and informative. I did think the Florida piece was a bit too boosterish, however, and it seemed to me that you were endorsing his views as a way to go for this area. I’m not against Florida, mind you, just that he’s been way oversold since the 1990s. He’s everybody’s favorite planning consultant. That’s all.

  4. accurate Avatar
    accurate

    Okay, I’m ready to be crucified but here is my take on the whole ‘gay’ thing. I don’t care, I really don’t care so WHY do gay people (apparently) NEED to make sure that I KNOW that they are gay? Guess what? Then it DOES make a difference to me. I certainly don’t go out of my way to make sure that everyone knows that I’m heterosexual, and I really don’t want to know that you are homosexual. I’m more (much more) than my sexuality (or sexual preference). I really don’t wake up and think about it much and I tend to believe that MOST homosexual people don’t wake up and the first thing they think of is “I’m homosexual” – maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. So why is it (does it) seem so darned important that certain (some) homosexuals apparently want to make SURE that we know that they are homosexual? As with anyone, the more I know about you (facebook anyone?) the more my attitude is formed and/or changed. At an early stage in a friendship I might like you, but as you reveal more of yourself to me you show me that (despite being married) you are a serial womanizer who beds whomever they can. Sorry, this is not in line with my morals or my lifestyle, our friendship/relationship will turn when this information is revealed (especially if it’s YOU who is revealing it, not some third party). I was developing a friendship with a fellow (years ago) when he admitted to me (out of the blue) that he drank two fifths of scotch every night, I even got to ‘witness’ it one night. That didn’t square with the way I live my life, the friendship devolved back into acquaintanceship in a hurry.

    My question – WHY is it SO necessary (or so it seems) to make sure that the public knows that a gay person is gay? Answers? For the record, yes I know a few gay people, I work with two of them. Are they my friends? No, outside of work we do not socialize at all. By the same token, if they asked for a hand (a project that they needed help with) I’d be more than happy to lend a hand, lend a tool, whatever. Ask me over for a BBQ, I’d turn the offer down.

    1. thebyurokrat Avatar
      thebyurokrat

      Is a detailed response even worthwhile here? Your last paragraph pretty much shows that you are bigoted against homosexuals. You blatantly admitted that you will not socialize or be friends with openly homosexual people, because they are gay. Seriously?

      1. accurate Avatar
        accurate

        You know it’s a free country, just as I’d not socialize with someone who was a womanizer, a person who is a raging alcoholic, a person who is a drug addict, there are MANY folks with whom I’d rather not socialize and yes, I’d rather not socialize with openly gay folks. So I guess I’m bigoted against alcoholics, drug addicts and womanizers, guilty. Funny how that word bigoted gets thrown around alot. I have no problem if someone doesn’t want/wish to socialize with me (for whatever reason) but rather than label it as bigoted, I simply look at it as … well, for whatever reason they don’t want to come over, all the more ribs for me. Don’t care to attempt to delve into what sinister or psycological issues/problems the person has with me.

  5. larryg Avatar

    Accurate – geeze, guy

    a large number of gays do not make their status known. Others do for a number of reasons but they all rightly fear discrimination if their status is known.

    Several that I have known have told me that many, many more are not “out” but they “know” others who are not “out” and many heterosexuals would be shocked at just how many are especially in government.

    From what some gay friends have told me they “know” for certain at some point in their lives and then after that they are often depressed and then terrified of being found out. The ones you see that are “out” are pretty courageous because as you are showing, there is still great animosity towards them from many others. Many have been mercilessly bullied both physically and mentally and some even now. Some commit suicide as a result.

    I give you credit for being honest about it – perhaps a principled position but I will relate to you my Mom – who was a good and charitable person in almost every way in her entire life except when it came to blacks (not her word, she used the “n” word exclusively).

    She was totally convinced that they were inferior and “dirty” and even though she hired one to clean the house and do the dishes – she made that woman use separate glass and plate , kept in a separate place and would go ballistic if she thought the woman had drunk out of one of “our” glasses. She’d actually throw it out if she suspected.

    I relate this to you in hopes that you better see the two perspectives.

    No one should be discriminated against because of their ethnicity nor sexuality in my view.

    If enough of us do not stand up for that – there are those who would do them harm and will…. this is exactly what happened to blacks… in Va … kids in schools (massive resistance) and interracial marriage (like the Lovings).

    what we saw in the Va Gen Assembly is overt discrimination based on sexuality from Marshall and others who actually did vote but then also the feckless and cowardly who lurked in the shadows.. unwilling to take a stand one way or the other.

    It was said that some legislators doubted that this man could be truly non-partial in cases involved homosexuals. Which makes me wonder if they also feel that way and blacks and women and Jewish judges….

    1. accurate Avatar
      accurate

      Larry – I don’t see ‘not wanting to socialize’ as being the same as ‘discrimination’. You’re gay, fine, I’m heterosexual, fine. Just like I’d rather not talk about my sexuality and or what goes on in the bedroom, I’d rather not know about that aspect of your life (gay or straight). No, they should not be discriminated against in living, working, whatever. But (to me) to gays marrying is not a marriage, no more than a man and three women declaring (and somehow going through a ceremony and or legal paperwork) is a marriage. Yes, I understand all about loved ones in the hospital, property, etc – but it’s not a marriage. You want to call it a civil union so those rights can be conferred, fine. I’ve advocated for civil unions for quite some time, but I want it to be available for two widowed sisters who are looking after each other, so that the bedroom test isn’t the litmus test.

      By to your post – I do not think them ‘dirty’, I do not think them below me in any way. My morals (obviously) do not agree with theirs and if they need/want to show me that they are gay, then it’s obvious we’re not on the same page and no real need to get closer (in my book). Again, it’s a matter of personal morals and values. The gay lifestyle does not coinside with my morals and values (just the same as other lifestyles do not agree with my morals and values). I have the right to be able to choose who I socialize with as do they. While I understand the fear of being discovered (as do some people who fear being found out that they are drug addicts or that they cheat on a spouse or whatever) I still do not like it shoved in my face, which it feels like more and more.

  6. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    This Tracy Thorne-Begland guy pushed a lawsuit against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. I assume that, in the conduct of that lawsuit, his openly gay lifestyle became apparent.

    The man should be a judge. Bob Marshall is perfectly representative of Virginia’s conservatives. In fact, he is something of a hero to them. He is also suffers from diarrhea of the mouth in a way that makes Joe Biden look positively constipated. Who can forget this half-wit’s comments about God taking vengeance against women who had abortions by afflicting their future children with birth defects (I am not making this up)? Well, he’s added to his list of quotable quotes with, “Sodomy is not a civil right.” in this case.

    Jim Bacon likes to push his head into the sand and pretend that Virginia is a well run state. Well, here is the line-up for that well run state’s upcoming US Senate race:

    George Allen
    Bob Marshall
    Tim Kaine

    Yeah, Jim – that’s a great slate of choices here in the best run state.

    However, as always, Northern Virginia is stepping in to backhand the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond with a solution to this hopelessly incompetent Senate race. NoVa has a new candidate with animal charisma, laser focus and boundless energy. Hell, he can even see in the dark.

    I refer, of course, to Hank the Cat (I-Springfield)

    http://www.newser.com/story/140578/va-senate-candidate-hank-the-cat.html

  7. larryg Avatar

    Accurate… I can and do appreciate your view. It’s not unlike mine before I became more socialized to gays (through volunteer work).

    but keep in mind that it was not that long ago when people of faith were saying that interracial marriage was immoral and that God did not intend the races to “mix”.

    Keep in mind also – what Head of Household status is for unmarried taxpayers in terms of “qualified” …. “relatives”.

    that’s just one of many ways that two people who want to live together and share life together or penalized and it goes back to how such people are treated in legislative bodies.

    The Constitution said nothing about “immoral” behaviors in order to be created equal.

    and yet…we do just that… we confer EXTRA/MORE “rights” based on “traditional” and blood relationships, don’t we?

    If all men are created equal – why are they forced to file as “single” and take the tax hit for “single”?

    1. accurate Avatar
      accurate

      And did I not say that I supported civil unions? Yup, give them EVERY right that a married couple has, but don’t go changing the definition of marriage. Yup, they (if the proper civil union paperwork is filled out) should NOT have to file single. And as I said before, the framework of ‘civil union’ needs to extend to “non-bedroom” (if you will) living partnerships. It does bring up the question regarding multiple person relationships, but that is another question for another time. If the person is gay, fine, my life is very much a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ lifestyle; when you insist on telling me, our relationship (you and me) has changed AND I feel very much like it’s being thrust in my face. Unlike Mr. Obama, my view will not ‘evolve’ as I have a certain moral compass that I follow (not to say the Obama or anyone else doesn’t have thier own moral compass) that says to treat them with respect, but I don’t (won’t) embrace or encourage their lifestyle.

  8. larryg Avatar

    ” but don’t go changing the definition of marriage.” – the legal definition of marriage? even if it has consequences in terms of rights and tax benefits?

    I’m not sure how that legal definition would not continue to be an obstacle on other issues… unless it is purely symbolic.

    in terms of “evolving”… there are individual aspects and political.

    What the Prez did was show leadership IMHO. And that exactly what many members of the VA GA did NOT show.

    Given your position… what is your assessment of the behavior of the legislators in the Virginia GA?

    1. accurate Avatar
      accurate

      I don’t know enough about Mr. Tracy Thorne-Begland to make ANY kind of judgement. However, we all are (typically) victims of our own beliefs, upbringing, morals, view of life. If a person up for some position of judge (or any other kind of power) advocated the Nazi beliefs, positions, wouldn’t most of us take that into consideration when thinking about appointing him to that position? There are judges who ARE able to get down to the brass tacks of the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN and not filter it with bias, belief, life-experiences, etc. But (from what I’ve seen) not the vast majority, not necessarily anyone’s fault, it is what it is.

      Again, what I know about Tracy Thorne-Begland is what I read on this posting. Is there reason to be concerned (more concerned than with anyone else who might be appointed to the seat), I truly don’t know. Sorry, can’t answer don’t have any real facts and I’d need much more information to make a decision.

      As for Obama, his move was political pure and simple. Leadership? I think not, IMHO the man is as far removed from being a leader as night is removed from day. But you already know what I think of ole B.O.

  9. As a policy matter, I don’t think society should involved in the private behavioral decisions of consenting adults. I don’t think one’s sexual preference tells much about one’s qualifications for any position and this holds true whether the individual has made his/her preferences public or not.

    I don’t think that, given the years of precedent, courts should strike any laws that define marriage as being between one male and one female. I don’t buy “newly discovered rights.” That’s just b%&& s#$t!!! It strikes me that society, through the legislative process, can reasonably decide to go beyond the traditional definition of marriage (or the “natural law” definition, as some prefer). This could reasonably permit marriage of same sex persons. But I think that, to the extent the legislature changes one of the traditional attributes of marriage — e.g., opposite gender, it becomes arbitrary and capricious not to consider changing other traditional attributes of marriage — e.g., number of parties. If opposite gender can be changed, so can and must one-to-one marriage. There are no good policy reasons to say same gender marriage is OK, while prohibiting multiple party marriage. When the legislature opens the definition of marriage, it needs to open the definition of marriage.

    I don’t know anything about the recently rejected candidate for the court. I would likely have voted to appoint him, unless he had publicly advocated courts should overrule the General Assembly. Changing the definition of marriage is a legislative function.

  10. larryg Avatar

    Accurate…you are slip-sliding here….

    the question is would you disallow a judge because they were black or a woman or a Jew because they’d have to rule on a case involving those issues..???

    fess up here.

    with respect to BO – he could have bailed on that issue…. it would have been easy for him to throw Biden under the bus… and let him swing in the wind.

    Just like with the killing of OBL … the Prez took some risks… showed some courage… and was and is prepared to take the hits for his position.

    but I’d love to see Marshall… and others turn down a black or women judge for the same reasons they said they turned down this candidate.

    ya’ll know this… right? I don’t have to explain this further…right?

Leave a Reply