Why the need to do something like this?

Larry O'Dell of The Associated Press is reporting that Virginia's attorney general has advised the state's public colleges that they don't have the authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying only the General Assembly has that power.  Writes O'Dell:

The letter sent by Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli (left) to state college presidents and other officials Thursday drew swift criticism from Democrats and gay rights activists.

The Republican advised college governing boards to "take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law."

The attorney general said his letter merely stated Virginia law, which prohibits discrimination because of "race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability," but makes no mention of sexual orientation.

Cuccinelli said the criticism was coming from people who have been frustrated in their attempts to change the law.

"None of them suggest our reading of the law is wrong. It's people who don't like the policy speaking up because it's their opportunity to go on the attack," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg said colleges are bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

A spokesman for the Family Foundation of Virginia, which has opposed expanding state anti-discrimination policies to protect gays, said the criticism of Cuccinelli's action is unwarranted.

"My understanding is all he's done is essentially ask the universities to follow the law," spokesman Chris Freund said. "It's a little perplexing to see people respond the way they have."

This sort of thing seems completely unnecessary, fueled only by ill will.  It will be interesting to see how the universities respond.  I'm hoping to see more than a few student protests.

Some positive news from the Episcopal Church

A friend of mine emailed me this letter yesterday.  It's from Bishop M. Thomas Shaw  (photo) of the Episcopal Church.  I have edited some of the letter but the gist remains: gay and lesbian couples can marry with the church's blessing in Eastern Massachusetts.  I've highlighted some of the Bishop's words in bold and italics.

November 29, 2009

Christian marriage is a sacramental rite that has evolved in the church, along with confirmation, ordination, penance, and the anointing of the sick, and while it is not necessary for all, it must be open to all as a means of grace and sustenance to our Christian hope.

I believe this because the truth of it is in our midst, revealed again and again by the many marriages—of women and men, and of persons of the same gender—that are characterized, just as our church expects, by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, and the holy love which enables spouses to see in one another the image of God.

In May of 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opened civil marriage in our state to same-gender couples.  That ruling set up a contradiction between what civil law would allow and what our church’s canons and formulary state, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman.  And so, for more than five years now, while faithfully waiting for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to act in response, we in the Diocese of Massachusetts have been living at some cost with an imperfect accommodation:  Our clergy have not been allowed to solemnize same-gender marriages, but they have been permitted to bless them after the fact. 

In July of this year, the 76th General Convention adopted resolution C056, “Liturgies for Blessings.”  It allows that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”

Your bishops understand this to mean for us here in the Diocese of Massachusetts that the clergy of this diocese may, at their discretion, solemnize marriages for all eligible couples, beginning Advent I.  Solemnization, in accordance with Massachusetts law, includes hearing the declaration of consent, pronouncing the marriage and signing the marriage certificate.  This provision for generous pastoral response is an allowance and not a requirement; any member of the clergy may decline to solemnize any marriage. 

We also know that by calling us to minister in the context of this particular place and time God is again blessing our diocese with a great challenge by which we might enter more fully into that ethic of love which Jesus speaks to us through the New Testament.  It is an immeasurable love given for all.  We are being asked to live it, all of us, children of God, each with equal claim upon the love, acceptance and pastoral care of this church, so that the newness and fullness of life promised through word and sacrament might be for all people and for the completion of God’s purpose for the world.

/s/ M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE

Houston, we have a problem

 After our loss on the Maine ballot initiative, I wrote about some of the LGBT candidates who had won elections across the country.  Especially encouraging was Annise Parker, who topped the ticket to win one of two run-off slots for Mayor of Houston.  Her sexual orientation was not really an issue in her campaign.  She has children and has been with her partner for two decades.  She never focused on her identity, and most politicians didn’t either.

Well, that has all changed.  Anti-gay activists are in panic mode over the possibility that one of the top ten US cities could be run by a --gasp--lesbian. In fact they are so panicked that they are launching a campaign not against what Parker stands for, but who she is.  They are warning people of the “gay takeover” of Houston.  (Their words, not mine.)  I’ve tried to envision what that might look like.  Hmmm.  Pink Fridays instead of casual Fridays?  Changing the name of the Houston Astros to the Houston Castros?  Making heterosexual marriage unconstitutional?  Replacing the Star Spangled Banner with  YMCA or In the Navy? The possibilities are endless.

But the opponents are dead serious.  The other candidate in the race, Gene Locke, had previously distanced himself from the anti-gay groups.  Now he’s not so sure he can live without them.  He is courting endorsements from these folks, including a man named Steve Hotze, who in the past recruited eight city council candidates -- a straight slate -- to run solely on an anti-gay platform.  Said David Welch, the leader of one of these groups, “The bottom line is that we didn’t pick the battle, she did, by making her agenda and sexual preference a central part of her campaign.”  What’s so ironic is that she’s barely mentioned her orientation.  And by the way, aren’t candidates supposed to make agendas the central part of their campaigns?

Houston is generally a gay friendly city with a large LGBT population.  It remains to be seen whether LGBT folks will feel as welcome there after the vicious and hateful campaign.

Thanks to Gaypolitics.com and Gayrights.change.org for much of the info in this post.