I spent an hour and a half in the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee meeting today, waiting for and then witnessing the debate over Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) and Sen. Mamie Lock‘s (D-Hampton) SB 700. It was well worth the time.
The purpose of the bill is to modify the employment discrimination prohibition to make it illegal for state agencies to refuse to hire people because they’re gay or straight. Most states have such laws. Over a third of states also bar such discrimination at private employers. Nearly every major employer in the state has chosen to adopt such policies, including Wal-Mart, Northrop Grummin, Food Lion, UVa, VT and GMU. (Source: Washington Post)
The thing about this bill is that it doesn’t actually change anything. Governor Mark Warner’s Executive Order One — instituted by Governor Tim Kaine, too — bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So by executive fiat, this is already the law of the land.
Again, SB 700 changes nothing. It codifies what is already so, putting Virginia on the same footing as the rest of the nation. (Josh Israel, of Virginia Partisans, points out that it actually does change something — it increases the number of state employees protected.)
None of this, it’s worth noting, provides any special rights for gay Virginians. It merely prohibits the Virginia government from refusing to hire somebody on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation. People are to be hired and fired on the basis of their qualifications. The fact that a man isn’t particularly manly or a woman has a close-cropped haircut has no bearing on their ability to do their job, and they should not be shown more or less preference as a consequence of that trait. This strikes me as quite a conservative position.
Still, it was clear to me that there would be fireworks. I knew I had to attend when I got an e-mail from the Family Policy Network today alerting me that if I didn’t take action immediately, something horrible would happen. My favorite example of the terrible fallout from SB 700 was being asked to “imagine a teacher with a photo of his or her homosexual partner on their desk.”
Think of the children! My God, won’t somebody think of the children!
For the first twenty minutes or so, the debate over the bill was surprisingly intelligent. Sen. Jay O’Brien (R-Clifton) was puzzled by the use of the term “expression” in the bill (eg: “actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression”), and several senators were curious about what constitutes a “protected class” on a state and federal level.
Things started to go downhill a bit when Sen. Brandon Bell (R-Roanoke) expressed concern that, under this bill, a heterosexual employee couldn’t complain about having to work under a homosexual supervisor. But things took a turn for the positive when he boiled his question down to this: How is sexuality proved? Strictly speaking, the question doesn’t matter in the case of this bill (it addresses “actual or perceived” sexuality), but it’s an important consideration with a lot of anti-gay bills, most notably the now-former delegate Dick Black’s 2005 bill barring gay adoption. If Sen. Bell is cognizant of how silly it is to establish sexuality litmus tests, it’s a good sign for Republicans in Virginia.
Finally — concluding the civilized portion of the discussion — came Sen. Walter Stosch’s comment in which he pointed out, lest there be any doubt, that this bill does nothing more than convert the governors’ executive order into state legislation.
And then came Jack Knapp. My Lord, Jack Knapp.
Knapp has been the lobbyist for the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists for 26 years. Knapp, an old white man, speaks on behalf of causes that are lost for a reason. He thinks that government should regulate what sexual positions may be assumed by a husband and wife. He thinks that churches should be permitted to keep child abuse a secret. There’s a reason why he lobbies for the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists: these are churches whose interests aren’t within the mainstream, hence the “independent.”
So this gentleman stood up and explained his opposition. That was, quite simply, that “the activity is against the teaching of the word of God, and that settles it for us.” (“The activity” referring to gay sex, I assume. What that has to do with employment, I can’t imagine.) So being a sinner, in Knapp’s estimation, is sufficient to cast the first stone. And that was the extent of his justification for his objection.
Before he could sit, Sen. Benjamin Lambert (D-Richmond) had a question for him, and that’s when things took a turn for the theological. “God created all of us…on an equal basis…so how can you say what you just said?” Knapp responded that “I do not believe that God created anybody homosexually [sic], because that would be against what he taught in his work. […] He said that practice was a sin. […] Homosexuality is, I believe, a choice. […] I think God created us different races. I think God created different genders. But God did not create homosexuals.”
Sen. Yvonne Miller wouldn’t let him get away with that. Since God, she reasoned, is mostly composed of love, was Knapp’s answer a loving answer? Knapp got downright introspective then, explaining that love includes truth, and that God is a holy god, and that all of his traits emanate from his holiness.
So Miller, looking a little perturbed with the dodge, asked the big question: Since slavery is wholly supported by the Bible, why not support slavery, too? Knapp hemmed and hawed a bit before responding: “I don’t think, Senator Miller, that you were ever a slave.”
And thus ended Knapp’s grilling. The next fun part came with Linda Wall, of the Concerned Women for America. She gave a pretty standard anti-gay presentation about how this is a slippery slope, cited the Liberty Council‘s analysis of the legal matter as if it meant something, and then she dropped a little bomb.
“I used to be in homosexuality.”
Um.
Yes, she’s an ex-lesbian. (And by the looks of her haircut, she hasn’t given it up entirely.) She’s mended her ways — she’s healed, she can walk, ladies and gentlemen! — and now she’s concerned that we may “give men the right to use women’s restrooms” with this bill. The audience shifted uncomfortably at her revelation; I’m not sure many people were paying attention to what she was saying anymore.
Things wrapped up from there, with several senators giving brief comments about how they were going to cast their vote and why. I was feeling a little bummed at this point. Not because of the comments, but because, try as I might, I was totally unable to sympathize with the opponents of this bill. I like to think that I’m pretty good at understanding how other people think and at putting myself in their shoes. Sure, we might disagree about this, but it’s just a small thing, right? But I could not find any forgiveness for those people. Because it’s not a small thing to those affected. And if I can’t understand how people who are opposed to gay rights think, how will I ever convince any of them to change their minds?
I stopped worrying once Sen. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania) spoke. He briefly explained that he’s totally opposed to homosexuality, to gay marriage, and to the stereotypical gay lifestyle. My back went up a bit. But, without breaking verbal stride, he said that he can’t see what in the world that has to do with basic human rights, or whether sexuality should be a basis for employment. He intended to vote for the bill despite his opinion of homosexuality, but because he can’t see what that has to do with getting a job. Yes, I thought. Here’s somebody I can disagree with and not dislike.
I’ll be honest: I think homosexuality is really gross. (Well, gay men are gross. Lesbians? That’s just hot.) I seriously can’t think about gay sex. There’s nothing about that I can support. But the thing is that it’s none of my damned business. At all. If two people of the same sex want to form a contract between themselves, that’s got nothing to do with me. And if somebody wants a job, whether they’re gay (or they seem gay) has nothing to do with whether they should be employed.
So I totally respect Sen. Houck’s position. He recognizes that his own opinion of what’s unsavory has got nothing to do with what makes for good public policy.
The bill went down on a near-party-line vote, 8-6-1.
Feh.
The fun part comes in 30 years when my generation and i (whom i am confident will be far more tolerant) are in the State Senate and has to repeal the garbage that these (!@#$) have forced down the electorates throat.
It is a sad day when a measure that protects real people from real discrimination fails because of prejudice. It kills me that the GodHatesFags.com people are winning this crucial battle, just like the racists were in the early 20th century.
I think it’ll be more like 10 years than 30 years, if that. The anti-gay forces aren’t winning, they losing in every state in the nation. At this point they’re just trying to hold back the tide.
1) The bill actually did do a LITTLE more than the executive order—it expanded protections to GLBT Virginians working not only for the State government (the Governor’s executive order can ONLY apply to them) but also those working for localities and school boards.
2) I’m gay and I don’t find heterosexuality gross. Get over it, pal :).
3) A heterosexual employee couldn’t complain about having to work under a homosexual supervisor? Without protections like this, the homsexual supervisor could FIRE the heterosexual employee for BEING a heterosexual. And Senator Bell and his Republican colleagues just voted AGAINST giving that heterosexual any recourse.
Well I suppose social conservatives can’t complain that we ban discrimination against gays in hiring multiple times if they insist on banning gay marriage multiple times, can they? In fact, if we follow their lead the next step is to introduce a constitutional amendment to go with the law and the executive order!
“to make it illegal for stage agencies to refuse”
State agencies?
Yup.
First, kudos on sitting through the theological moralizing and rationalizing. You should demand Knapp, et al, make everything the Bible proscribes illegal. No half-measures! Ban divorce, unclean animals and gossip! Next…
I’ll be honest: I think homosexuality is really gross. (Well, gay men are gross. Lesbians? That’s just hot.) I seriously can’t think about gay sex. There’s nothing about that I can support. But the thing is that it’s none of my damned business.
—–As far as I’m concerned, homosexuality is like smoking. I don’t go for it, but, hey, knock yourself out. Just, you know, don’t have sex or smoke in my living room. And I won’t have sex in yours.
In the meantime, I anxiously await the conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic. There’s plenty of evidence that it is, but conclusive proof would give us a lot of ammunition with which we could berate the Knapp’s of the world.
And, while we’re at it, I’d be obliged if they could find a genetic basis for all of my predilections, too.
“As far as I’m concerned, homosexuality is like smoking. I don’t go for it, but, hey, knock yourself out.”
Have you ever tried a cigarette?
I have personally seen captive male dolphins “playing” while erect… it was not exactly in the wild, but all the little kids at Sea World got quite a show a couple of summers back. So I dunno about genetic, but it certainly seems natural.
My friends (many of whom are gay) call me hopelessly straight. Out of pure curiosity I’ve even watched some gay porn with one of them, I suspect he had an agenda. I was not grossed out, but did find it somewhat educational (there were several behaviors depicted in the flick that I just don’t understand). My friend was baffled that this video did not “turn me on” – but he was glad I had the respect to hear him out on the issue.
I love Josh’s point about this law would have protected straight people too, but now it cannot… sigh.
Idiot legislators will be replaced in time.
Y’know, I appreaciate the support…but why is it that every time a straight guy gives his support to gay rights, it always has to come with a caveat? I mean, are we still in high school? Cause thats what it sounds like. I don’t think anyone is going to assume anyone is gay just because he kinda likes civil rights and thinks it may apply to everyone, not just selected groups.
Mr. Henke–
While you have every right to request that people not have intercourse in your living room (gay or straight), I would point out that no one has ever gotten ill from second-hand homosexuality.
why is it that every time a straight guy gives his support to gay rights, it always has to come with a caveat?
—-Because you have confirmation bias, perhaps?
Look, I’ve defended gay marriage — hell, I also support the legalization of polygamy — many times without pointing out that I don’t happen to be gay. In this instance, I merely used the comparison for my own amusement. Don’t get your knickers all twisted up about it.
Henke,
Actually I didn’t have a problem with the cigarette analogy…kinda view heterosexuality the same way. It’s the “gay sex is icky” phrase I see all the time.
Actually I didn’t have a problem with the cigarette analogy…kinda view heterosexuality the same way. It’s the “gay sex is icky” phrase I see all the time.
Ah. Well, in fairness, it is. I mean, let’s be honest, lots of sex is icky. I can think of vast swathes of the populace that I’d pay good money not to see in coitus flagrante.
Perhaps a better analogy — for both Waldo and I — would be this: sex is like going to the bathroom — we all do it, but we generally appreciate it if people close the door when they do so. Nothing at all wrong with it, but that doesn’t mean we want to see it.
Haha, allright…this is definetely something that I can deal with.
I should probably put a :) in there somewhere, to indicate that my intentions are friendly, not antagonistic.
Waldo, this is one of the more entertaining pieces you have written in a long time. I have not laughed so hard in weeks.
Thanks for shedding light on a small part of our political universe.
Sean Holihan wrote:
Sean, I’ve written about support for gay rights for years on this blog. There’s never, ever been a caveat. I only mention it now as a form of confession.
And two points to Jon for the bathroom analogy. :)
Jeff Cornejo wrote:
Thanks, Jeff! It was one of the more entertaining sessions that I’ve been to thus far, so I’m glad that comes through in the blog entry. :)
I have some questions about this debate, Waldo. Were there cases cited of people who were not hired or fired by state agencies because of sexual orientation? Perhaps there have been thousands, I have no idea. What evidence of this kind was put before the committee to show that a statutory ban is necessary?
Also, why did the bill extend the ban to cities, counties, towns, and school boards? The executive order has no effect on these entities, does it? I would have guessed that the local government aspect would be much more controversial, but I’ve not heard anything about it. If the point of the legislation was mostly symbolic, why not stick to just state employees, as the next step?
Steve, it’s not my bill — I’m not in a position to answer these questions. Everything that was discussed (and everything that I know about this) is described above. As you can see, the discussion wasn’t terribly informative.
Waldo,
My apologies. I have just recently started to visit your blog on a regular basis once I heard that you would be blogging about your observations in the General Assembly. I went back some weeks to view other postings and you’re right, no caveats.
Yeah, because gay men want to have sex in ALL your living rooms. Please…
I appreciate support for equality under the law. I don’t care if the people who support that equality under the law feel that the way my partner and I express our love for one another is gross. I’d even part with Josh in that I do think heterosexual sex is disgusting. So there! (Just kidding). Human sexuality is actually a wonderful gift from God, and as an expression of your love for another person, it just doesn’t get any better, does it? The learning curve here is learning to see it not as about sex, but about love.
Eyy, yei, yei!
Were there cases cited of people who were not hired or fired by state agencies because of sexual orientation?
I’m interested in this as well… I’d be really surprised if there were many recent cases based on what I’ve see in my own agency. I think the state does a pretty good job of hiring a good mixture of women, men, minority, white, gay, straight, foreign, etc. Or at least they do in our agency. I would even venture to say that we probably have a higher percentage of women, minorities and alternate lifestyles than the general population. Of course there are some fuddy-duddies that will always harbor their own misconceptions but I’ve never seen anyone fired or mistreated because of their sexual preferance. If anything, I would say state employers are MORE careful about saying or doing anything that could be construed as unfair treatment based on race, gender or sexual preferance.
Regarding the “gross” comment, I personally have no problem with the substance of that opinion, but maybe you could say it differently in the future if it comes up again. The way you put it just comes off as immature.
Be that as it may, it is certainly the most widespread perspective on homosexuality. Many people are simply unable to get beyond the sexual act itself, which is more sad than immature, IMHO.
Agree, but that’s no reason to stoop to that level.
In my case, it’s not stooping — it’s brute honesty. You may not like that I feel that way, but the manner in which I phrased it best indicates how I feel. It’s nothing deeper or more interesting than yuck. (To be fair, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who, at the thought of coupling, give me a similar reaction.) The very point of my describing it here is to a) portray the silliness and shallowness of the reaction and b) be honest about that feeling in myself.