Va. lawmakers take some heat on the Thorne-Begland vote. . .
Tracy Thorne-Begland | AP Photo
. . . And they’re responding!
Note from Dan: It appears Virginia lawmakers are taking some heat for their vote to deny Tracy Thorn-Begland a judgeship in General District Court. Below is a note from Ann Huebner of Lexington, in which she has forwarded to me copies of critical emails sent to state lawmakers by constituents, and the responses from the lawmakers. One thing that’s clear from them is there are form letters flying on both sides of this one. Cline indeed told me that his decision to vote against the nomination was influenced by listening to objections on the House floor raised by ex-military officers. If you’d like to give your lawmakers your opinion, you can find their email addresses here.
Hi Dan,
It’s me again. You let me guest blog about [Del. Ben] Cline and the anti-shackling bill a couple of months back.
I’ve been following what you have been writing about Tracy Thorne-Begland’s disgraceful treatment. You wrote that you spoke to Cline after the vote and he told you he made his decision on the House floor. Did you see what he told WTVR? According to them Cline “admitted that he called other lawmakers, including Delegate Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) not to vote for Thorne-Begland. Miller ended up not voting at all.” That doesn’t sound like he made up his mind on the House floor.
My guess is he misplayed his hand–that he thought the electorate would go along with Bob Marshall’s and Family Foundation’s outrageous homophobia and is now scrambling for another reason to justify his vote, trying to keep multiple stories straight, etc.
He is certainly starting to sound rattled (so is Del. Greason). Look what how rudely he responded to my friend (btw, Del. Greason’s aggressive, sanctimonious & personal response is, in fact, boilerplate; another friend got the same one) .
Have a great day,
Ann Huebner
LEXINGTON
———————-
From: ProgressVA On Behalf Of Elizabeth Boylan
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Del. Tag Greason
Subject: Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates
May 15, 2012
Delegate Thomas Greason
General Assembly Building, Room 513
910 Capitol Square
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Virginia Legislator, Delegate Greason,
Your vote to reject the judicial nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland based on his sexual orientation is shameful and a stain on the reputation of our Commonwealth. A 20 year veteran of the US Navy and a top prosecutor in Richmond, Thorne-Begland is eminently qualified to sit on the Virginia bench. All residents of our Commonwealth should be treated fairly and equally. Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates.
I already tweeted Delegate Ben Cline on this but am adding my name here too. His Facebook page is closed to comments so it makes it difficult to have a voice to my representative.
Signed,
Ms. Elizabeth Boylan
————————
From: Delegate Tag Greason
To: Elizabeth Boylan
Subject: Re: Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates
Elizabeth,
Your email is offensive and way off base. You don’t know me and have no idea why I voted the way I did.
As graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former Officer in the United States Army and Virginia National Guard, I take seriously the oath that all military officers take. In many regards you give up your First Amendment Rights, as you have sworn to become a part of something bigger than yourself….the defense of our Nation.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Additionally, an Officer…
“Cannot participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”
In 1994, Mr. Thorne announced to the Nation that he was a gay man serving in the military under President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In doing so, he broke the oath that he willingly took. No one forced Mr. Thorne-Begland to join the Military…he did that willingly as well. His announcement, however, put his personal beliefs above that oath, and violated the United Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He felt that publically advocated for a “cause” that he believed in deeply was more important than that oath he took and the Code of Justice he swore to live by.
I do not begrudge Mr. Thorne-Begland’s passion and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in. I actually find it honorable. But in my opinion, he should have re-signed from the military and focused on his advocacy in a way that would not directly under mind the policies of the United States Military.
I can assure you one thing: my vote against Mr. Thorne-Begland was NOT based on sexual orientation. It had NOTHING to do with that and that thought never even entered my mind. My concern with Mr. Thorne-Begland strictly relates to judgment and he showed poor judgment while in the Military.
How can I be sure that he will not show poor judgment while on the Bench when he is faced with a “cause” that he feels is more important than the law he has sworn to uphold?
Sincerely,
Tag
————————
From: Elizabeth Boylan
To: DelTGreason@house.virginia.gov
Dear Delegate Greason,
If I misunderstood your rationale behind your recent vote on Mr. Thorne-Begland, then I am in the company of the website, ThinkProgress.org, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Richmond Times Dispatch, who all report that the House of Delegates removed Mr. Thorne-Begland from consideration because of his homosexuality.
In your argument below, you fail to recognize one important fact. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was a discriminatory piece of legislation and therefore fell on this side of wrong versus right. An analogy would be that the suffragettes showed bad judgement in trying to vote when the current laws of the time prohibited them from doing so. If Mr. Thorne-Begland were to have done the same thing now, that he did in 1994, there would have been no problem whatsoever. To hold this against him is a very flimsy reason for not allowing him to sit on the bench of Virginia’s General District Court whose duties are hearing suits on misdemeanors and small dollar civil suits and where cases on issues of gay rights are very unlikely. I have no doubt, though, that if there was a case on gay rights, that Mr. Thorne-Begland would judge it as impartially as any heterosexual judge.
The House of Delegates has become an embarrassment to the state of Virginia with the recent trans-vaginal ultrasound legislation, the attempts at personhood legislation and now this. Please realize that this is no longer a local story and that you are all the laughingstock on national news shows and internet sites. The fact that you have grammar and spelling errors in the message . . . does not inspire confidence or help the reputation of your legislative body either. The only thing I can say for you is that you at least took the time to respond which is more than my own Delegate, Ben Cline has chosen to do thus far on this issue.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Boylan
————————
From: Del. Ben Cline
To: Elizabeth Boylan
Ms Boylan,
You sent me a message on twitter yesterday asking how I voted on Mr Begland’s election, followed by a second message that said ‘nevermind, I found it’. Since there was only an insult and no other question with your message, I followed your direction and did not respond. You did not bother to ask me why I voted against Mr Begland, so I can only conclude that you are not interested in knowing my reasoning. From your rude email to my colleague, it seems you have already reached a conclusion on the matter. Nevertheless, I am always willing to respond to any questions you might have. Be advised, however, that it might take more than 24 hours. Thanks,
Ben Cline
Sent from my iPhone
————————-
Dear Delegate Cline,
Are you referring to when I wrote “shame on you” when you say I insulted you? If so, then I stand by what I said and think that you should be ashamed of that vote. I would be interested in hearing why you voted against Mr. Thorne-Begland’s appointment, though. I don’t believe I ever directed you not to respond. I am always open to all sides and, right now, am basing my opinions on articles written by the news sources listed below. If there is anything else you’d like to say that will cast a different light on what is being reported, I would appreciate you taking the time to let me know.
As representatives in a democratic system, I would think all of you would welcome any and all viewpoints that your constituents are good enough to share, whether they agree with your own views or not. To have both of you offended and insulted by hearing my views and label them as rude surprises me. I certainly hope these responses are not meant to intimidate me into staying silent.
I look forward to your response on this issue.
Sincerely,
Ellie Boylan
——————————————
May 16, 2012
Delegate Thomas Greason
General Assembly Building, Room 513
910 Capitol Square
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Virginia Legislator, Delegate Greason,
Your vote to reject the judicial nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland based on his sexual orientation is shameful and a stain on the reputation of our Commonwealth. A 20 year veteran of the US Navy and a top prosecutor in Richmond, Thorne-Begland is eminently qualified to sit on the Virginia bench. All residents of our Commonwealth should be treated fairly and equally. Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates.
It is your behavior, not Thorne-Begland’s, that is shameful. Deeply shameful.
Signed,
Mr. Timothy Lubin
—————————————-
From: Delegate Tag Greason
To: “Lubin, Tim”
Subject: Re: Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates
Timothy,
Your email is offensive and way off base. You don’t know me and have no idea why I voted the way I did.
As graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former Officer in the United States Army and Virginia National Guard, I take seriously the oath that all military officers take. In many regards you give up your First Amendment Rights, as you have sworn to become a part of something bigger than yourself….the defense of our Nation.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Additionally, an Officer….
“Cannot participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”
In 1994, Mr. Thorne announced to the Nation that he was a gay man serving in the military under President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In doing so, he broke the oath that he willingly took. No one forced Mr. Thorne-Begland to join the Military…he did that willingly as well. His announcement, however, put his personal beliefs above that oath, and violated the United Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He felt that publically advocated for a “cause” that he believed in deeply was more important than that oath he took and the Code of Justice he swore to live by.
I do not begrudge Mr. Thorne-Begland’s passion and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in. I actually find it honorable. But in my opinion, he should have re-signed from the military and focused on his advocacy in a way that would not directly under mind the policies of the United States Military.
I can assure you one thing: my vote against Mr. Thorne-Begland was NOT based on sexual orientation. It had NOTHING to do with that and that thought never even entered my mind. My concern with Mr. Thorne-Begland strictly relates to judgment and he showed poor judgment while in the Military.
How can I be sure that he will not show poor judgment while on the Bench when he is faced with a “cause” that he feels is more important than the law he has sworn to uphold?
Sincerely,
Tag
—————————————
Delegate Greason,
My email is “offensive”? If it is offensive to call things as they are, so be it. Your defense of your vote is just self-righteous, disingenuous sophistry. Thorne-Begland bravely spoke out on the injustice of a humiliating policy; I note that the Navy saw fit to grant him an honorable discharge. Our Republican governor supported his nomination. His legal career has by all accounts been stellar and free of any trace of a “pro-homosexual agenda” (as the Washington Post noted today).
This 1 am vote against his appointment was clearly frame in terms of Thorne-Begland’s allegedly “disordered” sexuality and family life (as Del. Bob Marshall called it).
So please don’t preach to me about my offensive communication.
Sincerely,
Timothy Lubin
Hi Dan,
It’s me again. You let me guest blog about Cline and the anti-shackling bill a couple of months back.
I’ve been following what you have been writing about Tracy Thorne-Begland’s disgraceful treatment. You wrote that you spoke to Cline after the vote and he told you he made his decision on the House floor. Did you see what he told WTVR? According to this (http://wtvr.com/2012/05/16/commitee-members-who-approved-gay-judicial-candidate-voted-against-him-or-didnt-vote-at-all/ ) Cline “admitted that he called other lawmakers, including Delegate Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) not to vote for Thorne-Begland. Miller ended up not voting at all.” That doesn’t sound like he made up his mind on the House floor.
My guess is he misplayed his hand–that he thought the electorate would go along with Bob Marshall’s and Family Foundation’s outrageous homophobia and is now scrambling for another reason to justify his vote, trying to keep multiple stories straight, etc. He is certainly starting to sound rattled (so is Del. Greason). Look what how rudely he responded to my friend (btw, Del. Greason’s deeply aggressive, sanctimonious & deeply personal response is, in fact, boiler plate; another friend got the same one) .
Have a great day,
Ann Huebner
LEXINGTON
———————-
From: ProgressVA [mailto:info@progressva.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Boylan
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:15 PM
To: DelTGreason@house.virginia.gov
Subject: Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates
May 15, 2012
Delegate Thomas Greason
General Assembly Building, Room 513
910 Capitol Square
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Virginia Legislator, Delegate Greason,
Your vote to reject the judicial nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland based on his sexual orientation is shameful and a stain on the reputation of our Commonwealth. A 20 year veteran of the US Navy and a top prosecutor in Richmond, Thorne-Begland is eminently qualified to sit on the Virginia bench. All residents of our Commonwealth should be treated fairly and equally. Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates.
I already tweeted Delegate Ben Cline on this but am adding my name here too. His Facebook page is closed to comments so it makes it difficult to have a voice to my representative.
Signed,
Ms. Elizabeth Boylan
————————
From: Delegate Tag Greason
To: Elizabeth Boylan
Subject: Re: Intolerance has no place in the Virginia House of Delegates
Elizabeth,
Your email is offensive and way off base. You don’t know me and have no idea why I voted the way I did.
As graduate of the United States Military Academy, a former Officer in the United States Army and Virginia National Guard, I take seriously the oath that all military officers take. In many regards you give up your First Amendment Rights, as you have sworn to become a part of something bigger than yourself….the defense of our Nation.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Additionally, an Officer…
“Cannot participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”
In 1994, Mr. Thorne announced to the Nation that he was a gay man serving in the military under President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In doing so, he broke the oath that he willingly took. No one forced Mr. Thorne-Begland to join the Military…he did that willingly as well. His announcement, however, put his personal beliefs above that oath, and violated the United Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He felt that publically advocated for a “cause” that he believed in deeply was more important than that oath he took and the Code of Justice he swore to live by.
I do not begrudge Mr. Thorne-Begland’s passion and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in. I actually find it honorable. But in my opinion, he should have re-signed from the military and focused on his advocacy in a way that would not directly under mind the policies of the United States Military.
I can assure you one thing: my vote against Mr. Thorne-Begland was NOT based on sexual orientation. It had NOTHING to do with that and that thought never even entered my mind. My concern with Mr. Thorne-Begland strictly relates to judgment and he showed poor judgment while in the Military.
How can I be sure that he will not show poor judgment while on the Bench when he is faced with a “cause” that he feels is more important than the law he has sworn to uphold?
Sincerely,
Tag
————————
From: Elizabeth Boylan
To: DelTGreason@house.virginia.gov
Dear Delegate Greason,
If I misunderstood your rationale behind your recent vote on Mr. Thorne-Begland, then I am in the company of the website, ThinkProgress.org, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Richmond Times Dispatch, who all report that the House of Delegates removed Mr. Thorne-Begland from consideration because of his homosexuality.
In your argument below, you fail to recognize one important fact. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was a discriminatory piece of legislation and therefore fell on this side of wrong versus right. An analogy would be that the suffragettes showed bad judgement in trying to vote when the current laws of the time prohibited them from doing so. If Mr. Thorne-Begland were to have done the same thing now, that he did in 1994, there would have been no problem whatsoever. To hold this against him is a very flimsy reason for not allowing him to sit on the bench of Virginia’s General District Court whose duties are hearing suits on misdemeanors and small dollar civil suits and where cases on issues of gay rights are very unlikely. I have no doubt, though, that if there was a case on gay rights, that Mr. Thorne-Begland would judge it as impartially as any heterosexual judge.
The House of Delegates has become an embarrassment to the state of Virginia with the recent trans-vaginal ultrasound legislation, the attempts at personhood legislation and now this. Please realize that this is no longer a local story and that you are all the laughingstock on national news shows and internet sites. The fact that you have grammar and spelling errors in the message below does not inspire confidence or help the reputation of your legislative body either. The only thing I can say for you is that you at least took the time to respond which is more than my own Delegate, Ben Cline has chosen to do thus far on this issue.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Boylan
————————
From: Del. Ben Cline
To: Elizabeth Boylan
Ms Boylan,
You sent me a message on twitter yesterday asking how I voted on Mr Begland’s election, followed by a second message that said ‘nevermind, I found it’. Since there was only an insult and no other question with your message, I followed your direction and did not respond. You did not bother to ask me why I voted against Mr Begland, so I can only conclude that you are not interested in knowing my reasoning. From your rude email to my colleague, it seems you have already reached a conclusion on the matter. Nevertheless, I am always willing to respond to any questions you might have. Be advised, however, that it might take more than 24 hours. Thanks,
Ben Cline
Sent from my iPhone
————————-
Dear Delegate Cline,
Are you referring to when I wrote “shame on you” when you say I insulted you? If so, then I stand by what I said and think that you should be ashamed of that vote. I would be interested in hearing why you voted against Mr. Thorne-Begland’s appointment, though. I don’t believe I ever directed you not to respond. I am always open to all sides and, right now, am basing my opinions on articles written by the news sources listed below. If there is anything else you’d like to say that will cast a different light on what is being reported, I would appreciate you taking the time to let me know.
As representatives in a democratic system, I would think all of you would welcome any and all viewpoints that your constituents are good enough to share, whether they agree with your own views or not. To have both of you offended and insulted by hearing my views and label them as rude surprises me. I certainly hope these responses are not meant to intimidate me into staying silent.
I look forward to your response on this issue.
Sincerely,
Ellie Boylan
May 21, 2012 - 5:16 PM
Per Ben Cline on his vote:
“Since there was only an insult and no other question with your message, I followed your direction and did not respond. You did not bother to ask me why I voted against Mr Begland, so I can only conclude that you are not interested in knowing my reasoning. From your rude email to my colleague, it seems you have already reached a conclusion on the matter.”
Cline calls it like it is. For a lot of folks, the presumptive conclusion about the Delegates’ votes was reached prior to the first “no” vote being cast. To them, there could be no reason for not voting to confirm. Do these folks dare call anyone else “prejudice”?
He asks: “How can I be sure that he will not show poor judgment while on the Bench when he is faced with a “cause” that he feels is more important than the law he has sworn to uphold?” Well sir, given the decision in Citizens United, I am going out on a limb and say, you cannot.
Are you saying that in the 25+ years since 1994 you have not grown, matured and perhaps come to understand that activism and keeping your promise are sometimes mutually exclusive? No, I guess your vote proved that. Maybe one day, you will know the feeling of being considered a second class citizen not worthy of the same rights as the rest of us enjoy. Perhaps then your oath will come full circle for you too. Obviously Mr. Thorne-Begland evolved a full quarter century before you have begun.
It is not honorable service to see something wrong and stay quiet IMO. It might be protocol and what you consider honoring your oath, but it is far from it IMO.
This crank writing to the Congressmen is as fake as the day is long. She’s a leftwing activist. Very much like the fakes who harassed Clear Channel over Rush.
Watch this… our legislators seem somewhat enlightened compared to the pastor’s message in this sermon.The best thing about this clip is that the church is empty, which it should be given the message. I would you couldn’t find more than a few bigots to listen to this kind of crap.
http://youtu.be/d2n7vSPwhSU
Since when is it “rude” to call a homophobe a homophobe? Bob Marshall and his ilk make no bones about their anti-gay stance and any attempt to spin it puts lipstick on a pig. The gentlemen should be ashamed and the voters hopefully wiser.
Dont know much about Ellie Boylan…
am interested far less in Rep (DE)Cline..
Or who is Left for the sake of left and
who is Right for the sake of Futility.
But from here..Susie pound for pound has
a better grasp on Fake for Fakes Sake than
everyone in Wasilla Alaska…that would be the entire
population . Bears..Crackheads..the Hunted and Non-Hunted alike.
Is he the gay guy?
Sandi:
“Are you saying that in the 25+ years since 1994 you have not grown, matured and perhaps come to understand that activism and keeping your promise are sometimes mutually exclusive?”
Are you saying there’s been 25+ years since 1994?
By definition, doesn’t one have to be actually be afraid of gay people to be a “homophobe”?
“Racist” is kind of a misnomer for racial hatred or feelings of racial inequality too. “Racist” would be a better term for a racial scientist, perhaps.
“Gay” people can be just as miserable as straight people.
“Sexual orientation”, again, that one seems more of a set physical orientation. Like the orientation of beams in a ceiling. ????
Strange. Glad I wasn’t on any of the committees to name these things.
#3 Being an activist on a topic means you’re a fake? Then I guess suzie’s a “fake” because of her anti-abortion activism.
Suzie brilliant doesn’t even know the difference between a member of the House of Delegates and a Congressman
#7 Henry, bud, you’re not making sense. Sober up now.
“By definition, doesn’t one have to be actually be afraid of gay people to be a “homophobe”?”
No.
The link below shows that Taliban Bob is alive and well in North Carolina.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/05/21/ac-gaddy-rebukes-pastor-gay-rant.cnn
Good catch John Wilburn, pardon my rounding, he left the Navy in 1993 so I should have said 18-19 years ago. This is like not voting for Romney because he assaulted and bullied a gay kid, or strapped his dog carrier to the car roof 20-30 years ago. Certainly you can do so, but don’t expect people not to question it.
FWIW, again….Because I admitted to being embarrassed by Bob Marshall’s “Sodomy is not a Civil Right” comment..does NOT mean that I think there was anything wrong with him voting “no” on the appointment of Mr. Thorne-Begland, I support him and whoever ELSE voted “no”. I just wish that Bob Marshall explained it more clearly..and not made that silly comment.
I support the “no” vote because:
(1) As I said earlier, it is Bob Marshall’s policy to not appoint Judges who have been activists on SOCIAL issues. Reminding some that say, but two other people who got “yes” votes were “activists”..they were not activists on SOCIAL issues.
(2) Mr. Thorne-Begland has pretty much spent his life showing that he seems to think that the “Rules” don’t apply to HIM. And personally, I wouldn’t want a “Judge” who thought that way.
Simple as that.
SharonN, just so I get you, what would you consider a pro-gun activist to be a “social issue” activist? Is an anti-abortion “activist” as unacceptable as a “pro choice” activist?
Personally I think the nit-picking about what sort of “activist” is acceptable and what is not is just a tortured way to try and frame Thorne-Begland’s rejection as anything but what it is, and hypocritical in the extreme. But I’m curious how you classify “activists” and why the heck it makes a difference anyway.
Okay Kristen,
A fair question, and I will try to explain.
It has ALWAYS been Bob Marshall’s policy, to not vote to approve any Social “activists” ( abortion included) as Judges. This has been his policy since long before the Thorne-Begland vote…and by the looks of the responses of some other delegates…evidently theirs also.
If the person asking for the appoitment was totally against abortion, personally, it wouldn’t effect their “worthiness” as a Judge, UNLESS, they went down to planned parenthood and tried to block the doors, hassled the women that went there etc.
Citizens can be “activists” for causes all we want…but NOT when we are asking to be appointed as Judges.
They voted to approve a “Gun rights” activist..because that IS Consitutional..the 2nd amendment. Which, like it or not IS Constitutional.
However, if the guy had ever gone in a restaurant and waved his gun around just to prove he had that right…I doubt, he would have gotten a “yes” vote, because THEN he would have been showing that “poor judgement” that Del. Greason spoke about above.
The Union activist, same thing, it is not against the law to speak up for Unions, but, if the guy had been one of the ones to be active in trying to “take over” businesses and force them to Unionize, or get on a stage and threaten anyone who doesn’t think that Unions are the only way to go….again, I doubt he would have gotten a “yes” vote.
They worked within the “law”, even when it countered their “causes”.
It is not FAIR to call all these delegates “bigots, homophobes, and intolerant” just because they voted against this guy who happens to be gay. That probably was given the LEAST amount of consideration when making their decisions.
Please, keep digging.
Sharon N:
Bob Marshall:
Before election to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1991, Marshall was a staffer for the American Life League, an organization which opposes all forms of abortion and birth control. After his election, he continued to work for the organization, including a stint as Executive Director in the mid-1990s [4] and now as a research consultant. – From Wikipedia
Sounds like an activist to me; however I could be wrong.
Some Definitions I found:
The activism industry is composed of organizations and individuals who make a living from activism, involvement in action to bring about change. The number of organizations who employ people to perform this work is sufficiently large that Activism is now a job classification.[1] Movements across the political spectrum can be described as activist in nature.
In capitalist societies, when civil liberties are present, full-time activists are employed on wages.[4][5] Volunteer activists may support themselves by working full-time or part-time. Most governments encourage public support of non-profit organisations by granting some form of tax relief for donations to charitable organizations, sometimes including donations of time as well as money. Governments usually attempt to deny these benefits to activists by restricting the political activity of tax-exempt organisations. This can be controversial, because the borderline between political activity and educational or religious activity is not always clear. -Wikipedia
Sorry Sharon, I can’t buy your argument that Bob Marshall would be so unbiased.
The legislature did the same thing to a female sitting judge who was accused of sexual harassment by another employee. That incident was settled out of court w/ no admission of wrongdoing. But when her reappointment came up, she was voted out of office because it was assumed that because her accuser was another woman, that the judge was a lesbian. She was run off the bench for that reason, but it was dressed up in potential misuse of funds attire.
The people who voted against Thorne-Begland did so despite those in the law community overwhelmingly supported him as a judge. Those who work with him supported his efforts as an attorney and deemed him to be the cream of the crop among judicial candidates.
Those who only knew about his being gay voted against him. To say it was the “least” of the legislators’ considerations is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst.
Homophobia is being kept alive and well by Bob Marshall. Let’s make sure his bigoted religious zealotry is never again allowed to trump common sense.
As far a Greason’s response, I wonder what his take on the soldier (Stein) who if you remember, posted anti-Obama statements and pictures on his facebook page?
Wish there was a way to know.
jh,
Perhaps Bob Marshall’s reluctance to put “an activist” on the bench stems from self loathing.
j/h
With all due respect for your position, and understanding why you think the way you do, and agreeing that we may have a homo-phobe in Bob Marshall. His statements after the vote seem to make me think maybe we DO. That is a problem for me.
But, we’re still talking apples and oranges here….Bob Marshall is NOT a “Judge”, he is a delegate. I would more trust a delegate, or any other politician who’s “job” it is to appoint Judges, be someone who takes all factors into consideration, rather than fold under public pressure, so as not to look like he is discriminating.
This also has to do with “equal” rights, not “special” rights..if there are any OTHER factors to be considered besides the fact that he is gay…to call it discriimination is asking for “Special” rights.
Bob Marshall said twice that “sodomy is not a civil right.” Here’s my question, which nobody has answered thus far: Is sexual intercourse a “civil right?”
Because if it’s not, then Marshall’s statement is completely meaningless, except as an expression of his homophobia.
And if sexual intercourse is a civil right (unlike sodomy, I mean), I would like to understanding the reasoning behind that.
There’s a good article about what “military folks” can and cannot do here: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm Delegate Greason rightly notes that military officers cannot “Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.” But for a gay man to come out as gay does not seem like advocacy for a partisan political cause to me. For what political party would he have been advocating? Not the Democrats: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was Bill Clinton’s policy. And surely not the Republicans either. Seems to me he wasn’t doing anything illegal by telling the truth about his sexuality. Presumably the US military sees it that way too, since they gave him an honorable discharge.
Why Delegate Greason quotes the oath to defend and support the US Constitution in his explanation of why he voted as he did is beyond me. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” never has been part of the Constitution. Nor are the laws governing what military officers can and cannot do in terms of politics. It seems like a red herring to me. What is not clear is whether Delegate Greason realizes this irrelevance and is trying to create a smokescreen or whether he genuinely doesn’t understand the difference between the principles enshrined in the Constitution and policies that come and go like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
I think djr has hit the nail on the head. Being gay is in no way a partisan political issue. If it was, what would be be, a Republican issue — because there’s a group, the Log Cabin Republicans?
And I think that the military (and courts) finally recognized this, which is why Thorne-Begland was discharged HONORABLY, notwithstanding the fact that 20 years later some bigots in the Virginia General Assembly are trying desperately to ascribe dishonor to his actions.
About those, we are hearing from the same people who, had they been lawmakers in the early 1960s, would have been defending Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws.
And I think that the military (and courts) finally recognized this, which is why Thorne-Begland was discharged HONORABLY, notwithstanding the fact that 20 years later some bigots in the Virginia General Assembly are trying desperately to ascribe dishonor to his actions.
It angers me when people slur folks who follow the teachings of the Christian faith. The bible is pretty unambiguous about homosexuality. These lawmakers are simply following their Christian faith. They aren’t ‘haters’. That’s more leftwing hatemongering. They can never just disagree with a position without starting that crap.
djr and Dan, +1. I agree completely.
j/h Again…(since I just now noticed that YOU were were the one who brought that up.)
As to Stein, being discharged.
Let me give you a different “personal” account that reflects the “military” thinking as far as I can tell. Although, admittedly, it doesn’t reflect how “politicians” may think on the issue.
The example is Lt.Colonel Terry Lakin.
He is the guy who refused deployment until Obama provided a long form BC..he had gone through the chain of command in asking for proof that his CIC was “legitimate” and that he could not be sure that his commands were lawful until he knew they were coming from an “eligible” Commander in Chief. He stated that as an Officer, he took an Oath to uphold the Constitution, not the President. His requests through the “Chain of Command”, and his letter to Obama himself were ignored, until Lt.Col Lakin got to the point where he refused to deploy until his questions were answered and proof was given.
As a result of that refusal, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin was stripped of his rank, his benefits, and not only got a dishonorable discharge, but was also tried and sentanced to 6 months in Levenworth. LT. Col. Lakin was a decorated Air Force Doctor, and had been deployed to the “war zone” numerous times before…and his “Trial” was a farce….the military judge saying something along the lines of the President shouldn’t and WOULDN’T be required to present something that might be an “embarrassment” to him. Well, as you can imagine, to many of us LtCol. Lakin is a “hero”, and we were encouraged (before the Trail) to talk to any members of the Military taht we knew and try to get them to “stand behind” Lt.Col. Lakin, and perhaps make the SAME request and refusal.
My sister is married to a Career Air Force guy..also a decorated Officer, also has been deployed to the war zone numerous times, she’s proud of me being “Tea Party” etc. So, I thought I would have a “sympathic ear” to present my request to her to talk to Hubby about. OMG!! Did I get a dash of COLD WATER on THAT request. LOL.
She let me know, in no uncertain terms, that as far as she and Hubby were concerned, LtCol Lakin was no “hero” by any stretch of the imagination…he refused to deploy, leaving his unit without a Doctor in the “War Zone”, he had no Right to do that, no matter the reason, even if she thought his “cause” was “just”, he had no right to refuse to deploy and deserved whatever he got for doing that.
So, if delegates are also Veterans, what Mr. Thorne-Begland did is bound to carry a LOT of weight in their minds.
Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) on the Tracy Thorne-Begland. judicial nomination:
“I don’t even think it’s proper to put his name forward because of his behavior.”
http://wtvr.com/2012/05/15/judge-nomination-of-tracy-thorne-begland-voted-down/
Meanwhile in Oklahoma Jim Roth, an openly gay Democrat and Oklahoma City attorney, was nominated by Governor Mary Fallin to serve on the State Election Board.
Guess what happened?
You guessed it – his nomination was blocked.
However, every nominee except Roth on the agenda was approved.
“Rules Committee member Senator Patrick Anderson (R-Enid) says that, contrary to what Johnson claims, sexual orientation was very likely the reason Roth didn’t get a hearing.”
“I think the major reason he didn’t get out of the committee is because he’s gay…[The decision not to allow a hearing is] the chairman’s decision, and the chairman chose not to hear his nomination.”
http://enidnews.com/localnews/x234160558/Blocked-Openly-gay-Fallin-appointee-turned-down-by-Senate-committee
Anyone noticing a pattern of behavior by Republicans yet?
According to some on this blog, it is “unfair” to call this behavior bigotry or homophobia…I wonder what it should be called? Anyone have any suggestions?
“About those, we are hearing from the same people who, had they been lawmakers in the early 1960s, would have been defending Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws.”
Great. Now you are criticizing them for something they would have done 50 years ago when they weren’t even in office.
“It angers me when people slur folks who follow the teachings of the Christian faith. The bible is pretty unambiguous about homosexuality. These lawmakers are simply following their Christian faith.”
The Bible is pretty unambiguous about slavery, too, which was part of the justification in the South for the Civil War.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about adultery.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about divorce.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about blasphemy.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about judging.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about slavery.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about women’s roles.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about bowing to the authority of government.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about paying taxes.
The bible is pretty unambiguous about what to do with wealth.
I think it is safe to say that what the Bible is “unambiguous” about, only has bearing when it helps a bigot or justifies their behavior. The rest of the time, that same “unambiguous” Bible is ignored.
Suzie,
AS with Dan’s example….and just to restate what I have said at length before…it is all well and good to believe in the Bible, and follow God’s teachings in your life.
But, we CAN’T use that as justification to deny American Citizens equal protection under the law.
Why, if you allow a gay activist on a state election board, that might, uh, encourage other gays to for office. How would that look in the home state of Oral Roberts U?
Just btw, of the 31 Virginia delegates who voted “nay” on the question of Thorne-Begland’s nomination, all were Republicans. And as the House clerk has noted, it’s the largest number of “nay” votes against a Virginia judicial nominee in state history. Usually lawmakers who don’t support a nominee merely don’t vote, because 51 “aye” votes are needed for confirmation.
In other words, 31 went out of their way to emphatically vote AGAINST Thorne-Begland. Not that it had anything do to with his orientation (and not that there’s anything wrong with it).
I swear, these guys are writing Seinfeld lines as they trip over themselves denying it was a “gay” thing.
Either they think you can “catch it” or they are admitting what judges already think with…
I guess in looking back over my last comment, it appears like I am also comparing apples and oranges.
I guess what I am illlistrating is the the military feels that when you CHOOSE to become a “Soldier”, you are a Soldier first, and an American Citizen second.
SharonN, why you think anyone in uniform would have any respect for his insubordination, I have no idea. The chain of command flows one way…up. You won’t find many officers who endorse desertion.
Thorn-Begland was a fighter pilot, not a JAG officer or any officer of the court. There’s no comparison between what he did then, and how he’d view cases after years of litigation experience. They’re completely different positions, with different obligations.
So you agree with what happened to Sgt. Gary Stein, and do not believe his “free speech rights” were violated Sharon N?
And Sharon N, while you are at it, would you include your thoughts on the military members who are “Oath Keepers”? Are they “activists” unfit for future jobs too? Thanks.
Or maybe you wanna talk about Major Stefan Frederick Cook?
And lastly, do you want to discuss former Marine Sgt. Charles Dyer? You let me know when you are ready to talk about “being a soldier first” in their cases.
“Major Stefan Frederick Cook?”
Sandi, fyi, my Wednesday morning opener post concerns a different Fred Cook. Make sure you check it out.
Gosh people…we are not TALKING about ANY job….we are talking about being appointed as JUDGES…..a whole different ballgame.
None of the people that I mentioned, or that YOU mentioned would qualify to be appointed as JUDGES!! Don’t change the focus.
To my mind, Cline’s and Greason’s justifications for their votes seem counter to some of the values Americans most cherish. Isn’t our pantheon particularly filled with heroes who have fought for rights? Do we not laud people who have protested unjust laws and policies? The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has, since the time of Thorne-Begland’s protest of it, been struck down as discriminatory. (Not to mention that Thorne-Begland was honorably discharged despite his “violation” of the policy, so obviously the military did not have a problem with it.) Doesn’t that mean Thorne-Begland has been vindicated in speaking out against it? And, if so, aren’t those who are somehow trying to wring criticism out of his doing so simply on the wrong side of history? To me, the parsing of the issue to somehow make a military oath some sort of special case for the denial of a judgeship (particularly one that presides over traffic court) is just excuse-making for those who do not want to change.
BTW, speaking of judges and activism, Thurgood Marshall–one of our most celebrated Supreme Court justices–was nothing if not a civil rights activist. He was the director-counsel of the NAACP and the principal architect of using the courts to fight for civil rights.
Sharon N,
We are talking about a General District Court judge. They fine you $100 for speeding, or order you to pay $50 for a check you bounced. Based on a stellar General District Court record (combined with some political clout) they may go on to Circuit or higher courts.
My goodness, Sharon N, you dared to disagree with Suzie. She’ll claim you’re trying to get the liberals on here to like you.
Excuse me Suzie/Sharon, but YOU “changed the focus” with your witless “…you CHOOSE to become a “Soldier”, you are a Soldier first, and an American Citizen second…” explanation. You know you cannot defend that and since all of those fools are supporters of the so called “TEA Party” you naturally do not want to discuss how they have spoken or behaved while in uniform. Pitiful!
Do you imagine that the women who served their country got to enhance and expand that role by being silent? What about blacks and other minorities? You WANT to believe this guy did something unpatriotic, unwarranted and wrong but that is just you and others “justifying” bigotry and it explains nothing except that IMO. He is a hero for seeing the wrong and fighting it as best he could over 18 years ago. In an enlightened world, he would be a legend in civil rights.
Brushing your hair isn’t a “civil right” either. Marshall is an idiot.
The Bible is pretty unambiguous about slavery, too, which was part of the justification in the South for the Civil War
Nowhere in that passage say we must or should have slaves. It does condemn homsexual behavor in no uncertain terms, however.
If you don’t practice a Christian faith, should you be quoting the bible anyway?
Dan, point taken, but, as you say, once they start they are then qualified for higher “courts”…and whatever laws they “rule on” THEN, are setting a precedent for laws in the future.
Even in GDC, and even if they ONLY ruled on traffic tickets, I wouldn’t want a “perp” to be saying, but Judge Thorne-Begland, this cop only pulled me over because I have a Gay Pride bumper sticker on my car and any rulings he makes might be prejudiced to that fact.
I have had a similar experience.
I picked up my BF from work one night, gave his co-worker a ride home, stopped by the store on Cove Road on the way home, to pick up beer for him and smokes for me.
A cop coming from the OTHER direction, quickly pulled into the lot next to the store, and then pulled around, ready to pull out, but she didn’t, she sat there, the whole time my BF was in the store. When he came out of the store, and I pulled up to the road to leave…so did she.
Well, that is a hard space to pull out with cars coming from about 3 directions, and she distracted me, with me wondering why she was getting ready to follow me…when I pulled out I didn’t notice a car coming around the corner, and almost had an accident, but didn’t. So, sure enough I guess I gave her a reason to pull me over…but, what she SAID was….”Why are you driving without your headlights?”..and I was confused because I have a car that as long as the motor is running, my headlights are on…no way around it, CAN’T turn them off if I wanted to….I had just replaced both of them, they weren’t burned out…nothing wrong with them. Well, then she got hassling me about drinking, or drugs..cuz GEE, I had almost gotten in an accident!!..then she asked if I would allow them to search my car…me, thinking, “UGH!!” it’s late I have to get up early and I’m just ready to get home.” I acted a bit disgusted about it, but consented…because I knew there was nothing in the car for her to find. Well, they did find that my BF had an open beer in the car, but nothing else… she didn’t charge me with the open beer, acted like she was doing me a favor by not doing that, and not charging me for reckless driving by the accident I was ALMOST in, said she was just going to charge me with driving without my headlights. I know, I know, I SHOULD have told her that I was going to refuse to sign that ticket unless she could get in my car and turn the headlights OFF while the motor was running…but I didn’t. Thinking that all I would have to do is tell the Judge that my car’s headlights are always on as long as the motor is running, I just signd the ticket and went home, after about half an hour or more of sitting by the side of the street.
We get to Court, and I plead not guilty to the charge, but didn’t bring a mechanic’s note or anything stating that my headlights were not burned out and could not be turned off. Then the cop starts in on me almost having an accident, and that is why she pulled me over, and I mentioned that she also seemed to be stalking me before the accident, and then searched my car. The Judge asked her WHY she would search my car if I was just running without headlights…she mentioned, well, I suspected there might be drugs or something in there..and he started to say that he didn’t think it was appropriate to search my car on a “headlight” infraction…she could THEN say, well, her BF who was not driving had an open beer in the car, I didn’t charge her with that.
So, then the judge asked ME, why do you think she would have pulled you over in the first place, and charged you with driving without your headlights if they weren’t out? I said, I don’t KNOW your Honor, I wondered the same thing myself..the ONLY reason I could think of was that she saw a white face in a black neighborhood after dark and thought I must be up to no good. Well, he kind of rolled his eyes at that one, but honestly, it is STILL the only reason I can think of for her “stalking me” in the first place. Anyway, he found me “guilty” when there was no way I was!! and told me to go pay the fine and Court Costs, unless I wanted to appeal,in that case, to see the clerk for a new date.
Well, I had made some mistakes, although driving without my headlights wasn’t one of them, so just paid the costs and let it go. Was the cop being racist? I thought so. Could the Judge have been a bit peeved with me for suggesting that? I believe so. But what other explanation could I come up with?
You can bet that I WOULD have appealed, whether I was suggesting she was racist or NOT, if I had not made those mistakes, and she pulled me over, and searched my car, and I had been able to say that she had no reason to pull me over in the first place.
Get a lawyer Sharon N.
No Suzie, you shouldn’t. But when has that stopped you?
“I think it is safe to say that what the Bible is “unambiguous” about, only has bearing when it helps a bigot or justifies their behavior. The rest of the time, that same “unambiguous” Bible is ignored.”
+1 Sandi.
The American hypocrite’s favorite sword since 1611!
It never ceases to amaze me that people give law enforcement the okay to search their car…why? Unless there is probable cause police do not have the right to search the car. Plain view doctrine allows them to look in the back seat and front seat,but you do not need to consent to a search of your person or trunk…especially for a minor motor vehicle infraction!
If they threaten to get a warrant – let them – just know that it will take some time – and, unless they have you under arrest, you can politely let them know you are leaving.
This should be common knowledge for motorists – this is not legal advice.
Sharon N.
From what little I know about the Military, The current President is your boss. At my job, if I don’t like a rule in the employee handbook, I can easily make my position known without getting fired. However, If I publicly posted or said something demeaning about my boss’ character I’m sure I would get fired for insubordination. So for delegates like Greason to use the “constitutional oath” excuse is preposterous. So to me, this is apples to oranges.
These delegates are looking for any excuse to prevent the “threat” of “OMG” a gay person having any position of importance. From what I read, Thorne-Begland was more than sufficiently qualified but he never had a chance because of his sexual orientation. The true colors are starting to show. Whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality, it’s not going away.
“It never ceases to amaze me that people give law enforcement the okay to search their car…why? Unless there is probable cause police do not have the right to search the car. Plain view doctrine allows them to look in the back seat and front seat,but you do not need to consent to a search of your person or trunk…especially for a minor motor vehicle infraction!”
There are some pretty funny YouTube videos on how to respond to an officer who, lacking probably cause, asks to search your car.
And here’s the wrong way
Hillary:
59.”It never ceases to amaze me that people give law enforcement the okay to search their car…why?…This should be common knowledge for motorists…”
You’re exactly right. It’s a witch hunt for which they get bonuses and recognition if they find stuff, but no penalty for needlessly harassing, detaining, or embarrassing a motorist who is not in posession of contraband. The cops have everything to gain and nothing to lose, where the motorist has everything to lose and nothing to gain.
There is nothing noble about willfully allowing the police to violate the Fourth Amendment and overstep their bounds!
“willfully allowing the police to violate the Fourth Amendment”
What fourth amendment? It was gutted by the “Patriot” Act.
I want to show the “How to handle a police stop correctly” YouTube to both of my sons. I think most people give in on the car search thing because they don’t realize that they can say no.
Dan, that video on how to respond to an officer…should be shown to all the newly driving teenagers. Many new recruits in PDs are so gung-ho that they are looking to make everything a big deal..after a few years, they get with the program and no longer stop and search everyone and everything.
We taught our boys similarly to the video about traffic stops.
#62 John W and I certainly agree on this one.
“I want to show the ‘How to handle a police stop correctly’ YouTube to both of my sons. I think most people give in on the car search thing because they don’t realize that they can say no.”
My favorite part is the officer’s setup:
Cop: “You don’t have anything ILLEGAL in this car, do you?”
Kid: “No sir.”
Cop: “Well great! Then you won’t mind if I have a look, will you?”
Most people would believe they’re trapped at that point and say OK.
You should also have them watch this video. It’s long but great.Thank you, Regent University Law School (never thought I’d say that).
The Regent video might be a little too long for most teenagers, but has good info – but the first video you provided is excellent. Should be made part of drivers education.
FYI, the proper way to handle a traffic stop is part of every CHP class I teach.
Jh…Sorry been away from the blog a couple of days….I never said I was against gays….I am just saying there were many other reasons why they might have voted “no” on appointing Mr. Thorne-Begland that have nothing at all to DO with him being gay.
Breaking the “rules” while in the the military would be ONE of them…as I said…in the military, you are a soldier first, an American citizen second.
When Mr. Thorne-Begland was in the militray, the policy was DADT, as I said, right or wrong, it was still the policy at the time….Mr. Thorne-Begland DID just what you said you would be fired for doing…he PUBLICLY said more or less that “policy” doesn’t matter, I’m going to do what I want.
With all due respect, you all saying that he should be appointed in spite of everything because Mr. Thorne-Begland is gay….is no better than when Henry said “so his only qualification is that he’s gay?”
If you really want this to be a non-issue, this name calling and accusing the degates of “discriminating” needs to stop. You need to be willing to follow the same guidelines, and the same disappointments that everyone else, who is NOT gay would be subject to.
Opps. let me rephrase, whether I agree or disagree with Homosexuality doesn’t matter in this case or when it comes to my gay marraige “stance”..the homosexuality part is a non-issue to me.