Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Filed under: Right-wing

Victory! Brendan Eich has resigned as Mozilla CEO

Mozilla’s anti-LGBT CEO has resigned.

Continue 260 Comments April 3, 2014

To our readers…

A message to our readers on the Mozilla CEO controversy.

Continue 104 Comments April 2, 2014

White House questioned over judicial nominee with anti-LGBT past

Anti-LGBT federal judicial nominee questioned.

Continue 9 Comments February 21, 2014

Iowa ethics board to investigate National Organization for Marriage

In response to a request by former presidential candidate Fred Karger, the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board will investigate NOM for its involvement in the 2010 retention vote of three Supreme Court justices.

Continue 1 Comment August 9, 2013

Whither conservative media’s opposition to marriage equality?

By Jacob CombsDaily Caller logo

Writing in Business Insider, Josh Barro points out that the conservative reaction to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s statement of support for marriage equality this Wednesday was, essentially, to not react.  Barro did some web sleuthing to see how conservative outlets were covering the story, and his results were pretty surprising:

Nothing at National Review, the Weekly Standard, Human Events, the Washington Free Beacon, or the American Spectator. Breitbart.com ran two Associated Press stories. WorldNetDaily ran an NBC News story. The Daily Caller and RedState mentioned Murkowski in pieces about immigration reform, but nothing on gay marriage.

The only conservative outlet I found covering Murkowski was the Washington Examiner, which ran a straightforward news story about her announcement.

Even more intriguing, though, are Barro’s hypotheses for why the right-leaning media avoided the issue:

A substantial share of the staffers at these publications, especially the younger ones, are now supporters of gay marriage. National Review ran a feature piece arguing for gay marriage in 2011.

Those who oppose gay marriage are sick to death of talking about the issue. They know they are losing the fight over public opinion and that their complaints are not going to convince anybody. And making those complaints has become awkward, because opposing gay marriage has come to be seen as rude in polite society.

Timothy Kincaid has some particularly nuanced thoughts on the issue in a piece posted yesterday at Box Turtle Bulletin that is well worth reading in full.  In essence, Kincaid’s argument is that the burden of proof has shifted from marriage equality opponents to marriage equality supporters in such a way that the framing of the entire issue has changed:

[I]t seems to me that we have entered a phase in which one can be “not ready” or “not convinced” or “not yet evolved” on the issue of marriage equality. That’s simply opinion. But to be actively opposed suggests a character flaw, something with a whiff of nastiness and maybe even vile. The public – right and left – seem to have decided that you can support gay marriage or you can not support gay marriage, but you can’t oppose gay marriage any longer.

That last sentence is particularly astute.  I would argue that this is the real-world manifestation of the so-called ‘tipping point’ for marriage equality that I and others have written about before.  It’s the result of a majority of Americans going from polling consistently against equal marriage rights to polling consistently for them, and a product of the remarkable success of marriage equality ballot measures in the 2012 election.  Today, equal marriage advocates are confident and emboldened, while opponents appear cowed.

To me, the central point that Kincaid picks up on is that, for a majority of Americans today, support for marriage equality seems like an obvious position, and opposition seems like something that has to be justified.  With that in mind, it might be wise for the conservative media to keep quiet about marriage equality–they really don’t have much to add to the conversation these days.

June 21, 2013

Appeals court in Tennessee hears arguments in case challenging state’s removal of LGBT and other non-discrimination protections

By Scottie Thomaston

In Tennessee yesterday, a state court of appeals heard arguments in the challenge to HB600, nicknamed the Special Access to Discriminate (“SAD Act”) by equality organizations. The law stripped local governments in the state of their non-discrimination protections for LGBT Tennesseans. The challenge, argued by Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and joined by equality organizations including the Tennessee Equality Project and the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, says the law violates the equal protection of the laws; it relies on both the state and United States constitutions.

In part the complaint is based on Romer v. Evans, the 1996 Supreme Court case, which held that Colorado couldn’t exclude gays and lesbians from all political protections. The state had passed a ballot initiative removing these protections from gays and lesbians alone. The amendment nullified existing non-discrimination provisions in two cities. The Court said this violated equal protection principles. As the complaint discussed, this amendment is broader than Colorado’s: it removes all protections for any groups not already covered under state law, which means it eliminates protections for people with disabilities as well. It also impairs anti-bullying measures, whether against LGBT people or those with disabilities.

The case is on appeal after it was dismissed by the trial court. The parties are arguing whether it should be reinstated. The Tennessean reported:

[...]Monday, attorney Shannon Minter with the San Francisco-based Center for Lesbian Rights told the three-judge appeals panel that there is “nothing like this in the country that specifically excludes one group of people.” She called the state law “a dangerous statute that warrants some judicious scrutiny.”

But Assistant Attorney General Adam Futrell said the state law, known as H.B. 600, merely clarified who could seek legal relief in workplace-related discrimination claims.

“The core issue,” Futrell said, “is none of the plaintiffs were hurt.” He called that point an “inescapable fact.”

Judge Holly Kirby questioned that line of reasoning.

“Let’s assume that the legislature defines ‘sex’ to only include the female gender,” Kirby asked. “Are you saying that male plaintiffs would not have standing to question the constitutionality of the law?”

Futrell responded that in such a case, plaintiffs would be legally protected, and that the law does not mean that gays and lesbians cannot seek legal relief in the event of discrimination. Instead, he said, the law standardizes workplace protections, preventing Tennessee from having an inconsistent patchwork of laws about workplace discrimination.

The appeals court will render a decision on whether the case will be retried in court on the merits. This case has the potential to be wide ranging eventually, the Tennessee law is so broad, wiping away all protections, that large numbers of minority groups are affected across the board. There’s a provision of the law that forbids Tennesseans from changing their sex on their birth certificate, meaning that whatever their doctor decides their sex is at birth is how they are forever identified for legal purposes, unless they move away to a state that allows the change.

TTPC, the transgender rights group involved in the case, issued a statement via Facebook:

Earlier today, attorney Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights presented the case for the plaintiffs in Howe v. Haslam. Most of the questions from the judges revolved around Section 2 of HB600 which, for the first time in the history of any state, defines “sex” based on a person’s original birth certificate. Minter argued that this clearly targets Tennessee’s transgender population for discrimination in the workplace since those born in Tennessee cannot change the gender on birth certificates. The three judge panel from the West Tennessee section appeared to be bothered by the targeting of a group by the state. We do not know when they will issue their ruling, but we were honored to be represented by such a talented team of attorneys today!

The decision could come at any time; there is no timeline. The case is called Howe v. Haslam.

3 Comments June 11, 2013

Previous page