We've been keeping an eye on the controversy surrounding Tracy Thorne-Begland's judicial nomination in Virginia, and it took an interesting turn yesterday.
To briefly recap, Thorne-Begland, who enjoyed bipartisan backing, is a state prosecutor, a father, and a former Top Gun fighter pilot, and his nomination enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship, but the Virginia Republicans rejected him anyway. Because Thorne-Begland is gay, and supports equal rights, the GOP said he's biased and unqualified for the state bench.
Of course, that rationale didn't make any sense. It'd be the equivalent of saying Justice Thurgood Marshall was unqualified for the Supreme Court, because he fought for civil rights at the NAACP.
On CNN yesterday, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, a far-right Republican, offered a new rationale.
For those who can't watch clips online, the full transcript is available, but here's the gist of Marshall's case against Thorne-Begland:
"[H]e had to misstate his background in order to be received into the military in the late 1980s. There was a specific question. Are you a homosexual? He had to say no.... Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks never took an oath of office that they broke. Sodomy is not a civil right. It's not the same as a civil rights movement."
Let's take these claims one at a time.
First, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court ruled against anti-sodomy laws in Texas v. Lawrence, so in a practical sense, American adults do have a civil right to engage in consensual sexual activity.
Second, and more important, is the notion that Thorne-Begland can't serve on a misdemeanor court because of how he enlisted in the military. In this case, Thorne-Begland hid his sexual orientation in order to join the Navy, serve his country, put his life on the line in a very dangerous position, and become a respected fighter pilot.
Instead of thanking him for his service, Republicans are now holding his service against him -- effectively attacking Thorne-Begland for enlisting and promising to protect the rest of us.
Rationalizing bigotry is apparently harder than Virginia Republicans thought it'd be.
Leave a Comment:
The face of the Republican Party is barbarity, hatred, and heartless vindictiveness. Are they really Americans, or do they honestly consider themselves members of some quasi-independent cult that has no responsibility to this country? This is modern day Jim Crow, an ideology based on Nazi-style repression of all activity of honest American citizens. All just for being gay? Are "small government" Republicans listening to themselves? they are utterly incoherent in their hypocritical positions. This level of hate is serious and dangerous for America. w http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Oh... so liberals are not hateful, bigoted, barbaric, heartless and vindictive? Sounds kind of hypocritical don't you think?
Hating bigotry is not hypocritical. But it is a part of the Republican strategy. And the "everybody does it" argument is baloney.
I think I have only 1 crazy Aunt who was holding on to false beliefs. She watches the Fox. But, now she does catch herself and back peddles so she is evolving. I love her she has just been brainwashed like a lot of us were and some of us still are.
How funny is it that the same people that gets all riled up if you allow a flag to touch the ground are the biggest threat to our freedoms and democracy. The GOP considers Roseanne Barr unpatriotic because she lacks singing skills, but applauds Joe Wilson for yelling "liar" during SOTU.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the one thing I like about him is the believe in just let people live their lives. People should be able to marry anyone they want without any interference from the goverment. The only limitation should be consenting adult.
I get all riled up when a flag touches the ground, too, and am a nutcase liberal.
I have no problem with burning the flag in protest, but neglecting it pisses me off. It's metaphorical for how we get into a lot of our messes: neglect.
I, too, am bothered by a neglected flag. When I see a frayed flag being flown by a company, I will complain to the company. Usually, it is simple oversight and most times, those flags were replaced within days.
As for Ron Paul, his Libertarian views are select. You simply cannot be a Libertarian and be against birth control and abortion. Otherwise, if you really listen to Ron Paul, he's insane (he's economically challenged to say the very least). He lives in a fantasy world where letting anyone or any company do anything makes life for all wonderful. Pollution? Non existent because no one will buy from a company that pollutes. (Really? Unicorn farts smell delicious!) Who needs civil rights, if a restaurant doesn't want black people there, people just won't support that restaurant (Did I mention eating unicorn @!$%# makes you live forevah!?)
Libertarian ideals are just that, ideal. They do not work in a world driven by corporate greed.
Sorry, didn't mean to pick on you...not at all, especially since you're not buying into Paul's arguments. I, too, agree that people should be able to live their lives as they wish, as long as no one else is hurt by it (a Libertarian value). But corporations are not people and they do do harm.
Ok, rant off now.
Sometimes, when I'm tempted to quit my job, I fantasize about getting a van and establishing contacts with a couple good American manufacturers of American flags and setting out on the road with a decent inventory. I'd stop where ever I saw a frayed or otherwise worn flag and offer to sell a replacement.
(And how many times have you seen a bumper sticker with "These colors never run!" where the colors in question are pink, sky blue and grey?)
June is the Flag Day month. I'm thinking about flying a white flag and surrendering but, I will not.
Speaking of flags touching the ground, I was in DC on 9/12/10 and there was a not-so-big tea party rally on the mall that day. Late in the afternoon my husband spotted some TP items that were left near the entry of one of the Smithsonian museums: namely a couple of signs "Don't believe the Liberal Media" and a flag, the lower half of which was touching the pavement. Wow, what patriots!
There are always going to be bigoted people on either side of the isle and to the extent that a person does not recognize bigotry as existent on either side that could be stated as hypocritical. However you are taking an absolutist position here: you are automatically and incorrectly and incoherently assuming that because @TheActivist did not state both Republicans and Democrats that this therefore means that TheActivist was stating only Republicans are bigoted. That's like saying that because I say "I like the color blue" that I am necessarily saying I hate every other color. You are attempting to point out hypocrisy here, but in reality you are only succeeding in committing a logical fallacy. YET AGAIN PLEASE CONSERVATIVES/REPUBLICANS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD: logical fallacies do NOT point out hypocrisy.
One more thing: it is not intolerance for someone to express disagreement to your world views. Tolerance does not mean that you get to say whatever you want and no one else gets to have a contrary opinion or voice to you. Again this is an absolutist and authoritarian interpretation of tolerance and, ironically enough, is w/in it's own nature very intolerant. You are essentially using what I like to call the Tracy Jordan defense. *In Tracy's voice*: "You all know I'm irresponsible and stupid therefore whenever I say something hate filled and bigoted it's YOUR responsibility to clean up after me!" That's not the way tolerance works. Tolerance means that you are not going to use the law to abuse someone or force someone into submission simply because you arbitrarily decide it's the right thing. Acceptance means you agree w/ a person 100%. Tolerance =/= Acceptance.
Living in Virginia increases my water bill. I have to shower several times a day to try to rid myself of the disgust I feel for the Virginia Legislature and Gov. (VP) McDonnell. Thank you for your service to the U.S. military and to the Commonwealth of VA Tracy Thorne-Begland.
Thorne-Begland has a child. Does that make his jet a biplane?
Being gay doesn't disqualify one from procreating.
Desperate times require desperate acts. And Republicans are desperate!
Because Republicans are the old, aging, and out of touch party, slouching toward senescence. And becoming irrelevant- a deadly affliction, one where you realize that you no longer matter!
What next? Standing on a street corner in their pajamas, arguing with a lamp post?
Sodomy is not a civil right. It is a right reserved for pedophile priests and Baptist Ministers.
It is funny to see a group of Republican men adopt a belief that homosexuals are incapable of holding a public office. The man was capable of piloting a fighter plane but, not capable of this vocation in their eyes. The people in the state of Virginia should remove the pebble from their eyes so they might see that the men dictating these rules should be the ones removed. How convenient it is for them to interpret the Bible into their own language of hate. The Bible is a History book not a reference in which to adopt Hate rulings of their own making. The actors have merely switched places in their minds they are now playing the role of The Romans.
Heterosexual sex, even in the Missionary Position, is also not a civil right.
If it's consensual it is. A civil right is one that can't be restricted by law, & that's what, in essence, the SCOTUS decision said in Texas v. Lawrence.
Then how is it that prostitution is still illegal?
Do you seriously think that the sex part is what makes prostitution illegal? Tell me, Sparky, what is the difference between hiring a prostitute and a one-night stand? Think hard, and I have confidence even you can figure it out...
@Redshift Go ahead and explain. I'm all ears.
Seems to me that these "small government" conservative types always want to be intrusive when it comes to "other people's sex lives". I mean do they even understand the meaning of hypocrisy or double-standards? For that matter most of these types tend toward being evangelical (born again) - so maybe it's being "born again" that has allowed them to: be hate-filled towards everyone else, not understand the meaning of morality, allows them to have no empathy for "the least of these", live in glass houses yet throw boulders at "others", allows them to participate in a mass hysterical psychosis - whatever it is , I'd just like to know how do WE undo their paranoia?
GOP = Greatly Oppressing People
They sincerely believe in keeping government from interfering in people's lives, it's just that when they say "people," they mean, of course, corporations.
It doesn't appear to me that the GOP is ever going to figure out that being gay isn't nearly as much about sex as they think it is. Aside from their sexual preferences, gay men and women lead lives that are much the same as the rest of us. They go to school, go to work, shop, participate in sports, buy groceries, cook meals, clean house, mow the lawn, watch TV, and pay bills. Just like the rest of us. They're not sex offenders or any less moral than we are. And they don't judge us as heterosexuals for our natural inclinations. They just want to live thier lives pretty much like anyone else, and shouldn't be cast out for doing so. But like I said, the GOP don't get that. They just want to judge and look down on others for being different.
The Gay Agenda:
Wake up. Eat breakfast. Sit in traffic. Sit in a cubicle. Eat lunch. Sit in a cubicle. Sit in traffic. Watch TV. Eat dinner. Go to bed.
Scandalous, I know!
Virginia is a backwards state. I'm transgender, and I'm most fearful about coming out because it is practically legal for someone to beat me up and for my apartment complex to deny me housing. Governor Ultrasound hates anyone who's not straight, white, male, and rich.
Interesting that Republicans are more anti-gay/LBGT, bigoted, and unfair than they are pro-military.
If Mr. Marshall believes that activists should not sit on the bench, he should begin the impeachment process for 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices who indulge in just that behavior.
I think it is interesting that progressive commenters keep using the argument that prior advocacy as a disqualifying factor would have mead Thurgood Marshall ineligible for the Supreme Court - as if that ipso facto proves the Del Marshalls of Virginia wrong in a way that will be obvious even to them.
I doubt it. I strongly suspect that any argument that delegitimizes Thurgood Marshall and his opinions is one the right would favor and adopt. Rather than hearing that argument and saying "gee, we must be wrong about Thorne-Begland" they will instead hear it and say "damn right - we never should have let that negro on the court either!"
Another case of false equivalence and you know it.
I see so a patriotic American who appearently put his country above his believes by serving that country even though it denied him his human rights is unfit to be a judge? Yet Justice Roberts is fit to be Chief Justice and declare corporations are people?
Well now it should be noted that no NAZI or Klansman can enlist in the service either.
Once the government had its hands on Bush's books, the whole story of the intricate web of Nazi front corporations began to unravel. A few days later two of Union Banking's subsidiaries -- the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation -- also were seized. Then the government went after the Harriman Fifteen Holding Company, which Bush shared with his father-in-law, Bert Walker, the Hamburg-Amerika Line, and the Silesian-American Corporation. The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."
Taken from-http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x581610
So, um, wait: If a light-skinned black man lied about his race in order to join a storied all-white unit in World War II, and then served with distinction in that unit, a couple of decades later we'd have said that was dishonorable?
Now I've heard everything. Republicans are saying he shouldn't be a judge because he once enlisted in the Navy despite the military's antipgay policies?
They'll say anything.
I joined the military in the early 80's. 1982 to be exact. There was no question on any form that asked about who I was boning or what my boning preference was. I like how all the people who never spent a minute in the military pretend to know the military. DADT wasn't created until Clinton was in office (late 90's) and it was then that sexual preference became a military concern.
Wrong. The question was on the enlistment contract when I signed it.
...when DADT was put into place they were no longer allowed to ask people on paper or in person whether or not you were a homosexual. They did this in Vietnam and prior to Vietnam, but stopped about a decade later. I do think the military stopped asking in anticipation of DADT or gay service being accepted and this was shortly after women were allowed in the US military. So more than likely it depends on when either of you joined the service. FTR The Simpsons did a spoof of this, but I cannot seem to find a video to link to ya. Basically Homer starts to fill out a form and crossed off on it is the question "are you a homosexual" and Homer attempts to answer it outloud, but fearing jail time his recruiter covers his ears and runs out of the building screaming "la la la!"
Just to clarify, if Tracy Thorne-Begland was a Navy pilot, then he was an officer. If he was an officer, then he was not "enlisted," he was commissioned. I know it seems petty, but for those who know the difference, it makes the reporting sound weak.
Also, something that hasn't been brought up (that I have seen) is that Tracy Thorne-Begland was serving as an openly gay officer. He was discharged under DADT. Can the TRMS confirm that this is the case? I think that this takes all the wind out of Mr. Marshall's sails.
This article only tells part of the story. 8 Republicans voted for this appointment. The real reason that Tracy Thorne-Begland did not get appointed is that 36 of the approximately 100 members of the Virginia Assembly either abstained or failed to vote one way or another. Since it takes 51 members to appoint, it is no surprise that he did not get appointed. Most of the Assemblymen that failed to vote were Democrats.
Nearly those exact words were said to me a few years ago in reference to my service by a bigot on an internet forum. Along with "criminal" and "liar".
One thing you gotta give American political turds credit for is that most of them are walking billboards for the stupidity of the American People. Our elected representatives show the world who we are, and given the factual data indicating America's rapid decline to third world status, our elected officials are about as competent as the folks who brought you 3 wall street crashes since the elimination of Glass Steagle.