John Aravosis (Americablog) on Tim Kaine

[ruggerson]

To be fair, this was written two years ago. Kaine strikes me as being a well intentioned guy trying to govern in a red state and coming up with convoluted positions on cultural issues in an attempt to straddle them. Perhaps Aravosis has changed his mind about Kaine. He might turn around and support Kaine for Veep tomorrow, for all I know. But John is a very committed Obama supporter, so his thoughts on Kaine, pre Veep speculation, are interesting.

http://www.americablog.com/2006/01/homophobe-to-give-de...


Monday, January 30, 2006
Homophobe to give Democratic response to State of the Union
John Aravosis (DC) · 1/30/2006 06:56:00 PM ET ·

On the unlikely chance that you thought there was any value left in the Democratic party after today, we have a homophobe giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union tomorrow.

This is so bad, I'm going to break my rule about not linking to the Washington Blade:

"A spokesman for Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine clarified today that he opposes the scope of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage working its way quicklty through the Virginia legislature, but will nonetheless sign the measure as written if it is adopted, putting it to a referendum."


Ah, so Kaine was for civil rights before he was against it.
Gay and lesbian couples already have difficulty finding courts that will provide protective orders in domestic violence cases, she said. If the amendment is approved in November, the few jurisdictions and judges that do offer protections will likely stop, she predicted. Ruble declined to name the jurisdictions because she feared they could be targeted.

Anti-marriage constitutional amendments have been used to challenge custody agreements, domestic violence laws and health benefits for public employees in several states.

Carrie Evans of the Human Rights Campaign said Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act of 2004, which prohibits partnership contracts between same-sex couples, could be used to invalidate custody agreements or advance medical directives.

It is doubtful that Virginia's constitutional amendment would affect those types of contracts, she said. However, there are many protections left vulnerable to the amendment, like domestic violence laws and health benefits for public employees, she added.
It's one thing for the governor to be worried about being "for" gay marriage in Virginia, the state that brought us miscegenation laws. It's quite another for the governor to not understand the difference between gay marriage and an amendment that rips away all legal protections from gay couples, gay employees, and their children.

The new breed of Democrat can't handle the concept of nuance. They can't handle the concept of some things being difficult to oppose, and other things being easy. Yes, gay marriage is a tough issue. But ripping away the rights of every gay person and their children in the commonwealth should be a no-brainer. You can explain why that's a bad thing, even to the people of Virginia, if you have half a spine.

Feel free to give the homophobe an earful:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TTY/TDD (For the Hearing Impaired):
1-800-828-1120

[Barack_America]

1. I saw the title of Aravosis's piece and decided not to read further...

It's time to stop using the blanket expression "homophobe" to describe people with a faith-based opposition to gay-marriage.

Please try to understand the conflict that religion presents to well-intentioned persons.

(And FYI, no, I'm not Christian)

[ruggerson]

2. Gotta disagree with you there Kristi

"It's time to stop using the blanket expression "racist" to describe people with a faith-based opposition to inter-racial marriage."

You and I both disagree with that statement, right? We both see the intellectual duplicity in it.

There is no such thing as "faith-based" opposition to marriage equality.

It's just plain, old fashioned ignorance and bigotry.

Barack Obama wouldn't even BE here if his parents hadn't said screw you to "faith based" bigots and followed their hearts instead.

[sourmilk]

3. Now THAT'S a bit of a stretch...

Equating "racist" with "homophobe" in describing those with a faith-based opposition to homosexual marriage? Wow.

"There is no such thing as "faith-based" opposition to marriage equality." Wow again.

...and you cite "intellectual duplicity?" Wow CUBED.

Since Obama's parents never legally married, the entire third argument is just irrelevant - not even worth a fourth "wow."

"(And FYI, no, I'm not Christian)"

You don't say...

[ruggerson]

4. Wow, indeed

I'm always impressed by the contortions of logic people put themselves through in order to justify plain old fashioned bigotry.

[Barack_America]

8. Please find me a Christian church that overtly preaches racism as part of its faith.

I don't go to church, so I guess racism could be preached at Protestant churches or mandated by the Vatican, but that would be the first I'd heard of it.

[ruggerson]

9. In the days before Loving Vs Virginia was decided in 1967

there were many southern Christian churchs preaching the evils of interracial marriage from the pulpit.

The excuse then for opposing interracial marriage was hey, it violates my cultural and my religious background.

People also used the same excuse for opposing interfaith marriage.

The churches preaching against same sex marriage today are using precisely the same arguments from thirty, fourty, fifty, sixty years ago and more.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.



"In May 1975, as it prepared to allow unmarried blacks to enroll, BJU adopted more detailed rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage—threatening expulsion for any student who dated or married interracially, who advocated interracial marriage, who was "affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage," or "who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations."

"On January 19, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service notified the University that its tax exemption had been revoked retroactively to December 1, 1970. The school appealed the IRS decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the University met all other criteria for tax-exempt status and that the school's racial discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, that "God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage." <95> The University was not challenged about the origin of its interracial dating policy, and the District Court accepted "on the basis of a full evidentiary record" BJU's argument that the rule was a sincerely held religious conviction, a finding affirmed by all subsequent courts.<96> In December 1978, the federal district court ruled in the University's favor; two years later, that decision was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University



"People forget that just a few decades ago the white southern Christians opposed interracial marriage and integration with the same sincere religious conviction and moral fervor that they oppose same sex marriage today. So they are calling on the infallible and timeless authority of God to support positions that are very fallible and historically specific."



http://www.gaytoday.com/reviews/092704re.asp

"Don't believe me, believe your Bible!" This is the greatest and most important legacy of a preacher I once knew. Some churches have a policy forbidding interracial dating and marriage"

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html

"Thank you for your e-mail concerning interracial relations here at Bob Jones University. The University has an open admissions policy, and we accept students of any race. The student body is fully integrated with students participating in all activities and organizations regardless of race. Bob Jones University does, however, have a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students. God has separated people for His own purpose."

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/interracial.htm

"We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year , p. 144"

http://www.mindonfire.com/2008/06/28/spark-lds-church-w... /



It's not just "homosexual activists" who see parallels in the Loving case -- it's Mildred herself. On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving case (a decision handed down just months before MLK was killed in Memphis, by the by), Mildred penned a public statement that included these liberal sentiments (full PDF here; italics mine):

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.


Second, and perhaps more important, is the tendency for conservative groups to adjust their views to give the Groundhog Day-like impression that to believe in what is (now) the culturally appropriate view is eminently "conservative" (as in: "traditional," "unchanging," or "objectively true").

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-derkacz/historical-r...

[Barack_America]

18. Thanks for this great information.

I didn't know much of it and found it very interesting.

This is a hard point for me to argue considering:
1. I'm very much in favor of gay marriage
2. I'm very much not a Christian

For me it's about tolerance. I don't agree with what is preached in Christian churches regarding gay marriage, but I do recognize that it is preached. And, maybe this is a character flaw, I give Christians a bit of a pass because of that. Certainly not a pass to spread hatred towards GLBT persons, but a pass to feel conflicted on the issue. And I'm really trying to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume the majority of Christians in this country do feel conflicted (rather than patently anti-gay). It is my sincere hope that these people can be brought around, but I do agree (seemingly) with Obama that this is best done gently.

As for racism being preached from the pulpit, I mulled this over for a good while and reached the conclusion that, yes, I would probably have given Christians a similar "pass" for that back then.

Terrible, isn't it?

Anyhow, sorry for the late reply. I've been more active on the board today than I'd like to admit and overlooked that you had replied (2 pages on MyDU today...yikes!)

[ruggerson]

19. No problem

I know your heart is in the right place, even if we have the occasional disagreement on how to get there.

[Cha]

12. That's why I haven't known much about Tim

Kaine..I remember being really bummed that they would choose someone like that and I never really investigated.

[KAZ]

17. Kristi, I luv you to bits, but religion does not bestow a license...

... to discriminate. And I know Kaine will keep his faith separate from his governance, and I'll support him if selected, but his faith/belief is still wrong.

[Barack_America]

20. Please see my reply #18...

I think I better described my position there.

[KAZ]

22. Excellent post!

The times are changing fast, my friend. We'll be there quicker than most people realize.

[tishaLA]

5. I really need to hear Kaine address this

What were his oppositions to the amendment? Why did he nonetheless sign it? What kinds of equality do LGBT Virginians deserve and which should they be denied? How would he have written the legislation if it were up to him?

Obviously Kaine is far from ideal in this and other respects; I also know that the VP choice, like any political office, is a series of calculations and contingencies designed around cost-benefit ratios.

[ruggerson]

7. I agree tisha

well said

[grantcart]

11. please see down thread

[LostinVA]

15. GLBT Virginians have ZERO rights -- you can't even buy a home together

It's why I moved to NJ instead of Haruka moving to VA.

Again: I voted for Kaine.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Aravosis runs pretty hot, tends to overreact.

[grantcart]

10. This article, also from the Washington Blade, completely refutes the column you cite

Many Gay leaders in VA, both Republican and Democrat did not want him to veto the bill. They wanted him to sign it and then change ballot language.

Whether or not you agree with the tactics that were decided on - and I have no idea the real merits - The columnist is highly misleading because there was no consensus on the action to be taken and Kaine appears to have followed the advice of the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Coalition in VA = the Virginian Partisans.



It is not clear whether or not that a Governor has the constitutional authority to veto this type of legislation and there was a fear that vetoing would have no effect (they had more than enough votes to override and preferred instead that they use his office to have an impact on the wording.


http://www.washblade.com/2006/1-27/news/localnews/ballo...

From the article

Sweeping marriage amendment heads to Virginia ballot
Gay leaders call on Kaine to change ballot language

Role is in question
The governor’s role in the constitutional amendment process is unclear, as historically his signature on the measure sending it to the ballot is largely procedural. A staff attorney with Legislative Services at the Virginia General Assembly said it is not clear if a governor’s ability to amend and veto all bills extends to the authorizing legislation that places constitutional amendments on the ballot. The issue could be litigated if the governor were to veto or amend the bill, she said.

clip

Gay leaders look to Kaine
"I do believe Governor Kaine has an important role to play in ensuring transparency and honesty in language that appears on the ballot," said Jay Fisette, an openly gay member of the Arlington County Board. "He has an obligation to ensure voters know the full breadth of what they’re being asked to vote on."

Josh Israel, president of the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club, agreed, saying that Kaine "has some say in how the amendment gets phrased."

While it seems fairly certain that the amendment will go to voters in November, some gay rights advocates said Kaine should veto the bill that sends the measure to the ballot.

clip


A Kaine veto of the bill would be unprecedented, counterproductive and only symbolic since the veto can be easily overridden, said some observers.

"I think everyone would like to avoid a huge confrontation," said David Lampo of the Virginia Log Cabin Republicans. " would never prevent it from going on the ballot."

Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), who is gay, said Kaine should try to amend the bill to ensure the ballot question is "transparent."

"I have never heard of a governor trying to stop enabling legislation for a constitutional amendment," he said.

In as much as the Gay community was deeply divided on him signing the bill or not it seems like there are more organizations that wanted him to sign it and use his power to control the language. The group that I would be most interested in is the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Alliance in Va = Virginia Partisans. Their advice for the Governor is stated above and appears to be the advice he took

[ruggerson]

13. You are probably unaware of this, because it is internecine gay politics

but the Washington Blade was highly controversial for a few years, due to the editor Chris Crain, who was widely thought of as being a rightwing shill.

"In July 2005, Jeff Gannon began writing editorials for the paper. His pieces included criticism of gay blogger John Aravosis, who had helped uncover Gannon's pornographic ads.<3> Editor Chris Crain attracted his own criticism from many in the gay community for this decision, due to Gannon's past history of anti-gay reporting as well as Gannon's refusal to disclose his sexual orientation. He has said, “My personal life is a private matter, despite that fact that I have become a public person.” Crain defended his decision in a September 2005 editorial<24> and claimed the "steady stream of feedback/vitriol" had declined "a little" with each new Gannon article. In September 2006, mere days after Crain stepped down from his position as editor, Gannon was summarily dimissed by the new editor, Kevin Naff.


The piece you cite was written under Crain's tenure. That is why Arovosis makes the remark about quoting the Blade.

Nevertheless, my understanding is that Kaine signed the legislation enabling the amendment to go to the ballot, not a good thing, and then opposed it, because he thought it too broad, which is an admirable thing.

As I noted elsewhere, his positions seem both calculated and confusing, as he takes some stands that are significantly to the right of the Democratic mainstream and some stands that show support for civil and human rights. I'm trying to learn what makes him tick, and both sides of his decision making process need to be examined in order to fully understand the guy and what drives him.

[grantcart]

14. Well ruggerson the articles were written only 3 days apart

1/27/2006 and 1/30/2006



digging a little deeper I now find this citation

http://www.doaskdotell.com/controv/virginiamarriage.htm


On April 10, 2006 Gov. Timothy Kaine of Va. (D) refused to sign the bill placing it on the ballot as a referendum for voters in November. It remains to be seen whether the veto will be overridden or whether Gov. Kaine would sign a reworded bill.

apparently Kaine did veto the bill.

It just goes to show how complicated these issues are and why it makes sense to me that you listen to the people that are there,

In this case the VA Gay and Lesbian alliance - Virginians Partisans

Would you agree, my friend that attempts to label Kaine as "anti-gay" are unfair.

[ruggerson]

16. I know they were written three days apart

that's why Aravosis makes the remark apologizing for linking to what he considered a rightwing rag. (I don't have an opinion on Crain, because I don't and didn't read the BLade.)

Apparently, Kaine both opposes same sex marriage AND civil unions. If that's true (and hopefully it isn't) then he is well to the right of the mainstream on this issue. Even George fucking Bush supports the right of states to enact civil union legislation. Doesn't that raise some red flags for you?

I read today that Kaine opposes using taxpayer dollars to fund stem cell research. That's very alarming, if true. Doesn't that bother you for a guy who is one heartbeat away from the presidency?

"But wait -- there's even more bad news. Kaine ran a gay-baiting campaign for governor and is awful on GLBT issues. Not only does he oppose gay marriage (which, unfortunately most Democrats do), he opposes civil unions, too. He also supported an anti-gay marriage amendment to Virginia's constitution. And not only did he support the Iraq War, but he was super-hawkish about it as well. In addition, he supported a repeal of the estate tax, reneged on his promise to enact universal pre-K, has a poor record on energy and global warming issues and has said he "strongly" supports anti-union, "right to work" laws.

Kaine also doesn't have many accomplishments as governor, and received terrible reviews for his state of the union response a few years back (I didn't see it, but observers said he seemed visibly nervous and spoke haltingly).

And if all that is not enough to put you off this guy, ponder this: the ever-oleaginous Terry McAuliffe has been heavily touting Kaine for the veep slot


http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/tim-kaine-hell...

I think the above has some misinformation, because I think Kaine ended up OPPOSING the amendment. That's a big plus in his favor, in my book. It is unclear to me still whether he signed it or not.

[grantcart]

21. This is my impression when he ran against the homophobe

for LT Governor he was under constant attack for being 'soft on gays' and he ended up shading what his position was to a more conservative point.

For example I saw one debate transcript where he said that he was against same sex marriages and civil unions but wanted gays to have full civil rights including the right to enter into contracts that would basically cover everything that civil unions do.

He also said that he supported the current law that prohibited un married couples from adopting (hetero and homo) but he supported gay individuals.

and so on.

But when he became Governor the first thing he did is that he signed an executive order including civil rights for gays.


So it appears to me that Virginia has a lot of homophobia and Kaine danced around some of it and when he got power did as much as he could to stand up to it.


I haven't found anything, however, that indicates that the Democratic Gay alliance in VA is anything but happy with him.


I found your other thread about the stem cell and posted a positive response I am a big supporter of stem cell research not only because it seems so useful but because it establishes the supremacy of science in policy. I also like the fact that he is against capital punishment. He seems like a real person with real opinions.


In the end I see Kaine as a civil rights attorney who has been in the ditches in a homophobic state and the gay Democrats there seem to support him.

Anything that raises questions about his record that is honestly presented will get a positive response by me. Let's get it all out in a fair way. So far the deeper we dig the higher the impression I have of him. let's see.

[ruggerson]

23. From what I'm reading

he seems like a sincere, honest guy with some conservative Catholic beliefs that have, at times, shadowed his decision making. I don't think he's any more anti gay than a lot of Democratic governors, though his position on civil unions is out of the mainstream (if it's true that he opposes them.)

The stem cell thing does concern me. There are millions and millions of good people waiting to be cured. I hope that he has changed positions on this, or would change were he to be on a national ticket.