VA legislative update from EV homosexual group (BARF ALERT)

[Gopher Broke]

Weekly Legislative Update

As January came to a close, we are quickly nearing the halfway point, or "crossover", of the Virginia General Assembly. This next week will see action on all remaining legislation as each house works to clear their dockets by crossover, February 12.

Read Friday's Washington Blade article "Pro-Gay Bills Advance in Virginia Legislature."

Don't forget to make sure your voice is heard! Speak out and contact your Senator and Delegate about issues that are important to you! You can use the links below to send a free email if you have not already done so, or call your representatives by using the constituent hotline at 1800-889-0229.

Legislative Update -- Equality Virginia Supported Legislation

HB 36 – Del. Jim Scott Fair Housing Law; unlawful discrimination; sexual orientation. Adds discrimination based on sexual orientation as an unlawful discriminatory housing practice. Click here to send a free email.

HB 675 – Del. Ken Plum Urban county executive form of government; discrimination based on sexual orientation. Allows Fairfax County (the only county with such form of government) by ordinance to prohibit discrimination in housing, real estate transactions, employment, public accommodations, credit, and education on the basis of sexual orientation. Such authority currently exists with regard to race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, national origin, age, marital status, or disability.

HB 805/ SB 290 – Del. David Englin and Sen. George Barker -- Update Advance Health Care Directive Registry; creation. Requires the Department of Health to create and maintain a secure online central registry for advance health care directives. The registry shall be accessible to health care providers licensed by the Board, through a site maintained by the Department of Health. Update! SB 290 passed the Senate unanimously by a vote of 40-0 and will now go to the House. In addition, HB 805 passed the Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee unanimously and was referred to Appropriations.

HB 865 – Del. Adam Ebbin Group life insurance coverage. Allows coverage under a group life insurance policy to be extended to insure any class of persons as may mutually be agreed upon by the insurer and the group policy owner. Update! This bill unfortunately was defeated 6-3 in a House subcommittee this week. Please send a thank you note to the three Delegates: Toscano, Bowling and Marsden, who voted to support this measure.

HB 1493 -- Del. Adam Ebbin Nondiscrimination in state public employment. Prohibits discrimination in state government employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or status as a special disabled veteran or other veteran covered by the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974. Update! This bill unfortunately was defeated 6-3 in a House subcommittee this week. Please send a thank you note to the three Delegates: Toscano, Bowling and Marsden, who voted to support this measure.

SB 51/HB 1415 -- Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple and Del. Jim Scott Extension of health insurance coverage funded by localities. Provides that the governing body of any locality that self-funds a health insurance program for its officers and employees may extend coverage under such program to any other class of persons as may be mutually agreed upon by the locality and the policyholder. SB 51 has passed the Senate 23-17 and will soon be before the House of Delegates.

HJ 144 – Del. Jennifer McClellan Commending the Richmond Gay Community Foundation. This resolution has passed both the House and Senate.

HIV Prevention Funding for Youth -- Sen. Henry Marsh and Del. John O'Bannon Senator Marsh and Del. O'Bannon have introduced budget amendments to provide for $250,000 that will support aggressive community-based prevention education in 12 state health districts that are showing a higher-than-average rate of HIV infection among young people. Write your Senator and Delegate today and urge them to support these budget amendments. Click here to send a free email.

[Lucky Dog]

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. --- American Psychological Association (APA)

It is probably not necessary for most reasonably intelligent people, but it may worthwhile for some to point out how desultory putting the term sexual orientation into law as a protected class truly is.

First, as is specified in the APA’s official definition (noted above) of sexual orientation, the term refers only to a feeling. A feeling is something that is internal to an individual and can never be objectively known to another individual. Rather, the feelings of another individual can only be surmised or inferred from behaviors. That behavior from which such inference can be drawn may take the form of a declaration or other action. Nonetheless, a behavior remains the only, possible, objective means of deducing (which still may be subject to error) another individual’s feelings and thus, sexual orientation.

Second, nowhere else in law is a declaration of feelings permitted as the sole determinant of an individual’s membership in a particular class of individuals. For example, a murder defendant may claim his or her feelings of “temporary insanity” as a defense and thus membership in a class of “not guilty” individuals. However, such is not a valid defense, or claim, until a judge and/or jury have so ruled. The obvious question arises as to why should those who would claim a particular sexual orientation be entitled to any protection under law unless so ruled by a judge and/or jury?

Third, if a law, to be enforceable, requires the time and expense of a jury trial, the consequence that the law is attempting avoid, should be appropriately grave, e.g., murder, grand theft, etc. As a result, another question arises, is it desirable, or even, practical to “clog” our, already overburdened, court system with claims of unfair discrimination on the basis of someone’s feelings that another person can never objectively know?

I would hope that lawmakers and the executive branch would see the futility of ensconcing such a vague and utterly indefensible term in law.

[Gopher Broke]

You are quick to cite the APA. Did you know that homosexuality was classified as a behavior disorder by the APA for many years?

What changed that? New research? New findings?? NOTHING.

They got tired of intimidation by the homosexual rights groups, so they bowed under pressure and reclassified it....no research, no evidence, just political pressure to get people to stop harassing them.

Some group of “doctors”.....

[Lucky Dog]

...just political pressure to get people to stop harassing them.

Your are absolutely correct.

You are quick to cite the APA

Perhaps you noted the inconsistencies in their definition...

...Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality...

The admission of "bi-sexuality" implies that behavior is a choice regardless of what an individual's sexual orientation is. If the APA is willing to admit the behavior is choice, then the existence of, or lack thereof, of a "gay" gene is irrelevant.

... homosexuality was classified as a behavior disorder ...

Homosexual behavior as choice is, by definition, not a disorder. Being a disorder implies a lack of choice to a limited degree. I prefer to consider homosexual behavior a pure behavior issue. As such it is completely under an individual's control and is a subject to legal limitation as is any other behavior, i.e., homosexual behavior practitioners are purely responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS and STD as well as their attempts to destroy traditional marriage and the moral fabric of society in general.