From the Archives: Openly gay Navy veteran rejected for judgeship by Virginia legislature

Openly gay Navy veteran rejected for judgeship by Virginia legislature
May 16, 2012 1:40 AM MST

How often does a state legislature’s vote on the appointment of a local traffic-court judge win the attention of the New York Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, and other national news outlets?

Not often (if ever), except when, as in the case of Virginia judicial nominee Tracy Thorne-Begland, the proposed judge is openly gay and the only one of dozens of similar prospective judges rejected by the state House of Delegates.

Thorne-Begland, a prosecutor for the past decade in the Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, was sponsored by Republican Delegate Manoli Loupassi and two colleagues to fill an open slot in the city’s General District Court, which has jurisdiction over traffic offenses, small claims, and petty crimes.

Bob Marshall intervenes

Thorne-Begland’s nomination was vociferously opposed by U.S. Senate candidate Bob Marshall, who represents Manassas and parts of Prince William County in the House of Delegates. Marshall said that Thorne-Begland, a Navy veteran who served as a pilot during the first Gulf War, was unsuitable for the job because of his previous activism on behalf of the civil rights of gay citizens and because he is legally married to his same-sex partner even though Virginia’s constitution forbids same-sex marriage.

Marshall argued that Thorne-Begland could not be trusted to uphold the law in a neutral, judicious manner because, like Marshall himself, he is outspoken on gay-rights issues.

Thirty-three legislators voted their approval of the nomination, which had sailed through the Republican-dominated Courts of Justice Committee without controversy. Thirty-one voted against the nomination, while ten abstained and 26 were absent for the 1:00 o'clock a.m. roll call. A majority of 51 votes was necessary for the nomination to succeed.


Social media outrage

Virginia lawmakers and voters took to social media to register their outrage at the vote.

Shortly after the vote, at 1:16 a.m., Delegate Mark Keam (D-Fairfax County) tweeted a photo of the vote display board in the House of Delegates and said, “VA House voted down Tracy Thorne-Begland as a General District Court Judge. First nominee rejected in my 3 years here.”

State senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) posted on his Facebook wall:

“I'm glad this is being noticed and criticized widely! My worst day in nine years in the General Assembly. I can't imagine how Tracy Thorne-Begland feels.”

State senator Mark Herring (D-Loudoun County) also posted on Facebook:

“The treatment that Mr. Thorne-Begland received by the General Assembly, well after midnight Tuesday morning, was disgraceful and offensive... Together with many of my fellow Virginians, I am embarrassed by what I witnessed take place early this morning.”

Elsewhere on Facebook, Richmond City Council member Charles Samuels wrote:

“It’s rare that I comment about the decisions of other elected bodies, but I have to say that the decision to vote down the judicial sponsorship of Mr. Tracy Thorne-Begland in the General District Court for the City of Richmond surprises, disappoints and frustrates me.”

Delegate Jennifer McLellan (D-Richmond) posted her floor speech on the matter on YouTube, noting that Thorne-Begland "was willing to fight and die for his country but he was not willing to lie about who he was to continue to serve."

On Twitter, the Virginia ACLU stated:

“We don't take positions on judicial [appointments], but shame on [Virginia] House for rejecting Thorne-Begland [because] he's gay.”

Lawyer Brian Schoeneman, a 2011 candidate for the House of Delegates, headlined an article on the widely-read Virginia politics web site, Bearing Drift, “Vote against openly gay judicial nominee another black eye for Virginia.”

Schoeneman wrote that “the vote last night was wrong. We let irrelevant issues cloud the real question – whether Thorne-Begland was qualified and would be competent in doing the job of a General District Court judge – with conjecture and character-assassination. Those are the only questions that matter, and we ignored them by bringing his past activism into play, especially when it would have little impact on the job.”

That article, published on a conservative web site, drew 71 comments by late Tuesday evening, a few favoring the negative vote against Thorne-Begland but most agreeing with the view that the vote was shameful.

Based on those comments and others, many Virginia political activists anticipate that this legislative vote will result in ridicule by late-night TV comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Jay Leno.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 16, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 13, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

In a case that involves a confusing mix of plaintiffs, defendants, and ex-defendants who have taken the side of the plaintiffs, a federal judge late on the eve of Valentine's Day struck down both Virginia's statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage and a state constitutional amendment that does the same

“The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a 41-page opinion. “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.”

In the case of Bostic v. Rainey, Wright Allen (nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2011) granted the plaintiffs request for summary judgment and found that “Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

At the same time, Wright Allen stayed her order pending review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond.

In strong language, Wright Allen stated that the Commonwealth of Virginia's defense of its same-sex marriage bans failed to meet even the very low legal hurdle of rational-basis analysis

“Virginia's Marriage Laws fail to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” she wrote, “and so must be viewed as constitutionally infirm under even the least onerous level of scrutiny. Accordingly, this Court need not address Plaintiffs' compelling arguments that the Laws should be subjected to heightened scrutiny."

If there are any “legitimate purposes” behind the same-sex marriage bans, she argued, they “share no rational link with Virginia Marriage Laws being challenged. The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.”

Wright Allen's ruling follows similar federal court decisions in Utah and Oklahoma (which are cited in her opinion) and, most recently, Kentucky.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who made national headlines in January when he refused to defend the marriage laws and instead presented a brief on behalf of the gay couples seeking to overturn the ban, issued a short statement in advance of holding a press conference on Friday morning:

In a press release, Herring said that the district court's decision "is a victory for the Constitution and for treating everyone equally under the law. It is the latest step in a journey towards equality for all Virginians, no matter who they are or whom they love.”

Acknowledging the court's stay of its order, Herring noted that the legal process “will continue to play out in the months to come, but this decision shows that Virginia, like America, is coming to a better place in recognizing that every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly.”

Herring's news conference will take place at 11:45 a.m. on Friday, February 14, in the auditorium of the Pocahontas Building at 900 E. Main Street in Richmond.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring will challenge anti-gay marriage laws
Obama’s announcement prompts question, Is gay marriage a ‘new right’?
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-strikes-down-virginia-same-sex-marriage-ban-but-stays-order

From the Archives: Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

After offering opening remarks to the participants at the third annual Charlottesville Gay Pride Festival in Lee Park on September 13, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring spoke to reporters about the same-sex marriage cases that may be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in its coming term.

Answering questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Herring, a Democrat who served in the state Senate before his 2013 election as attorney general, explained how his mind has been changed about gay marriage.

As a senator, Herring had voted in favor of the so-called Marshall-Newman amendment, which added a prohibition on same-sex marriage and civil unions to the bill of rights section of the Virginia Constitution. As attorney general, he refused to defend the amendment and statutes banning gay marriage when they were challenged by same-sex couples seeking legal recognition of their marriages.

After his 2006 vote supporting the constitutional ban, Herring explained, “I saw how it hurt a lot of people. That made me continue to question whether that was the right decision.”

'See things differently'
In the intervening years, he said, “I talked to a lot of people – people at work, constituents, my family -- and I see things very differently now.”

At the time of the marriage amendment vote, Herring said, he was “working to end discrimination but I stopped short of full marriage equality. I came to see that that was wrong, and a lot of people were hurt by it.”

Equality, he continued, “is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. Nobody deserves to be discriminated against. Our Constitution guarantees not only gay and lesbian couples equality, it guarantees all Americans equality.”

During its upcoming September 29 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at certiorari petitions from various states where anti-same-sex-marriage laws have been challenged. Virginia's case is among them.

“The Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia cases are all now before the Supreme Court on petitions for appeal,” Herring explained.

“Those petitions have been fully briefed as to whether the cases should be taken by the Court. Whether it's Virginia's case or whether it's one of the others or a group of them, it's difficult to predict.” Nonetheless, Herring added, “I feel confident that the court will consider whether to take one, or some, or all of these cases.”

Virginia's case involves two couples, one a male couple from Norfolk who sought a local marriage license and were denied it. The other is a female couple who were legally married in California and adopted a child, but whose marriage goes unrecognized by Virginia, leading to complications regarding the custody status of the adopted child.

Herring explained that “Virginia's case would address all of those legal issues,” adding that “it would be good for Virginia. Not only do I feel we have a really strong legal team but the Commonwealth, I know and we know, has moved forward since the key landmark civil rights decisions over the last 50 years where Virginia was on the wrong side.”

Brown and Loving
Herring noted that the famous 1954 decision that ended racial segregation of government schools, Brown v. Board of Education, included a case from Prince Edward County, Virginia, but “Virginia and its attorney general argued against school desegregation and on the wrong side.”

In the 1967 case that overturned miscegenation laws, Loving v. Virginia, he said, “a couple from Caroline County was denied a marriage license because they were of different races. And again, Virginia argued on the wrong side of that key, landmark decision.”

Herring said he hopes that, “when we look at this issue in the future, people all around the country and our children will know that Virginia was on the right side of history and on the right side of law.”

By deciding not to defend Virginia's laws in these cases, he said, “as Attorney General, I was going to make sure that the injustices in those other landmark civil rights cases would not be repeated this time.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Author Charles Murray argues same-sex marriage is ‘not a big deal’
Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Senate candidate E.W. Jackson defends anti-gay stance as ‘fundamental’
‘Flagrant Conduct’ author Dale Carpenter discusses how sodomy laws ended

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-attorney-general-mark-herring-discusses-federal-gay-marriage-appeals

From the Archives: Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring highlights opposition to drug-law reform

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 14, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring highlights opposition to drug-law reform

After welcoming participants to the third annual Charlottesville gay pride celebration in Lee Park on Saturday, September 13, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring answered questions from reporters.

In addition to discussing his views on same-sex marriage and sexual orientation discrimination, Herring addressed concerns about drug abuse and proposed reforms to drug laws.

Earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes among its members former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, as well as the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, recommended to the United Nations that currently illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana should be decriminalized and that the abuse of these drugs should be treated as a health problem not as a criminal matter.

'Deaths and fatalities'
Acknowledging that he has not read the UN commission's report, Herring, a Democrat elected in 2013, said that “as attorney general, one of the first things I did in coming to office is go on a public safety tour all across the Commonwealth. I talked to over 60 different jurisdictions – the law enforcement, commonwealth's attorneys, local elected officials – because I wanted to hear directly from them about the public safety threats that they were facing.

“Over and over in those meetings, one of the things I heard was the problems associated with opiate addiction, prescription drug addiction, and the spike in heroin overdoses and deaths and fatalities.”

Herring said that, based upon what he learned from local officials, “I want to go after those who would put that kind of poison, [such as] potent, deadly heroin, out on the streets. I'm going to aggressively prosecute that and work with local prosecutors to do it. We're going to step up our prevention and education efforts and we're going to partner with local jurisdictions and the U.S. Attorney's office to combat the problem of drug abuse.”

'Not trying to be evasive'
Asked specifically if he opposes drug-law reform efforts, Herring said flatly: “I don't support legalizing all of those dangerous drugs like heroin and opiates that are killing and claiming so many lives of young people.”

With regard to marijuana legalization, Herring hesitated and added, “I'm not trying to be evasive. I know a couple of states have begun to take those steps and before Virginia takes those steps I think we ought to see what [are] the experiences in the other states and then assess it.”

That position is almost identical to that of Herring's predecessor as attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

In February 2013, when he was running for governor, Cuccinelli explained to an audience of Albemarle County Republicans that “having data from a couple of states, whole states, that go down this path may not be good news but it will be interesting and it will be something we can learn from,"

Cuccinelli added that legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington state is “a peculiar subject but I do think it's important that states try some things they think are appropriate and whether the federal government approves or not, the rest of us watch and learn.”

SUGGESTED LINKS

Ken Cuccinelli clarifies remarks on marijuana legalization as federalism issue
GOP lieutenant governor candidate E. W. Jackson 'certainly used marijuana'
Justin Bieber, Gary Becker, and the future of marijuana prohibition
Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith clarifies aim of his medical marijuana bill
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-attorney-general-mark-herring-highlights-opposition-to-drug-law-reform

From the Archives: Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 6, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia political leaders react to Supreme Court marriage decision

Because the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear any of the appeals from states seeking to maintain their bans on same-sex marriage -- including an appeal from the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia -- gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed in Virginia beginning today at 1:00 p.m.

The office of Attorney General Mark Herring issued a press release on the morning on October 6 stating:

"Today, the Supreme Court rejected all petitions for certiorari related to Virginia's marriage equality litigation, thereby letting stand the Fourth Circuit's decision that same-sex couples in the Commonwealth are entitled to all the rights and privileges of marriage. The Fourth Circuit is expected to issue its mandate at 1 p.m., meaning marriage licenses for same-sex couples can be issued at that time and the Commonwealth will recognize all marriages that were lawfully performed in other states. Local clerks are receiving guidance and forms necessary to begin performing marriages today, and the Attorney General's Office is working with the Governor's Office and state agencies to implement any needed changes in light of this action."

Herring added:

"This is a tremendous moment in Virginia history. We will continue to fight discrimination wherever we find it, but today, we celebrate a moment when we move closer to fulfilling the promise of equality ignited centuries ago in Virginia, and so central to the American experience."

U.S. Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of Virginia, also issued a statement in reaction to the Supreme Court decision, saying that “allowing people to marry who they love is the fundamentally right thing to do, and it strengthens our families and communities. This is a remarkable and memorable day in Virginia’s march toward equality."

Warner is running for re-election this year. His Libertarian opponent, Robert Sarvis, said in a press release:

"In 1967, a Virginia couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, fought to overturn marriages between people of different races. If it weren't for the courage of the Lovings, I might not have been able to marry the woman I love.

"Public opinion in Virginia has shifted dramatically since the Marshall-Newman Amendment was enacted in 2006. In fact, polls now show that a majority of Virginians support marriage freedom.

"I wanted Virginia to achieve marriage freedom through the democratic process, but as with interracial marriage, it is court action that has seen it through. I look forward to seeing same-sex couples in Virginia celebrating their marriages and enjoying equal treatment under the law."

Republican Senate candidate Ed Gillespie told an interviewer on WSLS-TV this morning: "I'm curious to learn, to the extent that you can, what the thinking was. The court generally doesn't say what they were thinking when they decline to take something up. But obviously it's a decision with considerable impact."

Gillespie added that he has "always felt that this is a matter for the states to determine. I don't believe that the federal government should set policy relative to marriage. I think the states should. And, obviously, given the court's ruling, it is the law of the land today."

William Howell, Speaker of the House of Delegates, also issued a reaction statement, saying in part:

“I am disappointed that the United States Supreme Court declined to hear these cases. The debate over Virginia's constitutional amendment defining marriage needs a clear and decisive resolution from the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision today leaves Virginians without an affirmative answer on this issue, unnecessarily prolonging the political debate and creating long-term uncertainty regarding the status of same-sex marriages in Virginia depending on the outcome of litigation in other parts of the country."

Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam said in a news release: “This is a great day for all Virginians. I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard, over so many years, so that the Commonwealth might arrive at this historic moment. Now all Virginians can enjoy the rights and freedoms to marry whom they love. Finally, Virginia is for all lovers.”

James Parrish, executive director of the lobbying group Equality Virginia, said in an email to the organization's supporters: "I am overwhelmed with joy for the more than 14,000 couples who can now marry the person they love in the place they call home. And, the relationships of couples who were married in other states are now affirmed by the commonwealth."

Further reactions to the new legal status of same-sex couples in Virginia are expected over the next hours and days.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals
Va. House Speaker Bill Howell proposes ‘Repeal Amendment’ to Constitution
Virginia U.S. Senate candidates react to Fourth Circuit gay marriage ruling
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-marriage-decision

From the Archives: Federal judge rules Virginia can prohibit Confederate flags on license plates

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 6, 2015. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site is scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Federal judge rules Virginia can prohibit Confederate flags on license plates

According to a news release from the office of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring distributed on August 6, a federal judge has decided that the Commonwealth may ban Confederate symbols on specialty license plates, setting in motion a process by which the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will begin to recall all such vehicle tags displaying the Confederate battle flag.

Original decision
Back in 2001, federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser ruled that specialty license plates “conveyed the speech of the driver” and that the state could not deny the application of Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate that included the Confederate battle flag. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Kiser's decision and Virginia chose not to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

In light of this year's Supreme Court decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., which “reached the conclusion that specialty license plates represent the state’s speech, not the driver’s,” Kiser vacated his original order from 2001 and lifted the injunction that prevents the Commonwealth from prohibiting Confederate symbols on vehicle license tags.

In issuing his ruling, Kiser wrote that “When the Supreme Court speaks, district courts must listen. In light of the ruling in Walker, the primary rationale for the 2001 judgment and injunction in this case is no longer good law. Specialty license plates represent the government’s speech, and the Commonwealth may choose, consonant with the First Amendment, the message it wishes to convey on those plates. The Commonwealth’s rationale for singling out [Sons of Confederate Veterans] for different treatment is no longer relevant. According to the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth is free to treat SCV differently from all other specialty groups. Because the underlying injunction violates that right, I have no choice but to dissolve it.”

Herring's reaction
In reaction to Kiser's decision, Attorney General Herring said it “will allow Virginia to remove a symbol of oppression and injustice from public display on its license plates.”

He added that "Virginia state government does not have to and will not endorse such a divisive symbol. I appreciate Governor McAuliffe's leadership in calling for the removal of the flag and those on my team who moved quickly to get it done."

Kiser's order came in Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Holcomb in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring discusses federal gay marriage appeals
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring highlights opposition to drug-law reform
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring will challenge anti-gay marriage laws
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt speaks out for free trade in Charlottesville
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stumps for support in Charlottesville

Original URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-rules-virginia-can-prohibit-confederate-flags-on-license-plates