Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts

July 15, 2018

Georgia's Lawmakers Anti LGBT Antics Is Cost Them Much in $ Business $








By Jeff Graham   –  Executive Director, Georgia Equality 

The anti-LGBT antics of some Georgia lawmakers have made national headlines for several years, and their relentless pursuit of archaic and discriminatory policies is yielding another, and not unexpected, economic consequence. CNBC announced July 10 that Georgia dropped from number two to number seven on its 12th annual scorecard of "America's Top States for Business.” A drop by in position by five points should be of concern to us all.

This is an incredible time to live in Georgia - and we can stop this backward slide before it’s too late. One of the most immediate ways we can course-correct is by telling our lawmakers that, rather than spend yet another year gridlocking over discriminatory measures that would harm our state, they could finally advance a comprehensive civil rights law that protects Georgians from all walks of life.

At a moment when states are struggling to maintain a competitive edge, Georgia lawmakers should be doing everything in their power to entice businesses to invest in the state. The future success of Georgia’s economy relies on its ability to attract businesses to relocate to the state and to attract the best and brightest talent. A statewide civil rights law would send the message that Georgia is truly open for business to all.

Georgia ranked particularly low in CNBC’s Quality of Life category, scoring a ‘D’ in a category that includes the health of the population, environmental quality, and inclusion - namely, a state’s anti-discrimination law and the ability of cities to set its own standards. Georgia is one of only a handful of states that lacks any statewide civil rights law. And for the past several legislative session, lawmakers have clashed over anti-LGBTQ bills, including 2016 legislation that Governor Nathan Deal vetoed which would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBT customers. Despite the business community rallying in opposition to that License to Discriminate and rightly praising Governor Deal, some lawmakers continue to target LGBT people, recklessly ignoring the economic consequences.

Georgia lawmakers’ anti-LGBT bills have taken a toll on our state’s brand, imperiling not just our ability to attract job-creating giants like Amazon, but also threatening our state’s tourism industry – which brings in about $50 billion annually and is responsible for about 400,000 jobs. And the lack of comprehensive nondiscrimination protections takes a toll on those already living and working here. A 2017 report from the Williams Institute found that the stresses and stigmas of vulnerable legal standing impacts the productivity and well-being of LGBT Georgians in the workplace. According to that study, reducing those stresses by even just a quarter among Georgia’s LGBT workforce would gain the state’s economy upwards of $147 million in revenue. 

We all know that North Carolina paid dearly for its deeply discriminatory HB2, which cost the state approximately $630 million in lost revenue in just the first year after it passed. Major corporations, including PayPal, Deutsche Bank and CoStar withdrew expansion plans, which included millions of dollars in investments and hundreds of jobs, from North Carolina. Indiana’s economy and world-famous “Hoosier hospitality” was damaged after its religious exemptions act was signed into law. Since the law’s passage, the state lost more than $60 million in economic opportunities, including the loss of at least seven conventions. 
 
But what’s become increasingly clear is that it’s not enough to merely avoid greenlighting discrimination. The CNBC report is one early indicator that our state’s progress isn’t set in stone, and the failure of lawmakers to update our laws could cost us dearly in the years to come.

Last year, we made progress toward advancing a bill that would protect all Georgians from discrimination – including both LGBT people and people of faith. The idea that treating people fairly and equally under the law somehow erodes religious freedom is, frankly, false. We believe in open and welcoming dialogue with all Georgians – dialogue that focuses on what we have in common. We can all agree that discrimination is wrong, and that common-sense policies that protect Georgians from harm can lift all of us up, strengthen our communities, and ensure Georgia can continue growing into one of the most competitive states in our 21st century economy.

Supporting equal opportunity is the right thing to do, and the impact it has on our economy’s bottom line is impossible to ignore. Strong businesses lead to strong communities. When everyone can live their lives free from discrimination, our communities are stronger and our state is a healthier, more vibrant place to live, work, and raise a family

February 28, 2018

GA. Would Rather Get Rid of Marriage Than Obey The Law of The Land



Georgians Fight Fellow Georgians on Gay Marriage
Politicians in Georgia would rather get rid of Marriage than accept the Law of the Land and marry gay and lesbians
 

Couples – gay or straight — looking for a marriage license in Pike County, Ala. won't get one from local probate judge Wes Allen.

"We have not issued any marriage licenses since Feb. 9, 2015," Allen says.

That's when a federal judge struck down Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage. The state's then-Chief Justice Roy Moore told local officials they weren't bound by the federal court ruling. That threw Alabama's marriage license system into chaos. Some offices closed altogether.

For Allen, the decision came down to his religious beliefs.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and firmly believe that biblical world view," he says. "And I couldn't put my signature on a marriage license that I knew not to be marriage."

As many as 12 other judges adopted similar policies after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Some, like Allen, closed their marriage license division. Others will sign the license but quit performing marriage ceremonies.

Now Alabama and several other states are considering doing away with marriage licenses altogether. Alabama's legislation comes after the state became a flashpoint in the debate over same-sex marriage.

After counties began refusing licenses, they braced for lawsuits. But no one has sued — that could be because Alabama's marriage law says probate judges may issue marriage licenses, not shall.

"Alabama's been one of the toughest states when it comes to access to marriage equality because of our marriage code and because the way it's written for judges to choose to issue licenses or not," says Eva Kendrick, state director for the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for LGBT rights.

She says access depends on where you live. Metropolitan areas like Birmingham and Montgomery are open for business, but remote rural areas are more of a patchwork, forcing people to travel elsewhere to get a license.

"In those counties, Alabamians did not have equal access to marriage," says Kendrick.

The state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would get rid of marriage licenses altogether. Instead, couples would submit a form affirming they've met the legal requirements for getting married and then record a marriage contract at the probate office.

"Basically we're getting Alabama out of the marriage business," says Republican Rep. Paul Beckman, who is sponsoring the bill in the Alabama House, where it has passed the Judiciary Committee.

Republican state Sen. Greg Albritton has tried for several years to change the system to a marriage contract.

"It allows the probate judge to not be the gatekeeper by order of the state of say who can marry and who can't," Albritton says.

Albritton says he's a traditionalist who believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. But he says since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Alabama's system hasn't worked.

"I disagree with that opinion. However, they make the law," says Albritton. "I'm trying to accommodate that and trying to find a way that we can accommodate as many people and hurt no one."

But not everyone agrees that the legislation does no harm.

"I just think it cheapens the value of the most sacred relationship in the world," says Republican Phil Williams, the lone senator to vote against the bill.

"When you take marriage and you reduce it to a mere contract, it's almost like you're just doing nothing more than recording the deed to your property at the courthouse," he says. "You're just taking the contract down there and the probate judge is just the clerk."

He says probate judges have greater responsibility, for instance, they're charged with making sure that couples are old enough and able to consent to marriage.

The bill is facing more opposition in the Alabama House. Democratic state Rep. Merika Coleman says the change isn't necessary if public officials would just do their jobs.

"It's unfortunate because there are some probate judges .... that do not want to adhere to the rule of law," says Coleman. "So because of that, now some legislators in the state of Alabama want to get out of the business of marriage in the traditional sense."

She's concerned the new system might not be recognized by other states or the federal government.

"Specifically on Social Security and with military benefits they ask for a marriage license," she says. "They do not ask for a marriage contract."

But the concept of a marriage contract is being considered in other states. Similar legislation has been proposed in Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Montana.

June 20, 2017

What You Need to Know About Today's Georgia Special Election




    
Jon Ossof, 30f. (Wiki)


Political junkies around the United States will be getting their fix Tuesday with a pair of special elections to replace House seats left open by presidential appointments. The nation's politicians and political pundits will pay particularly close attention to the race for Georgia's sixth congressional district, where polling shows a very tight race between Democrat Jon Ossoff, 30, and Republican Karen Handel, 55, in what many are watching as a referendum on President Trump and his policies.

Why is there a special election in Georgia? 

The House seat was left open by Trump's appointment of former congressman Tom Price as secretary of health and human services. The first round of the special election was held April 18. Ossoff won 48% of the vote, far more than Handel's 19%, which earned her second place.
Because no one got more than 50% of the vote, a June 20 runoff between Ossoff and Handel was triggered. 
Why the election matters 
Ossoff's strong showing in the first round, and in the polls since then, has Democrats optimistic he could represent the first sign of a coming Democratic wave in the wake of Trump's turbulent first few months in office. With questions swirling around ongoing investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and the lack of major legislative accomplishments, many pundits believe an Ossoff win could panic Republicans into thinking their current approach isn't working. They say that could set off a stampede of GOP lawmakers, hurrying to distance themselves from the president.
A win for Handel, on the other hand, could be interpreted by Republicans as evidence that their support among their base remains strong, leading them to cleave closer to the president and his agenda. (The same has been said for special elections in Kansas and Montana this year.)
With so much on the line, the Georgia race has shattered fundraising records with total spending expected to come in over $50 million. That would make it the most expensive House race in American history.
An Ossoff win would certainly be an upset for a seat that has been in Republican hands since 1979 and was previously held by former House speaker Newt Gingrich. But polling remains tight and the administration has thrown its full support behind Handel, including a fundraiser with Vice President Pence and a tweet from the president urging people to "vote now for Karen H." 

What do the polls show? 

The latest Real Clear Politics poll average shows Ossoff narrowly ahead of Handel with 49.3% to her 47.8%.
That's less than the margin of error and FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver cautions that "Georgia 6 is a tough district to diagnose." While Mitt Romney won the district, which is comprised of wealthy suburbs of Atlanta, by 23 points over Barack Obama in 2012, Trump only defeated Hillary Clinton by 1.5 points in 2016.

What time are the polls open? 

The polls open at 7 a.m. ET and close at 7 p.m. ET. The first results are expected to come in about 7:30 p.m.
More than 140,000 people voted early in the election so far, according to Georgia Secretary of State Biran Kemp.
“Tomorrow will be a pivotal day for voters as they elect new representation to serve in Washington, D.C., and all eyes are on Georgia to see the results of this hotly contested race," Kemp said in a statement.

What about South Carolina? 

Lost in all the focus on Georgia's special election is the race for South Carolina's fifth congressional district between Republican real estate developer Ralph Norman and Democrat Archie Parnell, a former Goldman Sachs business manager.
There has been less national attention on that race because Norman is widely considered a heavy favorite. If Parnell were to pull off an upset, it would be a clear signal that Trump and congressional Republicans have reason to be concerned about 2018.

How have the special elections gone so far this year? 

Greg Gianforte showed no signs of an anti-Republican swing, winning Montana's May 25 special election to fill its own open House seat despite assaulting a reporter on the eve of the election. Gianforte's win came on the heels of fellow Republican Ron Estes' April 11 win to fill Kansas' House seat left open by the appointment of CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

How many seats do Democrats need? 

Even if Ossoff and Parnell were to win, the Democrats would still be far short of the seats needed to win control of the House. Going into Tuesday's elections, the Democrats were 24 seats short of a majority.
, USA TODAY

May 14, 2015

Georgia’s Gay Rights Win EU Case Which Blocked Pride in ‘12


A gay rights activist clashes with an Orthodox Christian activist in Tbilisi on May 17, 2012.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled that Georgian authorities failed to adequately protect gay-rights activists and should compensate victims of attacks aimed at blocking a gay-pride event three years ago. 
The ECHR issued its ruling on May 12, according to which the Tbilisi-based LGBT (lesbian, gays, bisexual, and transgender) group Identoba and more than a dozen activists were found eligible for compensation of between 1,500 and 4,000 euros ($1,675 to $4,465) from the Georgian government for its "failure to provide adequate protection."
The case stems from an incident in Tbilisi in May 2012, when activists tried to hold Georgia's first-ever gay-pride march to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.
Orthodox activists blocked their way, and some of the gay activists were verbally and physically assaulted. 
In addition to a violation of the right to free assembly, the ECHR also ruled that there was a violation of Article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, in conjunction with the European Convention on Human Rights' Article 14 banning discriminatioin.
In 2013, a group of LGBT rights activists faced larger-scale violence when thousands of antigay demonstrators, led by Orthodox clerics, attacked a small group of LGBT activists who wanted to mark May 17 in an area adjacent to Freedom Square in downtown Tbilisi. At least 28 people were injured in that incident. 
Fearing homophobic violence, LGBT rights groups in Georgia have since avoided public events to mark UN-sponsored International Day Against Homophobia. 
In an apparent attempt to counter International Day Against Homophobia, the Georgian Orthodox Church introduced what it calls Family Day, also on May 17. 
In 2014, the day was marked with a large rally, led by the Orthodox clerics, which took on an antigay tone and challenged newly adopted domestic legislation against discrimination.
Article posted By RFE/RL in

October 31, 2013

Sandra Day O’Connor Officiated a Gay Ceremony She Also Is Responsible for Anti-Sodomy Law to Continue

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, photographed in July 2012
Officiator of the first gay marriage at the Supreme Court, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images
On Tuesday, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor officiated a same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court, the first gay wedding to take place in the court’s halls. (It wasn’t the first officiated by a justice, though; Ruth Bader Ginsburg beat O’Connor to that honor.) The event serves as a heartwarming confirmation that O’Connor’s shift to the left has continued through retirement—but it’s also a poignant reminder that the justice’s early retirement cut short what might have been an evolution from Reagan conservative to gay-rights luminary.
O’Connor’s jurisprudence wasn’t always so friendly to gays, of course. In 1986, O’Connor joined Justice Byron White’s five-member majority in Bowers v. Hardwick, the court’s first gay-rights case. Confronted with the constitutionality of Georgia’s anti-sodomy law, White infamously declared that a constitutional right to gay intimacy is “at best, facetious.” In dissent, Justice Harry Blackmun chastised the majority for its “almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity”—but with O’Connor on board, the court had its five votes, and sodomy laws survived.
Yet just 10 years later, O’Connor performed a somewhat unexpected about face inRomer v. EvansRomer dealt with a Colorado constitutional amendment forbidding local governments from enacting nondiscrimination statutes designed to protect gay people. Many gay-rights groups anticipated defeat after O’Connor, by then a frequent swing vote, remained alternately quiet and cagey during oral arguments. (Her most substantive questions pertained to the amendment’s breadth.) Court watchers were surprised, then, when O’Connor joined Justice Anthony Kennedy and four liberals to declare that the amendment was “a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense”—the first time the court had ever extended constitutional protections to gays.
This was not the O’Connor of the Bowers court. But even after RomerBowers remained on the books—until the blockbuster case of Lawrence v. TexasLawrence, like Bowers, dealt with an anti-sodomy statute. But unlike the law in Bowers, the Texas statute challenged in Lawrence specifically targeted “homosexual conduct,” while leaving heterosexual sodomy perfectly legal. Once again, Kennedy took the lead in Lawrence, penning an eloquent (if occasionally orotund) encomium to human intimacy that directly overruled Bowers. O’Connor, too, voted to overturn the Texas statute—but she refused to join Kennedy’s opinion overruling Bowers and thereby tacitly revoking herBowers vote. Instead, O’Connor held that an exclusively anti-gay sodomy ban violated the Equal Protection Clause by “mak[ing] homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law.”
In one sense, the distinction represented an irksome refusal by the justice to concede her Bowers mistake. But ironically, O’Connor’s opinion also laid the groundwork for an alternate gay-rights jurisprudence—one conceivably stronger than that laid out by Justice Kennedy. Kennedy sees gay rights primarily as a Due Process issue: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments guarantees all people “life, liberty, and property,” and Kennedy has held, most recently in U.S. v. Windsor, that the “injury and indignity” inflicted by certain anti-gay statutes are “a deprivation of an essential part of ... liberty.”
Those are strong words, and thus far, they’ve provided satisfactory results. But “equal protection of the laws” is a firmer mandate—with sharper teeth. Had O’Connor remained on the court for long enough to confront the next round of gay-rights cases, she might have had time to hone her analysis, to develop her jurisprudence so that gays must be afforded the same constitutional protections as women or blacks. Instead, her retirement subtracted one pro-gay vote and added a rudely anti-gay one, ushering in an era of nail-baiting 5-4 gay-rights opinions. It’s impossible to know whether O’Connor’s gay-rights jurisprudence would have evolved so quickly had she remained on the bench. But it’s also difficult not to pine for a different version of the story, one that ends with O’Connor overcoming her Bowers error to emerge as the court’s true champion of equality.
Mark Joseph Stern is a Slate contributor. He writes about science, the law, and LGBT issu

August 20, 2013

Former USSR Georgia is Having The Birth Pains of The LGTB Movement


David  David Shubladze, a founder of LGBT Georgia, says that thousands of Georgians -- gay and straight -- signed a petition demanding judicial prosecution of the priests who led the anti-gay mob on May 17, 2013.  
As we know from our own experience in this country the start of any civil rights movement in which 
the status quo is pushed for change is painful for everyone involved. The Orthodox church in Georgia after the collapsed of the Soviet Union have become an assimilation of the Roman Catholic church 70 years ago. No one could question it and what ever the pope said it was not for discussion. That’s how it was in Georgia.  They warned the gay community not to hold any pride march, no public anything.  They had to stay hidden or there was going to be violence.

 Imagine not telling you are going to burn in hell but that they going to stone you to death. The love of god was certainly very fluid with them. The gay community said fuck you guys we are marching. They came out and were stop by the police because of the violence, but a few days latter they did the march and this time they completed it. The church was not all that powerful, the gays were not going to be stop because it was their life’s they were fighting for and they have had enough. 

They also see places like NY, California and many other states here in the Us and other nations in which gays have not retreated an inch. They see that and they learn to get results as well. They were supported by local Georgians for justice in which they could see that was being done to the gays was not Christian and more important it was civil. Breaking all the laws of the land by having the priests coming out to beat up people. Only two got arrested but that was enough because they thought they had carte blanche.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Adam Gonzalez~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*



Gay rights have spread in the West, but a backlash is taking hold in the former Soviet Union.

Russia’s new ban on gay propaganda is sparking Western calls for boycotts of Russian products and events. In Georgia, the Georgian Orthodox Church led thousands of the faithful to block a gay rights rally last May here in Tbilisi, the nation’s capital.

They carried signs, they sang hymns and they carried stinging nettles to thrash gay people. Then they broke through police lines.

Chanting "Kill them, kill them," protesters mobbed a minibus in which gay activists took refuge.

No one was killed that day, and injuries were fairly light. Now, Georgia is taking stock.

Shalva Kekelia was one of 200 Orthodox priests there. He said most priests tried to prevent violence.

"We told the gay people that they should go, because we couldn’t keep the crowds from attacking them," he said, referring to warnings prior to the May 17 march. "But they refused and were really aggressive. So we couldn’t do anything to stop it."

Homosexuality as sin

Father Shalva said homosexuality is a sin that must be kept out of sight in Georgia.

For us it’s absolutely unbelievable, said the priest, the father of three children. "We understand that there is a freedom for everyone to do what they want, but we don’t want them to preach homosexuality, because it’s a sin."

Like many Georgians, Shalva sees tolerance for homosexuality as a foreign import. "In Europe they always try to teach us what to do," he said in the quiet of his 100-year-old church off Tbilisi's busy Rustaveli Avenue. "Why do they think that we are that stupid, that we don’t know what we have to do?"

But, only a few blocks away, David Shubladze, a founder of LGBT Georgia, sits at a garden café. He said Georgia has its own, homegrown tolerance.

"There were manifestations to support us that were organized, not by LGBT people, but by normal Georgian citizens," he said, referring to a petition drive. "They gathered 15,000 signatures, and gave it to parliament so that they would investigate the May 17 violence."

Citizen support for LGBT

When a ruling party congressman questioned the signatures, people posted their photos on a Facebook page, some with notes saying: "I signed and I am real."

Due to public pressure, a taboo was broken: Two priests went on trial, charged with using violence and threats to interfere with a demonstration. One was acquitted. The other is to go on trial this week.

Alexander Rondeli, a Tbilisi think tank director, said the aftermath of the anti-gay violence is positive.

"What happened is not bad because after that the taboo about impunity of criticism of the Church was lifted," said Rondeli, president of  the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies. "And now many people criticize that. Before the Church was taboo. We could not discuss what church was doing."

Georgian Prime Minister Bizdina Ivanishvili said that his government protects minorities.

Three days later the same group was able to have a peaceful rally," he told VOA in an interview at his Estate in Ureki. "The police acted in a very sharp and distinct way, and those who were agitating crowds and forcing them against minorities were punished. It was a very clear-cut example of how government acted in defense of those minorities."

As this traditional society moves into the 21st century, Georgia’s new generation can be expected to grapple with more and more societal change.








James Brooke

A foreign correspondent who has reported from five continents, Brooke, known universally as Jim, is the Voice of America bureau chief for Russia and former Soviet Union countries. From his base in Moscow, Jim roams Russia and Russia’s southern neighbors.

Featured Posts

A Mob of 10 Men Attacks a Gay Man in Arizona

Police are investigating, though they aren't calling the attack as a hate crime. BY  MATHEW RODRIGUEZ Ou...