Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Bob Marshall -- More Labeling and Stereotypes

When it comes to a willingness to label and stereotype to serve his cause, Bob Marshall appears to have no limits.

Casting aside his penchant for papering over his personal agenda with cites to peer reviewed studies and research, Marshall shot from the lip again yesterday in an AP story by Bob Lewis about Equality Virginia's legislation to protect state workers from discrimination.

This time his target was gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender Virginians.

Lewis' story says opponents of SB 66, which would prohibit discrimination in state employment, believe it is unnecessary and, then, quotes Delegate Marshall:

"I think there first should be some finding that homosexuals, as a class, are being discriminated against," said Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, an ardent social conservative. "In all of my experience and reading, gay individuals seem to have more income, to attend more cultural events, to take more vacations than the rest of us. Show me where this discrimination is going on."

So, Bob, what do the studies show?

Took me less than two minutes to find these facts this morning:

Workplace protection is linked to higher earnings for gay men. Median earnings for gay men are $3,000 below the income of men with female partners, though the gap shrinks in states with workplace-protection laws and increases where none exist. Among less-educated men in the 11 states that protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation, earnings of partnered gay men come closer to earnings of men with female partners.
For more information:
Gates, Gary. 2003. "Income of Gay Men Lags Behind that of Men Partnered with Women." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gates, Gary. 2003. "Workplace Protection Linked to Higher Earnings for Less-Educated Gay Men." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gates, Gary. 2001. "Domestic Partner Benefits Won't Break the Bank." Commentary in Population Today. April 1.

I know there's more "evidence" out there, and, Bob, if you'd talk to the GLBT people who live in your district, I'm sure they'd provide many personal stories of discrimination, and confront your offensive stereotype of them as the ballet going, beach partying, comfortably rich.

Bob, here's my question for you ... what would you say if I had been quoted as saying, "in all my reading and experience, social conservatives are all poorly educated, hard drinking people whose idea of entertainment is to stay home and make babies?" You'd be righteously outraged, wouldn't you?

So, why shouldn't your ignorant use of gross stereotypes to defend your indefensible objection to granting all Virginians the basic human right of a workplace free from discrimination provoke the same outrage among fair minded people?

The answer is, it should, and it does.

1 comment:

J. Tyler Ballance said...

Stepping back from the emotional aspects that cloud your discussion, we should first understand that Bob Marshall is being targeted because he is seen as dangerous by those who want to push for even more intrusive government and more special classes of citizens.

So, we should expect to continue to see a parade of stories where Bob Marshall's every utterance is dissected and waved about with claims that Mr. Marshall is some sort of asylum escapee.

That being said, Bob is woefully uninformed if he thinks homos are not discriminated against. Even someone who is labeled as homo, who actually is not, is often the target of overt discrimination and violence.

The issue is whether or not there is a need for additional protections for a class of people that really cannot be lumped together in any easy fashion. The homosexuals cannot even agree among themselves whether they will be GLBT or LBGT or if Trans get to be included or not.

My view is that Bob Marshall needs to meet more people in the homo community, so that he learns that his perception of the happy go lucky gay guys, jetting off to South Beach all the time, are just his weird fantasy and quite atypical.

We Americans should consider how the creation of more an more special classes of citizens erodes our Republic; a Republic that was supposed to be based on freedom, including the freedom of assembly, association and speech.

We need to restore the basic rights of every citizen, and eliminate the special favored status of various pet groups. In America, there must be no higher office than that of, citizen.