sigh. UVA is run by the state. The state has anti-sodomy laws. These will be rewritten/repealed in light of the supreme court decision, but they haven't been yet. I would imagine it would be very, very difficult for Casteen or the BOV to institute a university policy that directly undermines the laws of the state that signs their paychecks. Therefore, it's silly to attack UVA for this.

I know Bond is a nice guy, but the website you linked to is dumb. For one thing -- pointy headed academics are the same the world over. I find it very hard to believe a department chair would give a professor a hard time for taking leave to attend to their sick partner -- university professors are perhaps the planet's second most liberal demographic group, immediately after communists. And it's not like they're stingy with leave time -- these are people who get every summer off, then have to invent sabbaticals on top of that! And I have a hard time taking free gym memberships seriously as a civil rights issue.

A quick WHOIS shows that the domain name was registered Dec 17, 2003, well after the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws. Virginia continues to prosecute individuals under its anti-sodomy law, but primarily for public offenders -- it sounds like this whole mess will have to make another round through federal courts before the VA legislature actually revises or repeals the law. It seems like this could have been thought out by these people before they went to the trouble of setting up a website.

I am sure Casteen would be more than happy to extend partner benefits. But he has to wait for the state legislature to get on board. Making a lot of fuss and taking paypal donations (to do what? give to gay professors? using what criteria) seems a bit silly. Writing your state delegate is likely to have a much more direct impact -- and let's be honest, UVA doesn't give a shit about the type of contributions they can get out of people in our age/income bracket.

Not that I'll be giving money to them. I just don't feel strongly that I shouldn't because of this issue.

Finally, I'll conclude with this link, because I know Jon will get a kick out of the title.

oh. you're right. bringing this issue to the public's awareness is silly.

and what exactly are you doing to help make people cognizant of gay rights at our alma mater and throughout the commonwealth of virginia?

this is a serious issue, and even if bond's website might be a little pointless in the long run, anything that publicizes the fact and rallies support is, in my eyes, worth it.

I know, I know, it's a noble cause. Frankly I just can't get that worked up about the current aims of the gay rights movement. Of course everyone should have equal protection under the law. And I don't doubt that gay people have to go through some horrible shit, through no fault of their own.

I guess the reason I don't get fired up about this stuff is that I don't think any of these legislative efforts are going to go very far toward solving those problems. In fact, I think they may make the situation worse.

Formally, it's a civil rights issue. But practically, many of the arguments -- tax and other benefits being the most tangible issues -- don't carry the weight they might otherwise. Demographically, gay people do pretty well for themselves. People should get the benefits for their partner that they earn, sure, but this is not a question of pulling people crushed by the system out of poverty. If you're fighting for economic justice, I don't think this is the place to start.

I feel like equal protection is basically a done deal at this point -- I would be very surprised if civil unions are not legally protected pretty much everywhere in the US within 5 years (marriage is another question). I don't mean to belittle anyone's desire for equal rights as nickle-and-diming; health care is a big deal. I just think the wheels are already turning, and given that, it's best not to rock the boat. I'm sure people said the same thing during the civil rights movement and are now villified by history. But the fact remans: a lot of America is uncomfortable with homosexuality. The Gay Rights movement has said "be fair to us" and gotten a shaky "ok". Their message is now turning into "embrace us, regard us as a normal part of mainstream society". And while I understand that, it's too far for a lot of people, and it invites a backlash -- eg an amendment to the Constitution. With too many more ill-advised publicity stunts like what's going on in San Francisco, I could actually see an amendment passing. It took 13 years to undo Prohibition. I think the average American likes booze a lot more than he likes homosexuals.

The type of stuff I can get excited about fixing is the type of stuff that happened to Matthew Shephard. Unfortunately, I don't know that there is a way to fix that, except through the admittedly frustratingly slow process of gays taking their seat at the table and making themselves a visible part of society without getting in anyone's face. I don't think agitating for health care and gym memberships is going to do much to fix the attitudes that give rise to the genuinely horrific things homosexuals have to endure. In the meantime, it could invite a legislative backlash that would be tough to undo.

also, I'll point out that while we were at UVa there was a transvestite working at O-Hill who came to work in drag on a regular basis (or at least heavy makeup -- if I remember correctly, his name was Alan). I think that implies that UVA is a pretty open-minded employer.

And before anyone nails me for being closed-minded, yes, I know, transvestitism != homosexuality. I hope you'll agree, though, that in general gay people probably have an easier time getting hired than Alan does.

ah ha. the dreaded "shim."