Stir in Virginia over Rainbow flag at a Federal Reserve Bank
-
In Virginia, a state where the Richmond-city intelligentsia have directed the conversation about this bank and how hanging up a flag representing equality is the most vile thing the bank could've done.
Rainbow Flag Goes Up; Letters Flow In
By SABRINA TAVERNISE of The New York TimesRICHMOND, Va. — The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond ran a rainbow flag up its flagpole last week and has been hearing about it ever since. From conservative groups who are outraged. From gay rights groups who are pleased. And from state lawmakers on both sides who just cannot seem to stop talking about it.
The bank unfurled the flag on June 1, at the request of a group of gay and lesbian employees in honor of gay pride month. One day later, Bob Marshall, a Republican in the House of Delegates and an outspoken opponent on gay rights issues, was moved to write a letter to the bank’s president, saying that the flag was inappropriate for a quasi-governmental entity.
Gay and lesbian “behavior,” he wrote, “undermines the American economy, shortens lives, adds significantly to illness, increases health costs, promotes venereal diseases,” among other things.
That prompted a series of outraged rejoinders from gay rights advocates, including Adam Ebbin, a gay lawmaker from Northern Virginia who said that despite Mr. Marshall’s views, things had “gotten better for L.G.B.T. Virginians.” In many ways, the controversy mirrors the changing demographics of this fast-growing state, whose traditions and habits are mixing with an influx of immigrants and young professionals in the northern part of the state. Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. The flag, he said, symbolizes “values of being open and inclusive,” and shows that the bank is “a place that doesn’t discriminate.” That is important in Virginia, said James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, because House Republicans have twice blocked a bill that would protect state employees from discrimination by sexual orientation.
Rainbows, which festoon entire neighborhoods in some cities during gay pride month, are hard to spot in Richmond, and Mr. Parrish said the flag outside the bank was “noticeable.” “This is not Greenwich Village or Hell’s Kitchen,” he said. One of the most popular arguments by the flag’s opponents was that the bank is a government institution and so should not be displaying a flag that promotes a cause. And now that they are, the argument goes, they have an obligation to other causes.
“We hope there would be an even hand played when a Christian requests the Christian flag in September during Christian Heritage month,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. Mr. Strader’s response is that the bank is in fact privately owned, as are all regional Federal Reserves, and that it considers requests by employees — this was the first one — but not the general public.
Mr. Marshall, 67, has been vocal on gay issues. He told The Washington Post last year that he was concerned gay troops would spread venereal disease. He was also a sponsor of Virginia’s ban on gay marriage. Mr. Strader said the bank “anticipates” that it will respond to Mr. Marshall’s letter. Meanwhile, Mr. Marshall has written an opinion article that he said is scheduled to run on Sunday in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“I am sure this flag and or Fed story will not end here,” he said.
:crazy2:
-
balderdash! buffoon! barnacles! hehehe… i think those who oppose the flag should be lined up and defenestrated.
-
Yeah what notquiteme said…................ :true:
-
I'm willing to bet that Bob Marshall got VD from a former boyfriend, now he thinks all gays have VD.
-
It's funny to see that some people seem to be more concerned with such petty things than they are about actually getting the proper facts. As a matter of fact, on a worldwide scale, the number of heterosexual females with some sort of venereal disease is actually larger than that of the gay population. This fact also holds true within North America. The only exception to this statistic is specific only to HIV. That being said however, I don't imagine that it will be much longer before the HIV infection rate in heterosexuals (particularly females) will rise above that of the gay population.
This simple fact alone suggests that these people need to go back to school and get a basic education on the subjects that they are speaking of, before actually making the mistake of opening their trap and speaking about such things.
-
As a matter of fact, on a worldwide scale, the number of heterosexual females with some sort of venereal disease is actually larger than that of the gay population. This fact also holds true within North America.
That needs to be clarified.
On a per capita basis, hetero women have a high rate of STDs/VD than gays do.
It's not just North America, the UK also has an extremely high rate of STD in heteros, compared to gays.
-
yeah but the whole world knows that gays are far more sex-oriented than heteros. hence we should all be burned at the stake for f**king around too much.
sheesh when will they learn that just because you don't see the hetero people having sex all the time doesn't mean they're not doing it.
-
I've been around plenty of straight men long enough to know that their minds are as cemented in the gutter as ours are. The only difference is that with heteros, it all depends on the female. If she won't put out, it's Mr. Hand that does the job.
Just sayin…
