On Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Gloucester County's bathroom policy, finding that the policy violated Title IX which prohibits discrimination in schools. The Chaleston Gazette-Mail and others noted the involvement of West Virginia's attorney general:
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey joined an amicus brief written by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, along with Arizona, Mississippi, and the governors of Maine and North Carolina.
As the brief argued, the states that joined “share an interest in maintaining control of their schools and ensuring that they are not required to follow a United States Department of Education interpretation of its regulation that is contrary to Title IX.” (I guess that we can infer that the other 45 states of the union don't "share an interest in maintaining control of their schools?")
For example, here's how Mississippi maintains "control of their schools" and encourages discrimination:
A new law in Mississippi allows schools to require students to dress and use the bathroom in accordance with the gender on their birth certificate. It also extends broad protections to business owners and religious organizations for refusing service to gay and transgender people based on their "sincerely held religious beliefs" or "moral conviction."
Finally, I would ask you to look at the two governors who got their states involved in this suit. (I know, I know -- I'm using "guilt by association." Sorry, Morrisey has a lot in common with these two extremists.) The first is the governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, who recently signed a bill that was even more discriminatory than the one considered in West Virginia for which he is getting significant national pushback and the second is Maine's governor, the infamous Paul LePage, whose racist and discriminatory comments have been well-documented. (See here for example.) Yes, that's quite a crew although AG Morrisey fits in well.
Once again it would appear that Morrisey's participation in this suit was more about catering to his extremist base than protecting the civil liberties of all West Virginians.
I finished this post early Thursday evening but decided to wait until this morning in the unlikely chance that the Intelligencer would cover the appeals court's decision or Morrisey's involvement either with a news report or editorially. Given their previous editorial stands on discrimination (earlier this month, for example, they argued that the Obama administration wants to punish North Carolina simply because they disagree with their new law), I wasn't optimistic.
On page 7 of this morning's paper there is an AP report about another case which has a one-sentence reference to this case but there is nothing about our attorney general's involvement. Contrast that with the lead editorial in this morning's Charleston Gazette-Mail which asks the questions that should be asked:
Why is Attorney General Patrick Morrisey jumping into court to help other states inflict prejudice on people with different sexual identity?
Why did he file a federal brief — in the name of all West Virginians — to try to let Virginia restrict a transgender teen who switched from girl to boy and wanted to use the boy’s bathroom at school?
. . . . It’s disappointing to see West Virginia’s attorney general joining the attack on discrimination victims.
Not to worry -- we'll probably see a puff piece this weekend from one of our "newspapers" telling us what a great job the attorney general is doing.