Republican Tom Cox of KS – Douche Bag Award Winner

This one is just kind of outside our usual realm of notice, but we decided his action was just deplorable enough to warrant recognition with our Douche Bag of the Day award. Republican Tom Cox is a member of the Kansas house of Representatives representing the Shawnee-Lake Quivira district of good old KS, and he underhandedly changed his vote to make it possible for adoption agencies in KS to receive state funds AND discriminate against LGBT people.

So here’s the back-story to this one. Cox sold himself as a “moderate,” but apparently the Republican definition of “moderate” is: “Yet another hateful bigoted asshole who just doesn’t say it out loud, but is proud to vote for discrimination.” Let that be a lesson to Log-Cabin Republicans and people who think discrimination is wrong…no matter what they say, if they have an “R” after their name, they will screw you.

The House was considering a bill that would allow private adoption agencies operating in KS who have a religious objection to gay people being alive and amongst us can deny placement of adoptees with LGBT couples. The bill was bottled up with a tie vote, but suddenly Cox  took to the floor and changed his vote, announcing, literally, that “a little discrimination is OK.” But of course, pleas that he’s not a bigot.

Apparently, he was convinced by a rambling hate-filled speech by Kansas state senator and congressional candidate, Steve Fitzgerald (R-Obviously) who went well beyond the adoption issue to proclaim that the “Gay Agenda” was “a lot of concentrated effort at destroying Western civilization.” (I suspect he’ll crop up on our award list soon.)

So Tom, for claiming to be a moderate, but acting like every other hateful, pandering, white-supremacist Republican office holder by, once again, screwing over the LGBT community, proclaiming “a little bit of discrimination is OK,” and showing us all What’s Wrong with Kansas, you win our Douche Bag of the Day award. Congratulations.

==================
UPDATE
==================

I was contacted today, May 8, 2018, by Representative Tom Cox (at least I have every reason to believe it is him). He disputes a few of the assertions I make in the article. I relied on other reporting, so I’m willing, with his permission, to post his response here for you to see. I do, however, have a response to his response. All that said, I greating appreciate that he cared enough to respond, and I believe in a fair exchange of ideas.

Rep. Cox’s response (without edit):

Hi, I am actually the Tom Cox mentioned in the article. I am willing to take full responsibility for my bad vote, but some of the information in your post is inaccurate and I wanted to correct that. The quote mentioned in there about my being okay with a little discrimination is 100% false. I never said that at all. A democrat after me said it mocking my speech. here is the Youtube to the speech. My section is at 1hour 3 minutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HshESdlXb2g)

Additionally, the vote was never tied and I did not switch to break it. I was a yes vote the entire vote. Random tweets calling me the “deciding vote” didnt make sense. They said that because I voted no on a previous version of this bill. 8 no votes on that bill switched to yes votes on this one. The previous bill had vague language that could opened up state wide bans on LGBT couples for adopting. I voted NO, they were bringing it back and it looked like it would pass so I made a deal, amend that language out with new language that only clarifies that the 15 faith based agencies are allowed to use their sincerely held religious beliefs so long as they do not violate federal or state law in determining families to work with. This was already the policy of the state, but this added it to statue. In agreement for that change, I said I would vote yes. Only 3 of the 35 adoption agencies in KS use religious beliefs for adoptions. Only 15 are eligible of the 35 possible. Additionally, Rep. Lonnie Clark was a no vote and the bill was failing and he switched to YES to pass it, not me.

Finally, I do not know Sen. Fitzgerald. We have maybe spoken once? And enver about this bill. His is an asshole from everything I can tell. I fully support the right of LGBT to adopt, marry, foster, etc. I did not like this bill, I only voted yes because they accepted my significantly different language that would prevent giving the Gov authority to block LGBT adoptions in the state and instead just keep the right for those few agencies to keep operating the same as they always had. They are not allowed to receive money any different from the state than they were before. Again, not justifying a bad bill, just explaining it.

I would be happy to discuss more. I am all for being criticized for this vote, I will accept responsibility for that. But I dont want false information being spread. I dont want claims of a quote I never said. I do not support discrimination against LGBT or anyone for that matter.

https://youtu.be/HshESdlXb2g?t=1h3m1s

The youtube should be queued to start at 1:03.

I did watch the video of his remarks and responded as follows to his communication to me and his remarks in the youtube:

I appreciate your willingness to accept responsibility for your vote, and while I get you may not have actually said that “a little discrimination is OK,” that is in fact the practical effect of your vote. For example, you note that “only” 15 of the 35 agencies in the state can use the exemption. Nearly half is a lot more than “only.” In the video you referenced, you even refer to it as a “handful.” Sorry, again, nearly half is not a “handful.”

I also take issue with the whole concept that people who vote “Yes” for the bill are not bigots, and that it is also somehow OK because it is a minimal amount of money. First, when you vote to grant someone permission to use tax dollars, but exclude an entire group of people based on nothing but an inherent characteristic of their being that has NO bearing on the fitness for the “benefit,” that is by definition bigotry and discrimination. In addition, if the amount of money is so insignificant, then those 15 religious-based agencies should be able to continue to do their work, and if they don’t want to treat every Kansan equally, they don’t have to take such an “insignificant” amount of money. Problem solved.

You also tried to continuously claim that this bill “protects their ability…” I don’t understand that. This is maybe your worst justification. Not receiving taxpayer money because they want to discriminate (and I would like to hear your explanation of how these agencies are NOT discriminating if they refuse to serve LGBT people) does not mean they are “required” to shut down. It just means they no longer receive that “minimal” amount of taxpayer money (which includes money from the very people being discriminated against I might add). Nothing in Kansas state law would prohibit them from continuing to provide adoption services absent that stipend, right? Can you explain how a “No” vote on this bill would have created a situation where they could have no longer provided the services. All I can tell it would do is keep them from getting a reimbursement from LGBT taxpayers…that doesn’t mean they can’t provide the services.

All of those things taken together is where the Democratic Representative following you was able to justifiably note that you seemed OK with some degree of discrimination. Rep. Cox, when you allow a state supported organization to exclude an entire group of people based solely on an immutable characteristic (BTW, religion is NOT an immutable characteristic…it is actually chosen. In fact, Christian belief requires that one make a “decision.”), then that is the very definition of discrimination. You did, in fact, in a number of ways, try to establish degrees to excuse the discrimination. “A handful of agencies,” “a minimal contribution.” So, help me understand, how much discrimination is OK? Would you have voted “No” if 16 agencies could use the law to discriminate, or what if the reimbursement was $700 instead of $650? What is the cutoff point for you for how much discrimination is OK?

In addition, in your email you note that ” Rep. Lonnie Clark was a no vote and the bill was failing and he switched to YES to pass it, not me.” Your math doesn’t make sense. If the bill was failing until one Representative changed his vote from No to Yes, a “No” vote from you would have the same effect as his no vote, to cause the bill to fail.

As I don’t live in Kansas, and don’t have a vote, I am especially appreciative of your willingness to hold a dialogue about the topic. I realize I have taken you to task on the blog post and here, but at 59, gay and Christian, I am long past tired of folks thinking that any amount of discrimination is OK, and I am especially aggrieved when people try to couch their discrimination and bigotry in the cloak of Christianity. We went through this with the question of slavery and civil rights based on color, and now all these years after Stonewall, we’ve learned no lessons from history.

Rep. Cox graciously responded to reasert his desire to make sexual-orientation a protected status, and said, “There are unquestionably parts of my speech where I did not communicate what I wanted to or just did a poor job in general. There is no doubt about that. I truly did not want this bill, but as I said, I agreed to support it if the changed the language and I kept my word. I do agree that what these agencies do is discrimination, even if not legally, i think morally it is. ”

We don’t agree, but this an example of how people can still have reasonable conversations, and hard as it is, it can also serve as a lesson about the complexities of law-making.

I think Rep. Cox, and hope we might meet someday.