Eric Resnick of Gay Peoples’ Chronicle is reporting that LGBT state employees in Ohio “are no longer protected from discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity” because newly-minted Governor John Kasich (R-OH) “allowed his predecessor’s executive order barring such discrimination to expire”:

Neither Ohio nor federal law provides any protection from anyone being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

But an order signed four years ago by former governor Ted Strickland prohibited such discrimination against all 60,000 state employees in hiring, layoff, termination, transfer, promotion, demotion, rate of compensation and eligibility for training programs. It also gave state agencies and universities the rationale to expand and update their internal non-discrimination policies, including the ones covering interaction with the public as well as employees.

The day after Kasich’s inauguration, when he would have had to do something to keep Strickland’s order in effect, spokesperson Rob Nichols confirmed to the Gay People’s Chronicle that the order had expired.

Resnick’s sources hint that Kasich may still sign a new EO in the near future and gay activists I’ve spoken to seem to agree. Kim Welter of Equality Ohio told me that the state-wide LGBT rights group is “cautiously optimistic that this will be one of the EO that the Governor signs” and said that Kasich gave somewhat encouraging answers about LGBT issues during the campaign. Kasich told the Columbus Dispatch in October that while he opposes same-sex marriage, he “also opposes discrimination against gays” and mentioned his support for protecting LGBT people from discrimination in local interviews.

“We are pretty confident he will sign the executive order,” Welter reiterated and said she hopes the group can work with Kasich to pass the Ohio Equal Housing and Employment Act (OEHEA), which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. “The Ohio House approved the EHEA with bipartisan support in September 2009,” but it died in the Senate after Senate President Bill Harris refused to assign it to a committee.

Calls to Kasich’s office were not returned.

This morning, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady defended the court’s 2009 decision to overturn the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allow same-sex couples to marry in the state, even as three Republican lawmakers in the Iowa House were drafting articles of impeachment against him and the three justices that joined the opinion but “did not stand for retention in November.” Cady was the author of the unanimous marriage ruling, Varnum v. Brien.

The Chief Justice devoted almost two-thirds of his annual ‘Condition of the Judiciary‘ address to the opinion and the role of the courts. “Unlike our political institutions, courts serve the law, not the interests of constituents,” Cady said. “Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups. Courts serve the law, not the electorate’s reaction to a particular decision. By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic and social rights of all citizens.”

Cady reminded lawmakers that “the duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities…This is the very duty the court exercised in the Varnum decision.” “[S]ince 1846, litigants in Iowa in roughly 1000 cases have asked the Iowa Supreme Court to protect their constitutional rights by invalidating a state law,” Cady said. “During this same time, the court has declared acts of the legislature unconstitutional in over 150 cases. Unlike the Varnum decision, however, most of these court decisions have received little attention. But, that lack of attention does not diminish the strength and importance of the principle at stake.”

But the message seemed to be lost on Cady’s critics. Following the speech, State Senator Kent Sorenson (R) said, “He threw a match on the tinder box, in my opinion…I think he made a foolish mistake by addressing this issue in front of the chamber and I wouldn’t have done it if I was him.” State Sen. Mark Chelgren (R) said “prior to Cady’s speech he was undecided on whether he supported impeachment for the remaining justices. “After hearing the new [chief] justice of the Supreme Court, it is clear to me that the remaining justices and the new leader [have] no comprehension of what the separation of powers in our constitution means,” Chelgren said.

Conservative lawmakers will introduce a resolution that will begin the process of placing a marriage referendum on the ballot and say they have enough support in “the Republican-controlled House to win passage.” Former three-time gubernatorial candidate Vander Plaats is also fundraising “towards efforts to force an impeachment or resignation of the remaining four high court justices,” an effort that is not supported by Governor-elect Terry Branstad (R-IA). Plaats has called on the four remaining justices to “voluntarily resign their positions.” (H/T: Iowa Independent)

North Carolina’s Winston-Salem Journal is reporting that State Rep. Larry Brown, who made headlines last October when he referred to gay people as “queers” and “fruit loops” in an email exchange, doesn’t want the government to fund AIDS treatment for gay people “living in perverted lifestyles” because the state “should not spend money to treat adults with HIV or AIDS who ‘caused it by the way they live‘”:

He began by discussing his support for a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, which would forestall any efforts to allow same-sex marriage. He went on to say he thinks the government shouldn’t spend money to treat HIV among people “living in perverted lifestyles.”

“I’m not opposed to helping a child born with HIV or something, but I don’t condone spending taxpayers’ money to help people living in perverted lifestyles,” said Brown, who ran unopposed in the November election to win a fourth term.

Brown wouldn’t say Tuesday what he considers perverted, but did say that adults who get HIV through sexual behavior or drugs would be among those who should not be treated at government expense. Asked how he would feel about the government paying for diseases caused by smoking, Brown said he felt the same as for HIV because smokers “choose to do that on their own.”

The North Carolina Division of Public Health estimates that more than 35,000 people are HIV positive or have AIDS in the state, leading Katherine Foster, the president of AIDS Care Service in Winston-Salem, to call Brown’s remarks “fiscally and socially irresponsible.” “What Representative Brown can’t seem to get through his mind is that HIV disease … affects individuals regardless of age, race and sexual orientation,” Foster said. “Without funding for HIV, the disease is at risk for reaching pandemic levels, just as it has in countries that do not provide government funding for HIV-AIDS.”

From January to July 2010, North Carolina’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program — a national program funded by the federal and state governments and run by the states — stopped enrolling new patients as a result of state budget cuts. The General Assembly appropriated an additional $14 million in funding in July, which now allows the program to accept new applicants above 125% of FPL (by statue, the program usually accepts patients above 300% FPL). ADAP currently serves 6,120 Carolinians with an additional 100 on the waiting list, assistant ADAP head John Peebles told me during a phone interview this afternoon. He said the future appropriation levels were “unknown” since Republicans won control of the General Assembly in November. “We consider ourselves very fortunate to get the expanded $14 million,” he added.

Indeed, North Carolina’s AIDS program is faring better than most. “At least 19 states have taken such steps as capping enrollment, dropping patients, instituting waiting lists, lowering the income ceiling for eligibility, and no longer covering certain drugs or tests.”

California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is preparing to introduce a new anti-bullying bill modeled on New Jersey’s recently enacted — and widely praised — measure that advocates hope will add oversight and accountability to the existing bullying laws. In an interview with me yesterday Equality California’s Geoff Kors — who is helping draft the bill — said that while the state already provides a wide range of protections to LGBT people, the new measure would “put some teeth into the existing prohibition on bullying.” “It’s one thing to make it illegal to bully students, it’s another to actually put some teeth in the law,” he added.

“All schools personnel will be required to report instances of abuse,” and provide that information to the Superintendent.” Students will also have someone they could talk to within each school and will be able to call an 800 number to report harassment. The schools and the state will also save money, Kors argued, since reducing bullying will eliminate harassment lawsuits against school districts and keep kids in school.

The group is also pursuing a separate measure, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act, which would require schools to add LGBT-related content to the curriculum. Advocates hope that a more inclusive and age-appropriate pedagogy will “aid in the personal growth and well-being of gay and gender-non-conforming students, while at the same time fostering collaboration and helping to create a safer campus environment for all students, gay and straight.” “There is so much data that shows that when curriculum and education programs are inclusive of LGBT people, the bullying is reduced dramatically,” Kors said.

He predicted that the chances of both bills passing are “very good,” and said that the text of the anti-bullying measure should be available within two to three weeks. Equality California began working on a stronger anti-bullying bill before New Jersey passed its measure last month, but had been “waiting for a governor who might sign a bill.” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had vetoed several education and safe school bills, “saying that each local school district should deal with it.”