At at time when states are doing all they can to try to attract new industries, many policymakers are looking to the film industry as a potential force for job creation. States across the country are attempting to lure film and television production with a mix of tax cuts and other promotions.

But Florida Republicans have potentially handicapped the economic stimulus of their program with a heavy dose of conservative censorship:

Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a "family-friendly" tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state.

The bill would prohibit productions with "nontraditional family values" from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit. But it doesn't define what "nontraditional family values" are, something the bill's sponsor had a hard time doing, too.

"Think of it as like Mayberry," state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, said, referring to The Andy Griffith Show. "That's when I grew up — the '60s. That's what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?"

Much of the concern for language stems from the fact that no one knows exactly what it means.

When specifically asked about potential state money for a television show with gay characters, Precourt told reporters, "That would not be the kind of thing I'd say that we want to invest public dollars in."

But other policymakers refused to go that far, and some weren't prepared to offer a definition at all.

Already members of the Florida Senate are indicating that they will not take up the 'nontraditional family values' language, leaving the proposal's future in doubt.

The Virginia political scene was recently rocked by reports of Republican Delegate Bob Marshall’s news conference in which he said that children born with disabilities were God’s punishment for women who’ve ever ended a pregnancy:

State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy. (...)

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

Even more outrageous than the remarks themselves, Marshall used them to support a bill he sponsored to cut off state funding for an organization that provides low-cost pre-natal health care for women – exactly the sort of care that can prevent complications during pregnancy, including some birth defects.

Amazingly, Marshall still refuses to apologize for what he said. Marshall told the Washington Post that he “regret[s] any misimpression” he “may have created,” but just two days later he threw a tantrum and denied he ever said such a thing. He now claims the words “never came from my mouth,” and that the media keeps repeating the story "without anyone producing the smoking-gun tape.”

But we have the tape, provided through the Staunton News Leader website, and we think it speaks for itself.

So listen for yourself, and then sign our petition calling for Bob Marshall to resign from the legislature.

Georgia and Florida have been something of a Petri dish for Republican corruption lately. Both states’ Republican House Speakers resigned in disgrace in the last few months, and both of their replacements as Speaker are already involved in some ethically shady dealings.

We start in Florida, where the Republicans’ Speaker-Elect has lost millions of dollars in bad financial deals -- and he appears to be skimming off the top of his campaign account to make ends meet:

[Rep. Chris] Dorworth financed his bid to become speaker through his reelection campaign fund and his political committee, Citizens for an Enterprising Democracy. A good portion -- more than 30 percent, or $40,000-plus -- went to his pocket for reimbursements in the past two years, records show.

Among the recent expenses: A $600 flight to Miami for the Super Bowl and a $527 stay at the luxury Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables.

In defending himself against charges that he went gallivanting around the state on his supporters' dime, Dorworth told a reporter -- and this is true -- “I clearly don't gallivant. . . . I'm not a gallivanter.''

Regardless, he really should send a letter to each of his campaign donors letting them know how much fun he had at the Big Game. They would want to know what their money is buying.

Meanwhile, over in Georgia, new Speaker David Ralston is raising eyebrows for accepting over $1,200 in free meals in the month of January, all paid for by lobbyists:

Reports to the State Ethics Commission show lobbyists spent about twice as much on Ralston in January as they did on Glenn Richardson, the man he replaced, during the same month last year.

Lobbyists disclosed spending $1,225, or about $40 a day, on Ralston in January, mostly for meals and refreshments. (…)

Last January, before he was the House leader, Ralston was treated to two lunches, worth $43.35, by lobbyists.

If Ralston maintains that pace all year, he’ll receive nearly $15,000 in free meals from lobbyists. By comparison, that’s almost as much as his base salary as a State Representative ($17,342, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures). An arrangement like that raises real questions about what these lobbyists are getting in return.

Almost a year after he was indicted on felony charges of corruption, former Florida GOP Speaker Ray Sansom is finally leaving the legislature.

He resigned on Sunday:

The move, rendered in a letter hand-delivered by Sansom's attorney to the Capitol shortly before 8 p.m., ends a legislative career that once put Sansom near the apex of Florida politics but unraveled in scandal as he took a job at Northwest Florida State College on the same day in November 2008 that he was sworn in as House speaker.

Sansom, R-Destin, did not acknowledge wrongdoing, but said he was stepping down out of love for the House. The resignation was effective immediately.

Despite Sansom's refusual to acknowledge wrongdoing, the House Ethics committees was prepared move forward with a hearing which would have laid out the case against him in full.

That's off now that Sansom has resigned -- which is probably good news for lots of Republicans (like former Speaker Marco Rubio, who made Sanson his budget chief).

One GOP lawmaker it doesn't help is the next Speaker -- Rep. Chris Dorworth. Dorworth made news this week for dipping into his campaign funds to pay for a $600 flight to the Super Bowl and a $527 visit at the luxury Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables.

The reason the future Speaker is using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses? He owes $2.7 million in legal fees for a bad business deal.

We've become accustomed to hearing ridiculous statements from the likes of Virginia Republican State Delegate Bob Marshall. After all, this is a man who last year compared the federal economic recovery package to slavery, and who once said "[S]ometimes incest is voluntary" when talking about abortion.

But Marshall's newest rant is shockingly offensive, even for him:

State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

Speaking at a press conference over the weekend, Marshall told reporters:

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children."

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

At the event, Marshall announced that he would sponsor a bill to eliminate state funding for Planned Parenthood in Virginia.

Perhaps we should have said this more directly when we told you about an Oklahoma legislator who wants to ban divorce for many couples: The government forcing people to stay married when they no longer want to be is a very, very bad idea:

[Republican State Senator Michelle] McManus is the sole sponsor of SB 1127 which would eliminate ‘no fault divorce’ for couples with children or where one member does not consent to the divorce. (…)

Under the McManus bill those seeking divorce would be required to allege specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.

McManus and the bill’s culture-warrior supporters claim it will help reduce divorce rates in Michigan. But people who study the issue of divorce say the bill’s passage “would be an unmitigated disaster” for families -- and especially children -- caught up in a divorce:

Family law experts, however, say the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce.

Michael A. Robbins is current President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Robbins said that Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.

Indeed.

When will Republicans learn to stop forcing government into the middle of people’s personal lives?

Like many state governments, Utah is grappling with a budget shortfall. That will require lawmakers to make tough choices when it comes how to spend taxpayer money.

But one proposed cut seems particularly absurd, even by Republican standards.

GOP State Sen. Chris Buttars actually pitched the idea that the state should stop paying for 12th grade.

Predictably, the suggestion has caused something of an uproar:

Buttars has since toned down the idea, suggesting instead that senior year become optional for students who complete their required credits early. He estimated the move could save up to $60 million, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

This isn't the first time that Buttars has made national news. The Republican senator also made headlines for suggesting that gay men and women are "the greatest threat to America."

We would say that Republicans ought to move on to other matters, but apparently, that's not such a good idea either.

The Republican-dominated legislature in Utah has found yet another particularly stupid way to waste its time.

This month, the state House of Representatives debated and passed a resolution, disputing the scientific basis for climate change:

The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".

The final resolution toned down some of the more overheated rhetoric, but still managed to insist climate science was "questionable" and demanded that the federal Environmental Protection Agency abandon its efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The move by the EPA has conservatives across the country in a tizzy.

In recent days, GOP policymakers in Texas and Virginia have issued similar requests, asking that the federal agency reconsider its very basic finding that greenhouse gases cause climate change, which in turn poses a major threat to public health.

Republicans occasionally like to introduce wacky legislation. That's no secret, and for the most part, we simply don't have the time to cover every ridiculous-never-had-a-chance-to-make-it-to-the-the-floor bill they sponsor.

But this one's too good to ignore.

South Carolina Republican Mike Pitts, a state representative, has introduced a bill that would ban the "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in the state:

If the bill were to become law, South Carolina would no longer accept or use anything other than silver and gold coins as a form of payment for any debt, meaning paper money would be out in the Palmetto State.

This is a fight that we as a nation have had before. Unfortunately for Rep. Pitts, it is a fight that his side lost more than a century ago. In cases stretching from 1871 to 1884, the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that paper dollars issued by the federal government are, in fact, legal tender for all debts, public and private.

Even if constitutionality weren't a hurdle, practicality would be. The worth of gold or silver coins would constantly fluctuate with market values for the precious metals. At best, Pitts would be reintroducing the barter system to South Carolina.

Pitts has no problem with that:

"To me, something I can hold tangible in my hand I can put more value in, especially under the current rate of inflation,” Pitts said. “In the case of total economic collapse, a barter tool is going to be worth a whole lot more value than paper with ink on it."

Luckily, even Pitts doesn't think this bill has any chance at becoming a law:

"I don’t see the intestinal fortitude of this legislative body to test the federal government on Constitutional issues. One that has this much teeth in it I don’t think has the ability to pass."

But of course, that begs another question. Why is he wasting everyone's time?

Kansas’ Republican State House Speaker is currently the lead attorney in a lawsuit against the state government. But what’s fishy is that the case revolves around the state budget – the same state budget Speaker O’Neal was intimately involved in writing:

O’Neal represents 17 professional groups, including the Kansas Bankers Association and Kansas Association of Realtors, challenging a 2009 legislative decision to take money from the funds of professional regulatory bodies. The groups’ members pay dues that support the regulatory agencies.

Democrats contend it is a conflict of interest. (…)

“Using his position as House speaker to drum up business for his law firm … I don’t see how he can reconcile it,” said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat.

While O’Neil voted against the particular funds transfer at issue here, we have no idea what went on behind the scenes or what sort of back-room deals were involved. So Kansas voters have no idea if their Republican leader secretly helped engineer this legislation just so he could turn around and sue the State of Kansas.

All we know for certain is that the Republican House Speaker, instead of representing his constituents, is representing the banking industry and 16 other trade groups as they literally try to pry money away from Kansas taxpayers in this lawsuit.