Virginia Is For [Straight] Lovers: Virginia Attorney General Orders Colleges and Universities To Lift Ban on Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has not wasted time carrying out his conservative social agenda. He has sent a letter to the state’s public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — advising them that they have no authority to ban such discrimination.

Cuccinelli (R) told the colleges and universities that only the General Assembly can extend legal protections to gay state employees, students and others. The letter states: “It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.”

This could result in a serious confrontation between the state and the schools.

For the full story, click here.

107 thoughts on “Virginia Is For [Straight] Lovers: Virginia Attorney General Orders Colleges and Universities To Lift Ban on Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians”

  1. empirecookie–

    Holy sh*t! That’s one scary group of people!!! There they are swaying from side to side and smiling while singing about God hating people and how it’s too late for them to be saved.

    The scariest part is these people can vote…and procreate–and indoctrinate their young.

  2. ECookie:

    that was a very disturbing video on many levels.
    That little girl at the end was a very sad site.

    Bat shit crazy doesn’t quite cut it, they aren’t crazy. They are doing this willingly, they hate life on earth at the bottom of it. Scary stuff and definitely the American version of the Taliban. Hell they probably have student exchange with the local Kabul chapter.

  3. “Way past crazy” sums it up. Have you seen the video they put out a few years ago? It would be funny, but for all the kids they are brainwashing. I do love the upside down Canadian flag at the end, though.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWMxUsTjhY0&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    Interestingly, I read somewhere that attitudes towards gays and lesbians were not as negative in Kansas (or maybe just Topeka)as they are in similar states/cities and the existence of the WBC was credited for that – the theory was that they are so extreme that other (otherwise sane) people are totally turned off. I don’t know if that’s true, but it seems there can be silver linings in this cloud of cult-like idiocy. For example:

    http://dinosaurmusings.blogspot.com/2010/01/thank-you-westboro-baptist-church.html

  4. Governor Bob has laid the proverbial hammer down on Reverend-General Ken and his “discriminate-all-you-want-you-ivy-tower-guys” opinion from hell. Gov. Bob tell us–in an Executive Directive– that such discrimination is illegal under any number of federal laws and case opinions, and crazy too, by the way. Whined Michael P. Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, a private Christian college in Loudoun County: “The deeper message it sends is that people who think homosexuality is a sin are wrong. They are irrational.” Yep, that’s about right. Now you guys are catching on!!

  5. [[At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect,]] — James Madison

    Jamey never met Tony Scalia.

  6. Canadian Eh and Elaine –

    CE, you wrote: “Evil to the bone.” Definitely, the personification of evil. Elaine, your comments about way “past crazy”, are apt as well.

    When I see clips like this, it’s crystal clear what we’re up against.

    (Elaine, I know that I ended that sentence with a preposition. 🙂 ) In a hurry. Off to work.)

  7. Mespo727272:
    Actually, Madison was not the ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights that you might assume he was. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, “[I have] always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”

    *************************************

    Hi Mespo. Obviously I was mistaken in my earlier post; thanks for setting me straight. I’m still very glad we do have the BOR in place, though. 🙂

  8. Ocean56:

    “Some legislators didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was necessary because those issues had been addressed by the Constitution. Thankfully, James Madison didn’t agree and fought tooth and nail to get the BOR written and passed. I believe he knew that if there wasn’t such protection in place by law, certain groups of people would be persecuted by the majority.”
    *************

    Actually, Madison was not the ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights that you might assume he was. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, “[I have] always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”

    Even his presentation of the BOR to Congress was likewise reticent: “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless.”

    “Neither improper nor altogether useless” are not exactly words of adulation. It is testament to Madison’s faith in State Constitutions and the will of the American people that such safeguards would be unnecessary. Alas, his faith in state legislative pronouncements and the will of the American people was somewhat idealized. His “not altogether useless” provisions have served as the bulwark against many of the abuses we have seen heaped on the masses of other nations lacking these cataloged individual rights. Great men are great; they are not, however, omniscient. And truth, it seems, is much more complex than fiction.

  9. Elaine, you might be interested in this news out of the US supreme court – re Fred Phelps and his evil little band of crazies:

    “The Supreme Court, taking on the emotionally charged issue of picketing protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in wartime, agreed Monday to consider reinstating a $5 million damages verdict against a Kansas preacher and his anti-gay crusade…

    The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to private remarks made about a private person, occurring in a largely private setting. The family of the dead soldier had won a verdict before a jury, but that was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court, finding that the signs displayed at the funeral in western Maryland and later comments on an anti-gay website were protected speech. The petition for review seeks the Court’s protection for families attending a funeral from “unwanted” remarks or displays by protesters.

    In March four years ago, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq. His family arranged for a private funeral, with Christian burial, at St. John’s Catholic Chruch in Westminster, Md. When word of the planned funeral appeared in the newspapers, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has gained notoriety in recent years by staging protests at military funerals, decided to stage a demonstration at the Maryland funeral. In response to such protests, some 40 states have passed laws to regulate funeral demonstrations.

    The Rev. Phelps’ church preaches a strongly anti-gay message, contending that God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality, particularly in the military services. The church also spreads its views through an online site, http://www.godhatesfags.com. When the Snyder funeral occurred, the Rev. Phelps, two of his daughters and four grandchildren staged a protest nearby. They carried signs with such messages as “God Hates the USA,” “America is doomed,” “Matt in hell,” “Semper fi fags,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The demonstration violate no local laws, and was kept at police orders a distance from the church. After the funeral, the Rev. Phelps continued his protest over the Snyder funeral on his church’s website, accusing the Snyder family of having taught their son irreligious beliefs.

    The soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro Church under Maryland state law, and won a $5 million verdict based on three claims: intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (The verdict included $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $2.1 million for punitive damages; the punitive award had been reduced from $8 million by the trial judge.) The Fourth Circuit Court overturned the verdict, concluding that the protesters’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was only a form of hyperbole, not an assertion of actual facts about the soldier or his family. While finding that the Phelps’ remarks were “utterly distasteful,” the Circuit Court said they involved matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuality in the military and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.

    In Albert Snyder’s appeal, his lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s protection of speech about public issues, especially the Justices’ 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, does not apply “to private individuals versus private individuals.” If it does apply, the petition said, “the victimized private individual is left without recourse.” The Circuit Court decision, it added, encourages private individuals to use hyperbolic language to gain constitutional protection “even if that language is targeted at another private individual at a private, religious funeral.”

    Even if the Hustler decision does apply to the kind of remarks at issue, the petition asserted, the case also raises the issue of whether those who attend a funeral are like a “captive audience” and thus need protection against intruders who were not invited.”

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/court-to-rule-on-funeral-pickets/

  10. Ocean56:

    I completely agree that they do. But I am having a hard time comprehending why anyone would say they dont. If that is actually what Cuccinelli is saying, it is my opinion, he should be removed from office and the quicker the better.

    My contention is that we dont need aditional rights for groups of people, we all have the same rights or at least should.

  11. Byron:
    At the risk of being severely chastised, is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?

    ***************************

    I don’t think so, I think he’s purposely discriminating due to religious bias. If I recall history correctly (and I could easily be off base here), this was a very similar argument being used AGAINST the Bill of Rights being created. Some legislators didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was necessary because those issues had been addressed by the Constitution. Thankfully, James Madison didn’t agree and fought tooth and nail to get the BOR written and passed. I believe he knew that if there wasn’t such protection in place by law, certain groups of people would be persecuted by the majority. Back to the present. Folks in the gay, lesbian and transgender community have the same right to attend colleges and universities as straight folks do.

  12. Mespo:
    Right you are (though likely not in the way you intended).

    ****************************

    I agree. Bigoted acts like this latest one committed by the r.c.c. (not that this latest one is by any means the first) inspired me to give it a new name; the church of cruelty and oppression. As far as I’M concerned, it has been living up to that name for centuries.

    The less children that are “educated” by this toxic institution, the better. The catholic church did this child a huge favor, although I’m sure they don’t see it that way.

  13. Just for the record, folks, NOT all Virginia residents voted for Cuccinelli or McDonnell. I am a VA resident and didn’t vote for either one of them. I knew both of them had what I considered to be extremist conservative religious viewpoints on many issues, which is why I did not want them in positions of power. Unhappily for those of us who value progress over repression, we got stuck with the extremists instead.

  14. [[I don’t live in a utopia]] — Byron

    That’s right. You live in a country in which a majority of Supreme Court justices believe, or say they believe, that if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say “Gays have equal rights,” then gays don’t have equal rights. And the Ken Cuccinellis of the world apparently see things as these justices do.

    The fact that you even raise the issue of “extra rights” suggests you have some self-education ahead of you. Please start now.

  15. [[is it possible to think he is doing this because our civil rights laws and the Constitution already protect individuals from improper treatment?]] — Byron

    Sure, Byron, it’s possible, and I won’t chastise you.

    That said, given what I learned about Robertson and his ilk over two-plus decades covering both religion and politics, this explanation doesn’t conform with Occam’s razor.

  16. raff,

    A “pastor” with the wedgie from Hell.

    (Holds envelope to head Karnak style)

    What would Jesus do?

    And for my next impression . . . Marcel Marceau.

    I bid you all good day and will return as the boxes allow.

  17. Mespo,
    Wow. That is an outrageous story that you linked to. Is this how any religion welcomes one of God’s children? By expelling the child because of what the Church alleges are sins of the parents? Mespo, there is no reason for any Christian school to take any child and hold their parents up for scorn! That Pastor and his superiors should be held up for public scorn so that they can feel the pain of such sinful conduct. WWJD?

  18. How did them folks adopt a kid? That could never happen in my state. We don’t let them folks get married. They can’t have kids, unless they do it the greek way and then we don’t like them either cause they is mostly attorney people.

Comments are closed.