From WTOP and the Associated Press:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has directed state agencies not to discriminate against gay people, essentially overriding the state attorney general’s advice to colleges.
McDonnell’s directive Wednesday came amid a public uproar over Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli’s letter last week telling public colleges they lack the authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cuccinelli told colleges to rescind or change any anti-discrimination policies that include protection for gay people.
The Republican attorney general’s letter was denounced by gay-rights groups and Democrats. In the letter, Cuccinelli said colleges can’t include gays in their anti-discrimination policies without General Assembly authorization.
The Richmond Times Dispatch further adds that the AG is all happy that the governor has issued his ‘don’t discriminate’ decree. Now what’s wrong with this picture?
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who says there’s nothing in Virginia law to protect gay state workers from discrimination, is welcoming Gov. Bob McDonnell’s decree against bias on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, it’s not clear from a written statement just issued by Cuccinelli whether he backs the governor’s legal thinking in issuing a so-called executive directive protecting gay employees.
“I applaud Gov. McDonnell for the tone he is setting for the commonwealth of Virginia,” said Cuccinelli.
“I will remain in contact with the governor and continue to work with him on issues important to Virginians. I expect Virginia’s state employees to follow all state and federal anti-discrimination laws and will enforce Virginia’s laws to the fullest extent.”
So if you are feeling just a little bit confused, welcome to my world. Has someone contacted Jon Stewart to tell him its OK here in Virginia now? The Guv has nullified the AG. Maybe he will now retract his remark about our gay flag.
Perhaps Gov. Moderate McDonnell has discovered that Virginia really does want a mainstream governor and that this nonsense just isn’t going to fly. I am glad he made this decision.
<
Maybe someone’s been watching too many episodes of the HBO series Big Love! It seems that’s the main goal of the main character in that episode – to eventually legalize polygamy!
Hey, all I said was that its a slippery slope to legalize LPGAs
GR, I keep forgetting that is what Bill Hendrixson wants to do legally. Well, it ain’t gonna happen.
I got interested in this topic when I visited a friend in Utah and immediately met his son in law who was raised in polygamy. Then I had it all explained to me…the difference in polygamy and bigamy.
I don’t see how including LGT (aww I am going to give it up…too much of a pita to type it all) in a policy statement of non discrimination has taken us so far afield. Not discriminating against someone because of sexual orientation is a far cry from them getting benefits just for being gay.
Many businesses in this state extend benefits to domestic partners both D-g and S-g . The feds and the state also tax the health care as though it is income. Fair? Probably not. The different gender people perhaps an argument can be made. However, the same gender people are being discriminated against because they cannot marry or legal union.
Taxpayer…you mentioned abominations and that somehow our 5 senses would be violated differently. This is where you need to ask for clarification. I said I don’t care what other people do just so my 5 senses don’t come in contact with it.
Whatever makes you think I want to watch gay men or women kiss. I don’t want to watch anyone. I certainly don’t want to watch a 3-some.
I dunno, If we are going to flush our moral standards and associated legal codes, lets do it all at once. There, hows that for compromise — and I am against both. We may hate the Act and life-style but our love for the individual and respect for individual freedom compels us to give their personnal choices legal status ending discrimination and bigotry in the area of marrige among consenting adults. Yep, interesting debate. And the minimum age of marrige without parental consent is what — 16? fix that too!!!
Tax-person, I don’t see what civil unions have to do with polygamy. That issue was decided back in what/? 1891 or something like that–it was a condition of statehood. I don’t see why gays and polygamists are being compared.
Right now, polygamists can have 1 legal marriage and multiple celestial wives. The state has nothng to do with how many celestial wives can be had.
Right now gays can have zero legal marriages. How about saying every person above a certain age…lets say 16 can have 1 legal marriage at a time. How is that not fair?
I don’t consider it flushing my moral principals to allow gays to marry. Personally, i could care less if they do or don’t. As a member of the human race, I do care that we don’t one group of people is excluded from a right other groups are entitled to.
How about felons to guns or marriage/sexual acts between a child and an adult? Both can be legislated (restricted) by government, right? Do you object to those examples?
If you can legislate the age of consent and the bloodline of a marriage; its also within the powers of the govt to restict marriage to a male and female.
Marinm,
It is within the government “powers” to do that, what many of us are saying is that history has shown us that there are GRAY areas, and in my opinion, having the bible as your reasoning for not allowing gay marriage just isn’t sufficient for me.
PW Taxpayer,
Polygamy has been shown to supress the rights of women and damage young girls who try to escape. Supporting the legitmacy of two gay people has never demonstrated to be harmful, at least, no more harmful that straight couples and their marriage woes.
I have already spoken about how I feel about any of that which deals with children. NO NO NO
Children are a protected class. Guns are not without some limits. Bloodline of a marriage is limited.
And I think that the courts will over-rule the ban on gay marriage because of discrimination. I might also be wrong. Purely opinion…nothing more.
I think there might be some confusion about polygamy vs bigamy still. Before I made that one visit out to Utah I didn’t know the difference.
Polygamy is not illegal as long as only 1 wive is civilly married. The church marriages and the sealings are purely within the church and are not involving the state. Bigamy involves the state…it is marrying more than one person at the same time. Those Mormons sure set my record straight.
The main problem for the Hendrixsons and also real polygamists is the social taboo on polygamy. FLDS is NOT accepted Mormon religion. They are the fringe. Because Utah is so theocratic, it is hard to separate social taboo from church taboo to plain old against the law. Trying buying a drink in Utah and this becomes more obvious. I was in a non touristy area and I felt like I was in a foreign country in many respects. When I went to tourist places I didn’t feel that way at all. (near the National Parks)
You know I think I out bloggerede myself. I am and want to be with Marim on this, but I think you have convinced me that discrimination based on sexual orientation is the smaller step child of the larger level of marrige discrimination based on religous bigotry (more in relationship to muslims in America than for others but still) and – when among consentling adults – should not be permitted.
Its the legal status of a marrige that is the issue here. I think the idea of a limit to 1 married partner – in order to permit LBGTs — and to then say but no more to prevent the state from recognizing multiple religously acceptable unions is even more discriminatory, more insulting, has less of a legal or constitutional standing and may be adversely impacting more people. It has no logic to it at all. Holy aliakabar bat man, I want all my wives and all by children to be legally recognized for all the the issues discussed above plus more — like the right of a parent in a school, name recognition, tax deductibility and more– and public poligamy does not make me as physically ill like the other does when I picture it.
No, as a matter of principle, MH its all or nothing. Hey that is compromise – how say you?.
Right. But, I’m not making a biblical arguement. I’m simply saying that the VA Constitution already bans gay marriage and any approximation of it in terms of recognition (by the government). Companies are free to choose to provide benefits or not. The people spoke and amended our state consitution. The people are free to change their minds and amend it again to strike it. But, until then it’s the law of the land.
I make no value judgement about a LGBT life (or lifestyle). I’m purely looking at this from a legal one. And, if you can curtail, limit, or take away rights (as I posted above) then marriage ought to be able to be limited under reasonable regulations by the govt.
It’s a common theme you’ll hear me make. If you can limit who can legally have a gun then you’ve stepped on the landmine of saying that you can limit other ‘fundamental’ rights. If you can limit that one, you can limit the others.
I believe the 15th-A amendment will survive a consitutional challange as written.
I have no issue with the LGB community wanting to ‘change’ the law. They are welcome to (at least try) but when provided to the voters – they voters constantly vote against that cause.
Tax-person, I will have to think on it. So you are opening up marriage for everyone? Everyone gets as many spouses as they want? No. Too confusing. ONly one at a time.
How about the state saying you must marry within your race? They sure held on to that one for a long time. (1967)
I don’t think that same sex marriage will ever happen in Virginia without the courts over ruling the current law.
Tax-person, explain the muslim stuff again. I sort of lost you there.
It is probably me. I have been all over this blog today trying to keep up with comments AND watch the ACC tournament. Miami is beating Wake 75-52. I have no heart in this game though.
Tax-person…one more comment, I wouldn’t have made the Mormons change just to have statehood if I had been in control back then. Reading the history of those times….there were some pretty stupid reasons given for that. I also expect that mainstream LDS would oppose changing the law more than the rest of us.
OK, well to me I make no distinction between civil marriages and church/religious marriages – but then again I know a lot of people do. It is mainly that I’m not that much of a religious or “observant” person within my religion.
Anyway, as to Big Love, I wasn’t sure if Bill Hendrickson was just trying to legitimize polygamy within the Mormon religion (even though the mainstream Mormon’s no longer recognize polygmay) or get it more accepted by the greater society or the state of Utah. Then again, I admit to only have so far watched a little bit of the latest season. However, all that is a fictional TV series, so doesn’t really matter.
Anyway, it kind of boils down to the following – for me I really don’t care what the gov’t or a particular church/religion wants to recognize as marriage. Even including polygamy I suppose. Now, I know some of the polygamists think marrying off children is right – well that part isn’t. So that part of polygamy is definitely not OK, but on the other hand some states seem to be OK with marrying off people under the age of 18 as long as there is some kind of consent or something. That doesn’t make that right either of course. Whatever, for the most part it boils down to for me – I don’t have a big problem with what the gov’t or any religion wants to define as marriage between consenting adults. I guess the adult part is important and that takes out the crazy stuff with some polygamists wanting to marry underage women, etc.
Agreed. And I suspect they are just a little tired of taking the hits on poligamy. Fact is there are more Muslims in America than Mormans and poligamy is accepted within the Koran and is a vibrant part of their community. Nobody cares about what the Mormans want, but the Muslims — now that is a different story. Either you are for discrimination in the relm of marrige or not. Yes there can and should be some rules GR, but it canot be legal discrimination for one group, based on your personnal marrige preferences, and legal recognition for the other.
Ok gentleman, should the government even be in the business of deciding what is marriage and what isnt? Shouldn’t they be recognizing the legalities of a union and leaving marriage to the churches and religious institutions?
Now THAT is a good question. 😉
That is a marin kind of question.
Tax-person, I stand by my 1 at a time compromise. That’s what an entire group of people had to do to gain admission to the United States of America. If muslims don’t like it- TS. If polygamists don’t like it-TS.
We aren’t telling them they can’t all live together in the marriage paradigm…we are saying that the government is only going to recognize 1 union at a time. I think that is fair. If they want to divorce and remarry the next one, have at it.
That sort of makes sense to me. It goes back to my statement that personally, I don’t care whether it is a marriage recognized by the church, or one recognized by the gov’t.
Making those two things equal (the gov’t just recognizing any church/religious marriage) sort of makes sense to me.
Of course, many people (including myself) didn’t get married in a religious setting. So, the more I think of it, it’s all well and fine for the gov’t to recognize religious marriages, but there still has to be some way of the gov’t still doing civil ceremonies for those of us who aren’t that religious, and marry someone outside of our religion.
Now that’s an interesting idea on how to solve the polygamy problem. Each “wife” gets her turn in the rotation – maybe every year you divorce one and marry the next one, and eventually you go back to the beginning and start over (assuming you don’t have too many wives to the point where you never reach the end of the line before you die)! That sounds like a fair and equitable solution and meets the technical requirement that you are only married to one person at the time. If you want to consider the rest of them your “wives” or “sister-wives” or whatever it is they call them – that’s fine!
Of course, divorces are messy – and I could forsee messy financial issues with this approach. I guess that would be solved by prenuptial agreements though!
The Attorney General does not make policy. That job is left to the Governor/General Assembly. In this case, it appears that the AG did his assigned job which is to advise those involved regarding their actions under current Virginia law. It’s the Governor’s job to then either uphold or attempt to change the law-not the AG. Regardless of one’s personal position on the topic in question it appears to me that the process was followed. Which in this day and age is refreshing….
Funny that the law hasn’t changed, just the opinion of the sitting AG. I would find that odd until I remind myself who the AG is.
What do we do about the fact that the protection is policy, not state law? Haven’t the Boards of Visitors been given the authority to set policy?