Now it turns out Cuccinelli is also a birther!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/va-ag-ken-cuccinelli-birther

Anyone who denies reality twice (global warming and the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency) is not fit for public office and should be removed immediately.

Fuck Cuccinelli. There’s no democracy in USA, no freedom, no equality. A-hole just proved this point. REPUBLICANS SUCK – SEE HOW THEY ARE MANIPULATING THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AGAIN (AS THEY DO EVERY SPRING).
My captcha verification was “pench but” LOL Now it’s “office kenly”...coincidence?

FYI, now Gov McDonnel’s addressed the issue while Atty General (from an article in Daily Press) shown below. It’s possible that CNU had an employee take legal action against them on the grounds discrimination over sexual orientation, and sought legal advice to the effect of “somebody is suing us for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, is that a legitimate claim?”

The question centers around sexual orientation as a ‘protected status’ like age, gender, etc, which in VA, it’s not. I assume that Ken C’s point is that universities can’t extend legal protections to categories that are not protected, or at least that the universities are ‘on notice’ that the Commonwealth is not liable for them saying they will protect the category.

I worked at a firm where a black woman sued another black woman for, get this, discrimination based on national origin, because she is from Kenya, and claimed that her supervisor, who’s family was from Ghana, had prejudice about her people. Nevermind that she was not doing her job well and costing the firm money and was fired with cause. If W&M said ‘we will also not discriminate against short people’, the State is not obligated to extend short people the same legal protections as the other categories.

I agree it’s an embarassment to Virginia, and should be changed by the Assembly, but it is what it is now. By the way, according to the Feds, once you reach 40 you’re in the protected category of ‘age’. 40. Amazing.

Is anyone bothered by the fact that these definitions/categories exist at all? Being lumped into categories by a government body (federal, state and/or local) concerns me. We should all be concerned about that, and the dangers it implies for our liberties, and guard against being lulled into thinking that such an approach is acceptable. As the list of ‘protected categories’ continually expands to include just about every possible variation of people, I hope we eventually figure out that it’d be alot easier to start treating everyone the same.

Article nugget below:

And as far back as 2007, when he was still Virginia attorney general, McDonnell weighed in as the Christopher Newport University’s board of visitors was considering protecting sexual orientation on the Peninsula campus. And it seems that McDonnell’s 2007 legal reasoning was identical to Cuccinelli’s in 2010.

“In a Feb. 13 letter, the state attorney general’s office said CNU’s Board of Visitors did not have the authority to add sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination policy.

The letter was in response to a request for legal advice from the board.

The letter signed by Attorney General Bob McDonnell notes: “It is my advice that the law and public policy of the commonwealth of Virginia prohibit the Board of Visitors of a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation’ as a protected class absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.”

As an alum from the ’60’s the concept of discrimination of any kind is anathema. These battles have been fought. Freedom and equal rights, protection against discrimination covers everyone, just like health care should. Just because a person has different preferences, be they sexual or intellectual or spiritual or culinary or even political, discrimination is against the law of this country as a whole. The Bill of Rights should not have to list discrimination of every possible variation for it to be covered. Does this mean grits eaters may soon have to face the legal attacks of the oatmealites. Really – get a grip, Virginia – face the fact that the world has moved on from the colonial era. Women have equal rights (sort of) but then the same could be said of men who also have equal rights (sort of). Human Rights are a questionable issue at present. Who thought the Equal Rights Amendment would be needed to clarify the Bill of Rights again?

As we know by now, this really happened. As an alum and a law professor, I’m outraged and am glad to see this outpouring of comments. Here’s what I had to say about in on my blog today: http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=902

To everyone saying this doesn’t matter because it won’t have any real consequences: You don’t know that. As an openly gay student on this campus, I feel just a little less welcome, and a little more afraid. And who knows what’s next?

When I was applying to college three years ago, W&M’s welcoming environment for GLBT students and policies concerning sexual orientation discrimination was one of the main factors in my decision to eventually choose this school over others. If I were applying now instead of then, something like this would definitely make me think twice about attending W&M or any Virginia state school. But maybe that really is what our state government wants— forget diversity, this sends a message loud and clear.

Let us work together and fight against this discrimination. I urge everyone to join the facebook group “William and Mary says “No” to Ken Cuccinelli’s Discriminatory Letter”

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=345495863170#!

We can fight this.

All together now!

“Onward Christian Soldiers…”“

Who does Ken Cuccicoo think he is? I’m sick of bigoted so-called christians shoving their maniacal beliefs down the throats of everyone they can. I’m not a christian and I don’t intend to become one and people like Ken Cuccicoo have no authority over my life. If the LBGT community of Virginia does not take to the streets in protest of this over-christianized bigot then they have no hope. Living in Virginia is like living in the dark ages.

Hey there “Legal Eagle”. Before you go about accusing people of illogical conclusions, you should make sure the facts you’re starting out with are correct. First let’s take a look at the original phrase in question:

“William & Mary does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities.”

Now let’s reproduce your comments in light of the source material we’ve properly examined.

“The policy the faculty created selected a special class of people (GLBT) for protection.”

False. Nowhere did the policy even mention the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” or “GLBT.” The term used was “sexual orientation,” which is inclusive of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

“That’s like no discrimination against Blacks instead of saying all races.”

No, what would be like specifying “blacks” would be if W&M had specified “gays.” Again, they didn’t, so your analogy is falls apart right from the start. Saying “sexual orientation” is like saying “race” — the first includes gays and straights and everything in between (i.e. everyone), while “race” includes black people, white people, Hispanic people, Asians, Native Americans, and people any other race (that is to say, everyone).

“What about the rest of us? We are all protected under existing policy and the GLBTs are “we” also.”

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say by this one. But no, the GLBT community is not, in fact, protected, without the inclusion of the term that defines them, like how anyone of a minority race would not be protected if the term “race” was not included in the non-discrimination policy.

“So why do they get their own policy?”

It’s not our “own policy.” It’s the same policy you’re protected under.

“The “new” policy was redundant…”

This claim is, in fact, also untrue. Take out the word “sexual orientation.” Now tell me: where else in that statement gays and lesbians are protected?

“... and was unintentionally discriminatory by protecting some and leaving the rest out.”

If “the rest” you’re referring to is the heterosexual majority, I have already shown that they are also protected by the inclusion of the phrase “sexual orientation.” (Also, please tell me if the college ever refuses to employ you because you are, I assume, a heterosexual. Putting aside the fact that it would go against their current policy, I think we can both admit it is a highly unlikely scenario. But even if it were to happen, I would voluntarily and dutifully advocate on your behalf. Moreover, I’d get my fellow gay rights advocates to help — because we’re against discrimination based on ANY sexual orientation. Which is why we advocate for the term “sexual orientation” to be included in non-discrimination policies and not simply “GLBT.”)
Thanks for your time.

My question is how a Maryland State Senator has any idea of what the Virginia Attorney General’s office has been advising the College to do regarding its discrimination laws? Before we jump all over the guy, lets take a step back, this is an attempt to try to get Northrop Grumman to house its headquarters in Maryland and the claims are made without any outside corroboration. I’d try and find some other evidence before passing judgement.

Homophobic Republicans suck dick. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, proves that point, again.

Personally, I think he should be disbarred. Not only for this homophobic act of violence. That’s right! Removing a law that protects gays is in itself an act of violence. He should also be disbarred for filing a frivolous lawsuits against the EPA seeking to block the agency from regulating greenhouse gases. He seems to think the thousands of climate scientist around the world who have proven beyond dispute that global warming is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuel, are actually wrong.

Of course, the only controversy over global warming is, are the nonbelievers just idiots or are they complete morons?

I detect an illogical paranoid persecution over reaction. Perhaps the Attorney General doesn’t want a bunch of amateur lawyers running amok and creating poorly crafted anti-discriminatory policies State wide that would not pass muster in a court of law. The policy the faculty created selected a special class of people (GLBT) for protection. That’s like no discrimination against Blacks instead of saying all races. What about the rest of us? We are all protected under existing policy and the GLBTs are “we” also. So why do they get their own policy? The “new” policy was redundant and was unintentionally discriminatory by protecting some and leaving the rest out. And the crack about Republicans…. what’s your choice? Obama ain’t done a single gay promise yet and he owns Congress. Where was Tim when you needed him? Start complaining about the President and see if you can get him to move.

Good to know another American Freedom supporting Republican has immediately set to fulfilling his moral obligations of scourging the great American countryside of such treasonous and despicable behavior as loving someone (who just happens to be of the same sex). Because if there’s any way to best serve the American people, it’s making sure they can’t afford health-care when they’re ill and vigorously controlling their private (sex) lives. Good to know there’s at least one party that’s against big Mr. government coming in and telling us how to live our lives.

I’m astounded with how quickly our newly elected officials have made homophobia their new agenda. It definitely ranks much higher than a global recession, relief efforts in other countries, poverty, health care, or the myriad other issues our country—and our world—is facing.

lolwut