John A. Farrell

Virginia Republicans Back to Gay Bashing and Bedroom Policing

March 8, 2010 RSS Feed Print

By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Every time one of the two political parties appears to have learned its lesson, and actually seems to be working in the interest of our lives and liberties, rather than its aggrandizement, we seem doomed to disappointment.

The latest example comes from Virginia, the great state of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, the Washingtons and Lees and other heroes, where a newly-elected Republican attorney general has decided that what the commonwealth really needs is a good dose of discrimination, harassment and hate crime.

When the Republicans in Virginia staged a comeback last fall, they did so by persuading independent voters that the GOP had given up its desire to police our bedrooms, and would focus instead on pragmatic solutions for serious issues, like the dearth of jobs, the cost of education and the surplus of traffic. Here was the model for a Republican resurgence in 2010, the wise guys in Washington said.

But the paint wasn't dry in the office of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II before he jumped at the chance to indulge in gay-bashing. He dashed off a letter to the state's colleges and universities, telling them to rescind their policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The universities, recognizing that the college years are a rather crucial time in the development of young adults - gay or straight - had adopted these policies, at the campus level, without much fuss. Cuccinelli II insists that only the State has the authority to grant such boons.

"What he's saying is reprehensible," Vincent Callahan, a former Republican member of the House of Delegates, who serves on the board at George Mason University, told the Washington Post. "I don't know what he's doing, opening up this can of worms."

King Cuccinelli II knows what he is doing, of course. He's thrilling the bedroom cops of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell wing of the Republican Party.

Tags:
discrimination,
Virginia,
republican party,
gay rights

Reader Comments Read all comments (53)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Homosexuality is a behavior and not a type of natural state that you are born being. To say that all people are not being treated equally under the law in the case of same-sex marriage is a lie being that there is no legal basis for having to treat all behavior equally under the law. As it stands now all people are treated equally and all people can get married. What left-wing activists want though is to redefine marriage and to redefine the way people view homosexuality without giving ALL people EQUAL representation under the law. The left-wing want to have this dictated through the Court. So it is the left-wing that is making an attempt to deny ALL people EQUAL representation under the law and not the other way around as they like to claim. It is a left-wing lie that defining marriage as “one man, one woman” is not treating all people equally.

Garry of NJ 3:26PM March 16, 2010

Hello Kyle. I don't subscribe to this "right to marry" either. It's a matter of semantics. When people say "right to marry" they refer to the constitutional right to be treated equally.

Meaning, if my straight neighbors who are a couple can buy a marriage license at the courthouse for $45, why can't my lifemate and I? Every reason I've heard is, in my opinion, irrelevant to law. And my understandig is that law is based on the constitution. So if the constitution claims I am equal, have freedom, liberty, etc. and there is no good reason to deny me and my lifemate a marriage license, why is it I can't get one?

Arguing whether or not there's a "right to marry" is a waste for time. That's not the question here. The "right" involved is the right to be treated equally as the constitution promises.

Some say I am already treated equally, since I am free to buy a marriage license with a woman. But clearly that makes no sense. If the only way I can be treated equally is to enter into a falsehood, a sham, then that's silly. Isn't the point of offering marriage licenses is to promote stable families? That is what I would do with my lifemate. So what's the problem?

Your other point, that I can get married any time I want, relies on the definition of marriage being the relationship itself. In that way, we are already married. I'm aware of that.

We can also marry in a church any time we want, provided there is a church offering holy matrimony to gay couples. I'm aware of that too.

What I can't do is get equal treatment under the law. That's wrong. If my partner and I go through the exact same situations as our married heterosexual neighbors, in many very important situations the law will treat them differently, better. That is simply not ok.

Acceptance is not something I seek. The KKK might not "accept" the equality of black people, but still the law has ensured that the KK must tolerate the equality of black people or face criminal penalty. That's how I think it should be for gay people. I have no interest in who accepts gays or not. But I am equal to my straight counterparts (or so the constitution has led me to believe), and I expect there to be criminal consequence for anyone who does not tolerate that reality. I tolerate plenty that I don't accept. That's what grownups do.

I still think it is hypothetical to talk about a world where government didn't issue marriage licenses. They do. Until they stop issuing them, it's a hypothetical scenario. If you advocate pursuing a cease to that instead of allowing gay marriage, I take issue with that because gay couples will end up waiting for something I doubt will ever happen.

I also disagree with your discrimination thesis, but prefer to agree to disagree on that.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Rich of TX 12:30PM March 12, 2010

"The whole principle behind anti-discrimination statutes relies on an insistence that some segments of society merit more legal protection than others - a discriminatory stance in and of itself."

No, the whole principle behind anti-discrimination statutes relies on the recognition that minorities are denied equal protection merely because of their minority status.

You tacitly acknowledge this by ignoring the fact that statutes protecting ALL individuals on the basis of sexual orientation protect all people, straight and gay. You don't worry about the possibility that a university might want to hire only gay professors, or accept only gay students. And right you are: they wouldn't do that.

Its amusing that you folks generally want to preserve your right to discriminate against gays, but the moment some organization wants to discriminate against those that have such discriminatory views - because e.g. it is disruptive to the workplace - its suddenly an instance of discrimination against your religious views.

TJ Parker of CA 9:43AM March 12, 2010

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Cartoons

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Latest Video

advertisement