■ 05 March 2010 | 6:29 PM
Critics condemn Cuccinelli sexual orientation letter
Friday's revelation of a letter Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) reportedly sent to state colleges and universities advising them they lack authority to issue discrimination policies that provide protections for sexual identity sparked an outcry from Democrats and interests groups.
It was the latest clash in an ongoing battle between Virginia progressives and conservatives over gay rights in the state.
Former Govs. Mark Warner and Timothy M. Kaine both recognized "sexual orientation" as a protected category in non-discrimination orders they issued while governor.
But current Gov. Bob McDonnell's equal opportunity executive order doesn't include that language.
He and Cuccinelli believe the legislature must make that kind of change in the law. Bills seeking to accomplish that were defeated in the Republican-controlled House this year.
Several newspapers recently published articles about Cuccinelli's letter after a Maryland legislator alluded to it in a missive he sent to Northrop Grumman Corporation officials asking them to locate their headquarters in his state rather than Virginia because of its gay friendly policies.
At the time, a Cuccinelli spokesman said he would not discuss privileged advice given to state agencies.
Here's a sample of the reaction that came Friday afternoon:
"I am puzzled why the Attorney General would authorize our public colleges and universities to discriminate. A decision on whether to hire, promote or offer admission should be based on whether or not the individual is qualified – period. I believe the Attorney General’s advice will hurt the ability of our colleges and universities to attract the very best faculty, staff and students, and damage the Commonwealth’s reputation for academic excellence and diversity."
U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D)
"This is big government at its worst from a candidate who ran on small government. Our colleges and universities are more than capable of setting policies that work for them without meddling from Ken Cuccinelli. I think Governor McDonnell would be wise to reign in his Attorney General and get him back to doing the work of the people."
C. Richard "Dickie" Cranwell, chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia
"Cuccinelli's letter is an affront to anyone who stands for the principle of equal protection under the law. Regardless of state law or policy, not only should universities prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but they are required to do so under the U.S. Constitution."
ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis, whose group sent a letter to state colleges offering legal advice contrary to Cuccinelli's
"This isn’t unexpected. As his former colleagues in the Senate we knew his legislative priorities and I knew they would not change once he was elected Attorney General. This is not a proud day for Virginia."
Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth
COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Clarification
Just for clarification, the reason we need anti-discrimination policies is because right now you're ALLOWED to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. For example, a University could not accept a student for admission if they find out that s/he is a homosexual. So agree with everyone that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of anything, but the reason we have to put a special clause in is that right now that is not the case. Equal rights, not any special rights, is all anyone is looking for. I hope that clears things up.
We should abolish ALL protected classes
The point that nearly everyone is missing is that America is not supposed to have special classes of citizens under law in the first place, and this fairly recent trend is unconstitutional in every respect.
I would much rather have our Democratic leaders calling for the abolition of all recently created special classes of citizens and for the restoration of equal treatment under the law. How about it, Mark Warner? Equal protection for all and no special rights for anyone, including your new pet minority group, the homosexuals.
You're hedging
Abolish "recently created" protections, but leave protections "grandfathered in" for others, is that your suggestion? Of statues prohibiting discrimination based on "race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or... persons with disabilities," which do you think should stay and which should go?
We should abolish ALL protected classes
While Mark Warner harrumphs about, "...equal treatment under the law..." one cannot help but notice he makes no mention of the special protected status afforded women, and minorities by our currently, quite corrupt, body of law.
If Mark Warner wants to restore equal treatment under the law by ABOLISHING special protected classes of citizens, then he will have my full support.
As for all of this homophilia being displayed by my fellow Democrats, I stand apart from them on this issue. Our Constitution calls for every citizen to be afforded equal protection, but affords NO special protection for any group or individual.
Attorney General Cuccinelli is quite correct in pointing out that the Boards of our universities do not have the authority to create new law, including new special protected classes of citizens.
The fact that Virginia law is different than laws in some other states is no basis for reporters to claim that Virginia should adopt the extreme positions taken by states like Vermont or California. Where is your, "diversity makes us stronger mantra," now?
The point that nearly everyone is missing is that America is not supposed to have special classes of citi
Your statement seems
Your statement seems homophobic, but that's no surprise, in a native of VA. And you think all anti-discriminatory legislation is bad and unnecessary, heard that before too.
The reason we have legislation and policies protecting people is because everybody has a right to get a job or go to school and not have to worry about being fired or kicked out or turned away because somebody in a position of power doesn't like their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
American's have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Other peoples lives are none of your business... if your family, peers, or religion taught you to hate other people that's your choice, but stop pretending that anti-discriminatory legislation creates a "special class of citizens"... this wasn't "affirmative action" for gay people... I feel reassured looking at our history, e.g. civil rights, womens rights that the good guys win... hey there's always Saudi Arabia, you seem to share more values w/ them than USA
Discrimination
I would hope that "Dickie" Cranwell knows the differences between reign, rein and rain. Other than that, I agree with him and the rest of the comments. That which is mandated by our US Constitution should require no further legitimization by a state/commonwealth endorsement.