David, where did I argue to eliminate all laws?

That is a facile argument that is beneath you.

I AM hesitant to continually add laws, and the only point I would make in response to Dr. King’s quote is that the truly heartless are seldom restrained.

Thanks, Bill. I look forward to reading it.

David,
Actually, the Supreme court is currently considering a case about the 2nd Amendment and how it directly relates to the 14th Amendment.

See here for the oral arguments before the Supreme Court which took place on March 2:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

As you may or may not know, one of the main purposes of the 14th Amendment was to protect the newly freed slaves right to keep and bear arms.

Bill, that’s certainly a 2nd Amendment issue. I don’t think you could argue that it’s a 14th Amendment issue, however.

“David, the fact remains that no law solves any of this at the source—human nature—but only provides consequences.”

That’s true of any law; surely you’re not suggesting that we do away with all laws that seek to regulate human behavior because all they do is provide consequences, not change human nature.

“Laws cannot change people’s hearts, but they can restrain the heartless.” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tricia, true lawful gun ownership is a choice, but the right and means to self-defense is a right that belongs to all humans.  Thus, discriminating against that right through certain gun control laws and regulations is discrimination against all people, which I believe is relevant to this discussion.

Bill, lawful gun ownership is a choice made by the individual for the individual. Sexual orientation is a decision made by NATURE for the individual. Legal gun ownership is a legitimately important issue, but not germaine to this discussion. Let’s stick with comparing apples to apples.

In addition David, how many colleges and universities nationwide have student groups who have been active for years on changing school policies one by one?

It is quite possible, in fact probable, that inquiries came from universities in the wake of activist response to the decision not to reissue the executive order by which Warner and Kaine sought to deal with the continued lack of GA action on the issue.

I’ve no doubt that some took the same avenue Miller did here, with an insertion in local policy without enabling authority, which probably prompted inquiries regarding school policies, as Miller’s action prompted inquiries regarding government policy.

David, the fact remains that no law solves any of this at the source—human nature—but only provides consequences.

Useful in the case of the occurrence, but the more protected classes, the more time and money spent in the minutiae of arbitrating feelings than in any general productivity.

Do you support or oppose the death penalty?  That is an extreme consequence regarded by some as a deterrent, yet murders and other crimes deemed sufficient for the ultimate penalty still happen every minute of every single day.

David Weintraub, I completely agree.  I am part of another group of individuals that is always being discriminated against.  And just like you said, this group is regularly listed as an exception to equal treatment.  Almost every VA college chooses to discriminate against this group.  The group:  lawful gun owners who only which to have the option to defend their own lives because they know that the govt has no legal obligation to defend them as individuals.  In my opinion, when university and college administrators say that they don’t discriminate against any group, they are being hypocrites because they are discriminating against a whole class of individuals: lawful gun owners.

Barbara, the AG’s letter refers to unidentified inquiries only with regard to colleges and universities, “inquiries” which at this point still need to be made part of the public record. The letter had nothing to do with Loudoun County; you are conflating two different things.

As for the spirit of the “memo,” it would be nice to think that the Equal Protection Clause itself, as you put it, “NO CLASS shall be discriminated against,” is enough to ensure that no class shall be discriminated against. Unfortunately, history shows over and over that someone will always believe that there is an exception for their particular penchant to discriminate, that “no class” surely couldn’t have been intended to mean women, or gay people, or whoever it is that they consider to be inferior to themselves.

If you have an answer to how we can get to the point where that’s no longer true, I’d love to hear it. Meanwhile, there are people who would right now like nothing better than to hang a “No queers need apply” sign on any door they can - just as previous generations were fixated on “No Jews..,” “No Irish..,” etc. We need laws to restrain such people. Sad but true.

Alert, the letter was a response to “inquiries”, as yet not fully disclosed.

David, you are aware that it has been published that Del. Marshall was one who asked, and he has standing to do so.

If the AG was responding to a legitimate request, then it isn’t “activism”, particularly when all he did was reiterate 20 years of previous AG opinions, and 30 years worth of failed bills, and urge bodies to follow the law.

The governor’s memo handles it nicely:  NO CLASS shall be discriminated against.

Perhaps not the result that activist groups for individual classes would prefer, but better than endlessly trying to define all possible classes.

In addition, in a Dillon Rule state, the proper way to address this is NOT for localities to adopt whatever interpretation of conformance seems best to them—that is just activism of its own, as witnessed by Mr. Miller’s campaigning adoption of the issue—where was he when he could have moved to have the Loudoun Board adopt support of this year’s bill in the annual legislative package?

Apparently drafting his policy changes, and his press releases.

Much like his eleventh-hour complaint on the lack of diversity in the final applicant pool in hiring the new county administrator (with no acknowledgement of his own missed meetings during that process, missed votes, and lack of minority outreach, if it was a real concern of his), he avoided an opportunity to make a possible difference.  Instead, he chose the activist route, and prompted at least one of the inquiries mentioned in the letter.

Is the AG’s letter activism, or rather the response to activism?

The General Assembly has the ball in its court—has always had the ball in its court—and in this Dillon Rule state, under our own state constitution, that is where the discrimination policies await action.

Alert, this is an excellent comment. The bottom line is that any argument that our own board exceeded its authority in updating Loudoun’s Equal Employment Opportunity statement is an argument that Virginia law and public policy is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether or not the General Assembly brings state law into conformance with the Constitution - which it ought to do - localities and other subdivisions are constitutionally correct in fixing the problem from the grassroots up. Knowing this, not to mention hearing it directly from the Governor, they can be confident in standing firm and defending their policies.

There are still unanswered questions about the AG’s letter, however. We still don’t know who (if anyone) requested the opinion. That request is supposed to be a matter of public record.

Attorneys generally adhere to the principle that they don’t weigh in on issues unless asked; however, Cuccinelli said during the campaign that he intended to be an “activist.”  With his first trick out of the box being this assault on our gay citizens, he has made clear what his primary agenda will be and made our state the well-deserved target of national derision.

His action has rightly been labeled despicable, but what is even more reprehensible is that it apparently accurately reflects Virginia law.  The General Assembly has for too long been in the thrall of groups like the “Family Foundation” and those like Michael Farris, who try to make their bigotry socially acceptable by cloaking it with a veneer of religion.

Governor McDonnell’s comment that Virginia’s law may be unconstitutional because the federal constitution prohibits “irrational” discrimination had angered the religious conservatives, but facts are facts.  The very same book of the bible that conservatives cite to justify their opinions about homosexuality also - and equally - condemns handling the skin of a pig and the consumption of shellfish.  So until I see them out protesting football games and picketing seafood restaurants with the same zeal they use to attack gays, their position regarding gays is irrational, and flagrantly hypocritical.

It is situations such as these that demonstrate why our gay citizens need the legal protection of inclusion in anti-discrimination legislation.

The Code of Ethics is a sideline here—among those supervisors who did sign it is Andrea McGimsey, she of the paid lobbying career crying for government transparency and ethics, yet her own “energy strategy” didn’t pass the sniff test with regard to consultants, and her own cross-pollenation with groups likely to benefit from its implementation.

IOW, she is doing much of what she campaigned against, but it’s apparently okay because it is green energy instead of greedy development.

I’m glad the Governor addressed it the way he did, not by adding yet another protected class that still doesn’t cover absolutely every individual that could possibly ever face discrimination, but by stating clearly what should be GA-adopted policy from the get-go:  that NO class of person should be discriminated against, and that hiring and firing should be based on merit.  period.

Just because the law doesn’t REQUIRE colleges to ban discrimination shouldn’t mean they have to tolerate on-campus hate messages and actions.  I doubt there is a state law that says the colleges can ban food fights in the cafeteria either.  Does that mean they have to allow them?

In his campaign for office, Gov. McDonnell claimed that he no longer held the extreme social conservative discriminatory views he expressed at age 34 in his masters thesis at Pat Robertson’s college.  His failure to renew the Executive Order and Ken Cuccinelli’s actions are just what the Virginia Democratic Party needed to reinvigorate its volunteers in time for the 2012 election.

The fact that Cuccinelli and Delgaudio were shown on John Stewart’s Comedy Central yesterday says our reputation is spreading through the land! Is everyone aware that Eugene Delgaudio has refused to sign the Code of Conduct for the Loudoun Co. Board of Supervisors?  It’s online at loudoun.gov.

Its so nice to see our state being ridiculed on national television.  Gee, thanks Cooch and McDee!

I do not support discrimination, but I do support the rule of law.  And in this case, VA law does not protect GLBT people from discrimination.  This doesn’t mean the law is right, but it means it is the law.  The correct way to fix this is to change state law, not to have different state institutions deciding for themselves what is right, that would create chaos.  People should not be angry at the AG, they should voice their anger at the General Assemble if they want the law changed.

bigph, the point I’m trying to make is this:  the voters keep electing these bigots and ultra conservatives to office than complain bitterly about the positions they take. It’s our fault that they are in public office to begin with.

Why is he even mentioning this?  What’s his point? Why doesn’t he just state that he doesn’t like Gays?  Is this question on job applications?  How does his reasoning relate to court cases involving gay bashing hate crimes?

As Don Henley says “We get the govenment we deserve”.

Del. Marshall is the person who said that disabled children are god’s vengence. Hatred is his base-line.

Del. Marshall is the one who said disabled children were god’s vengence… Hatred is his base-line.

Actually, none of the state university policies prohibit “discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender students,” nor does Loudoun County’s EEOS prohibit discrimination against GLBT people.
.
In both cases, the policies prohibit discrimination against ALL people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. If they only protected certain categories of people they would be inconsistent with the 14th amendment.
.
Think about it. There is a reason that people like Cuccinelli, Marshall and Delgaudio want you to think otherwise.

Break out the pointy hats and burning crosses!  Next on the agenda. . .getting women out of the workforce and back in the home, where they belong, right gov?!

Virginia, one step forward ...12 steps back.
THANK GOD Governor’s are only in for one term!