Governor McDonnell Reverses AG’s Advice on Protection for Gays
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.
Good for Governor McDonnell for recognizing that the vast majority of Virginians believe in equal rights for all!
Good move; I like it.
Hmmm…didn’t Ken Cuccinelli also say before that he didn’t advocate discrimination, he just wanted to advise higher ed institutions that VA law says they can’t protect LGBTs from discrimination? I am not sure if I see McDonnell’s directive as a true reversal. We need some clarification on this. There is a lot of double talk going on in VA govt…
Was this whole thing an attempt to placate all members of the constituency? I guess right now, both Cuccinelli and McDonnell could say they are both fighting discrimination, and fighting a “protected status” for LGBTs. Is anyone else confused?
It’s not an issue, but if I had to side with either Cuccinelli or McDonnell, I’ll go with McDonnell. If it doesn’t cost anything, and it makes the bleeding hearts happy, why not.
Because its a slippery slope to Sodom and Gomora and a much harder row to stand against self indulgence.
I sure am, DG. I hear much double speak. So the colleges are not to print that they don’t discriminate but they aren’t to discriminate? Have I read this right?
Puh-Leez Tax-person. Are you suggesting that we base our state policy on the Old Testament?
Please tell me you are joking.
The old “slippery slope” argument invoked by taxpayer is a logically flawed fallacy that could be used to argue against any and every law, regulation or ordinance at the national, state or local levels.
Old, New, Bavagita or Koran — something beyond the church of whats happnin now or the church of me. I realize that many folks see such history and such doctrine as old men in old times, but PuhLeez do not assume that we are the first generation to shed the yoke of such doctrine and not live to regret it. We have been through this before.
I am actually disappointed in McDonnell. Cuccinelli made a point of law and challenged the General Assemby to act. McDonnell has interceded by executive order and taken the decison away from Virginians to decide if LGBTs are to be a protected classs with accress to State funds, entrance preferences and a whole range of of discrimination compensatory entitlements.
LGBTs do not have entrance preferences, PWC Taxpayer. As an infamous man once remarked, “YOU LIE!”
I don’t think anyone is really sure what McDonnell has done. That is part of the problem. Has he signed an executive order?
Now back to the church remarks. Let’s stick to the bible. I have not read the Bavagita since high school and I was far too young to understand it and I have never read the Koran. The OT also tells me not to eat pork and shrimp. I believe that the Koran would continue that dietary restriction. Should I have not gone to Red Lobster yesterday? No bacon for breakfast for Moon?
I am not sure what you are saying, Tax-person. Are you saying because of the Bible, Virginia should be able to discriminate against gay employees and students?
From the Richmond Times Dispatch 3/11/10
So my little muse, what do you think the agenda here is. It was never about consitutional protections was it? So what is it that sent cold shivers up your leg if not the block to special entitlements.
What “discrimination compensatory entitlements” will gays get because of McDonnell’s pronouncement?
I would say that most people who believe in fairness found what Cuccinelli said to be repugnant. It sends a bad message that Virginia is for hate and intolerance. Better to have just done nothing.
The little snicker snicker tone is a typica stunt used to belittle. We get it.
Discrimination.
Cuccinelli’s legal opinion did no such thing – that is purely political spin and demogagory.
Actually no, it is not political spin and demogagory. It is my opinion that is based on how I feel. It has nothing to do with political ideology.
What kind of message do YOU think it sends, Tax?
Asserting that Cuccinelli’s legal opinion is repugnant, anti-fairness and somehow suggests that Virginia is for hate and intolerance is repugnant political spin in its own right, the very problem with our political environment today, in my opinion. Would it not be and have been better to discuss the impacts of the letter, the legal implications, the changes that VA schools would required to make or the ones that they could not now make than to attack a duly elected State Attorney General that way — oh and that he is a Rebulican had nothing to do with it — yeah right.
This is not an official VA legal opinion advocating against constitutionally protected discrimination, which it seems, interestingly, you read it to be. It was a letter that told state institutions to be careful about designating LGBTs as a discriminated class with special protections until the General Assemby set for the legal framework for those actions. McDonnel did what he had to to undercut the, frankly, repugnant political opportunism (spin) that was evolving.
I don’t care if he is a Republican, an Independent, or a Democrat. He is an ideologue with his own private agenda. Are you defensive about being a Republican? I like many different Republicans so that probably isn’t it.
Attack a duly elected state attorney general? I am laughing. Want me to go back through and pull some taxpayer remarks about politicians? Didn’t think so. I make absolutely no apologies for not being able to stand the AG because of his political ideology. I hope that clears it up.
I have followed the esteemed AG’s political career and I do find his attitude about gays to be one of intolerance. Intolerance does spread hate and I find that repugnant. I make no bones about it.
I have read the letter Cuccinelli sent out. In fact, there is a link from here to the letter. He didn’t just tell the colleges to be careful. McDonnell had to do what he did frankly, because he doesn’t want the reputation of being an extremist. He had a near brush with that when the Washington Post go hold of his disseration. MccDonnell, who does seem to have some integrity said he would serve as a moderate centrist and I believe he is trying to do just that–but a right centrist. I would like to nudge him a little across the fulcrum but I don’t expect that to happen.
The link to the letter can be found at the bottom of the page on this link.
http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2010/03/06/ag-gives-the-ok-to-sexual-orientation-bias-on-campuses-in-va/#comments
What’s an “LGBT”? The “B” is for bisexual?
We are all bisexual, it’s just a question of degree.
@Moon-howler
Moon, you are correct, a directive is more of a “suggestion” and does not have the force of law like an order
There’s an interesting thought, Rick. Probably accurate. It sure exists in the animal kingdom in degrees. I wonder how many people are going to tell you that you are full of it?
heh, i said it to get an inevitable reaction.
Honestly, when I took Psychology in college, circa 1985, that’s what I was taught. It’s a question of degree. Homosexual behaviors which only exist in certain contexts, like prisons or isolated communities, are the latent gay component surfacing.
(Skip this paragraph if you’re squeamish)
Another good point of evidence in this direction is the way in a few places in history, whole societies exist where most of the men engage in homosexual acts – I know there are tribes in New Guinea where the boys are sent to live with older men, and it is believed that the injection of semen into them is what turns them into men. I’m not making that up, and some people have lived that way for hundreds of years.
But, the counter-arguement to paraphrase Lenny Bruce (my hero) is that men if left alone on an island will Schtup mud, and it doesn’t mean they’re attracted to the mud.
The “everyone is bisexual” theory seems to have fallen out of favor since i was taught. Apparently it’s what Freud believed.
You’re right that bisexuality as well as homosexuality exists in the animal, and insect, kingdoms.
Which in and of itself should stop homophobes in their tracks. God didn’t make the animals straight – something on the order of 10% of most species are pretty much born gay.
Actually PWC, McDonnell is taking the correct legal position. I believe he referenced something about a higher court, umm, the supreme court maybe. That anyone would condone discrimating against someone cause of the sex they have behind closed doors, LEGALLY, is just beyond my understanding, it really is. I guess because I am comfortable in my own skin I don’t need to worry about who’s in someone elses skin, so to speak or course
Rick, thanks for posting the warning.
Also, are you that much of a youngster or did you take psych later? I was a psych major in undergrad school. There were some strange ideas back in the day.
Elena, I agree. I just don’t care what people do as long as people and animals aren’t harmed and that kids aren’t involved.
You are citing me to be funny – right – because noone has said anything about condoning Illegal discrimination – just setting out that behavior as a special class for benefits and making sure that it is the General Assemby that works through that.
So, Elena, it sounds like you would – to be consistent – support poligamy between consenting adults too -right. Did not expect that.
So my question is, can the colleges legally protect the LGBT community from discrimination in VA?
youngster? 44 years old. That was 25 years ago.
Rick, well yes. Sort of a youngster.
Pinko, not sure.
I could care less about polygamy. It is a religious experience, not a state experience. I only have one qualification: NO KIDS and no forced polygamy. Only the first wife is a legal wife. The rest are just shacking up with religious sanctions giving them the nod. They would probably like to think of it as not shacking up, but that’s their problem.
Taxpayer, I don’t see the special benefits that any of the protected classes get. What benefits would gays get or does anyone get at the moment? Let’s hone in on National Origin or Religion. Where are the benefits?
Well, at the Federal level, it is the Congress that is now grappling with the extention of martial rights to health care, retirement and estates for same-sex couples. The idea that this extention of rights could be extended by executive fiat – much less by an individual department head – might cause some to question how far that executive authority should / can go.
As to poligamy, yeah, tough call – but certainly a state licensing issue – with related rights as noted above – or discrimination based on religous or other views – to deny those same “rights” to loving, consenting adults. So, do I read you to be willing to discriminate or deny legal standing to the 2nd or 3rd wife – assuming that the meet the age requirements.? Not sure how your enforce consenting – I attended a couple of shot gun weddings back in the day.
Here are Cuccinelli’s comments.
1) should we be concerned that our AG is not familiar with federal laws? As far as I know federal laws regarding discrimination were in place three days ago.
2) should we be concerned that our AG has to tell us that “will remain in contact with the Governor”
Comment from Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II:
I applaud Governor McDonnell for the tone he is setting for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 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.
Yes, you read me right. One legal spouse at a time. If people want to take celestial wives or husbands, that is a religious matter and none of my business. Same rule for everyone. 1 legal spouse at a time. That is how it works now. The trouble some of the FLDS folks have gotten in to is child issues.
Extention of maritial rights- I have no problem with civil unions, one at a time, for anyone who wants one, regardless of gender. My only caveat would be age. Certainly 14 year olds shouldn’t be married off to old goats.
Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt me or help me. Actually I would prefer that the state stick to civil unions and that churches do the marriage business but I wouldn’t fall on the sword over that issue.
I really don’t care what people do in this context as long as my 5 senses don’t have to experience it.
Juturna, I am concerned that he needs to tell us he will remain in contact.
And yes, you are right. Those very laws have been in effect for what? 8 years up until 3 days ago. Cuccinelli has his own extremist agenda. I don’t care what his person beliefs are. I do care if he attempts to put those beliefs into public policy.
What is the difference in the economic impact to a man paying for insurance for his three ex-wives and childrens or three sister wives and children – or significant others? No one ever comments on the economic impacts divorce (with children) has on the taxpayer. I was in the insurance industry during the 80’s and it cost a fortune to expand the claims system to accomodate multiple divorces… I know the cost of doing so was built into the premiums.
Divorce is legal while the morality of the other situations always comes under attack? So because it’s legal it’s moral? Ah, I don’t support in ploygamy just for the record
Not sure where I’m headed with this – just thinking out loud.
Is he Bob Marshall cousin?
Cut from the same mold. Not sure of the genealogy. Same paternalistic world view.
We practice serial polygamy as a society as it is.
Some of those old scruffy polygamists who live out in the desert in Utah have 4-5 sister wives and all of them and their kids are on welfare. That’s how come one of the males was caught…you know, the one who was on all the talk shows.
Stop Taxpayer. You are reaching. Why should a man be able to legally marry multiple women? Where is this coming from?
I don’t want to sanction multiple marriages because it gets way too complicated and expensive. (see Juturna’s comments above)
I have no problem with allowing on person to have a civil union with another person one at a time. I don’t care if it is f-f, m-m, or traditional f-m.
I don’t have a problem with existing polygamy where the wives are celestial/religious. Some people do. I figure that’s up to them as long as no one is coerced and if children are not brought into the mix.
I think that is pretty darn open minded of me and no one is being discriminated against. I don’t care what any of them do once it all happens, just so my 5 senses are not involved.
but, Taxpayer, that isn’t what Cuccinelli was talking about. In his case, he removed the policy of not discriminating against people who are gay or lesbian (or any other combination). Removing the blanket of non-discrimination sort of sends a message that it is ok.
I also don’t see where you think gays get benefits from being gay. Do people of benefits for certain religions or nationalities? They probably do get benefits for having certain handicaps, depending on how the handicaps occur.
Huh? Again, if you do not want me to care about the Act, why do you want me to care about the number?
The number of insurance complications would be an insignificant blip as a percent of total of claims – so that cannot be it. Welfare was not part of the issue in the Texas 400 or what ever it was and is not an issue anywhere else in the LBGT debate — both might actually take some women off the rolls, so that cannot be it. Coersion in the glow of legality is minimized and, lets agree, that States that allow legal marrige at 14 and legal marrige at 13 with parental consent have other issues – so thats not it. I do understand the violation of your and my 5 senses, but I guess we differ in our reaction to seeing a guy kissing 2 women with children and two men kissing in public.
I just don’t see why the State should accept and sanction one kind of behavior that many — might I suggest the majority – consider an abomination and not the other. I’m serious, educate me here, its still about marrige, the right to legally marry and to have the benefits of that legal marrige recognized for purposes of filing taxes, morgages, health care, visitation, retirement benefits and estates and the right of cosenting adults – isn’t it?
McDonnell is pretty smart. He’s not disagreeing with the AG (the the proper venue is the General Assembly) and has simply held a press conference to say – anyone that goes it will be punished (even though the Executive Order still doesn’t include it). It’s basically the same system that existed before the press conference – that it won’t be tolerated (discrimination) but I’m not going to put out an edict because that’s the GA’s ball and they don’t want to touch it. But, people will feel better because his position (that discrimination shouldn’t take place) is out in the public.
One thing I did see on tv and to MH’s question (about where it could lead) the woman (student/worker, it didn’t say) said that recognition is one step closer to getting same-sex benefits.
This is a non-starter for me. The State’s consitution is clear as passed by the People of Virginia.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Bah, when I wrote that I should’ve been more clear that he signed an executive directive and not an executive order. I appologize for the missing information.
Is it the cost or the right?
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!
I meant to say “in that show” on the 2nd sentence of my last post.
I don’t have any problem with gays being allowed to marry. These days, I don’t know what all the fuss is about in regards to that. Well, I do understand some people are concerned what it will do to marriage as an institution, but I suspect it will really survive just fine. I don’t particularly see how allowing gay marriages does anything to affect regular heterosexual marriages.
Polygamists, I’m not sure. But then again, who really cares I guess, what people do in the privacy of their own home – as long as I don’t have to see any of it (same goes with gay marriages). If someone thinks they can manage to afford having more than one wife and more than one set of children – more power to them! Good luck with that in this area – I don’t know how people afford to have a regular family in this area. Somehow, I don’t think the Northern VA area is financially suited to polygamy, so doubt any laws passed on that would have much effect on this area.
<
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?