"Virginia is for straight lovers"

He's the AG, and he's stating that "It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation,' gender identity,' gender expression,' or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly,".

Sounds to me like he's going his job. If the policies were written without authorization, then they can't be legal. Go get the authorization.

So when did "sexual orientation" come to mean "anything but straight?"

I don't understand what this means. Nobody can force the schools to discriminate if they weren't so inclined.

Sounds to me like he's going his job. If the policies were written without authorization, then they can't be legal. Go get the authorization.
#2 | Posted by American1st
========
"Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) refused to renew an executive order that would have protected gay and lesbian state workers from discrimination..."

From here the AG is telling public schools to change there internal rules...does not pass the smell test.

How and why should anyone even know if a person is straight or otherwise?

A1...Your right unfortunately that is not the real world and GLBT are routinely discriminated against.
The Va. AG just upped the ante.

This is why elections matter.

How and why should anyone even know if a person is straight or otherwise?
#6 | Posted by American1st

.......just ask......

....unless they're Repubs, then you know without asking ........

This is why elections matter.
#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

.....some Chinese told me that their men get one every morning......

Even Franz Kafka would think that a strange Metamorphosis has taken place in Amerika when even Jakals and Arabs would escape The Trial and The Judgement in the academic Castle and the only people left for The Penal Colony are white male heterosexual Christians.

Those damn southern redneck racist homophobes. I wish they would just form their own country. Worthless toothless inbread bastards.

Funny, Tao.

Thanks Prag was wondering if it just droped off the radar.

I figured I would get that out of the way. Let the Virginia Bashing resume :)

I hope this anti-gay sentiment in Virginia causes the next gay basketball star to sign with NCSU instead of UVA.

A good basketball player gay or straight, signing with UVA. Now that's delusional!!!! I'm ashamed that my fair Commonwealth sprang forth from the loins of such a backward thinking Commonwealth.

Signed,
The Commonwealth of Kentucky

Jaysus Ho-ratio Kee-ryst.

Is there anyone left in public office - at any level, elected or appointed - who is actually fit to hold their job?

All I have to say is that Hillary better run for Prez this next go-round. We need some balls in the White House to start stemming this tide of disregard for the rights of Americans, and better Clinton's figurative ones than the literal pair residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now.

MARY-
If the primary was tomorrow, you'd go Hillary, right?

Let's say Obama wants to hold office and is on the ballot vs Hillary. I assume you vote Hillary, no?

Now on to the general. Assuming Obama's the Dem candidate for 2012. Given your apparent frustration with his performance, do you vote Obama... sit out the election... write in someone... vote third party... or vote Rep?

I ask this, in part, because your mindset largely parallels the mindset of many who'd typically voted Rep & Bush.

"Now on to the general. Assuming Obama's the Dem candidate for 2012. Given your apparent frustration with his performance, do you vote Obama... sit out the election... write in someone... vote third party... or vote Rep?"

Oohrah:

I would have to vote Obama again, with serious misgivings, because to me, the alternatives are worse. Independent and third party are wasted votes, at least as far as can be foreseen at this point. Republican is out of the question, because the choices are Pawlenty, Romney, and given the stupidity of primary voters, just possibly Palin.

I was a Hillary supporter last election (check my post history); I felt then that Obama was a silver-tongued empty suit. He has not surpassed my expectations by much, either. However, with the Republican party seemingly hell-bent on making its own peculiar interpretation of the King James Bible the basis for this nation's social policy and laws, I want it nowhere near the White House for a good four consecutive terms at the very least.

I happen to think that Hillary is going to break with Obama, very soon, because his non-performance is her golden chance, and the lady is no dummy; she knows very well when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. She set aside her campaign hopes in the face of falling numbers and the need to keep McThusaleh and Caribou Barbie out of La Casa Blanca. But in so doing, she gave Obama his chance to hoist himself on his own petard, which - unless he does something completely unexpected and actually begins acting like a President - he has done. She'd be a God-damned idiot not to ride that wave into office.

I just don't see any world where Hillary will run against Obama in 2012. He would have to fuck shit up a whole lot more than he has. I suppose she might be disgusted that he has played to the center as much as he has. But then, she didn't campaign as much to the left as she is, so I'm not sure who all would buy her playing that way.

And she lost me when she said, at a town hall meeting in NH, "I was misled by the evidence" in response to questions about the War Powers Act. Gimme a break, Senator Clinton. _I_ wasn't fucking misled by the evidence, and you're supposed to be _smart_. I would rather she said, I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I've reconsidered, and here's why. 'Fess up, Hill. But then, my guy was Richardson--he had better rsum than anyone on either side of the aisle. (But then, I heard later he suffers from President Clinton's pants problem. Not that I really care, unless it's rape behavior, but it does present problems in a campaign.)

Sounds to me like he's going his job. If the policies were written without authorization, then they can't be legal. Go get the authorization.

Universities have boards of regents. They set policy. Happens on all states. Happened in Virginia. There was no need to get "authorization".

Virginia is just run by a bunch of folks who really, really don't like gay people.

So when did "sexual orientation" come to mean "anything but straight?"

#3 | Posted by Diablo

I think the article said it was on Thursday.

Virginia is right, the colleges are wrong.

When the constitution was written they knew religion threw out the immoral and it guaranteed that they could do that.

i am with the whore in this thread, good stuff mary.

i think my mother state will have some serious bank to pay here. it WILL happen. in sad and very unfortunate way, this may get this crap headed out of VA, and headed for kentuck, mo skoshi.

federal law doesn't protect based on sexual orientation:
Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation.

#18 - MARY

Thanks for the candor. I see things the same way, only from the opposite side of the aisle.

I'm assuming your frustration with Obama (and, to a similar degree, Dems in Congress) is that they're not governing in a sufficiently liberal way. So you feel somewhat betrayed... but the alternative (Reps) would represent a major step in the wrong direction.

So, by voting Obama again, you'd take half a loaf vs nothing.

We (Reps) were in that same boat the past couple elections. Aside from holding firm on Iraq,our party and its leadership had largely failed to govern conservatively. So many of us felt betrayed... yet where were we to go? Certainly not to Dems.

So getting our collective butts whipped these past few election cycles will necessarily force us to adapt - or perish.

Perhaps if Obama and the Dems get sufficiently bitch slapped the party will further look to define itself and the sorts of candidates it runs. Methinks a good number of relatively conservative Dems ("moderates?") ran against Reps these last couple cycles - siphoning off enough dissafected Rep voters and securing an upset Dem base.

It'll be interesting to see how the 2010 elections shape both parties.

I happen to think that Hillary is going to break with Obama, very soon, because his non-performance is her golden chance, and the lady is no dummy

I am guessing that the future for Ms. Clinton is a seat on the supreme court; appointed by President Obama.

If Clinton decided to run, that would truly fracture the democratic party in the way that Obama supporters promised every day during primary season. And there aint now way that's going to happen.

Likely an Obama appointed SCOTUS justice.

Only one way to prove it. Whip it out and start @*#%!

Oohrah:

I know this is off the front page, but maybe you'll find it.

I don't blame Obama for being insufficiently liberal. I blame him for being insufficiently Presidential. He has been beyond stupid in his year and something in office. If we learned anything at all from Bill Clinton (besides "Never have an affair with a friend of Linda Tripp's") it was that health care is a lame-duck issue, something that will squander political capital if tackled in a first term. The man had a supermajority in Congress and still couldn't get it done. He demanded nothing - like a commitment to lend - from banks in return for their bailout. He will not send a clear, simple message on DADT, whether that's "Go for it," or "Ain't gonna happen." He has worked on a jobs bill that is expensive and will accomplish very little, instead of laying down a few rules that might actually do something (like capping the national work week at 40 hours as a temporary job-creation measure).

He may try to derail Hillary by kicking her upstairs to the Supremes, and if he does, it will be an ever-so-bad mistake in an Administration already notorious for them. First, wingnuts would go apeshit, doing everything in their power to block her. Second, it will make it necessary for Hillary to break with the Administration sooner rather than later, forcing her hand and giving her a lot of cred when it becomes clear to voters that she's just as unhappy with the First Loon as they are.

So far as fracturing the Democratic Party is concerned, I think some of you are confusing fracture with needed catharsis. The Toxic Triad - Obama, Pelosi and Reid - Needs. To. Go. They were hired to do the people's business, elected on a promise of "Hope and Change," and what we're getting is a pandering to special interests rivaling, if anything, what was seen on Bush's watch. There has been almost nothing done that benefits ordinary Americans, and there is nothing like that likely to get passed now that we're heading into the mid-terms.

Last election, I characterized Hillary's strengths as wiliness, mastery of the "good old boy" network (which now includes women, of course), and having at least second-hand experience of the job. I hope to hell she gets to use them.

Thanks for the honest feedback MARY.