Sunday, March 7, 2010

In defense of Cuccinelli

I've seen lots of voices against the Attorney General's letter to colleges about discrimination based on "sexual orientation."
Any voices in support? Anybody?
It's hard to be in support when there's obviously a poor rollout of the letter. You don't just send out a letter like that. You need to explain yourself and prepare the ground for what you'd like to see happen.
Is it simply - adding sexual orientation to the discrimination policy is the job of the General Assembly, not the colleges? If that's the focus, focus on that.
The Attorney General should know that opponents of his policy are going to squeal. Squeal loudly, especially compared to silence from his side.
He could have come out and used President Obama's line from last year "I won." If "I won" is good enough to push health care, why not dealing with issues of discrimination.
Instead of jumping on Ken Cuccinelli, consider that maybe he knows what he's doing. He's not pulling protections, just wants it done properly. These colleges aren't going to abruptly change the way they are doing things. Maybe the worries of his opponents are way, way beyond the realities of the world in 2010.
But as we've seen in the health care debate, saying your opponents are overly worried about bad possibilities doesn't ease their concerns.
Let's see what the Attorney General has to say about this next.

2 comments:

Jason said...

Yes, he knows what he is doing. He has always shown paleoconservative tendencies. He's been quoted saying that as AG he would fire anybody who is openly homosexual. He says their behavior is against "natural law."

That's not just a matter of innocently asking to align school policies with commonwealth antidiscrimination laws (which would arguably put the universities at odds with SCOTUS decisions). He has an anti-gay agenda that is out of step with 21st century Virginia, and I don't think it will help his career or the governor's.

Anonymous said...

Jason... are you saying homosexual behavior ISN'T against natural law? Of course, with you being a lower case libertarian, I can see why you wouldn't think so.

That's sad.