Discrimination | Ken Cuccinelli | News | Virginia

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli: Gay People Not Protected by the 14th Amendment Because its Writers Didn't Have Them in Mind

Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli told a student at Boys State that gay men and women are not protected by the 14th Amendment because its writers would not have thought of them

Ken_cuccinelli  Think Progress reports:

In March, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) told the state’s colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing that schools have no legal authority to adopt such statements. On Friday, Cuccinelli appeared at Boys State, where a high school student asked him, “How is that not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?” Cuccinelli responded by suggesting that the amendment was not designed to protect gay men and women

"State universities are not free to create any specially protected classes other than those dictated by the General Assembly,” Cuccinelli said. “Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment."

DailyKos diarist Barbara Morrill makes note of the very inclusive 14th amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What an idiot! People actually elect people like this? Does he think gay people didn't exist in 1776? Does he think we were born out of a "disco" ball or something in the 1970's? "This man... is an idiot!"

    Posted by: james Brown | Jun 29, 2010 12:45:17 PM

  2. It is QUITE obvious that he's expressing self-hatred when such quotes can be attributed to him... It's so sad that he has to lash-out because of his self-imposed repression of innate homosexual desire...

    Posted by: Dr. JR | Jun 29, 2010 12:45:59 PM

  3. once again the youth get this so much clearer than the adults...

    Posted by: andrew | Jun 29, 2010 12:49:21 PM

  4. Thank you. The next time someone in my family bemoans my move from Virginia to San Francisco, I can just show them this.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jun 29, 2010 12:49:23 PM

  5. It would be great if people stopped accusing homophobic individuals as being self-loathing closet cases. Sure they exist, but to accuse every nutcase of such is sad.

    Posted by: Cal | Jun 29, 2010 12:50:38 PM

  6. To James Brown: What boggles my mind is that I'm not sure whether or not people knew what they were voting for with Cuccinelli. He definitely benefitted from people voting straight Republican, but I think if more people knew he was going to be like this, his margin of victory wouldn't have been 17 points. But with Virginia, you never know.

    Oh Ken, you never cease to amaze me. And just think, we in Virginia still have 3 1/2 years left to put up with this clown. If only Virginia allowed for the recall of statewide elected officials.

    Posted by: Charlie | Jun 29, 2010 12:52:43 PM

  7. Our founding fathers also didn't contemplate that African-Amercians would be considered equal citizens, or that their might be interracial marriage one day... or that we'd have automobiles, airplanes, space shuttles... OR homophobic bigots that discriminate against other citizens by not abiding by our Constitution.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Jun 29, 2010 12:56:14 PM

  8. i think the headline on this story is misleading since it was not the "founders" as in the founding fathers, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. who wrote the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment resulted from the Civil War and the necessity of limiting State's rights, especially as regards one man owning another (slavery).

    In California, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm guessing from the story that this is not the case in Virginia.

    Still, I don't know why schools,even state schools, would need legal authority to adopt non-discriminatory statements or policies. IMHO the Virginia schools could have the statements, but I guess they would be unenforceable until such time as the Supreme Court determines that the 14th Amendment does bar discrimination based on sexual orientation (see Prop 8 case).

    Again, imho, this guy is a horse's ass angling for attention. Maybe he's another escort-hiring, closet case Republican.

    Posted by: Fahd | Jun 29, 2010 12:57:35 PM

  9. really, how much more of this asshat stuff is it going to take before businesses decide they can't really attract a diverse workforce to relocate to Virgina? Maryland is close by and not nearly so f'ed up...

    Posted by: MAP | Jun 29, 2010 1:00:32 PM

  10. FYI, the founders did not write the 14th amendment. It is one of amendments that came after the Civil War.

    Posted by: John | Jun 29, 2010 1:01:51 PM

  11. The more things I hear about Virginia the more I want to avoid it.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jun 29, 2010 1:04:45 PM

  12. Point taken Fahd. Amended.

    Posted by: Andy | Jun 29, 2010 1:06:12 PM

  13. Andy, couldn't you find a picture where this guy doesn't look so damned HANDSOME!

    Posted by: Asher | Jun 29, 2010 1:06:40 PM

  14. Lord, Cuchi-Cuchi is at it again!

    Posted by: Verdon Coleman | Jun 29, 2010 1:08:20 PM

  15. I just wish this son of a bitch would throw himself in front of a moving bus so that we could be rid of his stupidity...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Jun 29, 2010 1:13:47 PM

  16. It is true that Federal law stipulates that emplyment discrimination is prosecutable only for certain protected classes of people. Race, religion and gender are among these protected classes. Sexual orientation is not. States have the right to enlarge the classes of those protected. As mentioned above, sexual orientation is protected in California.

    Where I believe Cuchinelli is wrong is in saying that the University system cannot enlarge the sphere of those protections. Such protections are not in violation of the statutes, and do not carry the weight of law. They are regulations governing the running of the institutions which violate no one's rights.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Jun 29, 2010 1:14:48 PM

  17. I'd like to see him make this same argument about the 2nd Amendment at an NRA meeting.

    Posted by: crispy | Jun 29, 2010 1:16:08 PM

  18. The 14th Amendment was not authored and adopted by the Founders of United States. Rather it was drafted and adopted after the Civil War as part of the Reconstruction Amendments of 1868.

    The equal protection clause is typically cited by the courts as definitive constitutional law protecting the rights of disenfranchised and minority groups including the rights of Gay citizens. Cuccinelli clearly has little understanding or respect for constitutional law which is disturbing since he is the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

    Posted by: Ted | Jun 29, 2010 1:17:24 PM

  19. There are two things wrong with this idiot's logic and why it won't hold up legally. One, and most obvious is that the writers of the amendment stated ALL people...not "some," not "just the ones we can think of now," but ALL people.

    And second, unless Mr. Cuccinelli is now reading the minds of dead people, he cannot factually say exactly who the writers of the amendment had in mind.

    Look, this guy is just another politician pandering to the bottom of the barrel with his homophobia. He has no legal (or moral) groundwork for what he's trying to do and he'll end up looking like yet another ridiculous Republican and why most thinking people everywhere are now so disgusted by most of them. In a few years, he can retire near the coast of Virginia with his wife and contemplate why the world has passed him by, and every couple years after try to resurect his himself with another run at some other political position...and find himself to be fossilized, just like Mike Huckabee, and only a hero to the inbred haters that believe Jesus Christ himself dictated Leviticus to a stenographer.

    Posted by: Bart | Jun 29, 2010 1:18:04 PM

  20. it is amazing how all the repuks use hate and bigotry to advance their politicals careers. it is scary watching all these clowns trying to be mini hitler's in training....the repuks are continuall using hate to turn on group on another. as a political party maybe they could actually find issues that will make a difference for the better not just hte upper 1%. time for the party to disapear like the previous know nothing party.

    Posted by: walter | Jun 29, 2010 1:42:25 PM


    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 29, 2010 1:46:50 PM

  22. Aside from the obvious argument that gay people existed back in the days that the 14th Amendment was written, I wonder if he would consistently apply his own warped logic. For example, would Cuccinelli apply this standard to the 2nd Amendment and take away guy owndership rights for any type of weapon which was does not date back to 1776? I wished that someone would call him on this to show his obvious hypocrisy and homophobia.

    Posted by: Trey | Jun 29, 2010 1:57:14 PM

  23. Great! Then by this logic, the federal government can ban semi-automatic weapons, as they certainly were not on the minds of the writers of the Second Amendment!

    Posted by: JesryPo | Jun 29, 2010 1:59:37 PM

  24. Unfortunately, Republicans are not held to the same standards of truthfulness & intellectual responsability expected of other elected officials. They are given special priviledges to lie as much as they wish.They are never called on it, and so it goes.

    Posted by: smallhandff | Jun 29, 2010 2:29:31 PM

  25. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas, point to the Fourteenth Amendment in explaining why Texas's sodomy law was unlawful? If that's the case, doesn't this conflict with Cuccinelli's partisan interpretation of the amendment? More largely, isn't Cuccinelli violating the law as the highest court of the land has interpreted it?

    Posted by: Peter | Jun 29, 2010 2:35:50 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Kagan: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy is 'Unwise and Unjust'« «