Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cuccinelli: Gay men and women are excluded from the 14th amendmentís protections

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:38 AM
Original message
Cuccinelli: Gay men and women are excluded from the 14th amendmentís protections
In March, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) told the stateís 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 Amendmentís 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," he said.

"There are judges who think these things 'evolve,' is the word they like to use," Cuccinelli said, but the correct approach to making such a change would be a constitutional amendment, he said.


Over at the Wonk Room, Igor Volsky explains, "Itís certainly true that the authors of the 14th amendment may not have 'contemplated' protecting gay people from discrimination, but the Supreme Court has." Read more about Court precedent here.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/28/cuccinelli-14th-ame...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Of course. Because gay men and women are not fully human.
They're probably only 3/5 human.

:sarcasm: for those clueless folks who don't understand the reference......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. virginia has lost its marbles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. The framers of the First Amendment never thought of the idea of a computer.
Fortunately, our constitution is written in broadly applicable terms, and not just based on whatever the presiding condition was at the time each bit was written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Cuccinelli believes that only 'certain' Americans have rights
and that would be him, his family and peers that think just like he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. what evidence is there
that it was designed to exclude gays?

The only evidence available is that the intent was to make rights universally applicable to all American citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dyingnumbers Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. Since when was an amendment needed...
...to allow, for example, Italian immigrants entry into the U.S. by way of Ellis Island?

With a name like Cuccinelli, he shouldn't condescend to subculture groups whom he doesn't believe the Constitution protects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. I hate this type of argument. It should die a quick death and be rightfully ignored by all.
The Constitution didn't contemplate an Air Force either but that doesn't and shouldn't stop the federal government from having one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
7. Wait for Elena Kagan to get on the court.
She'll fix that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. He needs to read the amendment
It does not say special groups are protected..

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Any person not any special group
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. It starts off with the words "All persons"
I guess there was some super-secret invisible ink addendum that said "except for the icky gay ones" that only uncommon legal minds like Mr. Cuccinelli can read. Fortunately for us all, he's now here to restore the Constitution to the way it was originally intended to be written. I mean, really: What use is a right if you can't deny it to people you don't like or are scared of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. I hate 'cafeteria constitutionalists' with a passion nt
This bigot amongst them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
What a POS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. Wow... so he's actually trying to argue that they're not people?
Or he's unclear on the 'all persons' thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. the best i can hope is that he's confusing the 14th amendment with the civil rights act of 1964
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:03 PM by unblock
federal law prevents discrimination against certain specific groups -- on the basis of national origin, sex, race, color, or religion. but it applies only to those specific groups. employers can discriminate to their dark hearts' content against short people or left-handers or homosexuals (except where state or local law prevents this).

but the 14th amendment doesn't have categories like that. "all persons", plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudolfhern Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
15. Two words for Cuccinelli: James Buchanan
Okay, I just remmebered about the President right before the Civil War, James Buchanan, and that negates Cuccinelli's notion that the category of sexual orientation would not have been contemplated.
James Buchanan, President between 1857-1861 (all the framers of the 14th Amendment lived through then), was the ONLY US President never married and remained a bachelor. Prior to his Presdeincy, he lived for 15 years with Alabama Senator William Rufus King. In Buchanan's letters, he spoke of "the affection of a special friendship" and of his "communion" with his housemate. Their relationship was talked about constantly by politicians not just in DC, but all over the country. Andrew Jackson refered to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy", while the governor of Tennessee spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife".

The notion that homosexuality was completely unknown and "uncontemplated" during the authoring of the 14th Amendment is historically inaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudolfhern Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Cuccinelli is IGNORANT of recent SCOTUS decisions involving the 14th Amendment
I've been doing some more research and these are the prevailing opinions written by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans regarding homosexuals and the 14th Amendment:

Lawrence v. Texas: "Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

So it really DOESN'T MATTER if the category of sexual orientation was contemplated by the framers of the 14th Amendemnt, according to current Supreme Court rulings.

Romer vs Evans: "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. good points, and welcome to the site!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
18. He must REALLY like that "3/5 of a citizen" part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudolfhern Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. Could the framers of the 2nd Amendment possibly contemplate assault weapons?
I'm sure the framers of the 2nd Amendment didn't contemplate that the average American could obtain automatic assault firearms that can take out an entire busload of school children but he and other fanatic Republicans don't have a problem with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 21st 2014, 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC