Posts Tagged ‘Virginia’

Is it even worth doing these posts anymore? On this blog, I’ve covered pro-same-sex marriage rulings, laws, and acknowledgements in at least four states (Hawai’i, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah) and at the federal level. Add Virginia to the list: “‘Gay’-Marriage Ban Struck Down in Virginia.”

Every court battle on the issue, since the Supreme Court struck down parts of DOMA last year, has sided with same-sex marriage proponents. And, as I’ve pointed out numerous times on this blog, the only defense of the conservatives seems to be that The Gayz make baby Jesus cry. And gay sex is icky (they seem to think about gay sex a lot more than gays do).

I’m wondering – at this point – if it’s even worth going over these more on this blog given the inevitable response by WND commenters. There’s nothing really new on it, and if WND’s actual staff writers or commenters don’t write the article themselves, then there’s no real interest in doing so under my founding purpose of this blog.

Though I suppose it bears a side-mention that Dennis Prager, who does have a column, did write a column on this general “issue” a few days after the Virginia decision: “Judges, Hubris and Same-Sex Marriage.” His rational? Religion:

Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

“No rational basis”? This is hubris. What he is stating is that for all of Western history – and contemporaneous non-Western history – there has not been a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of a man a woman. Vaughn Walker is convinced that he thinks more rationally than every moral leader and thinker in history, not one of whom advocated same-sex marriage. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Enlightenment – all were irrational regarding same-sex marriage, according to Judge Walker.

I doubt the founders of those religions also did not advocate driving cars, using the internet, or having an MP3 player, yet we seem to have adapted to those fairly well (at least in most first world countries).

Perhaps Prager forgot that we don’t live in a theocracy. All because a religion discriminates doesn’t mean that a rational society should.


This is an interesting story and an interesting concept/phenomenon. In the US, every state has a State Attorney General (AG). Might be elected, might be appointed … I think the former but I’m too lazy to look it up right now. One of the jobs of the state’s AG is to defend the state’s laws against court challenge. So what happens when the AG thinks the law is inherently unconstitutional?

Well, in the past, regardless of political affiliation, AGs have refused to defend those laws. Usually the fringe that supports the clearly unconstitutional ones yell and scream and demand resignation or impeachment. This happened in late January in Virginia with Attorney General Mark R. Herring. Virginia is one of those states that has a ban on same-sex marriage. It was being challenged in court. AG Herring refused to defend it:

“After thorough legal review, I have now concluded that Virginia’s ban on marriage between same sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on two grounds: marriage is a fundamental right being denied to some Virginians, and the ban unlawfully discriminates on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender,” Herring said.

WND had three articles on it, the first from the AP, “Virginia AG: ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban ‘Unconstitutional,’” and the second by some unattributed WND writer(s), “Alarming Trend: Attorneys General Refuse to Defend Laws.” The third article came out weeks after the first two, being published on February 7, 2014, “‘Dereliction of Duty’ Charge Leveled Against Virginia AG” (it was written by WND’s anti-homo-in-chief, Bob Unruh).

In the second, WND laments:

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver is outraged at Herring’s decision and told WND Virginia’s attorney general doesn’t seem to approach law enforcement much differently than President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

“This is unfortunately the consequence of elections and you’ve got someone who is lawless. You really trace that back to President Obama and Eric Holder, when they decided to pick and choose, through the Department of Justice, which laws they wanted to defend and which ones they wanted to not just step aside but actually intentionally undermine.
“They did that with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and now we see on the state level with this new attorney general, he does the same thing,” said Staver.

… Herring is hardly the first official to declare he would not defend traditional marriage laws. In addition to Obama and Holder at the federal level, attorneys general in Pennsylvania and Illinois and the governor of Hawaii all unilaterally declared they would not defend state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

But, as the Washington Post points out (and to their credit, WND quotes but then dismisses):

And while Democrats have generated plenty of news when it comes to gay rights, Republicans have also made a point of refusing to argue in court for laws they consider unconstitutional. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (R) declined to defend a portion of that state’s immigration law after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in Arizona’s immigration law. Herring’s predecessor, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, decided last year he would not defend one of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s key education reforms on the grounds that he believed legislation allowing the state to take over failing schools did not pass constitutional muster.

… What does this mean going forward? Groups on both sides of key domestic policy fights — including gay marriage, abortion and immigration — are likely to target attorney general races in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico and Nevada this year. If they needed any more incentive to get off the fence and become more involved in these campaigns, Herring just gave it to them.

WND’s first clip article got no ratings and 46 comments, the top-rated one by “BobTheConcerned” having 14 up- and 0 down-votes stating, “Homosexual “marriage” equals unholy “marriage.” An abomination.” As I’ve said before, when your only defense of something is a religious one, you’re going to lose legally, in this country, where we do not live in a theocracy.

The second article got 74 votes with 4.95/5 stars (might be a record for ones I’ve seen with that many votes). It also got 143 comments. The top-rated comments are, as I prophesized (spelling on that?) at the beginning of this post, lamenting the AG “not doing their job.”

The third article got 314 ratings (4.83/5 stars) and has 407 comments as of this writing. As is typical these days, the only defense of the law appears to come from religion, which – as I’ve said before – means that we’re going to win because the US is not a theocracy, despite what some of these people would like to think. For example, “17_tparty_patriot76” wrote, “In the bible God says marriage is the union between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Until God says differently, THAT IS THE WORD!!!!! I don’t know who the Pres. thinks he is BUT HE CERTAINLY IS NOT GOD !!!!!!” She (judging by the avatar) got 44 up-votes and none down.

I wanted to wait a bit on this one because I just put up my post on WND trying to understand why Cuccinelli lost, when WND’s token black writer decided to add her 2¢. If you read that statement as racist, I invite you to find another WND writer who has non-white skin. If you can, I will take back my statement and issue an apology*.

Anyway, if you do not know about Cuccinelli, read that post first. Then come back to this one. The column in question was typed by Star Parker, a very far-right Tea Party person, and her writeup in question is entitled, “Cuccinelli’s Defeat: Blame the Republican Party.”

In my first write-up, I put the blame squarely on Cuccinelli for losing to a flawed Democrat. Cuccinelli was simply way too conservative and uncompromising to attract a majority of voters. Star Parker, unsurprisingly, has a different take.

She starts by attacking the post-mortems, saying that they “tell us more about who produces this punditry than what reality actually might be. We’re hearing that the tea party killed Cuccinelli (according to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they “stabbed him in the back”) with the government shutdown and that, once again, a socially conservative Republican candidate has shown he can’t win the votes of women.”

Star thinks it’s the mainstream republicans: “It was not the tea party that stabbed Ken Cuccinelli in the back but the establishment of his own party. Once a real conservative candidate gets nominated, the party loses interest. And because they lose interest, they hold back funds, thus assuring their own prediction that this candidate can’t win.” She thinks that, specifically, it was “largely because of unanswered attack ads.”

She also lists three policy/demographic issues: (1) Republicans should have embraced the defunding efforts of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), (2) they should have worked harder on the “black vote,” and (3) they should have worked more on winning unmarried women because Cuccinelli had a majority of married persons voting for him (50% men, 51% women; versus McAuliff got 51% of unmarried men and 67% of unmarried women).

As someone who took one political science course in college and who has not examined exit polls, allow me to wax ignorantly for a paragraph. (1) Defunding the ACA was stupid and polls show that those attempts that led to the shutdown hurt Republicans enormously. Reminding voters of that just before the election would not have been helpful. (2) No idea/comment on this one. (3) Usually, older people are more likely to be married than younger people. Younger people are much more liberal, as a whole, than older people. I would tend to think that McAuliff winning 67% of unmarried women is because they are younger and more socially liberal and don’t want to be housewives baking their husband’s babies in their li’l ovens with no say over their bodies. Just a guess.

Parker’s column, posted two days ago, has gotten 5 ratings and averages 4.6/5 stars. It has 40 comments. They are what you’d expect with nothing too out of the ordinary. In particular, though, a line in “Ed”‘s comment caught my eye: “Our electorate now consists of a significant population of dimwitted Blacks & Hispanics.”

Um hmm… when a non-trivial fraction of your political party has this kind of attitude, don’t expect to win a lot of elections.

*As Shawn pointed out in the Comments below, there is at least one other non-white writer on WND. It appears as though I’ve never done a story of his, and it looks like I’ve only read one of his stories before, one out of hundreds. Easy to miss, like finding the black guy in an Abercrombie and Fitch ad.

For anyone who does not follow United States politics, or chose not to over the last election, there were really two main races to watch: New Jersey and Virginia, both for how the election of the governor would play out. The widely followed races were played up and quite important because it was a further examination of the Republican schism — would the more moderate Republicans get elected, or would the more conservative? In New Jersey, the more moderate Chris Christie easily won re-election. In Virginia, the much, MUCH more conservative Ken Cuccinelli lost.

There are numerous real news sources that have analyzed what happened and discuss how this bodes for the general election in 2016. For those interested in reading more about that, I picked up Washington Post‘s “Virginia, New Jersey Results Highlight Republican Party’s Divisions, Problems” and, of course, Right Wing Watch’s “Religious Right Faces String of Election and Gay Rights Defeats, Blown Narrative.”

To put it succinctly, über-social conservatives like Cuccinelli (who oppose abortion, support discrimination based on sexual orientation, oppose science (such as climate change), just for example) cannot get a majority of the vote. Cuccinelli was also the first state Attorney General to file a lawsuit to stop the Affordable Care Act, having a large press entourage as he filed the paperwork five minutes after the bill was signed into law by President Obama. He lost even against a seriously flawed opponent such as Democrat Terry McAuliffe (admittedly flawed by pretty much everyone). It kinda makes “duh” sense: You have to be able to appeal to the majority of voters. If you piss them off, they’re not going to vote for you. On the other hand, Christie, while clearly a conservative and who does a lot that I don’t like, was fairly popular and far to the left of the Tea Party.

On the other hand, this blog is about World Net Daily. They are trying to spin what happened in their own quirky way. On election night, they posted the story, “Democrat McAuliffe Wins Virginia, Barely.” They also posted a link to a Politico story, “Why McAuliffe Barely Beat Cuccinelli.” They are trying to put emphasis not on the horrible policies and beliefs of Cuccinelli, but rather they put emphasis on polls before the election that showed McAuliffe winning by a larger percentage than he actually did. And, of course, that as a consequence their message (the ultra-social-conservative) is spot-on for the 2016 general election.

The former article only garnered 16 votes for an average 4.31/5 in the past few days. It has around 174 comments. The comments are by a large majority blaming the Republican party itself, blaming them for “abandoning” Cuccinelli and even going so far as to claim they are Democrats. For example, “UnapologeticConservative” with 29 up-votes and 2 down-votes wrote: “We still lost, no matter how small the margin. It proves two things: 1) the libertarians are nothing but poisoners and enemies for conservatives, and 2) The Republican National Committee, which gave Ken Cuccinelli no support whatsoever, is effectively an arm of the Democratic Party … both have the goal of seeing that conservatives lose.”

Others are complaining about fraud, saying it was rigged, or just that McAuliffe is a fraud. Some are blaming Libertarians because the Libertarian candidate took around 10% of the vote. A few others say that Virginia is just made of stupid people, such as “woddyl1011fl”: “Va. really has really stupid voters of course demoncrats really ignorant low information/no information people. They deserve exactly what they voted for corruption, deceit, lies.”

Perhaps my favorite comment is quote-mining “whitemanfromtown,” who wrote a first sentence about Virginia turning into a commie cesspool, but his third sentence is something I agree with, just as applied to something else: ” no matter how bad it gets there’s no fixing stupid.”

We can get right to this one, too. Joseph Farah’s latest column is entitled, “The Choice Is Clear in Virginia.” He wants you to vote a certain way, for Ken Cuccinelli, in the governor’s race in Virginia. Joseph describes him as the following:

Ken Cuccinelli is the current attorney general of the state and the Republican candidate for governor. He has led the state’s fight against participation in Obamacare. He is a strong proponent of limited government, free enterprise solutions to economic problems, a supporter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He’s everything conservatives, libertarians and Republicans say they want in a leader.

Hmm. Let’s see what Right Wing Watch has to say about him:

All of those are just from the past five weeks. I don’t think much more needs to be said.