Video: McDonnell, Cuccinelli, Jackson, Obenshain React to Supreme Court Rulings on LGBT Equality

    245
    3
    SHARE

    I’ve been posting the (overwhelmingly ecstatic) reactions of Virginia Democrats to this morning’s Supreme Court rulings striking down the anti-LGBT “Defense of Marriage Act,” and tossing out the California anti-gay-marriage initiative. See here and here for those. In the spirit of fairness (and also because I’m in a very good mood right now, following this morning’s rulings, as well as President Obama’s excellent climate speech and Ed Markey’s victory in Massachusetts yesterday), I figured I’d present the reactions of leading Virginia Republicans – Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli, EW Jackson, and Mark Obenshain – to the rulings as well. With that, here they are.

    Yep, that’s it: the sound of crickets chirping: aka, dead silence. Of course, if you held these people’s virulent, homophobic views, but were losing big-time in terms of public opinion and the law on this subject (and many others), you might choose to keep your mouth shut as well.

    P.S. See the “flip” for Cuccinelli’s, Jackson’s, and Obenshain’s real views on homosexuality, and on LGBT equality. Too bad they didn’t keep their mouths shut in the past as well as the present…

    Ken Cuccinelli:

    “Homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong.” [Virginian Pilot Editorial, 10/26/09]

    “When you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul.” [Washington Post, 2/05/08]

    E.W. Jackson:

    “I believe there is a direct connection” [between being gay and being a pedophile]. [Buzzfeed, 5/20/13]

    “Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality.” [Americans for Truth Radio, 10/19/12]

    Jackson describes his ideology as, “a particular worldview that every Christian for the most part who goes to church across this commonwealth shares: that marriage should be between one man and one woman.” [Washington Post, 5/20/13]

    Mark Obenshain:

    He claimed legal protections against LGBT discrimination would give “an avenue for filing lawsuits and grievances for perceived slights or for no perceived slight at all.” [Gay Lesbian Times, 2/18/10]

    Obenshain repeatedly voted against a ban on discrimination in state government based on sexual orientation. [Think Progress, 5/20/13]

    Obenshain authored Virginia’s law allowing state-funded discrimination. [SB1074, Legislative Information System]

    • In short, Cuccinelli says: screw the Supreme Court ruling, full speed ahead in anti-LGBT discrimination in Virignia.

      AG office’s statement on today’s two marriage decisions from the Supreme Court

      RICHMOND (June 26, 2013) – Statement attributable to Brian Gottstein:

      “Virginia has followed the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman for more than 400 years, and Virginians voted overwhelmingly to add this traditional definition to their constitution.  The Supreme Court’s decision in California’s Proposition 8 case could have had implications for all states with marriage laws similar to California’s.  As the attorney general’s legal duty is to vigorously defend Virginia’s laws when they are challenged, he filed a brief with the Supreme Court in conjunction with several other states in the California case and used every available legal argument to defend Virginia’s Constitution and preserve the will of the citizens of the commonwealth.

      “Today, the court’s two decisions on marriage make clear that the rulings have no effect on the Virginia Marriage Amendment or to any other Virginia law related to marriage.

      “Consistent with the duties of the attorney general, this office will continue to defend challenges to the constitution and the laws of Virginia.”

    • Shocker, huh?

      Justice Kennedy and his majority assume powers of clairvoyance when they claim DOMA supporters acted with malice “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples;  that they wanted to “demean,”  homosexual couples, and “impose inequality,” on them and to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny  “equal dignity,” and to render homosexuals as “unworthy,” and to “humiliate” their children….I have to question whether one or more of the majority justices are pushing a personal agenda with this decision because there in nothing in the Constitution that substantiates it…This decision will have far-reaching adverse and coercive consequences for children, church adoption agencies, the tax status of churches which decline marriage ceremonies to same sex couples, employers, school classroom courses and other areas of American life…Federal Judges are supposed to expound the Constitution, not rationalize preferred personal sexual behavior and under the shadow of sleight of hand legalize it as the ‘law of the land.’  It is vanity to think that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God may be overturned by the constitutional pretense of the majority Justices.