On January 11, 2014, Governor McAuliffe Signed Executive Order Number 1 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity in the state employee work force.

On January 13, 2014, I wrote to Nancy Rodrigues who is Governor  McAuliffe Cabinet Secretary for Administration to request information relating to the actual incidence of hiring discrimination involving state employees or prospective employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity, Specifically, I wrote:

“I would like to receive any documentation of any cases of discrimination in Virginia state hiring based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.  I would like to know the number of persons making such complaints, how many were found founded and the time period in which this took place.   In addition I would like to request the total number of employees working for the Commonwealth of Virginia so I may know how widespread the problem of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is.”

On January 20, I received the following response from Cabinet Secretary for Administration Nancy Rodriguez:

“… Since 2000, there have been 18 complaints with an allegation of sexual orientation: 9 were rejected because we did not have jurisdiction (the complaint was either filed against a non-executive branch state agency or an employer outside of state government); 7 complaints were rejected because the complaint did not constitute a valid complaint of employment discrimination; and two were investigated but found to have insufficient evidence to support the allegation.  Finally, I have learned that there were a total number of state employees of  125,481 F.T.E. as of November 30, 2013.  This represents 105,090 salaried and 20,390 wage FTEs.”

Despite the absence of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination for 13 years among state of Virginia employees, the Governor issued his executive order to prevent sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) discrimination.  Yet his own Cabinet Secretary acknowledged there had not been even one documented instance of SO or GI in 13 years.   So who really needed protection?


Virginia is an “employment at will” state.  This means that your employer does NOT need good cause to terminate your job, unless you have special contractual rights spelled out in your employment contract.  Exceptions to being fired at will are:

Virginia Human Rights Act:  A person may not be fired on the basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), physical or mental Disability, Age, Genetic information, or Marital status);

Federal Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1968:  A person may not be fired on the basis of Race, Color, National origin, Religion, Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), Disability, Age (40 and older), Citizenship status or Genetic information.)

“Sexual orientation,” or “gender identity” are not part of either Virginia or federal Civil Rights Laws.  Even during the Obama Administration when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” were not added to the federal Civil Rights laws.

The Apple Computer Company hired former Alabama state Rep. Jay Love (2003-13), who served as Chairman of the Alabama House of Representatives Taxing Committee to lobby for Apple in Alabama.  But Apple fired Love when they discovered  Love opposed GLBT “marriage.”  (The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, is homosexual.)

The firing or non-hiring of individuals for their support of natural marriage is a habit with homosexual leaders and sympathizers.  Brendan Eich, founder of Mozilla (the Firefox internet browser), was fired as CEO of Mozilla after he was “outed” for donating $1,000 for the crime of supporting California’s Proposition 8 campaign to protect authentic marriage.

Science fiction writer, Southern Virginia University writer Orson Scott Card (a Mormon and Board member of the National Organization for Marriage) was kicked out of the DC Comics new Superman project for his opposition to same-sex marriage, and was kept at a “respectable distance” from promoting the film adaption of his own novel, Ender’s Game, featuring Harrison Ford, Asa Butterfield, and Abigail Breslin (2013).

Former ESPN and CBS broadcaster and former Southern Methodist University and NFL star tailback Craig James was fired by Fox News for remarks he made years prior in support of natural marriage.


Success of the GLBT agenda in recent years has largely depended on identifying the homosexual movement as a modern version of the Civil Right struggle.  This is, of course, nonsense.

There never were “heterosexual” only water fountains in Virginia or other Southern states.  Separate elementary or secondary schools were not built for GLBTQ children.  Homosexuals and lesbians could sit anywhere they wanted on buses, trains and other public transportation.  Homosexuals were never enslaved as a class or brought to America in chains.  Homosexuals never were forbidden from “marrying” heterosexuals.  Homosexuals did not have to engage in nationwide “sit ins” at restaurant lunch counters to be served a meal.  Lesbians did not have to take “Literacy” tests as a condition for voting.

For the most part, homosexuals did not gain their “victories” through the ballot box.  They gained them initially and primarily through elites in the legal profession and in the media.  Most GLBT successes in courts came from a corrupt reading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal rights clause.


Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, described with remarkable candor how homosexual advocates would gain ascendency.  In their book, After the Ball, copyright 1989, they lay out their Madison Avenue public relations tactics, which seem to have worked so far.  They were off in the timing of their revolution, but correct on the efficacy of their tactics:

“We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”   p. 153

“Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning … the image must be an icon of normalcy …    to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitum. … The objection will be raised … that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false … But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effects …” ”  p. 154

“In February 1988 … 175 leading activists convened in Warrenton, Virginia …  ‘We must consider the media in every project we undertake.  … cultivate reporters and editors of newspapers, radio, and television.  … Our media efforts are fundamental to the full acceptance of us in American life.”  p. 163

“The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way …  And when we say talk about homosexuality  … the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.  … the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed and the issue of gay rights reduced … to an abstract social question … to emphasize the civil rights/discrimination side of things …”  p. 178

“ … gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters … raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teaching …”  p. 179

“ … gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable  … with shame … an effective media campaign would make use of … spokespersons that reduce the straight majority’s sense of threat  … this means that cock mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in … public presentations.” p. 183

“… the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance … gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice.”  p. 184

“Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted.”  p. 186


On April 28, Mary L. Bonauto, attorney for GLBT “marriage,” asked the Justices of the Supreme Court during Oral Argument, “If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. … here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families.”

Several well-known personalities left heterosexual marriages to be with their same sex partners. Because homosexuals or lesbians did not like the prior conditions for marriage, is not the same as saying that GLBTQ persons were denied marriage.  Besides, marriage is denied to persons who desire to have more than one spouse, who desire to marry a child, or who desire to marry a close relative.  I am sure there will be those who will test the legal limits and proclaim they have a right to marry their pet, their computer or their car!  The laws on marriage were established to protect the rights of marriage partners, provide a stable environment for the upbringing of children either conceived or adopted in the marriage, and to promote social stability.  Government is supposed to promote the general welfare of the society, not undermine it.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”


– Thomas Jefferson