Ken Cuccinelli’s Running Mate Is More Moderate Than Him on At Least One Thing: Banning Gay Sex

E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP's pick for lieutentant governor.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/n3tel/5589211211/sizes/m/in/photolist-9vUaLx-9vXcPL/">markn3tel</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


E.W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia, holds awfully extreme views on gay rights and has no qualms about venting them. On his now-dormant personal Twitter feed, as my colleague Tim Murphy pointed out, Jackson frequently aired his hatred toward gays: When President Obama declared June “LGBT Pride Month,” Jackson tweeted, “Well that just makes me feel ikky all over.” In October 2009, he tweeted, “The ‘homosexual religion’ is the most virulent anti-Christian bigotry & hatred I’ve ever seen.” Those kinds of comments put Jackson in step with his running mate, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative who is as hard-line as they come on social issues.

Yet there is one crusade on which Jackson says he doesn’t intend to join Cuccinelli: banning gay sex.

Buried in a recent National Review profile of Jackson, who is conservative minister, is this paragraph:

After chatting with attendees, Jackson sat down with me for an interview. While his sermon ended with flair and bombast, he was soft-spoken and earnest as I questioned him about how his religious beliefs interact with his political views. Christian values make us free, Jackson told me, and people should live as they see fit as long as they don’t hurt others. While he opposes same-sex marriage, he said he wouldn’t support any sort of ban on gay sex. He also said there shouldn’t be any legal sanction of a religion, and that he would oppose a constitutional amendment naming Christianity as America’s official religion. But that doesn’t mean that our culture isn’t historically Judeo-Christian, he added, and influenced by the Bible. Acknowledging that isn’t an imposition of religion.

The emphasis above is mine. Jackson saying he doesn’t support banning gay sex is a significant break from Cuccinelli. Remember, in 2003 the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case struck down anti-sodomy laws at the state level. But Virginia kept its gay-sex ban on the books after Lawrence. Then, in March, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed that Virginia’s anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional. A month later, Cuccinelli, who is Virginia’s attorney general, raised eyebrows when he asked the 4th Circuit to rethink its decision. (Cuccinelli’s office said it was defending the state’s anti-sodomy law to more harshly punish a 47-year-old man who solicited oral sex from teenagers. Here’s why that is a problematic response.)

Cuccinelli explained his opposition to gay sex in 2009: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law-based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that…They don’t comport with natural law.” This is a long-running fight for Cuccinelli. As far back as 2004, when he was a Virginia state senator, he warned of a plot by the LGBT community to “dismantle sodomy laws” and “get education about homosexuals and AIDS in public schools.”

On this issue, though, Cuccinelli and his running mate appear to see things differently. Ken, you might want to call your office.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate