Here are two reasons why I will be voting against the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage:
1) The amendment discriminates on the basis of gender, which I am opposed to in all forms. This amendment says the gender of two consenting adults can be in only one arrangment in order to get married, and to change one of the adults' genders would result in prohibition of marriage. I.e., discrimination based on gender. We conversely find it morally repugnant and legally outdated to permit hiring, education, promotions, property rental, or most other aspects of civil life based on gender.
2) This amendment would violate the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which says that every state must honor (give full faith and credit to) marriages performed legally in other states in our Union. Since a state constitution *cannot* supercede laws laid out by the US Constitution, this amendment will be unconstitutional. At the very least, this tax payer does not want to pay the state's legal bills that will arise when this is inevitably brought up and defeated - *especially* since we can forecast the legal problems so far ahead of time.
Reverend Liz Walsh

I voted no. This past Sunday the passage on the Golden Rule was read. How is denying a legal priviledge to our gay breathren that we keep for ourselves loving them as we love ourselves? How is it loving them to insist we know their way of life is unnatural when they report that their attraction is how God made them and then expect them to listen to us when we tell them about the Lord? How is it loving them to equate stable marital relationships with promiscuity, which is what we do when we support the amendment -which is in essence a death sentence if taken to the extreme. Luckily, marriage is a matter of natural law, meaning it is written in our hearts - so Gays do not need our guidance to be monogamous. In essence, because they are in fact married, whether we recognize this or not, it is proof that their sexuality is a gift from God.

"Gay marriage." What a non-issue. Homophobic fear is trumpeted by the mean-spirited to provoke a knee-jerk vote by the uninformed. The lack of critical thinking by voters in the past few elections, local and national, is simply stupefying. Here's another example. Tragically, this will probably pass, if recent polls are accurate. Then we'll have to spend tons of money getting it reversed, all the while losing tax revenues from businesses that choose to locate in D.C. or Maryland instead of repressive Virginia.

I voted no to this divisive, exclusive, and homphobically driven proposal. Men are usurping God and defining marriage in their opinion. If those of you who hate anyone not white and protestant would please read the part in the bible about "tolerance", you would see that people are people. We all suffer when our gay relative cannot get health insurance. We all cringe when we read about trusts and retirements not being available to a partner when one dies. But yet in Virginia, there are those who wwant to impose their hate on everyone and choke off understanding.

I voted 'no' on this. Aside from the problems it would present with the US constitution (and last I looked, VA was still in the US) it will also have unintended consequences. Two people of the same gender could not do something that has nothing to do with marriage. Is that intended to go beyond marriage? No, but that is what it says. Just imagine the chaos if a lawyer were to argue that a case should be thrown out of court because the partnership representing the other side was not a legal entity. Or that a lease was void because the company that produced it was no longer valid?

To say nothing of the problems when a government tries to legislate and define marriage. For example, I am a transsexual. Depending on what state I am in and who I ask I will get different opinions as to which laws apply to me. The last thing I need is yet more mudying of the waters.

I voted no on this ammendment to the Virginia constitution. It is not a right we are adding, it is a restriction on who can legally be married in the state. It will infringe on my ability to act as my significant others representative if she is hospitalized. It limits us in ways that we are not limited now as free consenting adults. This ammendment is written by the Neocons (definition: New con-men) to bring out the Republican base. I sincerely hope that we have not become so obtuse that we can't see through this farce.

Virginia has made gay marriage illegal for the past 30 years. This will NOT change that, but instead take away rights and protections from unmarried couples. If this passes unmarried couples will not have the right to make legal arrangements for their children nor give the right to loved ones to make medical and end of life decisions.

As has been the case in Ohio, if the amendment passes, abusers in unmarried relationships (gay and straight) will argue that the constitutional amendment prohibits the application of domestic violence laws to unmarried couples. Police will not be able to apply the mandatory arrest policy for domestic violence to unmarried abusers, that courts may not give emergency or permanent protective orders to unmarried victims and that unmarried abusers cannot be subjected to the enhanced penalties for repeat domestic violence offenses. It also means that victims may not have access to services and shelters.

READ THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE AMMENDMENT.

Vote NO on #1

Voted early in Arlington. Good job by the officials organizing a heavy crowd. Inside they were distributing a pamphlet on the ammendments. A gentlemen took one and began an extended hissy fit on the *consitiutional bigot ammendment*. Probably cost his cause 30 votes. Otherwise a good day.

I voted no on this amendment. First, I think that gay couples should be able to marry, and I'm not going to hide that belief behind some arcane legal argument. Secondly, marriage, as an issue, is clearly dealt with using existing laws and is not something that should be enshrined in the state constitution. Constitutions lay out basic systems of government and the rights of the people. They do not deal with specific issues or laws.

As a Queer Virginia native, I voted early -- weeks ago -- and voted NO on this idiotic amendment. Besides being hateful and inappropriate for a document meant to enumerate the right of the people and restrictions upon the Commonwealth, the amendment was timed to turn out Allen supporters. If it wins and he wins, I hope a long-term secret male lover of his surfaces soon!

I'm not too enthused with the idea of amending the state constitution in the first place. In this case, the language is way too broad and it's a politically-driven get-out-the-base bit of chicanery anyways.

Marriage is a church subject and should be up to the church to decide on.
Same sex unions I am for, but same sex marriage I am against because the church, who developed marriage in the first place, is against it. I am voting yes on this amendment. Same sex unions however should be allowed and a new law developed to address this should be written.

As for domestic violence, laws are in place to protect married and unmarried people from this.

A Same Sex Union Law needs to be develped so that the rights of people of the same sex who enter into a relationship are protected. This SSU law needs to include conditions for partners to making medical decisions on the other persons behalf.

This nation has been hijacked by a radical religious minority, and this piece of junk-legislation is a prime example. Stop these bigots from defecating on the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of The Commonwealth, and the principles of separation of church and state by voting against this Amendment, and by voting the Republican party out! Enough is enough; the time for change is now.

I haven't voted yet, but I will vote no, I see this as a ploy to rally a certain type of voter to whom gay bashing would appeal. Vote NO!!!

I'm an Evangelical Christian (a Baptist, but a moderate) and I'll be voting no for the amendment. I can't understand why any christian would vote for it - I know that many people feel strongly that homosexual marriage hurts traditional families. But it simply isn't the truth. If anything hurts traditional families it's divorce, higher among self-proclaimed christians than others. Even if you view homosexuality as a sin, it's no different than any other sin. If homosexuals can't be given the same rights as married couples than neither should liars or the prideful. But that shouldn't even be the issue. Religious groups are actually demanding that the State tell them in law what they should believe. If anything Christians should be demanding that they retain the right to define marriage as they please - as a contract between themselves and God, rather than giving more power to the State. Traditional Conservatives go nuts when Democrats tell them what to do with their money, yet they are willing to let Republicans tell them what the can and can't believe? The issue isn't about protecting traditional famiily values, it's about protecting religious freedom.

Well it seems this is likely to pass, and an interesting thing that gets largely passed over is the effect on the VA business economy. When employees (unmarried gay and straight couples) find that their rights as a couple are restricted, they will decide to work and live in another state. The religious conservatives may think this is great and they can have a nice sheltered state in which to prosper. However some may be woken up when businesses relocate because of limited hiring pools, and the housing market goes further south because of unmarried couples moving out of the state where they can be protected in their relationships.
A similar thing happened in Georgia when they made a very punitive and strict law against illegal immigration. Hispanic individuals were afraid to buy houses, and so sales in Atlanta dropped some 70%.

Religious freedom is an oxy moron . Religion is living by a set of rules set by God. Freedom is living by one's own rules.
This is not about religious freedom. It's about marriage and the rules God set for it. Every religion has rules for marriage. Marriage is for Church. Civil Unions are for same sex.

I voted no. It is not a good idea to amend the constitution, especially to restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals. I am a republican, and would like to believe that we still stand for less intrusive government.

Mike, I hope you haven't voted yet, because you clearly don't understand your vote. A vote of "yes" would constitutionally prohibit the sames sex unions you recommend. A vote of "no" would not allow gay marriage, which is illegal in the state of Virginia.

There is already a law on the books in Virginia that bans same sex marriages and civil unions. All this new law does is protect it from advocate judges who like to legislate from the bench. What I am saying is we need a law that establishs and protects civil unions.

And another thing. A US constitutional amendment is NOT needed in this. Bush and the Republicans who pushing this are just crazy. States can handle this issue. The federal government CANNOT regulate marriage or civil unions in any form.
When Congress changes hands today, the US constitutional amendment talk about banning same sex marriage will go away. That is a very good thing

Like others, I voted No to the Marriage amendment. I was married, no longer, believe in the institution, and whether any two individuals decide to marry, has nothing to do with me. Period.

Voted no to discrimination being written into the constitution. My marriage and its sanctity is not threatened or cheapened by what social arrangements other people make.

Everybody talks about marriage being defined by church. Does that mean, my parents who did not marry in a church are not married and I am illegitimate. Does that mean that all our non Christian brothers and sisters (straight couple) who are married in their temples, mosques and synogogues are not married because they surely did not marry in a church.

Our attempt at equal rights for all has meant that we already have said the term 'marriage' does not belong to the church. And this is right. The word marriage existed LONG before Jesus was born and hence predates Christianity.

Shame on you who voted yes. For those of you who have not voted yet, its a definite NO to this ammendment.

Who is promoting these bills across the country? Is it gay rights groups or christian groups. Are Jewish churches concerned about this. Are Islamic groups concerned about this? I think not because there are relative concensus in those faiths that this would not be allowed. Isnt this really a fear between christian churches? That one denomination of the faith will allow it, while the other strongly opposes? Why is this on the ballot? If gay couples went into signed legal contractual agreements, how would that differ? A business partnership, just like most married couples find that marriage is just as big a part of the relationship as the loving bond between man and wife.

I also voted no to legalize discrimination. Don't people see the parallel to the legislation that outlawed white and non-white unions in the 1950's?

Discrimination is not cool.

I voted no basically on a moral issue because I believe in equality for all people regardless of their differences. If homosexual couples want to get married they should and they should have a right to our divorce system when they want to dissolve their marriage.

More than that, the legal implications this amendment will create, especiallly for children who will eventually be caught in custody disputes makes voting yes hurtful to them.
I believe there is a case pending in Virginia right now over two women that had a civil union in Vermont, and had a child. The union dissolved and the biological parent took the child to VA, which may or may not recognize the civil union of VT. If VA does not, then the one women has no rights to her child, who is now in VA. Passing the amendment strengthens VA's public policy against recognizing VT's civil unions and utimately will prohibit joint custody among these two parents.

Marriage isn't about religion, it's about property and about the relationship between family members. The government has no business deciding who is or isn't family, and the churches have no business telling government who can or can't be married. When I sit at a family table with my brothers and cousins, we are all related by blood or by love; we are all kin and our children are all kin. Unfortunately the government denies a few of my family their pension, parental, and property rights because of the gender of their spouses.

From the Puritans to the Bill of Rights, our civilization was founded on the principle of citizens choosing their own beliefs and ways of living. Virginians should vote No against bigotry in proposition 1 in order to defend our traditional American freedoms.

Reverend Liz Walsh says Virginia's amendment would violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. If that's so, then so does the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Democrat Bill Clinton), and so do all 20 marriage amendments nationwide.

As a supporter of Question 1, I would love to gay marriage supporters go ahead and file their lawsuit in federal court, seeking the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states. We all know how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule on that one.

If gay marriage supporters are too scared to file such a suit -- they don't want to set bad precedent, after all -- then they should stop using that argument in urging a "no" vote on Question 1.

Question 1 does not violate the U.S. Constitution. (If you believe it does, then please, file the lawsuit against the federal DOMA.)

Question 1 protects the natural, traditional definition of marriage. Vote yes on Question 1.

This morning, I voted against a similar proposition that appears on the ballot in my state of Wisconsin.

Ours is probably even more misleading, baffling, and restrictive: It would undercut all forms of civil unions and domestic partnerships, gay or straight. Even if you think it's morally right (I do not), it's too sweeping, intrusive, and detrimental to the culture, economy and community diversity.

If any of you out east are done voting and oppose it, and you have friends or family here who may be on the fence or planning not to vote, give us hand with a phone call or note.

Our ballot proposal (Question 1) is explained at: www.fairwisconsin.com

We need to vote "NO" on it -- as in "no discrimination, no amendment".

Our polls generally close at 9 PM Eastern Time, and our state allows on-site registration at our station on Election Day, so there's no good excuse not to turn out.

Michael a lot of us believe that DOMA is an unconstitutional but until a gay couple with a marriage license is discriminated against due to DOMA then a suit can not be brought.

Since Massachusetts is the only place that gay couples can get marriage licenses then one of those couples will have to sue to challenge DOMA.

Michael, feelings are NATURAL. Most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex and are therefore heterosexual. Some people are not. There are those who don't wind up in the norm for every conceivable human attribute. Marriage is a term created by humans and a right granted by government. It is not natural at all. You can vote based on your religious dogma, I'll vote on fact. And the fact is, you are denying loving taxpaying couples, who aren't hurting you or your family, rights that you enjoy because of your faith (or fear of those who are different). Go to Iran.

My partner of ten years and I have delayed purchasing a home in Virginia this year in large part because of this pending amendment. Even if we weren't gay, we would have opposed the amendment for the very fact that we believe in to be needlessly divisive and ultimately unconstitutional. Whatever the outcome, this proposal is bad for Virginians, it is bad for business, and it will prove to be a costly political exercise in bigotry.

Karen,

But the major gay groups -- HRC, Lambda Legal -- won't do what you said they should. Both are waiting until the "time is right" to file the lawsuit -- even though they believe DOMA is unconstitutional right now. Most Americans don't know that, though.

All it takes is a gay couple married in Massachusetts moving out of state in order to file a suit. Are we really saying that since May 2004, no gay couple has done that? That's hard to believe. HRC and Lambda Legal have opposed every DOMA lawsuit up to this point. They opposed the one filed in California.

I simply believe it's disingenuous for gay leaders to say that marriage amendments aren't necessary, when we all know they plan on eventually filing suit in federal court, and they plan on continuing to file suit in state courts. For supporters of natural marriage, marriage amendments ARE necessary.

Let's have a discussion about gay marriage. I'm fine with that. But I think we need to stop having debates over peripheral issues.

Everyone is talking about this question like it's new. It's not. There is already a law on the books in Virginia that bans same sex marriges and civil unions. This new ammendment just protects that law. The Virginia voters and law makers have already spoken on this issue. Now it's just a matter of controlling the judges who disagree with the voters. This ammendment does not change the existing law. It only protects it. So the next step is to get lawmakers to develop a law that allows for conditional civil unions.

People can chose to live how they like. I am not against that. However I am against lawmakers not being about to change and addapt to the changing landscape. Same sex couples are a part of this country now and they need to be protected. Developing a Civil Union Law is the only way that is going to happen in the current climate.

xtr657,

Who said anything about religion? I didn't. The fact is that there are two sexes. Nature tells us that.

And, every natural feeling isn't good. Many people in jail right now had "natural" feelings that got them in trouble.

It's amazing to me that the people who always promote tolerance want to tolerate everyone except people who disagree with them.

For the record, I tolerate gay marriage supporters.

Michael obfuscates in as lawyerly a fashion as the language in the constitutional amendment does. Let's all just drop the B.S. and call this amendment what it really is: Right wing pandering.

Why would I want to stick my nose in somebody else's business?

I voted NO, of course.

Mike,

If you want to see civil unions in Virginia, then voting for this law is simply idiotic. As the law currently stands, Va. can allow civil unions by enacting a law doing so and repealing an old law. If this amendment passes, that means Virginia cannot allow civil unions without at least one additional constitutional amendment (the one repealing this one) will be needed. You can't just amend the constitution whenever you feel like it. Voting for a constitutional amendment when you want it repealed in a few years is a stupid idea.

There will be many people who will vote for the amendment who will in the end be burned by it.

Michael, how is being gay "not good?" Who am I hurting? Is it because gay people have higher AIDS rates and have to sneak around to meet people like them? Do you not think being able to form a legally monogomous relationship would help that? Isn't every person different? If you only knew the emotional torture gay youth go through growing up you would realize that you are being immoral. Black people have higher crime rates. Should we lump them all together and forbid them in their pursuit of happiness? That would be prejudice. If you are uncomfortable with the thought of two men being husbands, you aren't alone, but why should the Commonwealth of Virginia be prevented from legitimizing ANY relationship that "intends to approximate the qualities, significance, or obligations of marriage" at some point in the future, marriage or not?

I support Question 1. For those on the fence, here are a few thoughts:

-- Massachusetts' highest court legalized gay marriage

-- Supreme Courts in New Jersey and Washington state came within one vote from legalizing gay marriage this year.

-- New Jersey's court ordered the legislature to legalize either gay marriage or civil unions.

-- Vermont's court ordered its legislature to legalize either gay marriage or civil unions.

All those states have one thing in common: None of them have marriage amendments.

If you support traditional marriage, vote "yes" on Question 1. Our state law on marriage can be overturned in court. An amendment cannot.

I did not say being gay is not good. I simply said that every natural feeling isn't good. If we can't agree on that last point, they we have more problems than I thought.

Vote yes on Question 1.

Supporting "traditional marriage" and supporting marriage rights for same-sex couples are not mutually exclusive. It's a clever twist to try to add validity to support for a marriage amendment. But the fact is that same-sex marriage has absolutely zero no effect on the state of heterosexual marriage.

How does gay marriage impact my marriage?

It impacts my marriage & family because if it is legalized, my children will be taught in school that children don't need a mommy and a daddy -- they only need two parents.

Fathers and mothers are not obsolete. In the ideal situation, both are necessary. How are two fathers supposed to counsel their daughter on, say, her first period?

Children need a mom and a dad.

If that's a bigoted statement, then Bill Clinton is a bigot. He, too, opposes gay marriage.

The difference between "marriage" and "matrimony"... one is a sacrement in various religions, the other is a contractual combining of assets. One is already defined by religions. Let's leave it that way. Besides, if I get a little technical here, the way the religious groups would have you believe it, you must also term a "marriage" of a man and a woman at "city hall" a "civil union."

This amendment would strike down commonlaw marriages (if Virginia were a commonlaw state).

Why are we so interested in legislating discrimination? Why are we so interested in taking away rights?

I voted "No," and all of my friends intend to vote that way as well because they recognize this amendment for what it is... bad.

I think that some people truly beleive that if they ban gay marriage, gay people will immediately become straight. Why else would they want to ban gay marriage?
There's a war, a healthcare crisis, social security crisis, and people are worried about gay marriage?!

If gay marriage impacts your marriage, you don't have enough going on in your life. What if one of your kids turns out to be gay. Happens to conservative and liberal parents alike. Bet you'd change your mind then. My mom did just find raising me without a dad. I figured out how my male parts worked just fine. I mean, sure it would have been nice to have a dad, but life ain't always fair.

I voted for the amendment. Gays are living in sin as the Bible states and I can't see any true Christian saying that gays are being discriminated against. The US Constitution was set up when men and women and families were normal. Northern Va and Maryland are full of gays and lesbians and it is not normal at all. I pray to God that this passes today. Why do people committing wrongs always believe they are being wronged?

Children ideally have a mom and a dad (or I would argue just two parents but that's just me). A lot of them even now don't even have that, and that has nothing to do with gays.

Michael,
"It impacts my marriage & family because if it is legalized, my children will be taught in school that children don't need a mommy and a daddy -- they only need two parents."

What about the rising number of single parents? Is divorce next on the list of things to be prohibited? Single dads have to deal with their daughter's first period and single moms deal with sons going through puberty. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Frankly, I would rather not get married to my girlfriend simply to protest the Christian Taliban's efforts to enforce their beliefs on the masses.

John, have you considered starting a Christian Taliban? Obviously hate in the name of faith isn't only a muslim problem. What do you care about the US Constitution? I mean clearly you don't care about the part that states there is a separation of church and state. One other thing, did God place dinosaur fossils in the ground to fool us into thinking the world is older than, what is it, 7000 years old?

Mike, you've been given faulty information. You should read the actual text of the Virginia amendment, not just the descriptions of it in campaign literature. The amendment would prohibit the state from honoring any sort of "civil union" contract between two unmarried persons, whether gay or straight. The reason people talk about the domestic violence issue is because in Ohio, which adopted an almost identical amendment a few years back, the amendment has been used to prevent domestic violence laws from applying to unmarried straight couples. Likewise, in Virginia, any contractual relationship between unmarried couples would be unenforceable if it attempted to give them the sorts of rights married couples share, such as advance medical directives and custody arrangements for their children.

Please read the text of the amendment before you vote. This amendment might prevent an activist judge from allowing gay marriage, but it would also prohibit the state from ever allowing civil unions or honoring contractual relationships between unmarried couples, be they gay or straight. This amendment is like using a shotgun to kill a fly, as my granddaddy would say.

John -- the US Constitution was set up precisely so that our country would not be run according to what 'the Bible states.' If you can think of a logical, secular reason as to why homosexual couplse should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples, I would be willing to listen.

If you believe that gays are living in sin and that families need a mother and a father, couldn't it also be argued that divorced people are living in sin? Or that people who have remarried are living in sin? Why aren't we legistating again them? And what about the parents in these situations? Sometimes there'll only be one. If both parents remarry then there could be said to be four parents. I think people need to realize that there is no such thing as a "normal" family any more. A family should really just be a group of people who loved, care for and protect each other. Be they straight, gay, step-relatives, half-relatives, whatever. I don't buy into the concept of a "normal" family any more. And for the record, I'm Catholic and I voted NO.

Bill Clinton is a member of the Christian Taliban. Or, at least, many on this board would have us think that.

Clinton signed into law the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which literally makes Virginia's marriage amendment possible. DOMA gave states the option of banning other state's gay marriages.

Hillary Clinton supports the Defense of Marriage Act. I guess she also is a Christian Talibanian.

Nationwide, 20 states -- even blue ones like Michigan and Oregon -- have passed marriage amendments.

Are Democrats in Michigan and Oregon part of the "Christian Taliban"? Believe me, the amendments in those states couldn't have passed without Democratic support. Michigan's passed with 59 percent of the vote, Oregon's with 57 percent. That essentially is a landslide.

Let's stop the name-calling, and let's debate the issue.

Vote yes on Question 1.

Kate,

Domestic violence laws do not apply differently if you are married, unmarried but living with someone, or just some person off the street who is mad and wants to hurt someone. If you commit a crime of violence (and you know the person your being violent with), you pay the price. This ammendment is not going to change any domestic violence law. The purpose of this ammendment is to insure that judges who like to take the law into their own hands on the subject of same sex marriage cannot. That is a key problem with this type of law in other states. Judges interpit the law as they see fit. Judges judge, lawmakers make laws. The ammendment will prevent judges from being lawmakers.

Jeff,

Laws can be written to stay within the guidelines of an ammendment, but still allow for certain types of civil unions.
This is done all the time.

Until someone shows me where Christ says not to love or marry my fellow man, I view this as an anti-Christian and hateful amendment and won't be doing business in VA if it passes. If you can't grant me equal rights, then you surely don't need my money either.

Mike,

Read the amendment. It specifically bans civil unions, or any legal recognition of any relationship similar to marriage. It makes civil unions unconstitutional in Virginia.

As a journalist, I was tasked with writing a cover story on this issue. In it I presented many reasons to vote no (ie the ambiguous language, domestic violence issues, implications for straight, un-wed couples, etc.)

But the truth of the matter is that we should vote no simply because: why not?

Allowing others to live the lifestyles they deserve to lead does absolutely NOTHING to infringe upon the lifestyle I choose to lead.

Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of traditional hetero marriage? Where did this incomprehensibly lame idea orgininate?

It's too bad that a no vote is not nearly enough. Hopefully, sooner than later, we will be voting yes for EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

I voted Yes on Virginia Same Sex Marriage Amendment. I don't hate gays at all nor do I believe that people should suffer discrimination based sexual preferance.

However, there is, in my opinion, a Huge Gap between having tolerance for gay couples on one hand, and saying that gay unions are the equivalent of marriage, on the other hand. It is just nature - men and women join together in union to create a family. It is an organic part of human nature and existence. Homosexual unions, quite frankly, are nothing but a rough approximation of heterosexual unions, because there is no organic, natural basis for the union. The fact that two people love each other is very wonderful, but that alone should not be the basis for defining a marriage. Married couples, and the families they create either naturally or from adoption, are the basis of human society.

I would rather not have to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution, but given the recent examples of our state and federal courts legislating on this issue from the bench, I felt it was incumbent upon me to vote in favor of the amendment.

In addition, I feel that the pro-gay lobby is extremely political, and much more intolerant of those who disagree with their ideology than the opposite. I belive I have read a few examples of the phrase "Christian Taliban" on this chat string. Because the pro-gay lobby has no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their various positions, (if you will excuse the pun), I felt an additional impetus to vote for this additional protection of the institution of marriage.

The rhetoric for this referendum is particularly disturbing (as are most of the gays-in-the-military arguments) as the language is almost identical to that used for the anti-mysogyny (and anti-black in the military) positions of the fifties.

Mike,

If you think this amendment will not affect domestic violence laws in Va you should really do some research into Ohio. Domestic violence laws that refer to "spouse" will no longer be applicable to "common law" type marriages or any other non-marriage living arrangements.

Steve,

If you think that married couples and the children they create or adopt form the basis for society then does that mean you believe that single parents should have their children taken away and given to married couples? Do you not believe that gay couples can't adopt children as well?

Marriage laws were created to protect families and division of property. They were created long before Christianity came into being by the ancient egyptians for that very purpose. For this reason you should vote NO to this amendment and stop letting the government tell the American people what constitutes a "family"

Steve- you argue one marries to have a family- either through natural means or adoption. It is just nature - men and women join together in union to create a family.

Your words- "The fact that two people love each other is very wonderful, but that alone should not be the basis for defining a marriage."

I married my husband ten years ago with the FULL intention of never having children. We're heterosexual, so it was a relatively easy process and legal in all 50 states and most countries.

Is our delightful union any the less because we consciously CHOSE not to increase to the population problems?

BootmanDC,

You asked for a passage where Christ defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Here are two:

Matthew 19:4-6
Mark 10:6-8.

It isn't necessary to be a Christian to vote for this thing, but if you want biblical texts to support the amendment, they certainly are there.

I voted no on the amendment. If gay marriage ever becomes legal, all it will do is make life easier for the millions of gay people who are already commited to a partner. It will not change life for heterosexual couples in any way. Gay people can already adopt children and many have done so, providing these children with happy, loving homes. The love gay people feel for each other is just as real as that of heterosexual couples. I am sick and tired of being treated as a second-class citizen in this respect. We've already learned "separate but equal" is not equal.

I think it worthwhile to note that the two biblical citations offered by Michael(which refer to the same conversation between Christ and the Pharisees)are in respect to a question regarding the morality of divorce, not the morality of alternative sexualities. For whatever that is worth.

Martha -

Per your reply, I would say respectfully that if a man and woman marry, but do not want, or cannot have children, that does not make the union any less real or meaningful. Not every married heterosexual couples can have children naturally, but positively no homosexual couples can naturally have children together. Last time I checked, it takes both an egg and a sperm, not a turkey baster and a petri dish.

To KH -

I certainly do not feel that single parents should have their children taken away. The issue at hand is whether gay unions should be sanctioned as marriage - the issue of single parents is outside the parameters of this issue (other than fact that pro-gay marriage advocates use it all too often in a clumsy attempt to legitimize their arguments). I think you are being disingenuous when you prattle on about not letting the government define what is a family - on the contrary, it is the pro-gay lobby that is pushing to have the government redefine marriage and the family, by way of lawsuits and judicial activism. I think the Amendment in question can best be described as a reaction to the pro-gay lobby's myriad attempts to have gay marriage officially recognized by governments at both the federal and state level.

I don't believe gay couples should adopt, simply because having two mothers or two fathers, regardless of how much they love each other, is no substitute for having a mother AND a father.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst type of government, expect for all the other alternatives. Similarly, protecting heterosexual marriage via the Amendment may not be the perfect solution, but it beats the alternatives.

Aw crap I should have voted for it. I think I'm going gay now. :(

And if you believe in equality then you will not discriminate against anyone, gay or straight. I voted No to this ridiculous poorly-written, hate-filled amendment.

The passages cited (Matthew 19:4-6 & Mark 10:6-8) refer both to the morality of divorce AND the definition of marriage.

For Christians on this board, these verses are very pertinent to this conversation. Decide for youself. Here's Matthew 19:4-6:

"And he [Jesus] answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'

"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Jesus clearly is defining marriage here, as well as addressing divorce.

Once again, this amendment should be supported by both Christians & non-Christians, but for Christians, this discussion is very pertinent.

I agree wholeheartedly with the passage Michael just cited. Marriage needs to be defined by a man and woman coming together as one flesh.

Now we just need to pass a constitutional amendment requiring all married couples to be surgically attached to one other so that they can become one flesh.

Is this bible study or a blog on the validity of this amendment? Church should be separate from state!!!!!!! Stop pushing your extreme Christian views on everyone.

I agree with Tina. She said it well and is viewing it logically.

A gay person on this website asked for a passage where Jesus talks about marriage. That's what started this entire discussion about the Bible.

As for "forcing" beliefs on people, someone's beliefs are going to win out in the end. Either your beliefs -- gay marriage should be legalized -- will win, or my beliefs (gay marriage should not be legalized).

Why should your views be allowed in the public square, and mine not be? That certainly seems unfair.

A gay person on this website asked for a passage where Jesus talks about marriage. That's what started this entire discussion about the Bible.

As for "forcing" beliefs on people, someone's beliefs are going to win out in the end. Either your beliefs -- gay marriage should be legalized -- will win, or my beliefs (gay marriage should not be legalized).

Why should your views be allowed in the public square, and mine not be? That certainly seems unfair.

Marriage really is a religious institution. Why the government wants to legislate it is ridiculous --- whatever happened to the separation between church and state? I wholeheartedly cast a NO vote for this narrow-minded proposition that has been created out of fear.

A woman was campaigning this morning yelling, "vote yes to protect marriage between a man and a woman." I asked her, "If this amendment fails or passes, won't men and women still be able to get married tomorrow? What exactly is getting protected?" She had no answer and continued shouting her slogan.

If the religious right really wants to bring a positive change to the climate, perhaps they should work on the number of divorces as opposed to preventing people who love one another from having a meaningful union.

I agree with V. If two people love each other they should be able to be together, regardless of their sex. Their love is not jeopardizing other married couples. It is not right for the government to dictate who we can love and how we can love.

There was a time that blacks could not marry whites in the state of VA. The "Christians" saw it as God's Law. People were lynched. Now all races can marry. Why are we afraid of people who are different from us? When can we stop teaching all to hate. God created all men and women in his image. Who are we to question God's creations? I voted no because my parents taught me to love all.

Steve

Too bad we don't live in a democracy -- we live in a republic where the rights of the minority will not be able to be trampled on just because the majority doesn't like it which is why amending a state constitution to allow discrimination against a minority is never a good idea.

I love everyone (the Bible teaches that, too), but I also believe the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible already has judged many things, including the topic we are talking about. I am not the one doing the judging.

I've got to log off now.

Vote yes on Question 1.

If they can't marry one another they are going to go after your Daughters and Sons. It worked out well for Mrs. Ted Haggard.

Michael,
I am just glad in this country there is one vote for one person. You wish to teach hate that is your business. This amendment has many problems; worst of all is promoting hate. You may not feel you hate people. However, the message you are sending to the gay community is hate. I hope you will reflect on your views.

You're wrong, Jack. Haggard did that to his wife; it's called infidelity. It was his choice. It's funny how the biggest hypocrit was an advisor to the President about "moral issues." We should have never elected him in the first place, because he's the one that spurred these right-wing Christian issues.

I'll ask this again, having never gotten an answer: how does one couples' marriage affect mine? Gay or straight, how can someone else's marriage affect me? I just don't get it.

This is a very bad amendment; it will most certainly drive gays from Virginia, which will remove many house shoppers, it will most certainly be used by abusive 'partners' (straight or gay) to cheat their way out of responsibility for their actions.

This is yet another ploy by the religious right trying to impose their 'morals' on others. Get out of my bedroom! (and I'm straight and married!)

To whomever it was who commented that the Constitution was written when families were "normal," do you honestly think people weren't gay back then?! Wake up, honey. People being gay isn't something new.

This amendment is just another way for those right-wing bible-beaters to try to force their "morals" on the rest of us. When did this country become a nation of prude, Puritanical zealots?! Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

Love comes in all forms. Just because you don't understand it doesn't give anyone a right to say it's not normal. Realize that what goes on in other people's bedrooms is none of anyone else's business.

Holly-
Sort of like Jesse Jackson advising Clinton after the Lewinsky fiasco. Great timing to have yet another "love child" of the good reverend's surface. We abound with hypocrites! Yuck!

KH -

Final thoughts on this complex issue. Technically, we live in a Commonwealth with a representative form of government in which supreme authority is vested in the people. Today's election is a chance to give the people of Virgnia, the majority, to speak their mind on this issue.

The fact that a political minority is in favor of particular issue, such as gay marriage, doesn't endow that minority with any special rights or privileges. Attempts to redefine the gay marriage movement by linking it to past oppression of African-Americans is specious, andv historically and morally inaccurate.

Those of us who want to protect heterosexual marriage, and ultimately American society, from the steady encroachment of moral relativism, in the form of gay marriage, does not mean we want to trample the rights of homosexual Virginians. When the Amendment is passed, homosexuals in Virginia will still enjoy protection under the both state and federal law. No rights will be trampled; rather, the gay-marriage lobby will simply see that their arguments have been found lacking by the majority of Virginia's voters.

I went early to vote here in Blacksburg. Was voting next to a dude who must have been at least 75. He shouted for an election official excaliming that he couldn't understand something. After the official said something I couldn't hear, the guy said very loudly, "SO IF I'M AGAINST THE GAYS, I VOTE YES." The whole crowded church turned toward the man ... the sheepish election official quietly said "that's right," and walked away.

I am not a christian, though I don't see the relevance in that argument. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly indicates that church and state are separate beings. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Thus, these arguments are baseless. It is irrelevant what the bible states on marriage. Our country has fought wars on the battlefield, the buses, in congress, and on the streets of the South to prove that people of both genders and any race are equal. Why now is it ok to state that homosexuals are not?

I think many of you need to think long and hard about the freedoms many before you have died for. This is NOT about religion - it is about freedom and the rights of EVERY American citizen.

Passage of this amendment does mean that it will trample the rights of homosexuals and straight, unmarried people, because right-wing judges will interpret it to do so. And it's not that our argument is not well-received by Virginians; it is that those Virginians were brainwashed to believe that voting No means that you're not Christian and you don't believe in God. If this amendment passes it was only through scare tactics and by targeting the uneducated, ignorant voters that have no opinion of their own.

There are 146 references to "husband," "wife" or "spouse" in the Virginia Code, many carrying important consequences such as child custody, inheritance, tax benefits and the like. With the amendment, homosexuals will be precluded from enjoying the rights, benefits and/or the responsibilities of those 146 laws. If you want to support the amendment, that's your business. But at least be honest and recognize that you are denying homosexuals equal rights under the law.

So, Blacksburg is filled with homophobic bigots? That's really sad.

Ok, Vote Yes, but the same could also be said about divorce in some of the places you mentioned.

Bottom line: seperation of church and state. Ever heard of it?

Well I won't defend people using those words, but the only argument from the other side has been, basically, "It says so in the Bible." That's not enough for me.

Amendment will pass, as it should.

- Christianist hater
- Christian Taliban
- Igorant
- Brianwashed
- Uneducated

These are just a few of the adjectives I have seen used today by those against the proposed Amendment to describe those individuals who favor it. I think it is yet another perfect example of the pro-gay marriage lobby's intractable position - "if you don't agree with us on every single argument, then you are an ingorant, brainwashed, hate-filled Christian bigot"

Trust me, there aren't a lot of gay marriages being conducted in the non-Christian, non-democratic world either. At least in the US, we have the option of debating the issue and voting on it. I doubt it is the same situation in Beijing, Tehran or Riyadh.

I voted no because even though marriage is a creation of religions, it has been embraced by governments and therein brings with it certain rights and privileges that should be extended to any adults that wish to marry (and secure those benefits). I have no issue with any church defining what marriage is for congregants. I object that the State of Virginia is trying to limit rights under state law that should be extended to all. If the ammendment passes, I trust it will be challenged in the courts.

for those who are using the old "it says so in the Bible argument", first of all, where in the New Testament does it say this specifically? and secondly, what about separation of church & state? Let your religious beliefs dictate your personal beliefs, not everyone's laws. By the way, I'm a Christian and I voted "NO".

I'm sorry, its 165 laws, not 146, in the Va.Code that reference "husband or wife or spouse." These include:
-- a spouse has various rights upon death of the other, such as to inherit if there is no will, to obtain an elective share of the estate, to be compensated if the deceased was a crime victim, to participate in estate administration decisions, to receive workers comp benefits, and to continue health insurance if the deceased was a cop or a fire-fighter
-- a spouse has the right to make health care decisions if the patient isn't capable, and to visit at hospitals and assisted care facilities
-- a spouse has various rights upon divorce or dissolution, such as to ask court to award health care benefits, spousal support and/or child support, and to obtain an equitable division of property
-- it is a crime to marry someone else when your spouse is still living and to have sex with someone other than one's spouse
-- a person can't be compelled to testify against a spouse at trial
-- a husband (rather than a donor) automatically becomes the father of child from assisted conception
-- the spouse of a county official can't serve on a school board, and spouse of election official can't serve on electoral board
-- spouse of military personnel can get in-state tuition if personnel claims Va as residence
-- spouses can file tax returns jointly
-- spouse's income and assets are considered in determining eligibility for various benefits and tax purposes.

These are just some of the 165 laws in Virginia that pertain to married couples. If homosexuals are unable to enjoy the rights (and obligations) of these laws, they are not enjoying equal protection of the laws.

Shame on those who voted no! Marriage is a societal institution that ensures the continuation of a given civilization. No homosexual union can continue a civilization without the intervention of procreation technologies. There is no way, regardless of religious affiliations that homosexual unions should be placed on the same legal footing as the institution of marriage. As to whether this will be a license for domestic abuse cases I believe is unclear because of existing laws. I proudly voted yes.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Const: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

When all the legal hangling around the country runs its course and the gay marriage issue ultimately finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court (4-5 years from now), I predict that we will learn that the only way to deny homosexuals the rights the various laws that pertain to spouses is by amending the U.S. Constitution. That does remain the supreme law of the land, regardless of what Virginians vote today. And there is no way the proposed amendment comports with the Equal Protection Clause.

By the way, the act which confers upon a Virginian the right to enjoy those 165 laws is a civil act -- when the clerk of a circuit court gives you a document called a marriage license. The clerk will give that license regardless of whether any church condones or blesses the marriage.

For many reasons I voted no, but the first and foremost being that I am in a relationship and plan to live with my s.o. for a while before we get married. If something should happen to me, I want to know that it is my s.o. making the decisions and taking care of things for me. I do not want to have to retain a lawyer and draft several pages of legal jargon so he has the rights he should. I am straight, Christian, and do NOT feel an ounce of guilt for voting NO. And SHAME on you people who think it won't affect straight unmarried couples. I have done immeasurable research and it will.

There are married heterosexual couples out there without kids. And just because we might make it so gay couples can get "married" or some sort of similar arrangement like a civil union doesn't mean everyone HAS to get involved in a gay marraige. This is far from the end of our civilization. People will continue having children.

Does anyone know when the Repugnicans in Richmond voted to include this amendment on the ballot? Seems to me that it's just another of their bigoted, fear-mongering tactics to get out the "conservative" vote. I wonder whether they decided to include it AFTER the infamous Macaca comment from Sen. Allen....When they realized he might no longer be a slam dunk for re-election???

Does anyone know when the Repugnicans in Richmond voted to include this amendment on the ballot? Seems to me that it's just another of their bigoted, fear-mongering tactics to get out the "conservative" vote. I wonder whether they decided to include it AFTER the infamous Macaca comment from Sen. Allen....When they realized he might no longer be a slam dunk for re-election???

Given that the act of "marriage" pre-dates Christianity/Catholicism (ie. the faiths that cast down the concept of gay marriage), I'm in the mind that the Catholic/Christian faiths should stay out of the subject. It's got nothing to do with them. It comes down to the human being. And it's existed for longer than they have.

Although the amendment is likely related to efforts to get out the conservative vote, the petition to get in on the ballot was many months ago. It had nothing to do with the macaca comment.

If marriage is the sole salvation of our civilization, then we are doomed. The rate of divorce and out of wedlock birth rates are on the rise and higher than ever.
It seems that we have more important things to do in discovering answers to those perplexing problems than in limiting who can marry who under the banner of religion. This ammendment, if passed, will not be the final answer to the issues stated above.
Think about it - a convicted pedophile can remarry someone with children from a previous marriage, but two men or women cannot commit to one another. What in the world are we trying to prevent with this ammendment?

All this is BS designed to once again polarize the people of the state. The amendment does nothing but to promote hatred and bigotry. There is no 'gay marriage', civil unions, etc allowed in this state - whether this passes or not. If it does pass, however, common-law marriages, partnerships, and the like, gay OR straight, will be affected negatively.

Confused asked how this affects his/her marriage. Can anyone answer that? I can't see how anyone else's relationships can affect mine. I just don't get it.

Having equality does not dictate that others' rights will be less important. It just means equal, the same, as important, etc.

Grow up people - we're at war, killing thousands of people everyday. Is this really that important?

While you are all making some valid and/or interesting points you are nonetheless missing the primary point Reverend Walsh was making.

"The amendment discriminates on the basis of gender".

That is the sole legal issue here. Really.

"Gay" marriage is already legal in all 50 states. A gay man can marry a gay woman. This amendment and all like it are denying equal rights to people based solely on gender. Change the gender of one person and suddenly something is illegal.

There are two parts to "marriage" in this country: The legal part and the ceremonial part. The legal part bestows the rights and privledges decried by the State for married couples. The ceremonial part is the spiritual side and varies wildly from person to person.

Should the State be allowed to discriminate on basis of gender in regard to the rights it bestows on married couples? Absolutely not.

Should a spiritual organisation be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for people that it deems unsuitable or otherwise repugnant? Absolutely not.

The passing of these laws and amendments is counter to everything this country stands for and flies in the face of the brave people who have fought over the centuries to gain equality for all people regardless of how they look, what they believe and what gender they are. There are still people in this country that believe people of different races should not marry, but it is still legal. Do not let the country start back down that slippery slope based on another physical attribute: gender.

Remember, this is America. You don't have to like something for it to be right. And freedom means freedom for ALL. Not just the people who agree with you.

And for the record: I am a Clinton fan and he was absolutely wrong to sign DOMA. Just because I like him does not make him right.

Thanks to everyone for having this discussion.

Paul

I think many of you have gotten off track on this topic, I was delighted at the first few pages of ideas, but then the topic went into bible quotes and finger pointing. letitbe has it right, do you really want the government telling you who you can love and live with?

Here's how we worded it in Canada in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Quite simple, really.

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

The bright side of this idiotic debate is that eventually civil rights prevail...it just takes time. Those supporting this disgraceful ban are no different than those in the past who were against women voting, or blacks gaining citizenship, or of minorities voting, or interracial marriage, inter-faith marriage etc. etc. etc.

Civil rights are acquired through a long, slow, sometimes painful process. Gay rights will happen. And people will look back at today, much in the same way we currently look back on the quaint old days when women were 2nd class citizens, and think how far we've come.

As a former staunch Republican, I find this amendment repugnant on many levels, but key among them are:
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION FOLKS -- it requires equal protection under the law (Amendment 14...I believe?)
Republicans USED TO stand for non-interventionist government, that's a founding principle of the party...so why is GOVT getting involved in legislating the "definition" of marriage?
As someone pointed out, marriage is legally a CIVIL matter; i.e., a civil union between two individuals. The Civil Court issues the "marriage license".

It is NO BUSINESS of the state to mandate discrimination into civil unions. If this passes (and I voted NO) I hope someone sues the state for discrimination, and raises the challenge of unconstitutionality under the 14th amendment.

I was raised a Christian too...but God, the Bible, or any aspect of RELIGION does not belong in a LEGAL discussion.

This whole discussion is off track. The proposed amendment isn't even about gay marriage as much as other things! Read it already!

Any religious reasoning for supporting this amendment is ludicrous. Why should non-Christians have to live under rules preached by a Carpenter who lived over 2000 years ago? It's lunacy. Either we live in a Democracy or we live in a theocracy. A democracy thrives when we accept our differences.

When those gay couples got married on the steps of San Francisco city hall, did your lives suddenly fall apart? Did you wake up the next morning feeling different about your own marriage? It's incredible how the religious right can allow themselves to be played like this. The GOP drum up the gay marriage boogie man every election and you go for it, ignoring their horrendous record on the war, the economy (for the bottom 90% of the Nation), education, health care etc.

WAKE UP! YOU ARE BEING PLAYED LIKE A DRUM!

You don't like gay marriage? Keep it out of your church. But unless you can prove how two strangers getting married somehow tramples on your own civil rights, then you have no right at all to dictate to those strangers what they can or can't do. It's a disgrace.

Picture this: you vote to stop those strangers from marrying. It causes them great pain and heartache. You sleep better at night.

How dare you?

KH,

Maybe those laws that have the word "spouse" attached to them may not apply any more (it never did before because same sex marriage is not allowed in VA anyway and things were fine) but there are a host of other laws that still will apply. Violence is violence either way you slice it and the person commiting the violence will be prosocuted.

If people want to live that way, that is their choice and that is fine. However, they need not hide under the term "marriage". It is a union and needs to be defined as a such. Marrage is somethng created by the church and it needs to be decided by the church. And what's more is these judges who like to legislate from the bench need to do their jobs as judges and interpit the law, not rewrite it to suit there opinions. If they want to do that, they should be running in this mid-term.

Mike

Marriage was created by the Ancient Egyptians separate from any church. Regardless this amendment bars any relationship outside of one man one woman one marriage license therefore it is discrimanatory to gender. I vote against amending anything to be legally discrimanatory no matter what my views on the subject may be

Mike,

"However, they need not hide under the term "marriage". It is a union and needs to be defined as a such."

Says who? You? People in this country disagree. You want to live under that definition? Go ahead. You don't have to marry another man. But who do you and your ignorant ilk think you are forcing others to live under your definition?

I think I read the truest statement of all in a Colorado newspaper:

"Ban gay marriage so Osama Bin Laden can hide."

This amendment is not about marriage, it is about rights - and all unmarried couples will be affected negatively. This has been advertised to those who hate gays (or anyone different from them) as an anti-gay-marriage amendment when that was outlawed so long ago. The sad thing is that is based in hatred, not common sense. Essentially, the collateral damage will include those heterosexuals who choose for whatever reason not to marry. It appears that the Christian ideal has taken over Virginia. If you are not properly married, you are not a human.

I totally concur with what was said above: this is a democracy NOT a theocracy. Just because Mike's church does not recognize homosexuals as having the right to marry does not give him and his fellow parishioners the right to enshrine their liturgical viewpoint on the rest of us. My religion says that a couple being married must fast all day of the wedding, but you don't see my congregation out supporting Constitutional amendments banning food consumption before taking vows. Let's keep religion out of government.

And Mike, you keep saying laws establishing civil unions will be allowed, but this amendment FORBIDS them. Don't you get that? If something is unconstitutional, you can't pass laws about it. Geez, didn't you take Government 101 in college?

The irony is that the hard core Christian right has more in common with the Taliban than they do with the rest of the western world. Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave right now.

I voted against this amendment. It has no place in modern society. A few weeks ago I saw one person's reasoning for this supposed anti gay marriage (even though is not about marriage at all) was that marriage is all about having children. Does that mean the next amendment will prevent sterilized persons from marrying? What if we marry, and don't have kids? Does our marriage become annulled? Seems extreme, but vacating contracts and agreements between couples who are 'perpetrating' marriage but not married seems very extreme to me.
Where does the meddling stop?

What is next? A law stating that you can not call a sow's ear a silk purse?

Way too much common sense there.

I hope those of you who voted for this never have to undergo the humiliation of submitting your right to conduct your life as you see fit. Imagine if your right to go to practice your religion were subject to a majority vote. If two people of the same gender marry, it only offends your taste. However, prohibiting them to marry actually affects their ability to live their lives, their property rights, and their families. Enjoy your victory--it's come at real people's expense.

KH,

So is it safe to say that becasue I am not allowed into a woamn's bathroom that I can cry gender discrimination. No.

Gender discrimination is when someone is discriminated against because of their gender, not because of their sexual preference. Gender and sexual preference are very different things. This is a sexual preference issue, not a gender issue no matter how the gay community spins it.

Tom,

I voted yes on the ammendment. The country seems to agree on this pointt. This is why these laws are passing like crazy across this counrty. 33 states already have some form. I say this is a clear majority.

However, I can see and agree with the argument that domestic partners need to have protection under the law. Civil Union Laws can be that protection. Laws that spell out medical terms and benefits that any couple should receive.

The one thing we can't do is play God here. Even if God does not agree with these types of unions, it's not our place to judge them and make them live how we see fit. Tolorance is what this country is rooted in. If we can not tolorate it, then we shouldn't be here.

So sexual discrimination is okay?

Since when does the majority opinion justify taking away rights of the minority? The Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place in part to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

At different points in this nations history the following were true:

The majority, including the majority of women, believed women had no place in politics.

The majority of citizens believed that black people were subhuman.

The majority believed that you should not be able to marry outside your own race.

The majority believed you should not marry outside your religion.

Get it? You can't take away civil rights based on majority opinion. Your ludicrous "women's bathroom" example makes no sense, since a man entering a women's bathroom infringes upon a woman's right to privacy. Two men getting married doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights at all. But you, dictating that they cannot get married are certainly infringing upon theirs.

Do you want a theocracy? Or a Democracy? Choose wisely. But don't pretend support for this horrible amendment has ANYTHING to do with demcratic principles. It doesn't.

Disgusted,

This ammendmant does not forbid civil unions. The law does. This is an ammendment to the law to protect it from activist judges who legislate from the bench, so yes, I took government 101. I also know that there are things that can be done to protect the same sex union that will remain within the law, but I can see you have no foresight to see the potental for something like that happening.

Spin away Tom. The debate is over. The law is already on the books. This is an AMMENDMENT to that law, so the argument on the law is not the case here. Viginia already voted on the law and guess what? You lost.

Activist judge = one who actually protects the minority from the opinions of the majority, as is required by the Constuitution and the Bill of Rights.

Imagine if the citizens of our Nations past added similar amendments based on the majority opinion of the time:

Banned women from voting forever.
Banned monorities from gaining citizenship.
Banned citizens from marrying outside their race or religion.

Get it? It's ludicrous.

Explain the spin? Please, I'm all ears. Seems logic is completely on my side here, Mike. Show me where my arguments lose footing?

By the way, I didn't lose...we all did. It's an embarrassment to this nation and will be seen as so many years from now when we outgrow it, like we did all those other ridiculous prejudices.

Mike,

Again, the point is missed:

Your Quote:

"... This is a sexual preference issue, not a gender issue no matter how the gay community spins it."

This is solely a gender issue and I can prove it. A man wishes to get married to another person. If that other person is a woman it is legal. If it is a man, it is not. Gender. Period. It makes no difference what his sexual preference is. Gay people get married every day for various reasons (usually for health benefits etc. but that is a whole other debate). It is absolutely legal if those Gay couples consist of one man and one woman, thus sexual preference has nothing to do with the law.

I cannot make it any clearer than that. Thanks for the discussion

The argument does not loose footing, Tom. It has no merit. Where were you when the law was created and passed? Your argument would have more footing there. This is about one thing today. Protecting the law ALREADY IN PLACE.

BootmanDC,

You asked for a passage where Christ defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Here are two:

Matthew 19:4-6
Mark 10:6-8.

It isn't necessary to be a Christian to vote for this thing, but if you want biblical texts to support the amendment, they certainly are there.

Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8 are arguing against divorce, not against same-sex marriage. Read then entire chapter before quoting.

Besides, this is just but one theory put forth by one book. I might now quote Plato's Symposium "The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond."

Later he posits that "At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said: "Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg." He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility...After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that."

To Plato, this allegory explained how men could search out other men, and women other women, despite the appearances of "being against nature."

Wow. If this page is at ALL representative of the vote on this amendment in Virginia (and who knows how many Diebold machines are used there? Any chance this one would be counted faithfully?) - then it looks like VA has said "no" to bigotry and hypocrisy ("Save marriage! Keep Americans from doing it!").

Alas, it's not so simple. Conservatives, who by and large do not read (it's an intellectual strain for them, I've noted) tend not to frequent the Post. They are told what to believe by their talk radio brainwashers. Well, I guess by tomorrow we'll know which century Virginia has opted to live in (former resident here).

Tom, if it's an embarrassment, then you are embarrassed by the majority. Late time I checked, majority ruled in this country.

The history of this country is full of unjust "laws" that eventually go the way of the dodo as we evolve as a Nation. Mark my words, your views will be seen in similar light to those who mocked the idea of women's rights or minority rights in the previous century. I have no doubt about that. You are merely the usual speedbump on the road to progress.

It would just be refreshing if we could evolve a bit quicker.....*sigh*

Mike, have you read any of my posts? Yes, I am embarrassed by anyone who supports such ridiculous, discriminitory measures. Like I said before, the majority has been wrong many times before. Did you see my previous list? Do you think the majority was correct in those cases? Should we have banned women from voting? Should we have banned minorities from becoming citizens? Should we have banned marriage between people of different faiths or races? Majority rule? That's your argument?!

I don't see removing the Lee-Jackson Day Virginia state holiday as a referendum. It should be on the next elections.

Our country was founded on the principle of guarding religious freedoms without interference from government, which was rampant in the Great Britain and most of Europe back then. The same sex marriage referendum goes too far and will trample on thousands of people's rights if it is passed. What are they going to do next? Put a Church of Virginia referendum on the ballot to name the state religion?

As its been said again and again. This amendment is not one of Symantics. Whether you call it Marriage or Civil Unions it doesn't matter. It will not be allowed in VA; ALONG WITH THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT! Someone who has been in a committed relationship for over 20 years will have NO rights when it comes to Medical decisions.

Can you imagine being disowned from your family for 20 years while being in a committed relationship of someone of the same sex. You are in a car accident. A life or death decision has to be made. Who decides? The parents who have NO CLUE AS TO the your wishes for the past 20 years or someone who you've been close to the past 20 years! It should be a "no-brainer" decision. It won't be in this state because the relationship won't be recognized! When it comes to the will; direct relatives who have NOT been a part of a person's life will have rights to it and not the person who has devoted his/her life to the deceased!

As soon as I can afford to, I want to move from the state of Virginia to a state that DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE against people because of what's done in the privacy of their own homes.

I voted NO. I guess it wasn't enough!

I got divorced twice and don't plan to get married again. I don't have any family living and no children so I would like to leave my estate to my best friend, give him power of attorney, etc. I don't want anything to go to my ex wives. Does this mean all the legal expenses I have incurred will be flushed down the toilet because my legal documents will become invalid as a result of this referendum passing? I will sue the hell out of the State of Virginia and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to! Also, my business offers domestic partnership benefits which I will have to rescind. I expect to lose 10 of my top employees unless I move my business to another state.

The Post has called the vote for the ammendment.

You people sicken me.

Way to go Virginia! Why stop with making same sex marriages illegal? Let's make the biggest legal and civil rights mess we have had in a long time. There will be repercussions for years to come, costing Virginia taxpayers millions if not billions in legal fees. I am moving my business to Maryland and providing relocation benefits so I can offer my employees domestic partnership benefits. It may take 2-3 years to completely move my business, but my employees are critical to the continued survival of my business. Furthermore, it's a legal mess for businesses in DC and MD who have VA employees who have to comply with this new law. Shame on you Virginians for not being educated!

Don't worry. A law suit is being filed against Virginia as soon as possible to protect our constitution and many businesses in the Washington, DC area. Virginia will feel the full weight and power of the consequences of this unnecessary referendum.

"A professorship of theology should have no place in this institution"
-Thomas Jefferson

Brilliant, "Brick".

Tom: Please site your specific reference to "Activist Judge" in the Constitution _and_ the Bill of Rights. I'd even entertain a non-legal opinion or interpretation thereof.

Don't worry the PC police pulled my comment warning gay lawyers not to undermine the democratic process. Hey moderators, you and your newspaper are going down for accusing Catholics of bigotry in defending the sacred institution of marriage.

I feel revitalized to fight on. Thank you Virginia.

Rob,
My definition was a jab at those who like to throw the term "activist judges" around when, in reality, the supposed "activism" is merely ruling in favor of the constitution instead of the will of the religious right.

With all the people here posting that they voted No on this amendment, (me included), how in the world is it passing by 60%? Can't wait to see the geographic breakdown on this one between NOVA and ROVA.

Virginia may fail twice tonight as Allen continues to hold a lead. I have relatives in Virginia and I'm embarrassed for them.

This is a post to Mike

Majority does not rule in this country. If it did then women would not be voting, alcohol would still be illegal, blacks would still be "separate but equal" and unable to vote, oh yeah and we would still be a British colony.

We live in a Republic (overpowering the commonwealth by the way) in which checks and balances prevent the majority from overriding the minority's civil rights.

This is why this amendment and many other states that have the same amendment will eventually be overturned and declared unconstitutional (against the US constitution that is)

The voters of VA have certainly made their prejudices clear. This is very sad.

Anyone know a good Realtor????

If I get in an accident and someone needs to make medical decisions for me -- it is not my significant other (SO).

My company will no longer be allowed to domestic partner benefits.

I can beat the crap out of SO and only be charged with voilence not domestic abuse.

BTW, my SO is a guy and I am a girl. We are choosing not to get married. However, we are choosing to leave a Commonwealth that discriminates against us.

Virginia say goodbye to our:

** state taxes on our approx $175K in salary.

** Our time and energy we spend volunteering for the elderly of Arlington County by doing their groccery shopping for them.

** Being active in community

All for discriminating against us. What a shame.

New tag lines for Virgina....

Travel back in time...visit Virginia today!

Viginia - Land that time forgot.

Welcome to Virginia & the 1950's.

Welcome to Virginia, but only if you are straight, married, Christian & White.

Welcome to Virginia, where gays can't marry but cousins can...yeehaa!!!

Viginia is for lovers - but only if you are married.

Welcome to the USA & real world of Virginia - George Allen's Macaca Country!

Well, Virginia has reminded me once again why I left the state and moved to Maryland. It wasn't enough to have several laws on the books making gay marriage illegal? You had to actually enshrine your bigotry in your constitution? Shame on everyone who voted in favor of this amendment.

And I hope fervently that all of my gay friends in Virginia pack up and take their consumer and tax dollars across the Potomac.

Not even getting into the religion of it just the plain hard facts.

Put two male homosexuals on an island.

Put two female homosexuals on another island.

If either of the two couples can produce a child, THEN I will start to believe that homosexuality is normal or natural.

Good Luck!

Hey for all you threatening to leave, VA. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If you put....

Put two male heterosexuals on an island.

Put two female hetrosexuals on another island.

If either of the two couples can produce a child, THEN I will start to believe that heterosexuality is normal or natural.

I voted yes for this important amendment. Virginia already bans same-sex marriage, so no changes are made to the existing law.

However, with activist judges who want to legislate from the bench, it has unfortunately become necessary for us to amend the state constitution.

Same-sex marriage is as ridiculous as human-animal marriage. Earlier this year in England, Sharon Tendler recently married a dolphin. Where does one draw the line? Should adult-child marriages be allowed next?

I say why leave....we just need to split the state into two - Northern VA and Southern VA. I have a feeling the North would win again.

Last time I checked a gay man and a gay woman can have a child just as easily as a straight man and woman and a gay man and a gay woman can have a straight child while a straight man and straight woman can have a gay child. Happens all the time.....hmmmm who knew!

Marriage was about producing children back when children were actually really rare things that tended to die off rather suddenly. In this world where there are other children without enough food, even children without parents. The concept of marriage was based on the fact that children would have a higher likelihood of survival if someone could look after them and someone else could go and hunt the mammoth.

Other concepts change. Why can't people let this one alter, as well? Children's survival is now less about having two parents than it is about having parents who are well-off, and goodness knows that those who are well-off are having less children than those who aren't.

In that case, since marriage is no longer necessary for the survival of children, why let it exist in its antediluvian terms? The Bible also says some things about the role of women, and yet we've managed to overcome those because we realize that these laws were written quite a long time ago, when things were very different.

So let's get over the old system and start thinking about the fact that it's been 2000 years.

By the way, to any evangelicals that may be reading this: do you ever think that maybe it would be best to let God sort it out? If it is true, if gay people are sinners, why bother making their life a hell on earth because of it? Let them burn in hell later. Don't try to save them when they don't want your help.

For the record, I am a unitarian universalist and worked for the commonwealth coalition for four hours today in the cold and in the rain. I do not believe that gay people are sinners and I would have voted "no" were I old enough.

By the by, Ohio passed virtually identical legislation and there are many horror stories about how domestic violence victims could not file for protection against their abusers. Why? Because it isn't domestic violence if they're not married, which means that they would have to go on charges of assault. It is harder to get a restraining order on those charges. This seemed to be a very large wake-up call to the voters I talked with this morning.

A pity this amendment passed. A true pity.

An activist judge in Virginia?? Do you realize who put judges into their seats??? The Virginia legislature.

An activist judge in Virginia is the epitome of an oxymoron.

Hi-- I'm Christian (have a high view of the Bible), heterosexual, white, male, pretty conservative, Republican, sinful, messed-up . . .

I voted against the amendment. And I'm disappointed that it looks as if it will pass.

I don't know what I think about gay marriage, as a civil legal matter. I'd tend to say that I'm against it. But I guess I'm open to being persuaded.

I think that one's religiously informed understandings, and insights from religious traditions, should (and necessarily do) inform one's political decisions. So I guess I disagree with folks who think separation of church and state means that one's religiously informed views shouldn't inform those sorts of decisions.

(Put otherwise, I disagree with both the "ACLU types" and the "Christian Nation types." Both are wrong. There is a sensible middle ground.)

And, to avoid misunderstandings, I should say that I understand the Bible and Christian teaching as holding that sexual intimacy should be reserved for the lifelong union of a man and a woman. (What this implies for one's political practice in a pluralistic society is, to say the least, a difficult question.)

So why did I vote against the amendment?

(1) I read the amendment. It isn't just about marriage. It has the potential for sweeping very broadly.

(1a) A first-rate Washington law firm, Arnold and Porter, produced what I take to be a sober, carefully reasoned analysis of the likely impact of the amendment. It can be found at http://www.votenova.org/node/803 .

(1b) A and P point out that the amendment could be construed by Virginia courts to create all sorts of problems for legal arrangements and doctrines that protect unmarried people in relationships that in some respects are akin to traditional marriage.

Let's say your employer (or an insurance carrier) offers certain benefits to "domestic partners." Under the amendment, it would seem that Virginia law bars state and local governments from "recognizing" the relationship that gives rise to those benefits.

Let's say an unmarried couple from another state who've entered into a marriage-like union or contract enter Virginia. Maybe they're just driving through and have a car accident. Maybe they'e in Virginia on a short vacation, or a short-term job. If someone winds up in the hospital, who gets to visit, or to make medical decision pertaining to the sick or injured person? If someone dies and there are kids, what happens? The amendment seems to make these questions very difficult.

(1c) It's true that the state AG issued an opinion suggesting in essence that the amendment will not have these sorts of consequences. See http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf . That opinion is purely advisory. It is not binding on the courts. And even if it were, the opinion seems to allay some of the concerns raised by A and P, but not all of them.

(1d) As A and P point out (and as is clear from the text), the amendment covers unmarried couples. It's not just about relationships between people of the same sex. (I do not mean to suggest that the amendment would be unproblematic if it were just about same-sex couples.)

(2) I'm a lawyer. After puzzling over the text of the amendment for some time, I didn't understand exactly what it will do. I still don't.

(3) A couple Christian friends and I were talking about the amendment. Neither live in Virginia, but I wanted to know what they thought.

One is an executive at a very big, very prominent Virginia business organization. He's a conservative Republican. He told me (I paraphrase): "I think the law should keep out of telling people who they can love. And as someone who wants to hire the best and most talented people for my company, I think this amendment will be bad for business. It's not the end of the world, necessarily, but it will hurt us."

The other person works for a federal agency in Washington. She told me (again, I paraphrase): "If people want to make a commitment to one another and stay together, why not support that?"

This and other evidence suggests to me that many conservative Christians are open to persuasion on these sorts of issues.

(4) As I was reflecting on (even praying about) this amendment, a question came to mind: the question that Jesus was asked before he told the story of the Good Samaritan. "Who is my neighbor?" Well, gay people (as well as unmarried folks who aren't gay) are my neighbors, obviously. Colleagues. Friends. People who are out of the closet. People who aren't. Really wonderful, gifted, talented people. It seems to me that this amendment will cause some unnecessary harm and pain to some of these wonderful, gifted, and talented men and women (and to some of their children).

(5) There's something that Jesus is said to have said to the religious (and political) leaders of his day: "Whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone." When I look at my "sexual history," my history of intimacy good and bad, the dumb and hurtful things I have done, and my own desire for marriage, a good marriage . . .

You're in my prayers.

If so many of you are voting no, then why is this amendmant passing bu such a large margin.....almost 60%
Looks like there is a rather silent.....and correct.......majority out there.

Mike has a good point there. WHY is this amendment doing so well, even with all of the arguments you guys present in opposition to it? There apparantly is a very strong majority in favor of it.

The majority let their voice be heard by way of voting and are now sleeping!

Just to some of the folks above - it's interesting that you bring up tired rhetoric and tainted Christian bias as support to a vague and potentially damaging amendment. How can you pick and choose what passages of the Bible to follow and not another? Thankfully none of you are pursuing to the letter Exodus 35:2 (poor retail folks and dedicated office workers!) - one example. How can the religion of one dictate the politics of the many? First amendment people!

Those who say that marriage is only for procreation - who are you to make that decision? My wife cannot carry children to term. Does that make our marriage or our love any less in your eyes? It's not. What about people past child bearing age? Should they not be allowed to marriage? Is a family with a single mother and her extended family any less than a family with a husband and wife? How do two people who are already "married" interfere or ruin my own?

"...This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage..." This is something that will be hearing about again. Kristen makes a good point above and it'll be brought up in many situations. It goes beyond just gay marriage. It is going to touch many people's lives in ways that may not be readily apparent. I'm a little disappointed but still have hope for this state. Despite what some feel it's still our state. Next time something comes up inform your neighbors of how it will impact them, help educate and volunteer. Don't give up, there's always a chance for change.

I voted no to this. Land of the free? Well not quite. But you have to accept the fact that not everyone is the same and that we all need our freedom and rights protected.

I knew this was going to pass. No offense, but I'm sure the more level headed and open minded people of NOVA probably voted no on this than those of our fellow Virginians further west/south.

I lived in Virginia from 1995-1999. I used to laugh at the slogan "Virginia is for lovers", and today, it confirms for me that the state slogan should change to "Virginia is for haters". I guess I'll stay in California, where I still have some rights, even though there are a lot of nice things about [Northern] Virginia.

I think I have the answer to the question of why this amendment passed, in spite of the numerous comments criticizing it. The individuals that spend time reading about the issues, doing research to make up their own minds, and considering the consequences of their vote are the ones who have posted comments here. Those who fall prey to the messages of fear and intolerance delivered unceasingly by our leaders are ones that most likely do not read the Post. I am amazed the "yes" voters were able to locate their polls. Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed that this amendment was approved. I am currently an "unmarried individual" who is concerned about whether or not I will qualify as a dependent on my boyfriend's health insurance. However, I am relieved and gratified that the Democrats have reclaimed the House. I'm looking forward to the next two years of presidential squirming.

I still want to know what the heck denying gay marriage is supposed to be protecting "traditional marriage" from. I am happily married to my wife, but also have gay friends who have been in a committed and much longer relationship. So far, the only way their marriage has affected mine is by them giving me advice that has kept me from sleeping on the couch.

Anyways, it looks like the bigots and haters of Virginia have once again had their say. Congratu-freakin-lations. What's next guys, bringing back anti-miscegenation laws?

I believe in human rights, as (I hope) we all do. Last time I checked, gays were human beings.

What can be more basic than that?

"Every individual is equal before and under the law law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Seems simple really.

The bottomline is the marriage amendment in VA--and most other states--will more than likely pass. Calling each other names is missing the point. I am not a Christian, but like it or not homosexuality is considered immoral by EVERY religion. Yes, I recognize there are some wacko liberal people out there who call themselves Christian who are trying to rewrite Scripture to make themselves or their friends feel better. Scripture, the authority for Christianity, CLEARY teaches homosexuality as immoral and repulsive. If gays want to have a commited relationship, go for it! One does not need the church's nor the government's blessing!! Heck, this country is already on the fast road to hell and a police state, a committed gay couple living an immoral lifestyle will not change it that much.

Thinking back over it, the bottomline is people want a handout. Gays want their relationship to be considered "marriage" so they can get a handout, some financial benefit. Carrie above expects the government to demand someone give her financial benefits. It is all about a handout. Give me, give me!! It's that attitude that has corrupted this country, the entitlement mentality!! It's not about love and commitment!! One does not need the church nor the government to bless you to have a committed relationship. People simply want a handout.

Shannon, you said, "do you ever think that maybe it would be best to let God sort it out?' I have news for you, if God stepped in and sorted it out, there would be no need for this legislation, all of the homosexuals would be stoned to death. You better go read your Bible. Since He is not going to step in and deal with it now, you are right, unless they repent, they will die and deal with the punishment.

I voted no because marriage in itself is a LEGAL issue which the views of the church need to stay out of......

Isn't it interesting that the idea of marriage being that of one woman and one man has become the law in all the states that had this ammendment on the ballot! Wake up people. This is what the majority believes is not only correct but has said so. The notion that same sex partnerships will somehow not be protected when it comes to benefits and or the splitting of property if it doesn't work out is ludicrous and is just more of the drama of the extreme liberal left. Well God made the standard of one man and one woman long ago, and most people understand this is right and proper ... and made their voices heard overwhelmingly on this issue. In Christian love I will defend any gay person's rights to benefits without condoning their "union" and I am glad we have not allowed a handful of liberals and over zealous gay activists and judges to try and make same sex unions equal with marriage. It never was, never will be.

Amazing all these posts of people voting "No." How is it that the ammendment passed in a massive landslide? You all just keep on writing, be as negative and insulting as you want. The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have spoken, marriage is between a man and a woman, just like it says in the dictionary.

Frankie,
Your "Christian Love" is a joke. You have hurt many real people with your vote. Meanwhile, your life would have not been affected at all if the vote went the other way. You voted to hurt people. Congrats.

The bottom line regarding this issue is that God is not confused about having made MALE and FEMALE to be a union together and to procreate. No matter what justification or arguments you may try to offer, homosexuality will NEVER be right in the sight of God. It is NOT a gift, it is a SIN that needs to be repented of.

News flash: There is no God (at least not one as stupid as portrayed here on Earth), so your arguments against gay marriage have no merit. Don't hide behind religion to conceal your bigotry.

Casey, have you ever met God? If not, how can you be so sure of yourself? Because thats what you've been told by other people your whole life and you've chosen to believe them? Think for yourself. Millions of people aren't out there trying to be Sinners.

This has become a blog for gay rights. We are way off topic here, but it's probably why the measure passed. You spent most of your time trying to stop a law already in place rather than focusing on when needed to be done. Stop the amendment. But it looks as though the Virginia voters have spoken AGAIN. Marriage is between one man and one woman and anything else does, and by law, will not deserve recognition. For those who want to move your businesses out of the state. How come you didn't do that when the law was first past? Not much is going to change with the amendment. It just solidifies what Virginia and 33 other states in the union believe.

See you next election

Casey,

You state that we homosexuals need to repent for our sin because we are gay. Who do we do that to? The pedephiles that are representing the catholic (and other) churches, or just the ones paying for drugs, hookers, and the like? Great role models for the young!

If those participating here and those who supported this amendment are convinced that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of your god, whichever one it might be that you pray to, why don't you have the confidence that they will receive their punishment in the afterlife? The statements and reactions here are nothing but prideful, gleeful spite in the prosecution of others. When all of you have finished selecting your rocks to toss at the condemned individual dragged into the town square, the first of you to toss their stone should be the one who is without sin.

There are many things about Virginia of which citizens can be proud: the state's role in the creation of this country (Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown; Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Henry, and Wythe); the state's electing the first African-American to serve as governor of a U.S. state since reconstruction; the state's outstanding higher education system; the state's diverse and well-balanced economy. The list can go on. Yesterday, however, Virginia voters enshrined hatred and homophobia into the state constitution and, for that, I am ashamed for Virginia.

I want to thank the writer for this contribution:

"Luckily, marriage is a matter of natural law, meaning it is written in our hearts - so Gays do not need our guidance to be monogamous. In essence, because they are in fact married, whether we recognize this or not, it is proof that their sexuality is a gift from God."

That's beautiful.

It is not "gender" discrimination because the law applies equally to both men and women.

A woman can marry one non-related male of her choice and the same is true for men.

No discrimination here (beyond the common sense sort which must take place, no sow's ears as silk purses for example).

I voted "no" in Alexandria knowing full well that the Evangelicals in the rest of the state would show up in force to pass this amendment.

I am a straight, happily married male but know several gay couples who have been in long term stable relationships and have seen first hand that they are hard working, productive, (and yes) moral members of society. I would venture to guess that people who voted for this amendment have rarely, if ever, actually come into contact with the people they have voted to oppress and their only views on the subject come from their pastors - who spout nonsense that they are sinners who need to be "cured" of their disease.

Despite horrific oppression over the years, homosexuality is a part of the human condition - always has been, always will be - and the rest of the civilized world is starting to accept that. To pass an amendment that discourages long term monogamy and denies the right to gay couples to be viewed under the law as legitimate, tax paying members of society is on par with passing an amendment that prohibits minorities from voting or going to college.

What a sad day for Virginia - I believe that this amendment amounts to nothing less than a people's mandate for state sanctioned bigotry. It will be looked upon shamefully in future generations as yet another chapter in the long legacy of hatred and ignorance in Southern states.

Are we really serious, there is already a law against gay marriage. This amendment has nothing to do with that. Thanks to all of you who have made life for those not married much harder because you don't understand the amendment. This is the most conservative state I have ever lived in and yes, I will be moving out. I don't want to live in a state that condons discrimination against everyone who is not married, which is what this amendment is doing. It's a shame that Northern Virginia is far to advanced for the rest of the state, wouldn't it be nice if we could be our own state. We have nothing in common with the rednecks and hillbillies that live elsewhere within this state.

At the end of the day, those against this amendment have given clear, concise, reasonable reasons for their porition. Those for the amendment have not. Reasons based on the bible fail immediately in a true democracy. Reasons of "majority rule" fail also, according to the protections written in by the founding fathers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many examples of this protection have been listed in this thread, and none have received a rebuttal from a single proponent of the amendment. For obvious reasons. The reasons based on "history has defined marriage" fail, again for much of the same reasons as the majority argument. The red herring argument that allowing gay marriage somehow will lead to "children being taught in school that you don't need two parents" is silly on it's face, conssidering the enormous amount of single parents and divorced parents in the country as we speak.

What we are left with is discrimination. You can dress up this pig of an amendment but it's still a pig.

Luckily, it will be overturned in court, as it violates the federal contstitution.

HOW COULD ANYONE HAVE VOTED YES??? Are you all nuts?? This isn't about what the Bible says. It wasn't even about marriage. If you bothered to read the whole thing you would have seen that you voted against Civil Unions as well. You just voted to take away right from a select group of the population. Doesn't that seem a little familiar? Way to set us back 60 years. Remember people, separation of state and church. We are not supposed to make laws based on a religion. If we are going to do that lets out law cheeseburgers because they aren't kosher. See how silly that seems? Religion is a personal choice and your personal beliefs do not belong in our laws. This shouldn't have even been an issue. If you don't want to call it a marriage fine but you took away civil unions, you took away their right to file joint taxes, be in the hospital room together, and collect life insurance. All the simple LEGAL rights a "married" couple has. YOU TOOK AWAY THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO VOTED YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

The wording was not only offensive to homosexuals in commited relationships, but also to unmarried heterosexual couples. I can't believe that this passed. I bought a house with my significant other and we do not believe in the institution of marriage for ourselves. We believe everyone has the right to be happy in whatever situation makes them happy. Now, if one of us is hospitalized or passes away, there is no law to recognize the partner. We plan to make up wills this month to keep everything kosher. Hopefully, the wills will be considered legal.

I also feel the need to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the person going by the moninker "bottomline".

Bottomline:
Your claim that gay couples are mearly looking for a "hand-out" is the absolute epitomy of hypocrisy. Are you married? Do you file joint tax returns? Do you have children? Do you claim the child tax credit? Do you send your kids to public schools? Schools that are paid for, in part, by the tax dollars of those same gay couples you choose to condemn? Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary and you may see a self-portrait.

When do Northern Virginians get the balls to secede from the Commonwealth?

Most of the arguments here for the amendment are based on what people consider normal or natural.

Not too long ago, slavery was normal. women not voting was normal. A natural marriage was with someone your color and religion.

Something seeming normal in our current mindset does NOT make it right.

How is a homosexual marriage a threat to others? Kids are just fine with their friends having 'two mommies', this does not corrupt or affect them. If anything, it gives them a broader view of the world. Studies show clearly that children of homosexual couples grow up perfectly normal and adjusted. In fact they are often raised in better conditions, because due to the obvious complications having a child, there are no unwanted children; the couples who do have children really wanted them. It wasn't just 'the thing to do'.

Democracy is about protecting the minority's rights, about giving everyone a voice, about respecting viewpoints different from yours.

This is a LEGAL issue. Everyone should be equal, should have the same rights under the law. This amendment clearly discriminates against people in civil unions.

Please join me in praying to whomever you hold holy that this abominaton of an amendment is struck down on its first court challenge. I guess all men AREN'T entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tom,

"At the end of the day, those against this amendment have given clear, concise, reasonable reasons for their porition. Those for the amendment have not."

1.2 million people voted for this ammendment. Your agument were not convining enough. Like I said before, it had no merit in this case. You are a classic gay rights fighter living under the gay community's rules. "You are either with us 100% or against us 100%" There is no middle ground with you. I tried providing you alternitives, but you, like the entire gay community wants it their way and they critize those who have their own opinions.

Shame on you Tom. At the very least, people are aloud to choose a position and not be critized for it.

I think that same-sex marriages should be legal. I am straight but I have many gay/lesibian friends. I am not old enough to vote but I still have an opinion. I take government in school and we just studied the Full Faith and Credit law. Same sex marriages should be allowed.

I looked outside this morning, and the sky had not in fact fallen.

In the interest of full disclosure -- I'm straight, married father, living in SW Va, and not particularly religious.

Hard-core evangelicals and unintelligent bigots passed this amendment. Let's be honest. Thsoe two groups comprise a majority in our southern, appalachian, bible belt Commonwealth. But I just don't think this amendment will stick.

The bright side: (1) Arizona became the first state to reject this ridiculous amendment (the fear-mongering is losing its steam), and (2) the U.S. Constitution and its Equal Protection Clause remain the Supreme law of the land, no matter what Virginians do.

We'll be alright. Three or four years from now, some enterprising attorney representing a class of straight unmarried folks and homosexual couples will be before the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Court, despite its Bush-imposed conservative bent, will be unable to pull off the intellectual gymnastics required to justify the fact that homosexuals are denied the rights, benefits and obligations of the 165 laws in Virginia (or, more likely, another state) that mention "husband," wife" or "spouse." Its a pure Equal Protection question, and the Court will direct us that, if we want to deny homosexuals the benefits of the various state spousal laws, we need to amend the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the Supreme Law of the land). That, requiring 2/3 passage in both houses and approval by 38 states, will never happen.

Once again this is a legal issue, about rights! Freedom this country is so proud of, means you can believe whatever you want about civil unions, marrigage or homosexuals, have any opinion. That does NOT mean you can choose to remove rights to an individual, because of your beliefs. This is a simple truth that many people seem incapable of understanding. Respect of others who are different.

Separation of church and state is a crucial part of democracy. But for those who insist on mixing religion in this issue, and who quote from the Bible... Of course every passage of the bible is God's word and is absolute truth. So why apply passages against gay unions so fervently (though none have been presented that clearly state so), and disregard others?

Exodus 21
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Shall we begin fervently applying the above also?

I am a practicing straight christian who believes in God's most basic of tenets "love and respect one another".

I really enjoy how the Marriage Amendement passing by by a margin of 57% to 43% has become a "landslide." 57% is a margin, not a mandate. Congrats, Virginia, for institutionalizing religious bigotry. I frankly can't imagine anything more un-American.

What you fail to grasp is the "no middle ground" argument is bunk. Why should people have to negotiate how they live their personal lives with you? Who are you? Who gave you the right to step into the bedrooms of your neighbors and "provide alternatives" to their chosen lifestyle? It's ridiculous.

The position you chose hurts your neighbors. It denies them civil rights. Meanwhile, our position does not hurt anyone. It does not take away your civil rights, or even effect your civil rights in the slightest. See the difference? Gay rights advocates don't want to change YOUR definition of marriage. You can believe what you want. Much like there are still those who believe women have no place in politics or the workplace. They are entitled to their beliefs. But they are not allowed to force those beliefs on others. You are forcing your beliefs on others lives and in the process, making their lives more difficult. Get it? How many more examples can I put forth before you respond to one of them.

Shame on me?

"The bottom line regarding this issue is that God is not confused about having made MALE and FEMALE to be a union together and to procreate. No matter what justification or arguments you may try to offer, homosexuality will NEVER be right in the sight of God. It is NOT a gift, it is a SIN that needs to be repented of. "

Hmmmmmmmmm, does "Casey" remind anyone else of Ted Haggard. Just saying...

Virginia is for lovers

But only if you are a man and a woman and a marriage license

Hey at least the amendment only passed by a narrow margin proving that there are at least some intelligent folks in Virginia.

Jack,
That's fine. You can believe that. No one is trying to stop you. We a merely trying to stop YOU and your ilk from FORCING that idea upon your fellow citizens, who disagree with that concept. Get it? This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy. Afganistan was a Theocracy under the Taliban. See the difference?

I know this is kind of off-topic but how come all these "Christians" or other "religious" types are so certain that God did not create gay people?

If God is infallible as we are all lead to believe then gay members of all the species would not exist. Since humans aren't the only ones with "gay" members of the species does that mean that the Devil tempts animals such as dogs, dolphins, and monkeys to "sin" also? I thought the Devil only "tempted" humans to sin.

Enquiring minds want to know

Tom,

"Jack, That's fine. You can believe that. No one is trying to stop you"

Was that meant for me? If so, you need to learn about quotation marks and how to read to the end of a post.

Tom,

Who am I? I am in the majority who voted "for" this ammendment.

Woman being able to vote has nothing to do with this argument. This is about allowing the unnatural to happen without any concequences (from the same sex standpoint). As for common law marriages, that is a farce anyway. You want benefits of marriage either get married or go get a job that offers them.

You can do whatever you like in your bedroom Tom. Again, this is not about that. It's about the state recognizing your union. When what you do become public, it becomes a public issue.

So, yes. Shame on you for not letting other people have their opinions and choose what they think is best. Sound like you would prefer anarchy over anything else just to get your agenda through.

Mike,
Answer the following questions.

Yes or no, we should have banned women from ever having the right to vote back when the majority felt they shouldn't have that right?

Yes or no, we should have banned minorities from the chance to become equal citizens based on majority opinion back in the day?

Yes or no, we should have banned marriage between people of different races or religions based on majority opionion of that time?

Now, explain the difference in this case.

Folks - Marriage is a Reward!!!

Marriage is simply between a man a woman - this is not a gay discrimination issue or a religious issue. Why? Because marriage means you can have kids and raise a family with a male and female guide as role models. Because by being married you are then helping mankind and your country by reproducing and raising kids. This is a basic responsibility to continue a successful civilization. This takes sacrifice (lost income, etc.) and thus married folks should get benefits from their governent. Marriage is thus a relationship that benefits society as a whole. Weddings echo this, as you make promises in front of society. You should not be entitled to the government benefits of marriage if you cannot make a commitment to attempt to reproduce, as well as to stand up in front of soceity and make a promise to each other of commitment.

Companionship is important and is a part of marriage, but it is not the only part, and not the whole picture. To get all the benefits, you need to fulfill all the responsibilities of marriage - attempt to reproduce, commit to each other in front of society, and provide a male and female guide for raising children.

If the proposed ammendment were just about allowing same sex couples to enter into a civil union - no would still be the way to vote. Unfortunately the ammendment as written has the potential to impact everyone in any type of civil union. The law of unintended consequences. Once again the uninformed, misinformed, underinformed have been mislead by the misguided and shortsighted and narrow minded and made it harder to undo the mess that this will create. The only ones who win in this are the lawyers on either side. Game set match - score one more for financial windfall.

KH,

God created all people. Some of those people "CHOSE" to be gay. God did not create gay. Choice did.

*SIGH*

Wow. How much clearer can I make this? Why should you have the right to determine what "you think is best" for someone else?

Anarchy? How's that? I'm against infringing upon others civil rights. Anarchy would have civil rights violations all over it. Try again.

If I remember correctly there was no talk of GOD, Jesus or the Holy Ghost in my wedding ceremony. We did not stand in a church or have a man/woman of the cloth give us our vows.
My wife and I got married with no help from anyones GOD, anyone Church but due to the Love shared between her and I.
Since the church has no hold over us, is our wedding any less a marriage than that of someone married in the church? Should we be cast out of Virginia and lose what we have together?
Marriage is used to tie together 2 individual lives into 1. It's a LEGAL contract between 2 loving individuals. It's NOT a Church sponsored action.
I believe that it was also against the church to divorce, but most people forgot that, Thanks Henry! You want to know the greatest threat to marriage and family? Divorce. If you REALLY want to save the family, ban divorce...
Jesus taught those to love their neighbor. It's time that people begin doing as he taught.
It's a shame when people start taking rights away from individuals, solely based on fear, ignorance and hate. The Constitution was not made for that.

Tom,
Yes or no, we should have banned women from ever having the right to vote back when the majority felt they shouldn't have that right? NO

Yes or no, we should have banned minorities from the chance to become equal citizens based on majority opinion back in the day? NO

Yes or no, we should have banned marriage between people of different races or religions based on majority opionion of that time? NO

Explained: People issues vs sexual preference. Those cases you mention have nothing to do with sexual preference. This does.

As I said before, you can do whatever you like in you home, but the minutess you make it public, the public is going to have an opinion. And that opinion was heard last night.

Jack,
Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

I lived the first 18 years of my life in VA and used to be inecredibly proud of my home state. As of yesterday, I am 100% an official Washingtonian. I have lived in DC for more than 6 years and will now only claim this as my home "state." The passing of this awful piece of legislation is just further evidence of how poorly educated and ignorant most of the state is outside of a few areas such as Northern VA and the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area. Death to ignorance and shame on those who embrace it! Eventually it will be overturned just like every other past piece of legislation passed in this country that limited the rights of one group of people. I sure hope women didn't use their right to vote, a right that came to them much later than it did to men, to vote in favor of this. Same goes for African Americans. Hopefully, these two groups realize that this current battle is the same exact thing they've previously gone through but that of course would mean they've taken US History classes and done well in them, so who knows? WOW, I just can't believe this. Just imagine the first court cases where they try to enforce this?!?! I also truly hope that no "good" christians voted for this. I can't imagine it looks good on that life resume we're building that'll be presented to St. Peter on arrival to Heaven. It looks kinda bad for them to not treat others as they themselves would like to be treated.
Ultimately, another sad day in the global community as ignorance wins out in an important Human Rights arena.

Who is infringing on civil rights? Where in the consitution does it say gay is OK?

Mike,
We've clearly hit a dead end. Nobody is claiming you can't have an opinion. Nobody ever said that. Anywhere.

There is an enormous difference in your opinion and the forcing of others to live by your opinion.

Mike -- once and for all, its "amendment," not "ammendment." If spelling is an indicia of the indicia that passed this amendment .... never mind, I won't go there.

The constitution protects a billion rights not listed specifically in it. There's no passage in the constitution claiming that eating cake is protected, but we know you are allowed to eat cake if you choose, and nobody can come along and forbid it based on their idea that cake is bad.

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? The church rules on marriages, right? I can't go to a state representative and have that person marry me can I? I mean, how cool would it be to have a street sweeper, hired by the state, marry you on his lunch break.

With this vote Virginia, you violated your own Constitution of the United States. You're violating the basis of this country. What next, take out the right to a fair and speedy trial (wait, Bush did that). Ok, how about the right to bear arms. I'm sure the NRA, with a nice big office right of I-66, will be happy to hear about that one.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarentee "equal protection under the law". When we give rights to the majority, but withhold those same rights from the minority, we break from the principles of those great documents.

And a lousy speller. Get a grip, dude.

It's impossible to not take this amendment approval personally. No one will be helped by this amendment but thousands, like me and my partner of 22 years, will be hurt.

Mike posts (see 13 posts up) the following:

KH,
God created all people. Some of those people "CHOSE" to be gay. God did not create gay. Choice did.
Posted by: Mike | November 8, 2006 10:18 AM

For the Love of God ... get a serious clue, man. Nobody chooses to be gay. You're born that way.

I hadn't noticed that post. Wow! People still think being gay is a choice???? It defies all logic and reason to have that opinion.

Mike

Just out of curiosity -- when did you choose to be straight?

You said gay is a sexual preference -- What about celibate gays...they prefer not to have sex at all but are still gay.

Glad you feel it is OK to allow your religious views be the basis for laws but I do not have the same religious views that you do. When can I get laws passed based on my religious views.

George -- Marriage has nothing to do with children. If it did there would be a whole lot less married couples because over 1/2 of the married couples can't or won't have children.

I'm done. I tried my best. The good news is history has shown us that these the fight for equality and civil rights is a long, hard battle, but it eventually prevails. Just look at how far we've come in the last century.

You can rest assured with the knowledge that your grandkids will live in a more enlightened world.

Peace.

By the way, I'm not gay. Just thought you should know that it's not about being gay, it's about basic human rights.

Thank you Tom, for being an enlightened, open-minded and kind individual.

It's really sad that someone like Mike, who I assume is at least mildly intelligent given that he's managing to use a computer and all, would even still think that being gay is by choice. I want him to know that he's right, it is a choice. A choice made by GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully, in the future this type of ignorance is swept far far away. And for the record, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike himself is a closeted homosexual. During this administration it sure has become "trendy" to be a closeted stone throwing homo! I think a few more religous leaders need to come on out and shake up their congregations!!!!

Has anyone crunched the numbers to see how many Webb voters supported this amendment?

I am a 58 year old Gay Honorably Discharged Army Veteran. I've paid taxes for over 40 years, always supported America and abided by it's rules, yet I am not given the same rights, privileges and benefits freely given to any Heterosexual American. "Freedom and Justice For All" means just that. Singling out one segment of the population due to certain church teachings is discriminatory. Separation of Church and State should clearly be applied here. I thank all Americans with open minds and the intelligence to recognize that basic American rights and privilges should be extended to all Americans, not just those in certain religious categories. This is not over. Peace!

"To get all the benefits, you need to fulfill all the responsibilities of marriage - attempt to reproduce, commit to each other in front of society, and provide a male and female guide for raising children."

George,

Maybe you should press for legislation to say that people who do not want children should not be allowed to marry.

Are you one of those who think that marraige is "loveless" if you do not have children, and/or that having a child "proves" love? That is not fair to married couples that are in love but chose not to procreate.

As for gay couples, what about adoption? Any loving, caring couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, will make wonderful parents for the child that they chose to care for.

Mike, you're an idiot.

If two hetereosexual agnostics are allowed to get married in a civil ceremony at a justice of the peace, then your religious argument (i.e. God abhors same-sex marriages) is moot because it's not in a church and they don't believe God sanctions the marriage.

Need I clarify further, simpleton?

What about those couples that are reproductively-challenged? My wife and I tried for years to get pregnant and it was just physically impossible. Are we any less of a family because we opened up our hearts and home to a child we adopted? I can only imagine what you'll say and think when I tell you this child came from another child.

It's so sad to think there are folks in this world that still behave and act like a Fred Flinstone.

...agnostics, or even better, atheists...

Mike,
Let me hit you with a different angle.

Let's say the majority of Virginians became vegetarians. Let's say they based their choice on a belief that killing animals is morally and ethically wrong. Now, they decide to put forth an amendment to the state constitution that would forbid the eating of any meat within the commonwealth of Virginia.

Would that be okay with you? I mean, it is based on the majority opinion? Would you find that to be a fair amendment? Would you stop eating meat?

I mean, there's no specific passage in the U.S. Constitution that says "eating meat is good", right?

The majority has spoken and you are not allowed to eat meat. Deal with it.

I was just re-reading some of the previous posts and saw where someone said that gays only wanted a "handout." I can't believe someone actually believes that. Apparently, they don't have children, have never had to make a decision regarding medical decisions of a loved one, or even owned property jointly with someone. Homosexuals are most concerned with the potections associated with marriage. I hope some of these individuals who are posting such hateful things on here don't know any gay people because I can't imagine the discrimanatory behavior they would exhibit against them or hate crimes they would commit against them. I hope they don't know any women or any member of a minority group either as they surely must feel superior to those groups as well. It's just plain sad and pathetic really and one day I hope it all changes. I love all of my friends the same whether they are gay, straight, asian, hispanic, white, black or anything else. It's a shame others can't be confident enough in who they are that they don't have to restrict the rights of others to feel safe and secure.

Our child came from another country.

All religious doctrines were penned by men, so they are questionable.

"All Men Are Created Equal" should be changed to "All Humans Are Created Equal", let's not leave out the female half of the population.

Mike, your writings reveal much uncertainty in your own life. Get help!

Mike,

Put down the meth and come out of the closet. It's OK now.

I was deeply disappointed in the results. Not just in the overwhelming support for YES, but in that the people of my adopted state are so hopelessly ignorant about what they were voting for. Same-sex marriage, and same-sex unions, are ALREADY illegal in VA and any arrangement made to imitate the legal structures of marriage are already unenforceable in court. This was solely a constitutional amendment to mandate that no extra-marital legal arrangements, regardless of the gender of the people involved, can be made enforceable.

I lived in California's Bay Area for a time. I got a bit irritated by the reactions of some people I met discovering that I was from Virginia. I felt as though they were surprised that I could read. Maybe they had a point. Right not, the overwhelming evidence is that Virginians _can't_ read.

I'm a woman. My fiancee and I plan to have a baby after we marry next year. We make a good income contributing to the tax base far more than the average, and provide local jobs. I love Virginia; have made it my home for the past 20 years since I landed here more or less accidentally. But we will not be staying. I'm not supporting this.

For all who voted in favor of this amendment, I hope that you enjoy the consequences of your actions. Your friends and family members--maybe even yourselves--will have to live with a state where marriage is mandatory to have full legal rights. You've hit a lot more than just same-sex couples.

It is safe to say that in 50 years, our children (and their children) will look back on this continuing era of prejudice and fear with the same contempt as we all hopefully do now for the hateful bigotry displayed during the civil rights period of the 50's and 60's.

I guess that period continues today. Why do we continue to perpetuate the illusion that restricting the rights of others doesn't impinge directly on our own? Who will stand with you when the time comes to defend the rights you hold dear against the "majority"?

The only secular argument that seems to have any merit is that of the concern over raising children. True not all gay or straight couples want children, but some do. No one knows what affect having two male or female parents has for sure...but we do know that parenting in general is a toss up. Everyday, a sickening number of American children are victims of mental, physical, and sexual abuse in America at the hands of their heterosexual parents. If you truly care about the state of parenting, get involved in reducing these actions. Please try to see that two gay people will not harm children merely because they are gay....fear is not an excuse for ignorance or bigotry.

Democracy is a crazy idea, most people believe that they are smarter than 50% of the people in the world, so why would they want to leave anything up to a vote. All laws are basically just a popularity contest. I believe it is wrong to be gay but I hardly expect to woo anyone to that opinion. There are Christians who can co-exist with non-believers, I don't have ill feelings with those who carry opposing views to my own. But I do hope you are evaluating your own stand as thoroughly as I am. I'm not trying to moral-police anyone just maybe shed a little light.

I can't believe that a state that has a motto, "Virginia is for Lovers," would then set out to define who can love, how they can love, and whether or not that love is legal and therefore worthy of American citizen benefits. How can the people that voted yes for this sleep at night? Do you think that you are protecting someone or something? All you have done is taken away the chance for two people that love each other to share their employment benefits, tax benefits, inheritance benefits, etc.

Marriage was NOT started by the church, it was started as a legal means of recognizing a Union. The church got involved when they realized it was another way for them to make money! Religion, like it or not, is a business. It employs staff, requires education and job training and solicits funds from outside sources. So for those of you thinking that this wonderful church that decides who should and shouldn't benefit from the legal rights of a marriage are in for a rude awakening.

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Why has this president and his croanies taken it upon themselves to marry them back together? They are such hypocrits and so are all of you religious fanatics to sit here and critize the taliban, the nation of Islam, Iraq or any other religious extremists for their beliefs. Just because they don't fit with your extremist views doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make them right.

If only our fricking country was actually educated and had the ability for complex thought then maybe, just maybe we would be able to have an effective government that tackles real issues such as our fading social security, our poor healthcare program, our uneducated masses, our environmental issues, our ineffective state emergency programs, our increasing economic divide between the rich and poor, etc., etc., etc!

I think it is time for Virginia to come up with a new motto. "Virginia is for Lovers...but only if you are one biological man and one biological women, all others should move to Vermont."

Hey...I just want to put out how few people are choosing to remember that "seperation of church and state" thing....it's written in that document...what's it called....Oh YAH....THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!!

It's no one's business except the people involved and the INDIVIDUAL church they are trying to get married in. The government can't make a church say yes and the government can't tell the couple no. They are seperate issues.

As far as recognition of said marriage....it should be EQUAL...someone earlier (much earlier) referenced the laws in the 50s banning inter-racial marriage...This is just as idiotic and just as much NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

I am also ashamed of the republicans that are supporting this law and laws like it. I always thought that it was a popular party platform to keep the government out of our personal lives, but I guess it's okay as long as it is supporting bigotist religious view points....I mean the ones that you choose.....

It's not like the bible says anything like "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), or "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44), or "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:42).....Nope...not at all...so we can call other people sinners (and create laws to punish them for those sins) and we can make war on anyone (despite that I thought loving your enemy meant NOT KILLING THEM) and the government needs to stay out of where we put our money...it's not like we want it to go to the people that need it or ask for it...Nope...can't have any of that government involvement...

All God cares about is who you are married to...that's what really matters...Oh...and he doesn't want bad things on television, radio, newspaper...big fan of censortship Jesus was...I'm sure there's something in the Bible that says that.

HEY!! I KNOW!! Let's just scrap that silly constitution thing and use the Bible instead...That way we can punish sex offenders by making them marry the women they rape and pay their father's money because they were bad.

Oh...but there is that issue with having to go kill all the gays, jews, and witches...and that might be a bit time consuming and costly...although...as long as the money is going toward a good Christian cause I guess it's alright....

Yup...that's right...gay marriage is bad because it is a sin against God and the government should be run by good God-fearing Christians anyway so it is okay for the government to get involved in THAT issue...just as long as they stay away from my money....good plan

PS. A lot of that was sarcasm...I know that tool of speech is often wasted on the simple minded...I just wanted to make sure everyone in this forum picked up on that.

"But I do hope you are evaluating your own stand as thoroughly as I am."

Rubbish. If you evaluated your own stand on gay issues at all, you'd realize very quickly that you are wrong.

P.S.
Unless you able to prove the existence of God unequivocally, don't use God as an excuse for your bigotry.

Religion scares me. Ignorance scares me. Written by a straight, married, father of one.

I guess all religions don't scare me, just the big three monotheist religions. I sure hope I see education, enlightenment, tolerance, and free thinking prevail in my lifetime.

To see amendments like this actually pass in 2006, that stem cell research is hindered because of ignorance and dogma, that the leader of the free world actually thinks he talks to and is guided by a supernatural being keeps me awake at night.

You guys should take some time to dig a little deeper and find out what our founding fathers thought and wrote about religion. You might be surprised. Check out Jefferson, Paine and others. These brilliant men had already determined the truth over 200 years ago.

Here's the new slogan:

"Virginia is for (Bigot) Lovers"

I wish my fellow Virginians would understand that this amendment they voted in favor of does NOT only affect same-sex marriages and it's so sad that people are so blinded by homophobia and too ignorant to see past it. This amendment will limit not only same-sex unions, but ALL unions other than marriage. I've been with my SO (not that it matters, but who is a man) for the last 12 years, but we've never married. I have my personal beliefs about marriage and it's my choice not to marry, but we are just as committed to one another as any other married couple. We've built a solid family and own a home together, but don't get any of the benefits (medical, tax, social security, etc.) as a court recognized union...a marriage. People have and will say "well then just get married", but I'm not going to marry just for benefits alone or to validate our relationship to society. I am in no way complaining about my choices, but I just find it amusing that the same people than trumpet protecting the "sanctity of marriage" are the same ones that want to tell me to just get married already so I can be recognized as a "real" family and get theses benefits. Believe me with the divorce and infidelity rates on the rise I don't feel hetro's give two cents about the sanctity of marriage, but it's nice to know they can be so narrow-minded and judgmental to decide who does get that right to be married. I say if you're together and committed then you should be recognized and get the same benefits as married couples...same-sex or not. It's a sad day today people...

57% to 43% it looks like the amendment passed. Where are all the conservatives on this website? it seems like a bunch of liberals preaching to each other on here. Frankly, the idea that the amendment will take away all types of rights from essentially everyone is hogwash that is propagated by a liberal media to encourage people to vote against the marriage amendment. Gays dont deserve rights, and the sooner our country gets back to some morals and values the better. Had i bothered to register to vote when i turned 18, i would have definitely voted FOR the marriage amendment.

Jack Sprat,

Hate is not going to fix this or anything else for that matter.

"Jack Sprat,

Hate is not going to fix this or anything else for that matter."

Look in the mirror, when you say that, fool.

"Gays dont deserve rights, and the sooner our country gets back to some morals and values the better."

Explain why gays don't deserve rights as guarunteed by the Constitution, you bubblehead.

Jack, you speak like a sore looser.

I can't believe that you are so brainwashed to think that issues are propogated by this notion of "liberal media." You far-right conservatives are too wrapped up in yourselves to see that the media isn't liberal it is factual. Just because someone opposes this amendment doesn't make them liberal, it makes them AMERICAN. THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE!

Mike,

I voted Democrat. You are the one who is a crybaby.

P.S.
You spell like a hillbilly.

I am disturbed to find that I live in a state that would pass this discriminatory, prejudiced constitutional amendment. I believe in equal rights, acceptance, and tolerance. That means recognizing when someone else's actions have no consequences for yourself, even if you find them repugnant. Freedom of religion means that each person is free to live by her beliefs. It does not mean that she has the right to require others to live by her beliefs.

The majority of Virginians who voted for this amendment may need to think a lot harder about what is meant by the tolerance advocated by their religions, and by the freedom of religion upon which this country was founded. As for myself, I am torn between feeling an imperative to leave a state whose residents feel the way Virginians do, and believing I should stay here and work for change.

"Marriage is a reward"?
So is that like dead or alive? Please, get a clue! Marriage is the joining of two individuals who love, care, respect, and protect each other, irregardless if it is gay or straight. And that part about "you need to fulfill all the responsibilities of marriage - attempt to reproduce, commit to each other in front of society, and provide a male and female guide for raising children" is a kicker. I attempt to reproduce with another man (to no avail of course), I would commit to him in front of everyone and anyone, and, if I had kids, would provide plenty of male and female guidance since my "extended" family is a mix of male and female. Hmmmm, seems I am qualified then!!

Funny, I voted Democrat too, Jack. Seems there were to many haters out there complaining about this amendment instead of voting agaist it. To bad you hate the way you do Jack. The would would be a better place without it.

Freedom "of" religion should also mean freedom "from" religion. Separation of church and state was a brilliant idea, too many people are trying to chip away at one of our greatest founding principles.

I am a voter that voted a big no on this amendment and even though I am religous this has nothing to do with religon. To any one who knows history ( and I mean history beyond what they teach you in high school) this would seem familar. There was a time they would not let black people marry because the religous right thought of it as immoral and thought of blacks as less them human. and in the 50's they did they same thing to interacial couples. Now we all say that is wrong but what makes that wrong is the same thing that makes this wrong. Our constitution provides equal rights to every citizen in this country and just because there are a bunch of homophobs in power that would not rule that way does not mean it is not true.I am not gay and could not see my self going that way but I am against discrimination in every form and that is what this is. Those who say this will dissinagrate traditional family values take a look at the world you are living in. Of school age children more then half are in a single parent home due to unwed mothers or divorced parents. Nothing is taught about this in school so your child is free to believe what you ( as a good parent) instils in them, are you going to say there should be a ban on couples who smoke to get married because you dont want you child to learn about a bad habit in school and become a smoker ( if so you may have more problems then you think.) also I know some Gay couples that have been together longer that most of my straight ( and now divorced friends) so what does that say about how serouisly they take marriage. I know a gay couple ( my well adjusted striaght and happily married friends' parents) who have been together over 40 years and a straight friend who was divorced in less then 2 years so really who is destroying family values. People fear what they dont know thats is why my 5'5'' 120 pound ( doctor , meek and never been in any trouble with the law and any where else by the way) husband is out of scrubs women and men twice his size lock thier doors when he walks by because he is a black men with dreads and thats just sad. And check the new statistics Gay men are no longer the highest incedents of AIDS, striaght men and women and CHILDREN in Africa ( which will definatily give the racist a reason to say we are being punished for our transgrations) And the high and mighty who hide behind thier religon on this issue people did that about slavery too and I dont know what bible the evangelicals are reading but my bible says to be tolerant of others and that it is god job to judge everyone individual ( paraphrasing here.) Do I think homosexuality is the right thing to do , not really, is what someone else does in thier house my bussiness , no, does it in any way effect my daily life, no, and who am I to impede on anyone's happiness. Amendments like this rely on the age old discrimination credo, We are better than you so we can tell you what to do in you life and thats just wrong.

Blacks don't deserve rights (Virginian thinking in the 1860s - 1960s)

Women don't deserve rights (Virginian thinking in the 1900s - 1940s)

Gays don't deserve rights (Virginian thinking in the 2000s)

You've come a long way baby -- NOT

By the way if Gays don't deserve rights then how about a referendum that gays don't have to pay taxes. That would work for me

L towns,

I respectfully disagree and claim this vote has everything to do with religion. Do you seriously think that if the majority of Virginians didn't believe in a supernatural being, didn't believe in parts or the whole of the bible, that this amendment would even have been on the ballot? No, too much of the discussion in modern politics is framed by the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens.

People can be gay all they want
People can believe in God all the want
The state is not going to support either of them.

Lose the rationalizations.

Sex exists to put an attraction between the genders, not among them, for the benefit of a family with both parents biologically invested in their children. Married heterosexual couples produce the next generation and provide the social network of blood relatives that are the building block of society. Marriage is the institution that protects the all members of the family and always has been unique to male and female couplings, whether or not they eventually produce children.

The practice of homosexuality makes the traditional family impossible and for that reason alone does not warrant the status of marriage in name or in practice by any other name. That does not mean homosexuals should not have the right to their pursuit of happiness the same as anyone else, but same sex marriage is not a right as an overwhelming percent of the population recognizes. Seven more States, including Virginia, made this clear last night.

Incidentally, the causes of homosexuality have yet to be determined but enough people renounce the practice to give lie to the claim it's genetically programmed. Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins wound up in Virginia court after Miller "renounced" her lesbianism and took sole custody of the child she had by artificial insemination. Ann Heche gave it up too as I recall. Sounds a lot like choice to me.

Tom, you are obviously ignorant as shown by your comprehension skills. Look in that message again, I mention people in general. I said the issue is about getting something! A couple DOES NOT need the blessing or consent of a government or church to have a committed relationship! Period. That's the point that you cannot seem to get. You and the other vacanted minded people are making this a "gay rights" issue. Let me repeat myself for you Tom and those others who cannot understand simplicity. Anyone, straight or gay, DOES NOT need the blessings or consent of a religious institution or the government to have a committed relationship. If a couple marries for the financial benefits, straight or gay, then they are missing the point. If all the gays want is a committed relationship, then they can have it.

havent we had enough of hatefull laws , honestly no matter how anyone can look at this amendment , it is simply targeting an undesireable section of america , and just like the jim crow laws of our previous generations . just because one group is targeted the damage is done everywhere . i fear that this is a sign that soon the new stain will rise . how long before no homosexual can own property , vote, live.
women fought so hard for their civil rights , african americans fought so hard with them, and now we betray all of them by removing the rights of those who just want to love . we african americans , no matter how we personally feel about homosexuality , should stand up for those that are about to be the new scapegoat , ALL people , not some , not most , ALL people of the united states of america have the same right to life ,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . its a sad day that this has been ignored . an admendment against their life , their liberty , their pursuit of happiness .

"The practice of homosexuality makes the traditional family impossible"....

that's just a silly thing to say...I mean "impossible"...it's not like homosexuality is contagious and people being homosexual is going to STOP straight people...In fact...if you want to look at it from a reproductive angle...Homosexuality is the most ideal form of population control.

They aren't going out and bringing in new life. There are more unwanted children in this world than I even want to think about...so I think we should be thanking homosexual couples who want to adopt children who were born unwanted or born to unfit STRAIGHT parents. Atleast the children are being raised in a loving home safe from the feelings of being unwanted.

Rick, can you honestly say that the 10% of the population that is gay would all of a sudden stop procreation if they were allowed to marry? As for "traditional family," who's idea of traditional applies? Some people's ideals state they can have 10 wives while others state that they can sell their children into slavery. To them, and their country, these are traditional family values. The US is a melting pot of all types and families and it IS NOT up to the religious zealots to make the determination who is right and who is wrong except in their own deity's eyes. Also, the cause of homosexuality is genetic not choice. Those "claiming" to be "cured" are delusional at best. They will be back into the "family" before too long!!

Ron said it well, the issue is the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion!! If all of you liberals screaming "hate" had your way, we would have anything goes. What would be next, "open up all of the prisons, we don't want to show these people hate. What standard do you liberals have that say murder and rape is wrong?? What about their rights to have sex with whomever they want or take whatever they desire." The problem with that mindset of anything goes, because anything moral is religious therefore "anti Constitution", then we really have lost freedoms and a society where one can live peacably. Without morals, then society falls apart. Being against a homosexual lifestyle is NOT about "hate" as so many ignorant people are crying; it is simply about an immoral lifestyle. Cry hate all you want, you are wrong and you know it, you think the more you scream it that eventually rational people may believe it. And as someone said, history will tell. Yes it will, and those states that chose morals will stand stronger than those who don't. I see evidence of it everyday in ultra-liberal-anything-goes California. This state is so plaqued with social and fiscal problems that it is beyond their control. You reap what you sow. I am glad VA and many other states last night chose morals!!!!

Uhh...majority speaks...granting rights and taking rights away are different things...

Taking away a couple's right to be happy...is unconstitutional for religious reasons because it is TAKING AWAY a right...

Preventing murder and rape are PROTECTING Other people's rights to be happy...

The government is allowed to prevent one person from infringing upon another person's rights, but they are not allowed to take away an individuals rights.

Sodomy laws are un Constitutional...whatever you do in the privacy of your home, as long as it is between consenting adults is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS....Least of all the government...

That isn't about religion...it is about individual's rights to live and be happy...

Murder...is someone taking away another person's right to live, therefore punishable by law...is it immoral as well? Yes, should that have anything to do with the government decision...NO

The current laws on gay rights have become a religious issue and it should, therefore, stay out of the government....

I agree with majorityspeaks, you people screaming "hate" are going to do away with all laws "so we can allow people to do whatever they feel like. We don't want to say no to anyone; we want everyon to feel accepted, no matter what their behavior." That mentality of anything goes, leads only one direction, and I with all confidence tell you, it is NOT success or good. So a question for you screaming "hate." Where do you draw the line? If you want to throw out morals, where is the line drawn? In your mindset, shouldn't someone have the right to do whatever they want? Since there are no morals, where does it stop??

Kat, I agree with what you are saying. I was going overboard simply trying to make a point. If you have no morals and anything goes, then where does it stop? I could claim I have a right to take sex from any one I want because I should have that right. It is a slippery slope to think there should be no morals, and that is the point.

And I agree that what goes on in the bedroom is personal buisness, the problem I have is when the lifestyle is immoral and then taught in schools and displayed on television for all young eyes to see. That't the problem. Gays are not so concerned about the privacy of their bedrooms, they want to display their immoral lifestyles for all to see and demand everyone accept it. That's the point!!

Seems to me that it is religious zealots that have determined homosexuality to be "immoral". So that would make this a religious persecution if nothing else

Kat, how can you say, "murder... is it immoral as well? Yes" Oh, that would be religious to say something is immoral, and the Constitution is against religion. At least that's how the mindset goes for these vacant minded liberals trying to throw out morals in our society. It's all about the mindset of people who think that society should have no morals because it is "religion."

To answer your question, realitycheck, it stops where other people's rights start. The law exists to preserve the rights (not morality) of the people, so things that impinge on the rights of others will continue to be just as illegal as they ever were. Gay marriage is not one of those things, though. Homosexuality might be something you consider immoral, but your feelings on that either come from religious convictions or just plain gut reaction. You cannot make an argument for homosexuality impinging on anyone's rights. It's two consenting adults loving each other. Your rights are not at all affected by that, nor are those of any other Americans.

This is nothing like those other types of unions that people like you worry so much about. Adult/child marriages won't happen because children don't have the legal right to consent (because they don't have the mental capacity). Human/animal marriages won't happen because animals also don't have legal rights to consent and are not recognized as citizens. Multiple person marriages won't happen (at least anytime soon) because it would require a complete revamping of the legalities of the institution (gay marriage would not... all they would have to do is put gender neutral terms on forms).

The line seems pretty simple and easily recognizable to me. You can do what you like with consenting people as long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights. When it does, it becomes a problem.

And as far as homosexual marriage being invalid because homosexuals won't have and raise children: BS. There are plenty of straight couples who have NO ability to reproduce, but we don't view their marriage as invalid. Why is that? Clearly, God made them unable to produce, which should be an indication that God did not intend them to have sex or be together. They shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? Yet, we don't make any effort to test reproductive capabilities before we allow people to marry, nor do we demand that people pledge to at least try to procreate before we grant their request for a certificate. And as far as the whole "blood ties" keeping society unified: oh, please. To say that biological ties are all that matter is to completely underestimate the human potential to love. We don't doubt that two unrelated adults can love each other enough to get married (as long as they're not those nasty queers), but we somehow doubt that children can't be loved in a parental way by any adults other than the ones that contributed some genes to them? Gay people have children. They raise children. Marriage would protect those children.

I see where you are coming from, but I spend more time watching straight people making out in public than I do gays....

It becomes an issue when people rant and rave about immoral behavior being "taught" in schools and accepted in the public...you don't teach someone to be gay and if they aren't allowed to hold hands in public without someone pitching a fit than neither can straight couples...

If you whine and moan about PDA be equal about it and tell the kids making out in front of lockers in high school and couples holding hands or cuddling in the park to cut it out too.

I also hate the generalized "the gays"...I know a lot of gay couples that have been together for decades and they just want to have the same rights straight couples do...They don't want you to pat them on the back and say "good for you" they just don't want people throwing things at them from passing cars and they want to not fear that their children will be taken away from them.

All MOST homosexual couples want...is equality...are there extremists that are insisting you love them and accept their choices...Yes...but there are also extremists that still think all Black people are illiterate and no better than dogs....

Don't generalize....and stick to the facts...the government needs to mind its own business about personal issues that don't hurt anyone

I'd like to say that as far as family structures, and how the "religious right" wants to "protect the family," it's interesting to read in the news (all of the time) about how so many straight families are screwed up and what violent crimes occur within them.

I don't want to over-generalize, but there are too many news stories of straight mothers killing their children; too many news articles about straight fathers beating thier wives (or murdering them!) and/or beating and/or killing their children; too many stories of straight-man pedophiles - straight men who molest their own baby daughters. A large percentage of straight wives and mothers end up in shelters for battered women. Some children of straight parents end up being Columbine murderers. Yet the "religous right" wants to protect the family?

Half of all straight marriages end in divorce. They want to protect that? And what damage will occur if two gay people enter into their own private social contract? Whose business is it? Tell me who is that hurting? No one.

"Protecting marriage" isn't an argument for anything except a willingness to discrimate against a class of people whose only crime is to exist.

It really shows how ignorant and stupid VA voters are. (Along with other voters in states who discriminate.)

Before I have to leave a computer for a few hours I want to end on the fact that CHURCH should remain SEPERATE from GOVERNMENT....Does it factor into how people think? Yes...just like every experience in our lives does....

However, it should not be the ruling factor...

Everyone deserves equal rights

The people have spoken. Still trying to understand how a religious person is going to be brought closer to God by all this.

"Human beings never behave more badly twoard one another than when they believe they are protecting God."

Kat,

No one is saying take away happiness. You can live the way you choose, but the state is not going to support it. You are entitled to all the happiness you want, but don't expect the state to support everything that comes up, especially when the voters of that state have spoken on the issue.

If you think ALL of your happiness is going to be supported by the state, you are seriously misguided.

To all those people who compare this issue to women's rights or the civil rights movement are champions of the misguided. These were milestones in this country's history. I hardly think that this issue we are facing now is going to be a defining moment in American history. It borders on absurd when someone compares gay rights to the African American or Women's Civil Rights movement.

The notion of letting people know of your sexual preference is an absurd one as well. Why does it matter what it is? Keep that to yourself. Nobody cares. The moment you come out in public and let your sexual preference be known, don't expect the whole world to applaud. No one really cares what you do.
Why do homosexuals insist on telling the world they are gay? I don't go around announcing my sexual preference. That is nobody's business.

KH so ignorantly states, "Seems to me that it is religious zealots that have determined homosexuality to be "immoral". So that would make this a religious persecution if nothing else." My question to you KH, who says that homosexual sex is moral?? Another question KH: Do morals only come from "religious zealots"? If having morals means I will be called names, then so be it. Amazingly, those like KH crying "hate" also scream hatred at any one with any moral base.

The statement, "You should not be entitled to the government benefits of marriage if you cannot make a commitment to attempt to reproduce, as well as to stand up in front of soceity and make a promise to each other of commitment." is a prejudice remark to so many people. Many women can't have children, and not all married couples want to have children. Are you saying all these married couples should not receive government benefits because they don't reproduce? Changing subjects, this is a very sorry day for the State of Virginia, bringing prejudice to our constitution and foresaking rights of ALL individuals. What's next? We do not have the right to vote on intruding on others civil liberties, so where will the government stop when it comes to intruding on our civil liberties and rights? A very sad day...

Sounds like a bunch of vacant minded people are angry because morality won last night in VA and other states as well. You can bash and hate VA all you want, you also have the right to move out. I live in CA and am seriously thinking of leaving this morally corrupt state to move to VA. So for all you who want to bash VA, come out to anything goes CA and I'll sell you a house.

Majorityspeaks -- Who says I was talking about sex at all? Homosexuality is not just about sex! You assumed I was talking about sex because you find the act of sex between 2 men or 2 women immoral. I find Certain types of sex between a man and a woman immoral -- So what! What does that have to do with finding a loving relationship between 2 people immoral?

Majorityspeaks stated:
"Amazingly, those like KH crying "hate" also scream hatred at any one with any moral base. "

Funny but I don't remember crying "hate" to anyone. If you think homosexuality is immoral -- more power to you. Just don't make me live by your standards as they are not my standards. I don't hate you or anyone else for having your opinion.

I just love these people who TRY to prove their point by saying, "i know gay people" or "I have gay friends". That is SO empty. I know people who live gay lifestyles too, while i reject their behavior and lifestlyles, they are still my friend. I have friends in prison, but that does not mean I condone their actions or lifestyles that led them to be incarcerated.

No one is counting on the government for happiness, but this amendment does jeopardize the happiness of gays. Are straight couples not happy when they are allowed to wed and be recognized by their society? Does the security of knowing that you will be able to see your spouse if he or she happens to be dying in a hospital not bring you happiness? How about knowing that your children will still legally be considered your children and allowed to stay with you after your spouse dies? Gay people don't have that security in this state, and they certainly don't have the happiness that comes with it.

And as for the criticism of gays flaunting their "sexual preference," I hope you think of that when you keep a picture of your husband or wife on your desk at work or hold hands in public. Please be conscious of the fact that, when you do, you are flaunting your heterosexual preference to everyone when you should be keeping it in the bedroom. Agree?

Of course not. You realize that your spouse is an important part of your life aside from any sex you two might have. You spend your days together, you live together, you have normal couple problems, etc. You literally share a life. It would be extremely odd for you not to someone keep that a secret. Guess what? It's the same for gay people. It isn't just about sex; it's about the fact that if you spend your whole life with someone, it's going to come up in conversation. It's not flaunting, it's just being honest.

I read this amendment 4 times and was uncertain whether or not it was Yes or No I should check to allow people who choose partners of the same sex the equal rights I feel they deserve to have. I have an advanced college degree, and above average IQ and if I had trouble discerning the double negatives I'm certain may other voters did as well.

"I know people who live gay lifestyles too, while i reject their behavior and lifestlyles, they are still my friend."

Majorityspeaks they may be your friend but you certainly are not theirs if you reject their lifestyle

KH, "What does that have to do with finding a loving relationship between 2 people immoral?" I agree. Then if all a gay couple wants is a loving relationship, then go for it. Stop demanding the governments consent. Yes, they have a right to an immoral loving relationship, but don't expect the government to condone it. If some liberal "church" wants to bless it, then go for it. Just as religion is separated from government so should immoral behavior be separated from govenment. (I know that sounds like an oxymoron since we are talking about government, so much corruption and immorality in government!!) It's been said early, if a gay couple wants a loving relationship, go for it, they do not need the government's consent or blessing. That is all VA is saying. Don;t involve the gov't in your relationship.

"Yes, they have a right to an immoral loving relationship, but don't expect the government to condone it."

That tells me that you believe a loving relationship between 2 people to be immoral. Tell me majorityspeaks -- Where did you get that "belief" from? I'm guessing you belong to a fundamentalist church because they are the only ones that could preach that loving someone is immoral.

"Don;t involve the gov't in your relationship."

Too late...They involved themselves in all relationships by granting marriage licenses and the rights, benefits, and responsibilities that go along with that

"You cannot make an argument for homosexuality impinging on anyone's rights. It's two consenting adults loving each other. Your rights are not at all affected by that, nor are those of any other Americans."

I can when they start PUSHING their agenda in the schools and on television and in the general public. I agree, KEEP it in the bedroom, but it is not kept there. Therein lies the problem.

"If you think ALL of your happiness is going to be supported by the state, you are seriously misguided."

WELL said Todd!!

Oooh Oooh the famous "AGENDA"...
If you don't like watching gays on tv -- turn the channel.
If you don't like dealing with children that have 2 mommy's being in public schools -- pay to have private schools set up at your expense for all children of gay parents to go to.

Funny but kids could care less about homosexual/heterosexual. They just care that their parents love each other and them.

" but this amendment does jeopardize the happiness of gays."
HOW??????

" I hope you think of that when you keep a picture of your husband or wife on your desk at work or hold hands in public. Please be conscious of the fact that, when you do, you are flaunting your heterosexual preference to everyone when you should be keeping it in the bedroom. Agree?"
This is not the level of "flaunting" being spoken of. The liberal California legislature passed a bill demanding that curriculum and teachers teach the gay lifestyle. THAT is the point. Having a picture of you loved one is NOT flaunting. But you allowed the truth to slip out progressive, yes the gay agenda is FLAUNTED, and that is the point.

If your points and ideas are progressive, then certainly this country is in deep sh-t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

realitycheck -- Do they teach heterosexual lifestyles in schools in California? Do they talk about Mommy and Daddy and baby brother? That would be "flaunting" the heterosexual lifestyle.

How exactly are gays "pushing" their agenda on anything? If a school acknowledges in sex-ed that people who *gasp* engage in sexual behavior with members of them same sex EXIST, all of a sudden that school is furthering the gay agenda? No. They're simply acknowledging that sex between people of the same sex happens. Whether they teach it or not, that will be true. Admitting something exists doesn't make it more prevalent.

Same thing on TV: gay people love each other in our society, even outside of bedrooms. TV reflects society. TV shows gay people. This isn't in any way a furthering of some weird gay agenda so many people seem to think exists (it doesn't) any more than a show that features a murderer is furthering the agenda of murderers (which is not to say that homosexuality is negative the way murder is).

Pardon gays for wanting society to acknowledge they exist (and have children in school, and own homes) without accompanying that acknowledgment with a disclaimer that they're immoral, horrid people who need to be stopped. Wow, how insidious of them.

"Where did you get that "belief" from? I'm guessing you belong to a fundamentalist church because they are the only ones that could preach that loving someone is immoral."

KH, let me see if I can reason with you, I am not entirely sure you can digest reason, but I'll try. I really hate to disappoint you, but I am neither Christian, nor a fundamentalist. My faith is Jewish in nature. And speaking of nature, that is what teaches me that homosexual behavior is immoral. Think about magnets; do you know anything about them? They work on "laws of nature." OPPOSITES attract!! The same poles DO NOT attrack, the OPPOSITE poles attract. That is one of many laws of nature that teach me about proper human relationships. So, what's next KH, if a donkey and a human 'LOVE" each other, that is okay too?? I know many nonChristians and non-faith people who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Get away from these blogs and get out and meet some people. Oh, I know you have gotten out and met some gay people, that's why you want to make the lifestyle supported by the government. Blah, blah blah.

Majorityspeaks they may be your friend but you certainly are not theirs if you reject their lifestyle

KH, there you go again opening your mouth without knowing what you are thaling about. These friend would absolutely disagree with you!!

"Do they teach heterosexual lifestyles in schools in California? "
NO!!!
KH, you certainly give evidence to the theory of evolution. You open your mouth and only noise comes out like an animal. Your comments are without any reasonable thoughts.

KH,

Some tissues and a good cry will help overcome your ingnorance.

"' but this amendment does jeopardize the happiness of gays."'
HOW??????"

Pretty sure I just said that: they can't be assured that they will be able to see the person they love in a time of crisis, and they can't be certain of their rights to the children they raise and adore. Those are pretty big roadblocks to happiness.

As I said: people will engage in gay sex. Not saying anything about that in sex-ed classes will not change that; it will just make it less safe when it happens. Gay families will always exist; not acknowledging that at all will not make them stop existing. It will only make the children of gay parents feel like they are abnormal and excluded. Gays will continue to contribute to our society. Not acknowledging their contributions will not change that; it will only keep people believing (incorrectly) that gays are insidious others who are somehow separate from the true America.

Nobody is saying that we need to sit kids down and getting into the nitty gritty of every major figure in history's sex life, or launch into a long explanation of the history of homosexuality. But a simple acknowledgment of a life partner for a historical figure would not be a ringing endorsement of queerness. It would just be an acknowledgment that queers exist and always have. Same with letting a child talk about their two dads or moms. Not an endorsement, just a fact.

Then your "friends" are fools. Someone that rejects my lifestyle and my entire state of being could never be my "friend".

As to reason -- give me some good ones and I might listen. Asking an entire class of people to live by your standards because you find their way of life unnatural is no different then asking an entire class of people to live by your standards because they have different skin color, or gender, or nationality. It is discrimination plain and simple.

As for things found in "nature" determining morality -- Most in "nature" have sex with unknown and mutliple partners. I am sure most people would find humans doing that "immoral".

Homosexuality exists in nature. In all species. As for my getting out of blogs and meeting people -- No thanks I know enough ignorant idiotic people like you to last a lifetime

"gay people love each other in our society,"
Oh, it's all about love. What's next progressive? Is it progressive to love and have a sexual relationship with your pet? "But we're in love!!" Acrually, most people today, hetro and homo, don't have a clue about love, they understand and are moved by LUST. What else do you want progressive, demonstrations of gay sex in the classroom?

The above person was right on, go buy a box of tissues and get over it. You are clearly ignorant (trying to tell the friends of others whether they should like them or not, it's NONE of you d--- business.) and you are WRONG about what nature teaches. You see, you repeat whatever you hear without studying and researching. Go VA and the rest of the MORAL states!!!!!! Long live morality!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Pardon gays for wanting society to acknowledge they exist (and have children in school, and own homes) without accompanying that acknowledgment with a disclaimer that they're immoral, horrid people who need to be stopped. Wow, how insidious of them."
Truly progressive you MISS the point. Society already acknowledges their existence and thier right to have jobs, homes, cars, etc. The point is they do NOT need the governemts blessing to have a relationship and they do not need the govenment's support. The point is they want the government to legislate they everyone accept their lifestyle! That's the problem you cannot seem to get into your vacant mind.

"gay people love each other in our society,"
Oh, it's all about love. What's next progressive? Is it progressive to love and have a sexual relationship with your pet? "But we're in love!!"

Oh please. Animals and people are totally different. A comparison between loving a same-sex human and claiming to love an animal (which is not the same species and which has no rights or capacity for reason) is a completely baseless.

Acrually, most people today, hetro and homo, don't have a clue about love, they understand and are moved by LUST. What else do you want progressive, demonstrations of gay sex in the classroom?

You don't really read what I say (or you do, but then you take it to a senseless extreme). Acknowledging that homosexuality exists in a classroom setting is not the same as having homosexual sex demonstrations in classrooms. You seem to fail to acknowledge that there is any part of homosexuality that exists outside of raw sex. You have no problem believing that heterosexuals do in fact do things other than screw each other, but you obviously believe that homosexuals don't. Guess what? Not the case. Gay people make lives together just like anyone else, and those lives involve plenty of things other than sex.

KH,
"Homosexuality exists in nature. In all species"

That is the craziest thing I have every heard. Give examples.

" you are WRONG about what nature teaches. You see, you repeat whatever you hear without studying and researching."

No that would be you realitycheck. I have done extensive research on homosexuality in nature, homosexuality references in the bible, and all aspects of the entire debate. You are the one who refuses to do anything but listen to the political rhetoric.

Mike,

If you have access to a science library or can use a search engine artfully, references to technical, academic papers detailing homosexual behaviors in a wide variety of primates, from langurs to orangutans to pit-tailed macaques can be accessed at www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.24.htm

"No thanks I know enough ignorant idiotic people like you to last a lifetime"

Proof KH you do not know reality. You do NOT know me. You have read some of my posting in a blog. As I said get out of blogs and "MEET PEOPLE". Blogs are not really meeting people. I sincerely feel sorry for you KH!! Really!! You think life is about what you do and read on the computer. I' m sorry KH that your life is that empty.

Wow. Personal attacks. Always the mark of someone who is secure in his or her position. I did not bring up the concept of homosexuality in schools. I was responding to someone else. However, you are right, marriage is the issue. And, so far, you have failed to give one single argument that is not based around an undefined concept of "immorality" why the government shouldn't recognize gay marriage. Gays aren't just clamoring for everyone to approve of their unions. They want the rights that come with being able to be married. Those are some pretty serious rights, including, as I have said, the right to keep your children if your partner happens to die and the right to see said partner as they die. That has nothing to do with wanting straight people to love them or approve of their sex lives.

"Proof KH you do not know reality. You do NOT know me. You have read some of my posting in a blog. As I said get out of blogs and "MEET PEOPLE". Blogs are not really meeting people. I sincerely feel sorry for you KH!! Really!! You think life is about what you do and read on the computer. I' m sorry KH that your life is that empty."

And you think you KNOW me from what I post on a blog? Pot calling kettle black if you ask me. Trust me I can tell enough about you from your opinion on this subject that you are just narrow-minded enough of a person that I don't want to know you

I think we've all gotten FAR off track here. This amendment was never about gay marriage. It is simply a poorly disguised ploy to allow corporations to deny healthcare to their employees' dependents. Way to go, VA legislation, you're all over the important issues. Thanks for supporting big business interests. And thanks to all you fundamentalist, illiterate, narrow minded bigots who voted this amendment into the constitution. I'm tired of the knee-jerk neoconservative reaction when someone mentions gay marriage or abortion.

I don't know, to me there are more important issues we need to look at. I don't care if someone burns the flag. I don't care if gay people get married. I DO care that so many of us are falling for these distraction techniques, when the REAL issues are getting little or no focus. What about the millions of children in this country that have no health coverage? Who don't have enough to eat? Who don't have a home? What about the nearly 1,000,000 people who have been killed in Iraq, including American soldiers? What about the fact that if our species continues to consume resources in the way it has for the past 10,000 years we will soon be facing extinction? What about the fast food and junk food corporations that are target marketing and poisoning our children??

Lets focus on what's real, and what's next.

Carrie said it PERFECTLY.

KH,

www.androphile.org is not and never will be an accredited site. This is a site to promote gay agenda. Show me something from a mainstream medical or science journal that says homosexuality exist outside the human race.

You can't. Because it doesn't exist. Human's are the only one's who express this kind of affection towards the same sex. Why? Because humans have free will and.......CHOICE.

After taking to a few gay friends I am beginning to see a scary trend. Gay tendencies seem to be the work of some kind of depression or something experienced in childhood. Believing that it is something that happens at birth is a way to deal with the depression.

KH,

Some tissues and a good cry will help overcome your ingnorance.

Posted by: 12312@youloose.com | November 8, 2006 02:24 PM

A dictionary might help you overcome yours.

To KH and anyone else arguing against the amendment: it's fun, but don't expect to change anything. Please notice that when you make an argument that's good, no one will respond directly to it. Rather, they will ignore it and move on to something else or take it off in some obscene direction about some nefarious gay agenda. When you respond that there isn't one and then explain why gays' fight for rights isn't about getting public kudos so much as it is getting rights that are due to them as adult members of society, they will tell you you're getting off track and that this is all about marriage. They'll toss around words like immorality, even though morality is, like it or not, heavily subjective (rights, on the other hand, really aren't, which is why our country will not be dissolving into a craphole any time soon), and they'll say that gay sex is unnatural even when you point out that homosexuality occurs in nature in animals that don't have the capacity to choose a sexual orientation.

Bottom line is, they view homosexuality as SOLELY a sexual matter, not something that, like heterosexuality, is intrinsic in many, many aspects of life. They also tend to think of homosexuals either as sex fiends or as people who want everyone to love them and approve (again, as opposed to people who just want the rights that they feel they as American citizens and contributing members of society should have). In this light, you can see why they are so adamant about why change shouldn't happen. You will NOT change them. You will not remove all their prejudices with one well-made argument. All you will succeed in doing is feeding their fire and your own. Spend your time doing something that will make more of a difference than this.

Mike,

Is national geographic accredited enough for you

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Progressive -- I am aware of the fact that you can't change these folks minds. But you said it in the first sentence...it's fun. And if one person reading this blog chooses to do some research due to the posts here even better.

To KH and anyone else arguing against the amendment: it's fun, but don't expect to change anything. Please notice that when you make an argument that's good, no one will respond directly to it. Rather, they will ignore it and move on to something else or take it off in some obscene direction about some nefarious gay agenda. When you respond that there isn't one and then explain why gays' fight for rights isn't about getting public kudos so much as it is getting rights that are due to them as adult members of society, they will tell you you're getting off track and that this is all about marriage. They'll toss around words like immorality, even though morality is, like it or not, heavily subjective (rights, on the other hand, really aren't, which is why our country will not be dissolving into a craphole any time soon), and they'll say that gay sex is unnatural even when you point out that homosexuality occurs in nature in animals that don't have the capacity to choose a sexual orientation.

Bottom line is, they view homosexuality as SOLELY a sexual matter, not something that, like heterosexuality, is intrinsic in many, many aspects of life. They also tend to think of homosexuals either as sex fiends or as people who want everyone to love them and approve (again, as opposed to people who just want the rights that they feel they as American citizens and contributing members of society should have). In this light, you can see why they are so adamant about why change shouldn't happen. You will NOT change them. You will not remove all their prejudices with one well-made argument. All you will succeed in doing is feeding their fire and your own. Spend your time doing something that will make more of a difference than this, like doing what you can to get that crappy, disgracefully discriminatory amendment repealed. I know I will :)

I apologize for the double post. Not sure what happened there.

I see your point, KH. Good luck :)

KH,

"Homosexual Activity" does not consitute homosexuality. It means activites that can be CAN BE compared to homosexuality. So does hugging my brother or being close with a long time friend.

Gay is a human choice and they won't admit it becasue they can't.

KH and progressive, you should both become politicians, you run your mouth trying to sound intelligent, instead you sound ignorant, just like George Bush.

So, the sheep won. Too bad sheep can't read or reason.

Reality check -- What is it exactly that you believe I am ignorant about? Please clue me in to what it is that you think I don't know about this issue.

So Mike I will ask you once again (though I doubt you will answer because you ignored me last time when I asked)

When exactly did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

example KH, your ignorant comment:
""Homosexual Activity" does not consitute homosexuality. It means activites that can be CAN BE compared to homosexuality. So does hugging my brother or being close with a long time friend."

That sounds like 6th grade childish logic! Really!!

Realitycheck I totally agree it was childish logic...too bad it was Mike's childish logic not mine?

KH,

"Homosexual Activity" does not consitute homosexuality. It means activites that can be CAN BE compared to homosexuality. So does hugging my brother or being close with a long time friend.

Gay is a human choice and they won't admit it becasue they can't.

Posted by: Mike | November 8, 2006 03:10 PM

"So Mike I will ask you once again (though I doubt you will answer because you ignored me last time when I asked)

When exactly did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?"

Mike won't answer the question, because he is not heterosexual.

Mike,

Did you read the National Geographic article, or did your narrow mind reject it outright?

Where is YOUR proof that being gay is a CHOICE?

"Did you read the National Geographic article, or did your narrow mind reject it outright?"

Let's throw out the Bible and let National Geographic be the new standard. The word "Bible" simply means book, so we will now make NG the Bible of the US. And I guess NPR will be the new "Holy Spirit?" WOW!!! We ARE in trouble. Just when I didn't thinkg this country could get any lower, more vacant minds arise from the depths of despair. It seems to be a race which state can get to hell first.

"Let's throw out the Bible and let National Geographic be the new standard."

Hey bibble-thumper,

The "Bible" is not based on science. So yes, throw it out, if it's being used to govern other people lives.

You would know (if you weren't stuck in Jesus camp, that people have different belief systems and the "Bible" is merely one of them.

reality that seems like a grand idea to me. People who use the bible to discriminate against the people they don't like are not a whole lot different then the islamic extremists that use Mohammed and the Koran as a justification for terrorizing hundreds of innocent people.

"Where is YOUR proof that being gay is a CHOICE?"
The issue is not about one's feelings--they may or may not bewith one a birth--the issue is how one chooses to behave and live out "feelings." People are "born" with anger and propensities that could lead to immoral/unacceptable behaviors. It is how one behaves. I am not saying a person cannot have gay feelings, but lifestyle and homosexual acts are the points of immorality. A person can have anger deep inside, that is not immoral, but if that person acts on his feelings, then it can well be immoral.

Again, propensities or proclivities to be "gay" is not the moral issue, the actions and lifestyles are what makes it immoral.

P.S.

You're such a hypocrite. The "Bible" says to "judge not, lest ye be judged". You don't even follow the doctrines of your own alleged belief.

"Separation of church and state" sounds good on paper, but it is not possible to separate people from deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise. By the way, the phrase, "separation of church and state" is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to an individual clergyman. The U.S. Constitution states and I quote, "The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

majorityspeaks,

Horsecrap. All human beings are sexual beings. If you "act" on your (assumed) heterosexual proclivities, you are just as "immoral" as someone who "acts" on their homosexual proclivities.

P.S.
On what basis do you declare sexuality as "immoral"? Don't say the Bible, unless you can unequivocally prove the existence of God.

Majority -- Do you know that what you are saying makes no sense?

You basically are saying that homosexuality is immoral but being gay isn't.

DLP,

"The U.S. Constitution states and I quote, "The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What do you think is the intent of this clause?

I voted no to this admendment because it is wrong to discrimminate. If this thing did pass and same sex marriage was against the law, would the state place offenders in prison? Talk about a can of worms.

Jack -- Majorityspeaks believes that homosexuality is immoral. That is his choice to believe that and we can't think less of him for having that belief (though I don't quite totally get it)

The problem comes in when that belief hampers the rights of others who may or may not have that same belief. The Supreme court even found that to be true hence all of the court cases/laws against pornography. The bottom line is that it is almost impossible to legislate morality because different people do have different belief systems. I have no problem with anyone thinking homosexuality is immoral...I just have a problem with those folks requiring that the rest of the world conform to their standards just because.

"KH,

Some tissues and a good cry will help overcome your ingnorance.

Posted by: 12312@youloose.com | November 8, 2006 02:24 PM

A dictionary might help you overcome yours."

You go girl. I have found that religious zealots can never seem to spell properly. It's lose, not loose, like a loose screw. You're only making yourself look bad, 12312youloose.com

KH,

OK, I get your point. But she "is" trying to hamper the rights of others, so she needs to be confronted on her prejudice and explain it. Perhaps, in doing so, she will realize the error of her ways (notice how she has not responded).

Wow, it wasn't enough for Virginians to hate Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs, and any non white male group, now we all know you hate gays. Shame on all of you

This morning when I woke up to see the election results, I was ashamed of the state I live in. I will be ashamed to admit that I am from a state that promotes discrimination. No matter what form it comes in, more love will make this a better nation. I hope I will see this law repealed in my lifetime.

What the Constitution says means to me is that the government will stay out of the religion debate and let people decide for themselves what they believe in, free to practice their beliefs without government interference. However, I also believe that the way people vote is colored by their belief system. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are likely to vote accordingly. I'm not making a value judgement here, I'm just stating the reality of it. No one is going to vote for anything they believe to be wrong. It's as simple as that.

"Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are likely to vote accordingly. I'm not making a value judgement here, I'm just stating the reality of it. No one is going to vote for anything they believe to be wrong. It's as simple as that."

It's really not that simple, though. My parents are staunch Catholics, and voted against a similar measure in Arizona. They are able to separate their religion--which they take very seriously--from their sense of justice. In their eyes, it is not right to discriminate against people, so they vote accordingly. Even though their religion sees homosexual sex (not being gay) as a sin.

My take would be that people will vote according to whether they see this as a civil rights issue or not.

I was married to my wife in a church, a Unitarian Universalist church.

I am married but the state of Virginia refuses to recognize it based on either my or my wife's gender and people like Mikey forcing their beliefs upon me.

We have a child. Her position is vulnerable because of laws like this.

I have done nothing at all to keep anyone from a heterosexual marriage and there's no question that the lives of my small family are far better off now than they would be were we alone.

People came to this country for religious freedom, but they are unwilling to give it to those who don't agree with them.

Someone compared us to animals. We are real live thinking feeling people, and both of us were in a position to give infomed consent to our marriage.

We are married no matter how many rights you might try to withold from us.

KH,

If you are still lurking around this blog I will answer your question. I chose to be heterosexual, but I was BORN with Complementary Nature. That means that to continue evolution, I have a need to pass on my genes. Everybody is born with it. Gay people fight to suppress it. If everybody was gay, this world would only survive one generation and then the human race would be gone. There is no reasoning for people to be gay other than to be loved. If people have to resort to finding love where they can, then I feel sorry for them because they are, in fact, not making a choice. They are forcing themselves to choose that lifestyle.

You correct in saying we can love anyone, no matter who they are or what sex they are, but if nature has proved one thing over the past billion years, it's the fact that Complementary Nature is what keeps life going on this plant from generation to generation.

Mike you are so clueless. I have not now nor have I ever supressed my need to pass on my genes. That has nothing to do with anything. I have 2 children. Doesn't make me any less gay.

As for no reasoning to people being gay -- I don't know if that is true and until science proves what causes people to be gay I will assume the reason I am is because God made me that way

KH,

This is going nowhere. I have my beleiefs, you have yours. Nothing here is going to change that.

Thanks for the debate. Nice to know there are still people who can have a good debate and keep it clean and intelligent.

I wish you the best despite what the voter said yesterday.

Mike,
Your are very stubborn. Your beliefs are your beliefs. You can have them and hold them, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that contridicts them. But what you have failed to do, throughout this thread, is justify laws and amendments that take away rights. Just about every argument you made has been made before, by those fighting against giving blacks citizenship, or those fighting against women's rights, or those fighting against the right to marry outside your race or religion and many more. All of those arguments came before the COnstitution and Bill of Rights and fell flat on their faces. The only difference is yours is a discrimination against yet another group of people. History will look upon your views in the same light as those who existed before you. Progress will be made, eventually....hopefully beginning with a court order to overturn the unjust amendment you so adamantly supported.

Well, now that Virginia's been revealed to be a hate-ridden snake pit, I for one happy Marylander will not spend one dime there - no more dining, shopping or staying in hotels in Virginia. As I drive through on my way to more decent places, I will stop at rest stops to "spend a penny" but I won't spend one thin dime that may be taxed by Viriginians. I'll miss dinners in Annandale, shopping in Arlington and vacations to the mountains but I have no desire to be someplace I'm clearly not welcome.

KH,

You know nothing about me or my beliefs or my lifestyle for that matter. So let me help you understand a few things before you go name calling and placing labels on me.

I was a single father for 15 years. My daughter is gay and I support her 100%. I recently married a Chinese woman who I love for who she is, not what she has or where she is from. Does that sound like a person who discriminates or who is narrow minded?

I have no discrimination against people or the lifestyles they choose.

I support the democratic process and that is what all this is about. Yesterday just affirmed what the majority of the people WHO VOTED felt. Don't quit the fight or hope some lawyer is going to change what you don't like. You have to change it.

Mike -- Unless you are also "realitycheck" I don't see where I called you names or put labels on you. I don't believe I said you were narrow-minded that was directed towards "majorityspeaks". So unless you are posting under several names you have me confused with someone else.

The one thing I don't understand is if your daughter is gay and you support her 100% how could you have possibly voted for an amendment that will keep her a second class citizen for the rest of her life?

KH,

Because she chooses not to be a second class citizen. Because I taught her to be more than the rest of the world thinks she can be.

Laws don't determine who she can love and who she can be with and how she feels.

She is also a fighter. She fights for what she believes in.

This is what I was talking about yesterday.

There will always be laws that people don't agree with. That doesn't mean we don't follow them. We have to change them. I didn't vote for the law. I voted to the democratic process to keep judges from making laws. Now that it is over, it's time for a new fight.

If you think women are not still fighting for their equal rights and African Americans are not still fighting for their equal rights, then you need to take a better look. These fights are still going on today. If I can help fight along side them, I will. Just like I will help fight along that gay community. But I will not fight if the one's on the front lines just want to complain and hope someone else will step in and change things.

If you fight KH, and I will fight along side you.

"I didn't vote for the law. I voted to the democratic process to keep judges from making laws."

Actually it wasn't a law it was an amendment to the constitution.

Secondly judges don't make laws they determine if the existing ones are unconstitutional or not.

Third -- I am fighting...I am attempting to get my senators and representatives to institute a bill in the United States Congress to amend all laws that include the words marriage and spouse to also include civil unions and partners. Then the religious folks can have their marriage and everyone else can have a civil union and get the same rights, protections, and responsibilites.

This actually may not be necessary come December because if Maryland by some miracle doesn't overturn the lower court ruling then marriage licenses will be granted in Maryland. I can just see the influx of federal employees in a lawsuit to invalidate DOMA

KH,

Judges often add their feelings into their judgments. I don't pay for them to do that. I pay lawmakers to do that.

The key here is Virginia constitution, not US constitution. Once a valid argument can formed to voters and lawmakers that they can grasp, things will change. You need more than 10% of the population to do that. You need at least 51% to agree with it.
Voters, including me agreed yesterday that things needed to change. That's the kind of change that is needed here. But all that needs to done is to change the mind set that people have about the gay community. When people can accept that love comes in many, many forms, things will change.

Unfortunately with religion preaching that homosexuals are immoral -- that will probably never happen in a southern state like Virginia.

The only way rights for minorities are ever one is through the courts. History proves that because the majority will choose to stomp on the minority's rights any time they can. That is why the founding fathers instituted our government as a Republic -- Not a true democracy.

Mike,

I'm still waiting for your answer about the National Geographic article. You lost the debate on that point alone.

Jack Sprat,

National Geographic is not a medical journal, but that is beside the point. And I did answer it.

I refuse to ague with a hater. Go away

By the way Mike I hope your daughter never comes up against a homophobic nurse if her partner is ever in the hospital. I hope you have encouraged your daughter to spend the thousands of dollars it takes to have some of the same legal rights that you and your wife have. I hope you have encouraged your daughter to never have children with her partner because with our 2nd class citizenship status the children are the ones who suffer the most.

Lastly I hope you figure out that you voted to enshrine discrimination against a minority group in the Commonwealth's constitution so that you might think twice before doing so again

KH,

Minority group? Serial killers are in the minority. Should I have voted to let them have a pass to go home and see their families at Christmas? Of course not. Stop using the word minority to describe your cause.

Let's not get this started again. I voted to keep judges out of lawmaking. Now it's time to convince, people, doctors, teachers, that gay is not a bad word. The only difference between gay and straight is 5 letters.

Mike,

" Show me something from a mainstream medical or science journal that says homosexuality exist outside the human race."

Helloooooooo. It's a science journal.

You asked. He/she answered.

P.S.
I knew you couldn't handle the truth. You're a coward.

Jack,

You're a waste. What do they say? People who have no argument or have nothing to add to the forward movement of a conversation resort to name calling.

Sounds awful cowardly to me, Jack.

It's a shame people like you think that you represent the cause when you only end up doing harm to it. Thank goodness you don't represent anything but hate.

Mike,
Let me hit you with a different angle.

Let's say the majority of Virginians became vegetarians. Let's say they based their choice on a belief that killing animals is morally and ethically wrong. Now, they decide to put forth an amendment to the state constitution that would forbid the eating of any meat within the commonwealth of Virginia.

Would that be okay with you? I mean, it is based on the majority opinion? Would you find that to be a fair amendment? Would you stop eating meat?

I mean, there's no specific passage in the U.S. Constitution that says "eating meat is good", right?

Maybe you'll get lucky and the vegetarian majority will by kind and giving enough to ALLOW you to eat some fish. They will possibly try to "find some middle ground" with you and determine that you can, in the privacy of your own home, eat some fish. Wouldn't that be nice of them? That would make you happy and grateful, right? You'd actually THANK them for their kindness. Right?

The majority has spoken and you are not allowed to eat meat. Deal with it.

The scenario is ridiculous, right? I mean, in the United States, people are free to live life how they choose, so long as they follow the golden rule: they cannot infringe upon another citizens civil rights. Right? So the idea put forth in this example clearly wouldn't be justified, right?

Even though it was majority rule. Even though it was based on moral and ehtical grounds. Even though the majority are repulsed at the thought of eating meat.

Get it? The Virginia amendment fails under the same principle. There are people in this country who choose to live life a certain way. The way they choose does not infringe upon your rights at all. Therefore, you should have no say whatsoever in how they live their lives. Period. What part of that basic, fundamental principle of our democracy is escaping your reason???????

Kim,

I read your post yesterday. You need to read back to my first posts today. I am not saying you can't be gay. I never was.

But bottom line is if the majority ruled I would live with in the law until I could change it. If I couldn't change it, I would then deal with it.

Kim,

I read your post yesterday. You need to read back to my first posts today. I am not saying you can't be gay. I never was.

But bottom line is if the majority ruled I would live with in the law until I could change it. If I couldn't change it, I would then deal with it.

"Minority group? Serial killers are in the minority. Should I have voted to let them have a pass to go home and see their families at Christmas? Of course not. Stop using the word minority to describe your cause."

Lets see -- Heterosexual population approx 95%
Homosexual population approx 5%

Sure seems like a minority to me.

If these are your views on this matter I really feel sorry for your gay daughter because I can not possibly imagine life if my parents voted to keep me a 2nd class citizen all my life.

By the way now the laws can't be changed to allow gays to get married or have civil unions. You and the other folks that voted for this discrimanatory amendment made sure of that.

Kim,

Give it up. This is a person that can't even figure out the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment and from the information in his posts he really doesn't understand what exactly he voted for -- He just knows he is in the majority

If you would be fine with that, then you don't comprehend the principles the founding fathers put forth in the Constitution and you'd probably be much happier in a Theocracy. Problem is, we are not the Theocracy that you clearly prefer, we are a Democracy. One founded on equal rights under the law, not equal rights for some based on the whims of the majority.

"You're a waste. What do they say? People who have no argument or have nothing to add to the forward movement of a conversation resort to name calling.

Sounds awful cowardly to me, Jack. "

Funny Mike but you called him names first.
All he did was ask your answer about your absurd notion that no medical or scientific journal speaks of homosexuality in nature.

You called him a hater (whatever that is)

I would love to meet your daughter to see what she thinks about your vote in the election.

"If you would be fine with that, then you don't comprehend the principles the founding fathers put forth in the Constitution and you'd probably be much happier in a Theocracy"

He can't comprehend the difference between passing a law and amending the constitution to prevent passage of a law. do you really think he can comprehend the difference between a theocracy and a democratic republic?

I actually don't believe he has a gay daughter at all. Seems very convenient...

And I also find it extremely hard to believe that he would, presuming he's a meat-eater, be fine with some "moral majority" dictating what food he is allowed to eat. Rings false and, once again, convenient...

Also, he fell for the trap because I could substitute a million different rights that, under the same concept, could suddenly "amend" away from the state constitution. Including just about everything he loves to do. At some point his insistence on the claim that he would "deal with it" would become comical.

Ok, I'm done with this. This just went from dumb to stupid.

KH,

You just don't know when to quit, thus proving what I said about the gay community yesterday. In your minds, if we are not with you 100%, we are against you.

Kim,

You're the only one here that had a valid argument. That's the type of argument this cause needs.

Oh I am pretty sure he made up the "gay daughter" part too. For one thing he would have said his daughter is a lesbian.

For another no lesbian in their correct mind would have been OK with their Mother or father voting for an amendment that prevents any kind of recognized union for homosexual couples. He also did not defend anything I said in my post about his supposed "gay daughter". Most parents would have been indignant.

Just because a lot of gay/lesbian folks do not want to conform to the mainstream and get married doesn't mean they would vote to keep others from being allowed to do it.

It just bothers me that he and so many others like him voted to incorporate this ridiculous amendment and they really have no understanding of what exactly they voted for. Great that he is in the majority but I certainly don't want an uneducated majority voting in laws that discriminate against me and I can't think of anyone who would be OK with that.

Oops, I made a comment before you were finished running your mouth Kim.

You two and the way you handle yourselves is why this cause failed and will continue to fail until you get a grip. Every movment has a leader. Yours is just running blind.

Now I am done.

"In your minds, if we are not with you 100%, we are against you."

Never said that but if you voted for this amendment you certainly are against us and I will never quit attempting to inform and educate people about what votes like this do to people in the gay community. If people would stop to think about the consequences of their actions on others instead of just themselves then amendments like this that discriminate against minoritiies wouldn't be passed.

"You two and the way you handle yourselves is why this cause failed and will continue to fail until you get a grip."

Get a grip on what? People like you that are ignorant of the subject and have no idea what they are talking about and refuse to get informed because they are so adamantly against homosexuality and homosexuals are why our cause fails. Can't legislate around stupidity unfortunately.

Glad you are done...Making you look foolish was getting old

Thanks, Mike.

But you are wrong. There were many valid and thoughtful arguments. My argument was the same as many already on this board. But the difference was one of perspective.

Another example I like to use is that of the KKK marches in Illinois some years back (in the 1980's???) that caused a huge public outcry. Remember it?

The KKK scheduled a rally down mainstreet USA, much to the horror of the townspoeple. They fought to stop the rally, but in the end, the Constitution protected the minority from the majority and allowed the KKK to peacefully assemble.

In the end, the majority of Americans realized that it was the correct judgement. They remembered the idea that "we may not agree with what you say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it".

People can disagree with the gay lifestyle, but as long as the government regulates certain rights, it cannot discriminate against anyone based on a majority opinion.

Mike,
I apoligize for "running my mouth". You mentioned my argument was "valid". If that is the case, can you concede the possibility that the amendment you voted for was a bad idea? If not, then tell me what was valid about my argument and why is it that it doesn't fully convince you?
Thanks...

"Oh I am pretty sure he made up the "gay daughter" part too. For one thing he would have said his daughter is a lesbian."

KH,

Once again, you busted this bubblehead (unless his "daughter" is a hermaphrodite). Perhaps the word "lesbian" is not scientific enough for him.

Yep I gave up trying to have an intelligent argument with him when I figured out he has absolutely no idea what it is he voted for.

I have just realized that this amendment, as it is worded, will have a profound impact on divorced couples.

_"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage."_

As far as I can tell, that language invalidates the concept of alimony, because alimony is INTENDED to approximate the qualities or effects of marriage for a couple that is now UNMARRIED, by continuing a financial benefit of the marriage contract.

Think about that one very long and hard, and what the possible effects may be for potentially millions of divorced Virginians and their rights in the courts of the Commonwealth.

Regardless of your opinion on the issue of gay marriage, this amendment was very poorly conceived and contains some of the most amateurish, clumsy legal language that I have ever had the misfortune to read. The legislators who drafted this amendment should be humiliated on general principle.

I voted "No" because as an immigrant who lived through active "Apartheid" or legalized racial discrimination I very much appreciate the equal rights promised by the USA Constitution.

As I read the VA amendment, it violates the equal rights clause in the USA Constitution. Essentially if you are an unmarried couple, whether gay or straight, you no longer have the same legal rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by married couples. It effectively creates a two-tiered legal system because many of the rights, protections, privileges etc. that existed prior to this amendment have now been effectively removed. I understand that two-tiered, legal rights system very well and I assure you, it is hateful, divisive, destructive and it hurts absolutely everyone. I understand that this amendment may make some people feel safer from gays or lesbians, although last I checked, homosexuality is not contagious. But safe and comfortable does not equate with moral or just (if it comes at the expense of our fellow-men), but just with morally bankrupt.

Just curious about one thing though. How does this amendment propose to treat citizens who are born with both male and female sex organs (yes, Chimeras do exist)? Are they male or female for the purposes of this amendment? They are born just as God intended and therefore beloved and beautiful in his sight. But what are their legal rights especially if they refuse to accept gender assignment? How are their rights protected by this amendment? I mean any relationship they enter into could technically be considered same-sex, right? This is just another example of how stupid and of how terribly intrusive and mean spirited this amendment really is.

I'm just looking forward to the day when we evolve past the ludicrous, archaic idea of "God". For those of us who have used our power of reason, it's easy to see there is no such thing. It completely defies logic and science.

Like the tooth fairy. Or Zeus. Or Santa Claus. Yet we are forced to live in a world where rules are dictated by this fairy tale and wars are continuously fought in it's name.

i really hope somewhere out there people just stop to realize there are things at stake here that dont end with homosexuality , this ends with power, the power of morality , as an african american i rember well when people stood high and said it was immoral to let the black man be free , that we were animals and unable to reason like our white counterpart. a long time agao it seems back in 1967, it used to be illegal to be part of a interracial marrage. does anyone rember "Loving v. Virginia" . to me i fear this is the same problem once again, however , homosexuals are the target this time . what is going to occur when a homosexual couple from virginia go to another state , and return as a married couple ... will the state persecute