Voters in the Old Dominion, which already has a sweeping law against recognizing same-sex marriages or anything remotely similar, will vote in November on a constitutional amendment that would not only ban civil unions (again, already illegal in Virginia), but decree that the state will "not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."
That language is so broad it's anybody's guess what it might apply to (private contracts to share property?). That means if it passes, the courts will have to interpret it. But wait, social conservatives say we need an amendment because activist courts are inserting themselves into the marriage debate!
Virginia Gov. Tom Kaine, a Democrat, opposes the amendment, saying it could affect contracts between unwed heterosexual couples and "disenfranchises…unmarried people, both same-sex or heterosexual couples." While he opposes same-sex marriage, he says, "We're equal citizens in the state; we ought to be treated equally." But then why does he opposes letting gay couples marry?
Nevertheless, it's interesting that Kaine, the governor of a conservative state, has a view that is at least as gay friendly as John Kerry's, and Kerry was perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. That may show progress.
But as the Washington Post reports, anti-gay marriage amendments "have passed in each of the 20 states where they have been on the ballot, often by more than 3 to 1." Sadly, it would take a huge breakthrough, or a lot of scarred cohabiting heteros, to reverse that trend.
10 Comments for “Virginia Madness.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: “Nevertheless, it’s interesting that Kaine, the governor of a conservative state, has a view that is at least as gay friendly as John Kerry’s, and Kerry was perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. That may show progress.”
I think that the Democrats have made progress in the last two years.
In 2004, the Democrats acted like a bunch of scared rabbits when it came to state amendments. In 2006, in most states where it is an issue, the Democrats are actively opposing the amendments.
In Wisconsin, where I live, the Democrats put an anti-amendment plank in the platform and are, in my county anyway, actively distributing anti-amendment literature and publicly speaking out, as Democrats, against the amendment.
I don’t know if the movement has so much to do with an embrace of gay and lesbian equality as it does with the fact that the Republican-sponsored amendments in this round contain the “substantially similar” language that ban civil unions and open the states up to endless lawsuits like those sponsored by the AFA and Thomas More Society in Michigan, challenging domestic partner benefits for government employees. The Democrats may be responding more to public-employee pressure than to a gay and lesbian equality.
But nonetheless, the differences between the parties are growing larger, much to my disgust.
Consider this: The most “gay-friendly” of the Democrat candidates for President, Russ Feingold, endorses same-sex marriage, opposes DADT and favors ENDA. By contrast, the most “gay-friendly” of the Republican candidates for President, John McCain, is the sponsor of Arizona’s “nuclear option” amendment, recently re-endorsed DADT, and opposes ENDA.
I don’t know about anyone else, but this Wisconsin Goldwater conservative is going to vote for a lot of Democrats this November, for the simple reason that the Democrats I’m voting for have earned my vote.
posted by Bobby on
I stop coming to this site for two weeks, I go back and what do I see? 3 stories related to gay marriage. Is there no other topic of conversation? Does Miller think that we all have a same-sex partner and can’t wait to get married?
Why can’t some gays talk about something else? Anything else! Even the gay character in The Devil Wears Prada would be a far more interesting discussion than same-sex marriage. The hell with that, I’m still struggling with same-sex dating!
posted by Avee on
Bobby, bloggers blog about what they want to blog about. And, as an issue, marriage is a significant cultural indicator, whether it affects you or not. But for a wider mix of topics, check out some of the blog’s in Steve’s blogroll above right.
posted by Anthony on
Tom, I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying. I am now in the process of finishing my college degree after a number of years of not being in school. I want to do something to contribute. I love politics and I have always been a diehard Republican. I try very hard not to vote specifically on “gay” issues per se. I place an emphasis on national security, economic policy, etc. but have grown increasingly troubled that my party seems intent on becoming exclusively obsessed with issues like gay marriage and the like. Here in Arkansas, candidates from BOTH parties are against gay marriage and against gays being able to serve as foster parents. Most of them oppose gays being able to adopt. It is very frustrating. I find myself at a loss in figuring out what to do and how to proceed. My partner says I think too much (jokingly) and that I should not make my sexual orientation the defining part of who and what I am. I tend to agree with him but at the same time I see all the efforts to keep people like me from getting married, raising children, so on and so forth. The real issue in a state like Arkansas is to keep our losses at a minimum. There are very, very few gay-friendly locales, other than a couple of neighborhoods in Little Rock and Fayetteville (home to the University of Arkansas). We live in a college town, Jonesboro, that is very conservative yet heavily Democratic in its politics. Try talking about gay marriage here and folks either become outraged or ignore you altogether. As for Bobby’s frustration with the talk about marriage here, I think it’s mainly because that’s the big issue buzzing around these days. I understand his sentiment because I often wonder if too many gays are focused way too much on self-heavy issues.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Anthony, just remember that whoever lowers your taxes and lets you keep your guns is your friend, and whoever does the opposite is your enemy.
Last thing you need is a homophobe that disarms you and taxes you sky high. And a democrat homophobe is the worse, the media lets them get away with everything.
To most people here, gay rights are #1, everything else is #2.
I’m not like that. I care about gay issues but my daily life has gotten me more involved in other issues.
I just hope that if they ever legalize gay marriage, gays won’t be asking for the right to be treated nicely or some bullcrap like that. Then again, it’s the nature of most liberal groups to never be satisfied.
In a way, democrats are the nymphomaniacs of politics. No matter how much you give them, they’re never satisfied.
posted by Anthony on
Yeah, I hear ya. I go through these cycles of being consumed with issues like marriage and hate crimes, etc. Then I come back to the very principles that made me a Republican in the first place – lower taxes, a strong national defense (particularly now), an emphasis on personal responsibility and self initiative and yes, protecting certain values because of the good they provide to our society. I don’t know if you’re gay or not Bobby but I know for myself that I’d like to be treated with respect and an understanding that I have opinions and beliefs that merit at least some level of respect. I’ve been guilty of lashing out at those I disagree with in the past and for that I am sorry. The point to all these discussions and postings is to think aloud and voice your OWN views while not trampling too much on those expressed by others. I do often wonder if most of the posts here aren’t a bit too heavy on gay-specific issues.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
do often wonder if most of the posts here aren’t a bit too heavy on gay-specific issues.
Well, this is the Independent Gay Forum. . . and usually, when some politician or political hack tells me I’m focusing too much on myself or am “too selfish” or whatever, I know he’s planning to introduce some new big government plan which will redistribute wealth and influence from me to some group he prefers.
I’m happy not to talk about gay marriage if the old parties were willing to let people live their lives as they please — however, the old parties are more intent on micromanaging everyone’s lives (to the detriment of many of them) and then getting annoyed when those they hurt exercise their right to demand redress of grievances.
posted by Randy R. on
There are of course other big issues, such as ENDA and DADT, but those are pretty much dead in the water. Why? Because the Republican controlled House and Senate won’t let those bills come up for a vote. If they did, then we could at least have a national dialogue about those issues.
It is not a coincidence that marriage is a STATE issue and why it’s discussed here frequently. Marriage, is not a federal issue! And since there are some states that are friendly to our issues, particularly marriage, gay people are pushing the issue in various states (as the anti-gay are pushing it in others).
So — if you want the topic to change from gay marriage to other pressing issues, such as ENDA and DADT, then vote against those republicans that won’t let congress debate the issue.
Of course, that might mean you have to vote as a gay man, not as a tax cutter….
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Marriage, is not a federal issue
Well, both of the old big-government parties seem to think it is, given their support for DOMA and anti-gay amendments.
you have to vote as a gay man, not as a tax cutter
You say that as though the concepts are mutually exclusive.
The only pro-gay party, the Libertarian Party, is also the only pro-tax-cut party. In order to vote for a pro-gay party, you HAVE to vote for lower taxes.
posted by Bobby on
ENDA is meaningless. If my boss finds out I’m gay tomorrow, he can fire me because 3 weeks ago I came late to work. “At-will” employment means you can get fired for any reason.
If you don’t want to get fired, work for a non-homophobic company. We have no right to force people to be gay friendly.