And Virginia’s Anti-Gay War Continues..

While the The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law reports that Virginia is 4% gay (NoVA is 7%, DC, 8%), a new poll by the Washington Post reports that 53% of Virginia voters say they would back a same-sex marriage ban. A same sex marriage & civil union ban that would constitutionally deny legal rights to gay couples in any type of contract.

(As an aside, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is now bringing that pain home to the House – former Mass. Rep. Gerry Studds’s widower male spouse Dean Hara, cannot collect on Studds’ pension.)

Same sex marriage ban or not, Virginia continues to repress in ways many and small. Last week Manassas joined the anti-gay by denying an application for a home-based massage therapy business.

While that in of itself wouldn’t be much, according to the WashPost, the Manassas City Council has received two applications for home-based massage therapy businesses in the past three years, approving both, until Howard Daniel, who is gay, applied.

After nearly two dozen people protested, none who live on his street or even in his neighborhood, but are affiliated with Manassas’s All Saints Catholic Church, the council members balked and voted instead to consider changing the city’s zoning laws.

No word if Mr. Daniel balked at living with such small-mindedness, and got smart, moving north of the Potomac.

16 Comments so far

  1. CY (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

    Supporting legislation that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman does not make a person antigay.

  2. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    So, what would it make the individual involved, Cy?

  3. Mike (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 3:10 pm


  4. wayan (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

    Tom, Cy isn’t anti-gay, he’s anti-gay marriage – you can be a gay drag queen for all he cares, just as long as you’re sleeping around, fornicating with anything that moves.

    Its the stable, committed, minding their own business, family-type gays that Cy doesn’t like.

  5. Chris (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

    Ive never actually met somebody that is opposed to gay people getting married. CY, if you come back on to this thread, could you explain why there is such opposition to it, just for my knowledge.

  6. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

    I concur with Chris, Cy hasn’t espoused any point of view except that you can be focused on marriage without being anti-gay, and I’d like to know how…

  7. CY (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:03 pm

    Man and woman were created to compliment each other both in their physical and psychological construction. Without the use of artificial or outside means it is not possible for two people of the same sex to make a new human life. Furthermore, I reject the notion of polygamy which would also be banned by this initiative.

    Please don’t see this as an attack on people with same sex attractions, I have no doubt that they experience tremendous difficulties that I cannot understand, still I feel very strongly that to act on those feelings is wrong.

    Let me pose some questions to you. Is incest OK; “consensual” sexual relationships between children and adults? If you feel that they are can you articulate why, or is it just because you have an innate understanding of right and wrong?

    Still, I respect your right to your opinion even though I disagree with it. Perhaps we can all settle this like gentlemen on Nov. 7th.

  8. wayan (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:23 pm


    1. we are created and have sex only to reproduce

    2. acting on gay feelings is wrong

    3. somehow incest is related to gay adults trying to legalize marriage

    Yeah, you’re not anti-gay, Cy, not at all.

  9. Chris (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

    So marriage is all about reproduction? If a man finds out he’s sterile before he marrys a woman, should the whole deal be cancelled?

    “Consensual” relationships between a child and an adult? There’s no comparison to gay marriage here.

  10. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

    Wait. How is same-sex attraction suddenly linked to incest?

  11. CY (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

    Wayan, please see my responses to your questions.

    1. The physical act of love is both to create new life and to deepen the marital bond between a husband and a wife.

    2. Yes.

    3. I asked a rhetorical question so perhaps you could see my point of view. Perhaps if you have a “gut feeling” that incest, polygamy, and sexual relations between adults and children is wrong then you could understand my “gut feeling” about same sex marriage.

    Finally, name calling is not appropriate in a civil discussion. I have not debased you by labeling you as anything, In the future I hope you will extend me the same courtesy. People are much more than their sexuality or opinions on certain issues. It is demeaning to the dignity of the human person to categorize a person based on one issue.

  12. Mike (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

    So being physically and phychologically complementary of one another should be a government-mandated prerequisite for marriage? If that’s the case I know of a lot of marriages that should end right now.

  13. jgregory (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 5:36 pm

    My turn…

    OK, Cy lost me at the first sentence because I’m not on the “belief” train that man and woman are “created”. And just because biologically they are compatible for reproduction doesn’t validate that sex is only for reproduction or that sex doesn’t offer something more to relationships and the community. It is bonding, connecting, rewarding, meaningful. (In my case infrequent, so maybe marriage would help).

    Coupled relationships are more than about child rearing, both gay and straight. Ironically I’m a single father. I’m not in a couple, but I am raising a child…one that was being neglected and harmed. Now he’s healthy and beaming. He doesn’t ask if I’m straight or gay when I feed him, or pay for his doctor bills, or get him to school, or when I work nights to make sure I can keep him in good pre-K classes. He just knows I love him. The community just knows he’s cared for and better.

    As to the “attack,” there is no other way to see the sincere but seemingly arrogant “experiencing tremendous difficulties” as anything but condescending defamation — even when it is niced up with “please don’t see this….” About what “difficulties” does he speak? The only difficulties I’ve seen are that of gay men and women have to deal with prejudice, discrimination, and other people’s fears. Everything else they seem to share with their straight counterparts: joy, ignorance, anger, infidelity, love, hope, stupidity, on and on. I have loving friends, loving family, a loving religious community, parents, grandparents, and plain old neighborhood relationships that have nothing to do with orientation. The two guys up the block make as much of a contribution to our neighborhood as anyone.

    For me the distinction about the marriage is that it traditionally has been a religious expression of a personal commitment….and should be allowed to continue that way. If a church doesn’t want to marry people, great. Let them get on whatever belief train they want. However, as a resident in a secular community everyone should have the same rights in pursing their happiness and contributing back to society. It is a fairness issue, not a religious one.

    When I was in “adoption” court with my son and parents listening to the Judge decree that he and I were now a legal family with all the same rights as any biological birth might bestow, it felt great to know my community validated us. Not that we needed it. We had months earlier discovered ourselves as father, son, and family. But knowing the community supported us was inclusive and respectful of our contribution. Gay couples deserver no less than the same secular benefits as straight couples because theirs is the same contribution. The three out of four gay families on our block have kids. Plus, there is a long history that gay relationships can be as meaningful or as fraught with failure as straight relationships.

    As to the usual canards, incest doesn’t work because someone gets hurt. Incestuous relationships do not thrive. They eventually rot. There are no cultures where incest ultimately benefited the community and the individuals (outside a few royalty). Children can’t “consent” or they’d be little adults, this is why as a community we protect them until they are adults and they then can make choices on their own.

    Cy can have his beliefs. That is his right. I support his ability to hold them and hold them deeply. But I do not have to respect an individual belief as true or worthy of limiting everyone unless it is based on something more than a feeling or old dogma. Vermont has not crumbled. The UK has not crumbled. Relationships are part of the fabric of culture, both gay and straight.

  14. Don (unregistered) on October 18th, 2006 @ 7:04 pm

    My feeling that sex between adults and children is wrong is not a “gut” feeling, it’s a very evolved belief that sex between people where one is unable or incompetent to give consent – say, when one is drugged or underaged – is wrong.

    Comparing non-consensual relations to homosexual contact, no matter how much you might find it unappealing or wrong because of the teachings of your church, is insulting to homsexuals and to the intelligence of those of us who read it.

    Personally I find the idea of a gay marriage unappealing, thus I choose not to enter into one.

  15. Jm94 (unregistered) on October 19th, 2006 @ 11:54 am

    As Robin Williams says in “Man of the Year”
    “Same sex marriage, anyone who has ever been married knows that it’s always the same sex”

    Tension breaker, had to be done.

  16. Jamie (unregistered) on November 2nd, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

    If marriage can be construed as being the joining of two, committed persons in a monogamous relationship, then how does incest not fit that description? How about two brothers or two sisters? There would certainly be no possibility of procreation. So what’s the big deal? Who am I to tell consenting adults who they can love? Live and let live is my motto.

    Also, why is 2 such a magic number? Why not three or four persons deciding to share their lives together? Feminist are against it because they say it devalues women, but what’s stopping 3 women from marrying? How about 4 men? The more the merrier. As gay marriage proponents are always so fond of saying, “how does it affect MY marriage?”

    Taking this a step further, why shouldn’t a man be allowed to marry his dog? After all, they aren’t necessarily required to have sex, only to love and be committed to each other. A lot of dog owners certainly fit that description. Who can deny that a dog can be committed to its owner? Besides, how does it affect MY marriage if the man down the street marries his dog?

    Hey, let’s just make everyone happy. Why not lower the age of consent to 11 or 12 then pedophiles can share in maritial bliss too. It certainly wouldn’t affect MY marriage.

    Please don’t talk about marriage tradition. I’m am now convinced that talk of traditon and morality are outdated. We are the strongest and wisest generation that ever existed so why give any credence to what our ancestors believed? Just because some old dusty Bible, Koran, or Torah prohibits something doesn’t mean I should.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.