It’s Official: Virginia is 57% Anti-Gay

Here’s the tally for yesterday’s Virginia State Marriage Amendment voting that denies civil unions, domestic partnerships and any “other arrangement” between same-sex couples that purports to bestow the benefits of marriage:

There you go, 57% of Virginians have permanently denied families of same-sex couples the legal protections and financial stability offered by civil marriage and the lesser benefits that could be achieved through civil unions, domestic partnerships or other forms of legal recognition.

And via a state constitutional amendment too. Like a state law wasn’t enought discrimination.

If you are gay and live in Virginia, let this be a loud a clear call to move north of the Potomac. While Virginia’s anti-gay war continues unabated, DC is way more welcoming to those of the homosexual persuasion.

First off, we kiss you! Then, you can get caught out at Stead or cruised on Match or at the Bling Bling Giant. Hell, we’ll even elect you (or two) to the city council.

So don’t put up with the outright discrimination and underlying hatred, come north, come to DC. We’re so liberal, we have hermaphrodic bass!

16 Comments so far

  1. kat (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 8:26 am

    I voted against this hateful ammendment. I’m not surprised though that it passed through considering Virgnia’s voting record against gays. Also not only does this law effect homosexual couples, but unmarried heterosexual couples as well. Does this mean Virginia does not recognize common law marriage?

    Oh well, I guess the insurance companies and domestic abusers are happy this passed.

    Ugh, should have stayed in DC.


  2. IntangibleArts (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 9:02 am

    …i assumed nazi scumbaggery was out of style… how naive of me. Change those t-shirt slogans: Virginia is for Haters.


  3. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 9:16 am

    I am disappointed, but not remotely surprised. This was a clear shot across the bow of Northern Virginia, and a slap against a class of highly productive tax-paying folks, gay and straight who choose to opt into non-marriage relationships.

    The time to secede from the rest of Virginia is now. Our values are so drastically different on a number of issues, and we shouldn’t let Richmond and Roanoke rule us in Arlington & Alexandria.


  4. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 9:19 am

    I am disappointed, but not remotely surprised. This was a clear shot across the bow of Northern Virginia, and a slap against a class of highly productive tax-paying folks, gay and straight who choose to opt into non-marriage relationships.

    The time to secede from the rest of Virginia is now. Our values are so drastically different on a number of issues, and we shouldn’t let Richmond and Roanoke rule us in Arlington & Alexandria.


  5. CY (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 10:11 am

    There seems to be a lot of hatred in the responses here and it is disheartening. While it is OK to disagree with people, calling them Nazi-scumbags is deplorable. Instead of labeling people as “anti-gay” or “nazis” why not try to understand how they feel. Why not try to open up a rational discussion about it? Or do you just want to vent? If so I’ll leave you alone.


  6. Kat (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 10:24 am

    Yes, it is about venting, but I really want to know why someone would vote yes to this ammendment. Have you read the entire ammendment and not just the first few sentences?


  7. JR (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 10:36 am

    Colorado also passed a state *constitutional* amendment – which further underlined the state law that marriage is to be defined as the union between one man and one women.

    On top of that, a referendum was voted down which would have amended the state law to offer eligible, committed same-gender couples some additional rights and responsibilities, including the rights to visit one another in hospital; plan funeral services for each other; and provide access to family health and life insurance plans.


  8. Mike (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 10:41 am

    It looks like a similar amendment will fail in Arizona. Virgina — One step behind the state that refused for years to recognize the martin luther king holiday!

    CY, sorry if some of the responses aren’t politically correct enough for you, but I don’t see how this vote could be classified as being anything other than anti-gay.


  9. Don (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 11:15 am

    That’s really just laughable. Now that the anti-marriage crowd has gotten what they want with a constitutional amendment to shore up an existing anti-marriage law… it’s time for a rational dialog and an attempt at understanding how they feel?

    Exactly what about how they feel is supposedly beyond my understanding, Cy? They think they own the word marriage and what it means to them is what it should mean to everyone. I get it.

    They think there’s some sort of threat to their own marriages if Adam and Steve get to tie the knot. I get it. I don’t have the slightest understanding how that would supposedly happen, but I get it.

    They think that gay marriage coming to pass – no matter how improbable given the current situation in Virginia – is the start of some slippery slope that’ll lead to more acceptance and rights for homosexuals. I get it. I don’t know that they’re right, and I don’t see it as a problem if they are, but I get it.

    Nobody over here on the pro-marriage side of the fence fails to understand the concerns and beliefs over there, Cy. We don’t share them and some of us think they’re close-minded and similar to attitudes about mixed-race marriages in the previous century, but we understand them and despite some loud-mouthed folks, most of us are willing to let them think what they want so long as they leave our friends and family alone.

    Except they’re not leaving them alone, they’re going out of their way to drum up legislation and constitutional amendments. So I’m not real interested in hearing any more about how they feel. I’m well aware of it. I’m just interested in stopping them from forcing me to behave exclusively in such a way that conforms to how they feel.

    Anyone who finds the idea of a gay marriage unpleasant is perfectly welcome to not have one.


  10. chris (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 11:28 am

    CY, calling them anti-gay seems to fit pretty well. What else would you call them?


  11. Tipped_out (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 11:41 am

    Do we know how the numbers break down? Can we assume that most of those in opposition are located south of I-66, with the exception of Charlottesville? It is sad that those people see the issue as a religious issue, instead of an socio-economic and legal one. This elitism amongst the breeders to have marriage as their own is about spreading less of the charity to others – ie. a single person pays more for health insurance than someone with a family and thus, when you pay for family coverage, you are getting “volume” discount, as the cost is spread amongst x number of heads.

    What if this family has two mothers and children? They would have to pay more because the health insurance coverage would not cover both mothers, as they are not recognized as a legally joined entity, but as two separate people with one of them having to pay her own health insurance. This would not be the case if the family had one mother and one father.

    This comes down to economics.


  12. Kat (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 11:52 am

    Don,

    Actually anti-miscengenation laws were in the books as late as 1968. I’m in a mixed race marriage and seeing the arguments against gay marriage is almost the same. It’s unnatural, it will destroy the institution of marriage. Virtually no property or civil rights for the “colored” partner.

    If we’re using religion they should try reading the New Testament. Jesus said the 2 greatest commandments is 1.) To love God with all your heart and with all your soul. 2.) To love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    It does say only your straight married neighbor. It’s preaching tolerance to everyone. Apparently those fundamentalists are not true Christians.


  13. Kat (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 11:54 am

    Whoops I mean it does NOT say only your straight or married neighbor.


  14. Doug (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 1:57 pm

    I’m with Tom on this one. We have a North and South Carolina, why not Virginia? It’ll never happen, but you gotta have dreams…


  15. Don (unregistered) on November 8th, 2006 @ 3:56 pm

    Kat – 1968 was indeed the previous century. :)


  16. Doug (unregistered) on November 16th, 2006 @ 7:11 am

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