“An ugly, mean-spirited assault”

This is how the recent focus of the Virginia General Assembly on the private lives of GLBT people was described in an editorial published Monday.

Was it in the Washington Post? The Connection? Some other mainstream newpaper?

No, it was the ultra-conservative Sun-Gazette, which commonly refers to such papers as “The Washington Post and its social-leftie wannabes in the Northern Virginia community press.”

When an attempt to write anti-gay prejudice into the constitution is too extreme even for the Sun-Gazette, the proponents of that attempt have a problem.

‘No’ on Constitutional Amendment
The Sun-Gazette
October 2, 2006

On principle, we should be in favor of the proposed state constitutional amendment banning so-called “gay marriage.”

Unfortunately, the proposed amendment Virginia voters will be casting ballots on this November is overreaching, ambiguous and clumsily written. This sloppiness has given the amendment’s opponents a great tool: A chance to reach out to moderates and conservatives with the argument that having no amendment is better than having this amendment.

We agree.


For those who are trying so hard to change the subject by demanding that the Commonwealth Coaliton provide its “definition of marriage,” here’s your wake up call. There are as many answers to that question as there are people who oppose Ballot Question #1. Are you starting to get it now?

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.