When I saw how upset (are you people ever not angry about something?) the gay-bashing crowd was about this Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial, I knew it had to be sensible:
Virginia’s amendment ran weakest in the state’s most populous regions. The vote may have come at the right time. Demographics and evolving attitudes suggest an identical amendment submitted in 2010 would confront a more difficult climate…
…Marriage amendments in Virginia and other states will not settle this vexing issue. The federal government, probably through the Supreme Court, will decide. If this is a victory, it may well prove Pyrrhic.
The fact that this amendment would not pass in Virginia in ten years has been confirmed many times over in the words of proponents like the Some Families Foundation’s Victoria Cobb. They have admitted that they could not afford the delay that would have been caused by any change to the wording. They were well aware that if they couldn’t have put it on the ballot in 2006, they might never have had another chance. Now, with the defeat of the Arizona amendment, the party’s over. There was a brief window during which this issue could be leveraged effectively. That window has been closed (although not by Virginia, as we had hoped).
The margin of victory in Virginia fell far short of the 70+% that was initially projected, and the less than 55% that the amendment garnered in Loudoun in particular, home to Mike Farris‘ Patrick Henry College with its army of free campaign labor, must really sting. The truth is that public opinion is shifting on marriage equality, very quickly. The question is not whether this vindictive amendment will be repealed, only how long it will take and how many families will be harmed in the process.
One more contradiction to dispatch: Where amendment proponents were saying before the election that there was nothing to worry about, that nothing is permanent, that if the consequences of the amendment turned out to be bad, it could be amended or repealed, etc, they now are hilariously resistant to the suggestion that amending the constitution need not be permanent. Suddenly, “never means never.”
The truth is that anyone who doesn’t understand that all of these amendments will at some point be nothing but ugly moral stains on their respective constitutions, a source of shame to be symbolically repudiated by a future legislative body as was Massive Resistance and the Eugenics movement, is living in a fantasy world. Richmond War Room has acknowledged the obvious.
With a victory of any margin, the anti-gay right should be happy. Instead, they’re mad. What does that tell you?