Yes, Virginia, we’re everywhere

It looks like other Virginia bloggers have noticed that Some Families Foundation alert.

Too Conservative for the most part gets it. The specious implication that opponents of the anti-civil union constitutional amendment are non-religious, the ideological blindness that is causing this wing of the Republican party to alienate potential voters, and the hypocrisy of those calling themselves Christians who single out the GLBT community for bashing are all glaring examples of what’s wrong with the politics of the anti-gay right.

We know that among our readers, there are quite a few who would be active in the Republican party for fiscal and other reasons if they didn’t get the message loud and clear that they are excluded because of their sexual orientation. Thanks for trying to talk some sense into the destructive extremists in your party, TC. It’s worth a try.

On the other hand, Two Conservatives has a post up that exclusively focuses on the “Sunday-during-church” meme that is so prominent in the SFF alert. There’s a self-congratulatory tone about this analysis, as if the author thinks he has discovered something of great significance in the fact that Equality Virginia canvassers would do outreach on a Sunday – namely that EV is selectively targeting “non-churchgoers.”

It probably hasn’t occurred to him that only some Equality Virginia supporters will be doing this outreach. At the same time, many more of us will be in church, sharing our lives with the other “churchgoers” who will be voting against any mean-spirited – and dare we say un-Christian – attempts to harm our families and drive us from our communities.

When members of the anti-gay right try to analyze and explain how we advocate for ourselves, their accusations tell us a great deal about their own activities – in this case, that they intend to selectively “target churchgoers.” But we already knew that.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

What’s that smell?

Not Larry Sabato is taking predictions on the outcome of the constitutional amendment against single people.

The consensus seems to be that 1) People will vote for it to the extent that they don’t understand what it says, and 2) People will be too stupid or lazy to understand what it says, resulting in a landslide passage.

This analysis simply extrapolates the results from the 2004 election and assumes they can and will be replicated. It fails to take into account the two years that have elapsed since other states adopted almost identical amendments. Something has been growing in the petri dish of those states for two years, and it is not pretty. Ohio, Michigan and Utah are all currently embroiled in lawsuits over the scope of their amendments, with a ruling in Ohio just last Friday that unmarried victims are not eligible for protection under domestic violence law.

This is not a science project that Virginians want to see two years from now. Reliable polling data demonstrates this without a doubt, and defeating this amendment requires simply letting voters know about the amendment (most people don’t) and what the amendment itself says. This has the Some Families Foundation in hysterics:

This Sunday, while you are attending church, homosexual activists in Hampton Roads will be going door to door in neighborhoods working to undermine marriage. While you worship God, Equality Virginia, the state’s leading anti-marriage organization, will be knocking on doors trying to convince people that supporting traditional marriage is bigoted and hateful..

..While November may seem far away, the fight over how the next generation will define marriage is well underway. Make no mistake, homosexual activists are mobilized and are highly motivated to defeat marriage at the ballot on November 7. We cannot take for granted that “conservative” Virginia will follow the 19 other states that have voted in favor of marriage. [emphasis added]

Comical language usage aside, the anti-gay right is counting on their ability to fool voters with a bald-faced lie, not really the best position to be in. They are pretending that the amendment only consists of its first paragraph – but voters can see for themselves what the full text says, and that it actually takes away the ability of the legislature to allow civil unions and other arrangements in accordance with the will of the people. Also, the specific reference above to “the next generation” is no accident. The anti-gay right is well aware of the generation gap on this issue, and they are frantic to deny the next generation the right to choose for itself.

This amendment actually creates a tremendous opportunity to mobilize justice-minded voters who might not otherwise bother. No offense to the pundits, but there is such a thing as paradigm shift. Candidates should take note.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Sign of the Times

We are fascinated by the idea suggested by the person this writer is responding to, that churches should keep their views on marriage “inside their church.” That’s not at all a bad idea. It’s a little late for that, though, given that certain churches have insisted that their views ought to be inserted into our Constitution. Stay tuned.

Observer
By John Shea, Reston

I was waiting to write until it was closer to the November election when Virginians will have a chance to choose whether the role of government is to protect individual rights or deny them. But Charles Brown’s letter to the editor (“Church Should Keep Views Inside,” The Reston Observer March 17) compelled me to speak out now.

He is offended by a sign in front of a church stating “marriage is a civil right” and argues that marriage is a “biological issue.” Does anyone marry for the sole purpose of making babies? I hope not. Marriage is primarily about the union of two souls, not body parts.

I give Mr. Brown credit for supporting civil unions. But why does he complain about this sign and say nothing about so many other signs advocating a philosophical point of view? Why does he take it so personally and feel the sign is trying to blame him for something? Why does it bother him so much he wants a constitutional amendment? Doesn’t he realize that the proposed amendment to the Virginia constitution will not only define marriage as between a man and woman, but will also ban civil unions? I don’t understand how someone who supports civil unions can care so much about the legal definition of marriage. To make a legal distinction between the two actually perpetuates having separate classes of couples in this country, the self-proclaimed leader of the free world.

Continue reading

Posted in Advocacy, Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sign of the Times

Harry Parrish

Delegate Harry Parrish of Manassas passed away yesterday at the age of 84.

Delegate Parrish was a decent, fair-minded man. Sometimes this put him on the business end of right wing attacks. One memorable radio ad from the 2005 primary featured a whiny voiced woman exclaiming “Harry Parrish voted to allow homosexuals to get insurance benefits, just like a husband and wife would get!”

Indeed he did, and he went on to win that election. He will be missed. Our condolences go out to his family, friends and colleagues. Here are some further thoughts from one of his colleagues, Delegate Kris Amundson.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Harry Parrish

Ohio domestic violence law excludes unmarried people

Dayton Daily News
March 26, 2006
by Amelia Robinson

County prosecutors in Dayton, Ohio are now prohibited from enforcing the state’s domestic violence laws if the involved parties are not married. The appeals court for the 2nd District finds that such enforcement is in conflict with Ohio’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning the recognition of unmarried relationships. That amendment is strikingly similar to one that will be on the ballot in Virginia in November.

Regarding the Ohio amendment:

The amendment says the state cannot “create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the … effect of marriage.” [emphasis added]

But the appellate court said the state’s domestic violence law, which includes protection for “a person living as a spouse,” conflicts with the amendment.

“The state or any subdivision shall not recognize these unions,” said Greene County Common Pleas Judge Stephen Wolaver, the trial judge who dismissed the charges against Ward.

Montgomery County assistant public defender Michael R. Pentecost predicted Saturday that the appeal’s court decision also will limit the ability of unmarried people to get domestic violence protection orders. State lawmakers may have to amend the law, he said.

“The people who backed this amendment were not thinking about these types of unintended consequences,” Pentecost said. “They got so overzealous.”

Update: ChangeServant has posted an excerpt from the decision that exposes both the consequences of the amendment language, and the intent. It goes on to illustrate that there is no logical stopping point for determining what, exactly, the “design, significance, effects, etc., of marriage” are. That excerpt, in part:

This appeal concerns the issue of whether the provision in the domestic violence statute extending the protections of that criminal statute to “a person living as a spouse” offends the Defense of Marriage amendment to the Ohio Constitution adopted by the voters in 2004 because it recognizes “a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the effect of marriage.”

We conclude that it does.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Sometimes, nothing but sarcasm will do

Virginia Centrist wonders what we should do if the constitutional amendment against single people passes; it involves “torches and pitch forks.”

We think he’s being a little too pessimistic about the degree to which Virginians are getting fed up with the incessant gay-bashing, and the possibility that they might, just this once, drag themselves to a polling place to say so.

What do you all think?

Posted in Commentary | Tagged | 2 Comments

Being Gay in Virginia

Burke Connection
March 23, 2006
By Kelly Schlageter, Vienna

As another Virginia General Assembly comes to a close, I ask myself again why I choose to live in Virginia. The attacks on me and my community came from all angles, attempting to prevent me from adopting, having my own children, and marrying the person I have chosen to share my life with, just to name a few.

And yet I choose to stay. In fact, my partner and I are adding on to our home in Fairfax County so that it will grow with our family and be a comfortable place for us to live for a long time to come.

It is sometimes hard to reconcile the difference between the experiences I have on a daily basis and the hateful bantering that ensues on the floor of the General Assembly about my life.

But the truth is, the discriminatory spirit of many legislators doesn’t match the spirit of my interactions. I work for a large Fortune 500 company headquartered in Fairfax County. My colleagues know that I am a lesbian and frequently offer their support, and their incredulity at the antics being played out in our houses of law. I sit on the Fairfax County Commission on Organ and Tissue Donation, and my colleagues there treat me with respect and understanding. My neighbors are glad to have us close by and invite us to summer picnics, help us chop up wood and we mutually borrow the random cup of sugar. My book club often spends the first hour of our monthly meetings discussing the anti-gay legislation being debated by our lawmakers. They offer their support and their condolences.

But lawmakers have chosen to listen, not to my colleagues, neighbors, friends and family, but to the far right extremes who have managed to convince some that my relationship is a threat to marriage; that making sure I am unable to protect my family – for perpetuity – is more important than transportation, education, taxes, or any of the other pressing issues of our time.

And yet, we will stay here and fight this amendment, because I believe that fair-minded people in Fairfax County will see that this attempt by lawmakers to distract us from real issues only serves to destroy the real moral fabric of our society. I believe the amendment prohibiting any and all legal recognition of my family that will be on the ballot in November will fail once Virginians see that I am not a threat. Rather, my relationship adds to the fabric of my society, and my county. I believe that good, solid, happy relationships make our society stronger, and I believe that the people of Fairfax County will agree.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Being Gay in Virginia