Virginia Gay Marriage Ban

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports the citizens of Virginia likely will face a referendum on an amendment to their state constitution banning Gay marriage.

(See here) a Washington Blade article that discusses what such a ban might mean for Virginia's Gay community.

I am a resident of Virginia, and I am apt to vote that Virginia join the eighteen other states that have approved state constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The gay community objects to this? The language of the amendment might threaten other "rights" that they currently enjoy? My question is, and just who's fault is this?

If America's national gay community had not set out to test the legality of banning same sex marriages in the courts, efforts to protect traditional marriage would not be necessary. Please note that in every instance I am aware of, referendums to define marriage as between one man and one woman have passed by overwhelming majorities in every state where citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the matter.

The gay community is not content with some of the rights of married couples, time and again they take things to the courts in an effort to be granted all the rights.

Gays claim they are being discriminated against. I guess that is an accurate statement, it is discriminatory. But let us look at convicted felons. In many states convicted felons are denied the right to keep and bear arms or even the right to vote. Is this discriminatory? In my opinion, yes it is, however a good case can be made why this discrimination is good for society. In my opinion, in the same manner, a good argument can be made for why it is good for society to deny the privileges of marriage to gay couples.

Will the Virginia constitutional amendment go too far? Perhaps it will, but I am in agreement that some type of action is necessary. If the gay community was not making this such an issue that the "rest of us" would not have to decide how we are going to vote on referendums like this.

Of course steps like this are only the opening salvo. Eventually a same sex couple with a marriage certificate in a state such as Massachusetts is going to receive a job offer from one of the states that have amendments banning same sex marriage written into their constitutions and then a federal case is going to be made out of it. I am fairly certain of how, now that it seems Alito is going to join the courts, 4 of 9 justices are going to rule on the matter. Only 1 of the remaining 5 will need to join them for the gay community to have their hopes dashed. Remember it used to be Sandra Day O'Connor who was the swing vote, and recent reports are that Justice Anthony M Kennedy is going to often be the new swing vote. Which way will he swing?

My own belief is that America's gay community is jumping the gun. I feel that my own generation is much more tolerant of gays then was my parents' generation. Whenever the issue comes up in my own household it seems that my children's generation is even more tolerant. If the gay community were to just bide their time they might eventually achieve their dreams. However they are impatient and they demand what they claim is justice right now.

By striking prematurely, the gay community even risks seeing a ban on gay marriage incorporated into the federal constitution, and once there, it will be extremely difficult to extract the ban.

By the way, please do not resort to labeling me as a "homophobe" just because I might happen to disagree with your opinion. To see how often this happens, just do a google of blogs with "homophobe" as the search criteria. It is my opinion that the gay community does nothing to further their cause when they resort to calling the majority that disagree with them names.

When the gay community resorts to name calling and refuse to engage in reasonable debate, they only expose themselves as being the bigots they are.


Blogger Michael said...

There are many levels of discrimination. What the homosexual community mean by "discrimination" is that there is no reasonable justification.

There are good reasons why convicted criminals should not own firearms.

The reasons why a gay couple cannot marry is for somewhat more historical reasons. These may not may not be good reasons.

Arguably, there is very little factual reasoning why a homosexual couple cannot be married. What "harm" is there to the community? Is it really so terrible for the community to recognise that homosexual couples can have the same level of devotion to each other as a heterosexual married couple?

Of course, this is about the time that the openly or covertly Christian argument comes into play. To this I counter that the institution of marriage does not belong to the Christian religion. Every religion and society across the globe has had the institution of marriage before the coming of Christ.

We let Buddhists marry each other. We allow mixed race marriages. Divorced people can get married now as well. Denying couples in these situations would now obviously be considered unreasonably discriminatory.

Yes, the Christian church can deny whoever they want from a [b]Christian marriage[/b] if it doesn't meet their standards and criteria. As before though, the institution of marriage belongs to society in general and to the state.

We claim not to discriminate against homosexual people, however, I have yet to see a persuasive argument against gay marriages. Most arguments simply break down to "I don't like it" with varying degrees of layers of sophistication above it.

Michael Tam

2/05/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

Michael, we have been through this before. I still contend that society has the right, yeah even the obligation, to encourage monogamous, heterosexual relationships. While it might be going too far to punish anyone who engages in a homosexual relationship this does not mean society needs to stoop to the level of encouraging relationships that are contrary to evolution.

Please note that I have not once resorted to passages from the Bible while discussing this issue. But you insist on falling back on the invalid arguement that all opposition to homosexuality must come from "that unreasonable Bible". There are valid, reasonable, rational reasons for not encouraging homosexuality. Anyone who refuses to consider these rational points should be called what? I call them bigots. While the anti-homosexual crowd might have our share of bigots, there seems to be more pro-homosexual bigots.

Before anyone starts choking and spitting I would encourage them to look up the definition of the word bigot. After you see the definition I dare you to try and tell me most homosexual activists are not bigots. They are not willing to settle for acceptance, they want encouragement, and that is not good for society.

3/02/2006 02:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home