« Warner of the Week | Main | I'm Perplexed- Updated »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200d834a70b4d53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference YES LEADS BY 18:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If you dont like it GET OUT

BDM

Clarify the yes. Is this for the marriage ammendment?

Not Larry Sabato

Yes.

Not Huey Long

What an improvement on George Mason's work!! Why couldn't he have thought about such eloquent discrimination?

Mason Conservative

You think the founders would have supported gay marriage?

Mason Conservative

I wonder what the breakdown is of supporters of this to Allen's support? If this wins big, is there a chance Webb could beat Allen?

DukieDem

I think the founders wouldn't have approved of a lot of the things our country has done in the last 232 years. Frankly I don't give a damn what they would say about giving people the right to enter into civil unions.

And if we're going to play the founding fathers game, have Felix read Jefferson's articles on the seperation of church and state and the role of science in society. If TJ knew that someone claiming to be his ideological heir was embracing radical religion (Pat Robertson) and rejecting science (stem cell bill), he'd probably beat him with his cowboy boots.

Not Huey Long

I believe its an abomination for this generation to revise sacred text based on a political agenda. I'm for protecting our existing rights and not limiting them for an ephemeral election issue.

hrconservative

I am hoping this continues. Confusion is coming though by opponents of the bill.

charles

DukieDem, if you think Jefferson would have even imagined a federal government spending money for ANY medical research, you need to read those documents you suggest Allen look at.

Banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research wasn't about thwarting science, it was about the use of tax dollars for research that involve acts that a fair number of taxpayers find offensive.

Before someone inaccurately compares this to funding a war effort, war is a legitimate and necessary function of the federal government, while embryonic stem cell research isn't.


NHL, the Virginia Constitution is to be sure a fine document, but not only has it been revised many times in it's history, it is hardly a "sacred text".

Not Larry Sabato

I have to demand, anyone who is calling this "sacred text" or anything like it.... have you ever READ the VA constitution???

Not Huey Long

Article 1 reads "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

And you want to add the marriage amendment to this statement? Shame.

brimur

This shows that it is not a hopeless task to work against the passage of this hateful amendment. This election is going to be a real turnout election.

Anyone interested in helping, should go to http://www.votenova.org/ and find out more.

Outside Observer

Somebody fill me in...I know there was a movement in the General Assembly to get the full amendment text inserted into the ballot question. Did that pass?

The full amendment text is much more broad and effects more people (including unmarried hetero couples) than what this pollster asked in their question.

So to be at 38% NO with basically the worst possible phrasing of the question is not bad in my opinion.

GinterParked

Fine post, Ben. Mason-Dixon does a lovely poll. Damn shame they only asked one-third of the question.

As you'll learn at http://www.votenova.org/node/204, the Commonwealth Coalition has been polling this issue since long before either Mr. Mason or Ms. Dixon got out of bed. What's interesting is that in the baseline poll, conducted last summer, the CC (in a poll led by Jim Gilmore pollster Tony Fabrizio) asked the same question as M-D. And got nearly the same result.

Last month, the CC and Fabrizio asked a larger sample of likely voters, with a smaller margin of error what they thought about the *actual* wording of the amendment. The results? The 23% "lead" for yes from 2005 was eliminated, leaving the yes vote at under 50%.

We know what we need to do, and we know that if we do it, the amendment will fail. Voters who know what they're voting for are opposed to this ham-handed attempt to marginalize all unmarried relationships.

Virginia voters, this year, for the first time, will have the full text of an amendment printed on the ballot. Apart from the fact that they're simply lazy (and cheap... after all, reading the entire ballot question lengthens the call, and increases the cost of the poll), shouldn't we expect more from such an august polling firm?

Who cares about giving homosexuals special rights? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Not Huey Long

It's not about giving homosexuals "special rights". It's about preserving existing rights and not codifying discrimination into our Constitution!

Vivian J. Paige

Ginter Parked is absolutely correct. M-D is normally a good polling firm but I'm quite surprised that they did not include the full text of the amendment in their polling.

Outside Observer

Ummm 10:23pm, nobody is trying to give anyone any "special rights."

This is amendment is about saving the few rights unmarried couples and families (both straight and gay) currently have.

Outside Observer

Everyone interested in defeating this amendment should go to www.votenova.org and request a bumper sticker!

I typically question the general effectiveness of campaign bumper stickers, but I think this campaign is an exception.

I have found my bumper sticker to be a great conversation starter about the amendment and its great chance to EDUCATE people on the actual wording of the amendment.

I want to see more "Vote No, Virginia" stickers around town!

With a few angry people trying to use activist judges to legalize homo-sex "marriage", isn't building in protections into the state Constitution a good idea?

Not Huey Long

Sacred (secular defintions): 1) highly valued and important, 2) worthy of respect; venerable.

NLS...so you're saying the VA Bill of Rights which was the model of the US Bill of Rights doesn't fall under these criteria?

GinterParked

10:35: ROTFLMAO. Dude, we've about struck out lately on the whole activist judge, gay agenda thing. Tell you what... if there's anyone who reads this blog who thinks that Leroy Hassell is going to wake up one day and decide to sanction same-sex marriage, I'll literally bet the farm. Ben can hold the deed of trust.

Give me a break.

The amendment is quite straightforward: only one and one woman can create a marriage. The government shall not grant special rights for other people who are in "partnerships".

Homosexuals can still have parternships, but just no extra benefits (which they don't really need since contracts and powers of attorney can easily solve these needs).

Vivian J. Paige

Anon 10:43 - the issue of partnerships is up in the air due to the broad nature of the second part of the amendment. And not just relationship partnerships. Take a look at the VoteNo.org site and see the concerns of Norfolk's Retail Alliance regarding business partnerships.

Activist judges have attempted to legalize homo-sex marriage in several states. This is well known. Majority of Americans oppose these activist judges. The activists who tried to circumvent the will of the people have only themselves to blame for majority trying to protect their interests via a constitutional amendment. Look (espeically at national polls) before you leap!

GinterParked

Let me tell you a story. In 1987, I met the man who would later become my partner, who I'll call Adam. At the time, he was dealing with the fact that his partner, who I'll call Steve, was hospitalized, in a coma, after a serious auto accident. Neither had signed an advance medical directive (or medical power of attorney as they were called at the time).

Steve's parents and brother kept Adam from the hospital, and forced the liquidation of their jointly-owned real estate, all while Steve was in a coma. Would a power of attorney have prevented this? Perhaps. Will the language of the Marshall-Newman amendment give mean-spirited relatives additional ammunition to challenge valid legal documents? Absolutely.

If you're in favor of the right of Virginians to make their own decisions, and to document them in powers of attorney, then you need to vote against this amendment.

As a lawyer, I can guarantee you that if this amendment passes, I will make a shload of bucks defending constitutional challenges to powers of attorney.

Maybe karma works... for me anyway.

Not Huey Long

I once again bring up the language of Article 1 (10:15). How can an amendment exist when it intentionally contradicts the original article? If someone can tell me how the proposed amendment fits in with the orignial language, then you're one helluva whacky constitutional scholar.

Insider

Here we go again.

Ready for the left to insult voters by saying they don't know what they're voting about?

Power of Attorney is *not* threatened by this. This is lawyer fear mongering.

Too Conservative

It is a horrible, horrible amenedment.

I will most likely vote no.

11:03... Nope, this isn't lawyer fear-mongering. This is a lawyer giving you a promise you can take to the bank.

Here's another. I *promise* you that on the first occaision after the Marshall-Newman amendment becomes a part of the Virginia Constitution, I will use the amendment to challenge Virginia's domestic violence laws.

Look, I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm primarily a criminal defense lawyer, and I like it. One of the things I like the most is making certain that my clients - most of whom are guilty - are nonetheless given every opportunity to defend themselves against the power of the state.

So, take this to the bank. This lawyer, and the thousands of others around the state who defend accused domestic assaulters, each will be taking advantage of the opportunity to explot the Marshall-Newman amednment for our clients' benefit.

Will it work? I don't know, you don't either, and our activist judges aren't issuing advisory opinions.

TCO

How about an amendment to sterilize all lawyers?

GinterParked

TCO... the thought's crossed my mind. Probably Bob McDonnell's, too, if he recalls. The 11:12 post was mine, btw... my cookie must have lapsed.

Is that ALL that question 1 will ask? No.

Is that ALL that the pollster asked? If so, it is a poll designed for a specific answer.

Is Too Conservative a fag?

Mason Conservative,

In answer to your first question - no.

But then again, they thought it was okay to keep black people as slaves. So I'd say that sometimes their moral compass was just a "tad" askew.

Too Conservative

anon-

no.

if the amendment said "marriage is between a man and a woman" id vote for it.

but all this other stuff is hore shit

thegools

Years ago, I heard an interview with a man who in his youth had spent a lot of time interviewing former American slaves. It was the 1930's. During one interview with an old man who had been a slave as a young man, the interviewer said something about how "he thought the Gov't should give the blacks (in the south) the right to vote."

To that the former slave responded, with a bit of pity (for the interviewer), that the gov't could not give blacks that "right." They already had it. It was only that the ability to vote was being denied by a series of descriminatory laws and practices. "We already have the right."

....................
What kind of liberty is protected by this law?

Geoff

This amendment is being used by both sides to increase turnout of their bases -- but more so by Republicans than Democrats. You can see it at local events. The Republicans hang giant signs on their booths telling people to vote yes; meanwhile, the Democrats just have literature available if people happen to walk by.

George

TC supports gay marriage??

I didn't realize that "his ideological side" was that liberal.

Not Larry Sabato's Lawnboy

Yo Holmes it passed in oregon it will pass here

Not Frank Hargrove

Maybe too conservative is not the homophobic idiot that most of his brethren are. And as far as Insider's earlier post: "Here we go again. Ready for the left to insult voters by saying they don't know what they're voting about?", I think its pretty damn obvious that quite a few are ignorant of the big picture. They vote to ban abortions, get prayer in schools, and stick it to the queers and all they get in the end is tax cuts for the rich. As far as this war shit goes, I do not have the 2 or 3 hours it would take for me to discuss the origins and execution of Bush's anti-terrorist agenda as it relates to Iraq. So all of you smart and dumb conservatives, follow your leaders into the abyss. Too bad they are taking all of us with them.
PS: Shout out to GinterParked and "Adam"!

VoteNOVa

“I’m really concerned about the unintended consequences of hasty government action, worrying about a perceived problem that has not yet occurred, and then doing something that ends up being untoward.”

Senator George Allen

He was talking about internet neutrality, but could just as easily been talking about the proposed Marshall/Newman Amendment.

Voters who read the whole thing (unlike those polled by Mason Dixon) get that this proposal is a Pandora's box that will unleash unintended (?) consequences, intrude the government further into our private lives (your guns might be next) and write discrimination into the constitution.

That's why when a pollster actually reads those polled the question that will be on the ballot, support falls below 50%. More at www.voteNOva.org.

DukieDem

1.Bravo goes to Vince on reading the amendment.
2. This amendment is Allen's last trick in the bag if we hit October and Webb's creeping up. I know that Webb still has a long way to go before we get to that point, but if Webb does make it close, Allen will call him a homosexual.

GinterParked

Yo Lawnboy. *It* might have passed in Oregon, but *It* isn't on the ballot in Virginia.

The full text of the Oregon amendment read:

"It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

Now, if Bob Marshall and Steve Newman had kept it at that instead of jonesing over wrecking every unmarried relationship in Virginia, the amendment would likely pass.

But, instead, they ginned up a load of crap which offends even conservative Virginians, blackmailed their collegues and railroaded the State Board of Elections.

Pay close attention to which side in this election encourages the voters to read the amendment. I'll be interested to hear your argument that reading, and understanding, is somehow a plot to mislead voters.

Too Conservative

I do not support gay marriage.

I support civil unions, as does president bush.

this amendment will pass because no one knows what it says.

republitarian

I find this amusing!!!!!!

Liberals are constantly trying to change "sacred" documents...usually, however, it's by court orders and bad rulings from the bench.

Now when the conservatives try to change it, these same liberals are up in arms screaming that it shouldn't be changed. What happened to majority rules and the will of the people?

The marriage amendment numbers will mirror Allen's numbers.

What does that tell you?

novamiddleman

I am sure you know this republitarian but the political parties are built on coalitions not consistentcy it is rather humerous

We need the numbers on African Americans and the amendment

Finally, the wording states everything from that text I would have said Yes to the poll but I am no against the amendment.

Sophrosyne

Those interested in supporting the Marriage Amendment should go here:

www.va4marriage.org

Convervatives supporting gay marriage laws? Makes sense. Most homosexuals are conservatives.

Not Jack Herrity

Reading the full text of the amendment may change the opinion of those who will stay on a phone line listening to a pollster, but that overstates the potential for "conversion."

When people go to the polls, they will see several candidates, probably a couple of bond issues, and the amendment, full text and all. I can guarantee you that most people are in too much of a hurry to read the full text - or even to grasp its significance.

If I were the Family Foundation, there are two numbers that would give me heartburn: Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. That's where all the people are, and they had better hope Hampton Roads stays above 55%.

NJH

GinterParked

Ben: You know a lot about polling. Let me run this past you.

From today's Daily Press we learn that Brad Coker, Managing Director of Mason-Dixon used only the first sentence of the amendment in his poll "because he considered the rest of the language 'superfluous.'"

As someone who spends his life litigating the meaning of punctuation in the constitution, I find it hard to imagine that the the substantial majority of the wording in this amendment is "superfluous." What do you think? Would you have done that in your own poll?

Virginia Centrist

NJH said it exactly right.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the Commonwealth Coalition convinced 55% of the VA voting population that this amendment was an abomination...a totally offensive assault on women's rights or civil unions or whatever.

EVEN IF they succeeded in convincing that many people that this amendment was bad, 10% of that 55% would still go to the polls and vote for it because they'd glance at it, skim the top part, and just vote yes.

This is hopeless.

Stick a fork in it. The Amendment will pass. Call sensible people "haters" just doesn't work.

Not Jack Herrity

Ginter: If Chief Justice Hassell is not likely to be an activist judge on the issue of gay marriage, what makes you think he'll decide to be an activist judge when you start litigating commas?

Saying there will be litigation is not going to change anyone's mind about this amendment. Litigation is a fact of life, and rarely does it affect anyone's voting behavior. There is litigation over the temperature of hot coffee served at McDonalds and most of us do not lay awake nights worrying about that.

NJH

Not Larry Sabato

Ginter, I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is. If you read the full text over the phone, that is a lot for someone to digest orally. But if you don't, it could change the opinion of some people.

Centrist, I don't think this can fail statewide. Frankly I am shocked it trails in NoVA. Imagine Ken Cuccinelli's reaction if NO carries his district. He might just retire on the spot.

Virginia Centrist

No, that's what I'm saying. It will pass easily, even if CC somehow wins the PR war.

Not Larry Sabato

I'm agreeing Centrist, just pointing out some amusing side stories depending on how it goes.

"digest orally"

NLS, did you really say that?

Just what are you promoting on this site?

Not Larry Sabato

*clears throat*. ha ha ha. I was hoping someone would pick that up. :)

GinterParked

NJH: You're right, litigation is a fact of life. Nonethless, let's contrast what people say they want with what Bob and Steve gave them.

A solid majority of Virginians support an amendment which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I accept that, and if that's what this amendment said, I'd vote against it, but I'd realize the amendment would pass with flying colors. Hell, I'm a Democrat. I'm used to it.

Litigation which followed the passage of such an amendment would be limited to procedural issues and to consideration of US Constitution-based arguments. And, in state court or in any federal litigation reviewed by the 4th Circuit, those claims would fail.

On the other hand, Bob and Steve have given Virginians an amendment which objectively goes beyond what they want (a solid majority of Virginians favor civil unions, for example). Worse, this amendment will not only spawn the easy-to-deal with litigation a simpler amendment would, but will foster reams of lawsuits and challenges of the nastiest sort, pitting family members against one another and threatening the continued enforcement of important criminal laws.

If I was a conservative, I'd be plenty steamed that Bob and Steve gave me this Hobson's choice. The simple solution is for real Virginia conservatives to vote down this amendment, then support the passage of one which actually accomplishes their goal.

I'll still oppose it, but it'll pass without the attendant risk.

James Young

Vince, I certainly hope you've gone to a Conservative college, because your posts on this subject merely demonstrate that you're willing to believe whatever you're fed. Sadly, in this case, it appears that you've bought every piece of Liberal --- to use your phrase --- "hore shit" that you've been fed. Pathetic.

Virginia Centrist

JY:

He supports civil unions. This outlaws them. What's so hard to understand?

Bush/Cheney/much of the Republican Congress support civil unions as well. A majority of the US population supports them.

Not Jack Herrity

Did you just hear Jimmy Young say that Bush was pathetic? Cuz that's what I heard....

NJH

NLS:

Are you trying to tell us something by posting that picture with this story?

GinterParked

Those wacky activist judges (this time wearing wigs)

It seems that a London High Court judge has ruled that the UK is not required to recognize a same-sex marriage between two British subjects solemnized in Canada.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14120003/

The judge went on to note that same-sex relationships are OK by him (a la Seinfeld), just that British tradition mandated a different definition of marriage.

Of course, Parliament decided in 2005 to approve the UK equivalent of civil unions, a move supported by a majority of Britons.

So, plainly, this is another example of an activist judge undermining the will of the people (/snark).

Gotta love the wigs, though.

George Templeton

I have a question about this amendment, because even though I am a conservative, I am on the fence about this.
Why didn't the amendment just say "Marriage will be defined as between one man and one woman and bans the recognition of gay marriage in the Commonwealth of Virginia." Why was all that other stuff put in. Is it not possible that a judge in Virginia could interpret the second part of an amendment in such a way as to invalidate most agreements between two adults?

Not Jack Herrity

George, a good lawyer can drive a truck through just about any legislation that comes out of the General Assembly. That's just the way it is. Still, I'm not convinced the Virginia Supreme Court or the federal 4th Circuit would take an expansive view of the amendment since both are fairly conservative courts.

The reason all the other language was put in the amendment is because (in a nutshell) uber-conservatives were worried about gay rights groups making an end run around the amendment by having "civil unions" or "partnership arrangements" that were really marriage, only by a different name.

I don't take a position on the amendment itself. In fact, I don't know whether I can bring myself to press "yes," given the potential pitfalls. However, I note with interest that the Marriage Protection Act (HB751), which has very similar language, has been on the books for two years and there has been not one court challenge to it.

I suspect that the problem is that opponents need to gain standing in order to sue, and in order to do that they have to form some sort of partnership arrangement and a government entity has to invalidate it or take some other unfavorable action resulting in an alleged injury to their rights. To date, I've heard of not one issue of that sort arising under this law. That's why I am skeptical that the language actually does what the opponents say it does.

Flame away, I'm open to criticism on this one. :)

NJH

GinterParked

NJH: No need to flame, but I'll gently correct one common misconception. And it's one that Vicky Cobb at the Family Foundation loves to spread.

In fact, there has been a challenge to HB751. (First, keep in mind that 751 is same-sex-specific. While the language is very similar to the amendment, the amendment is much broader, as it applies to *all* unmarried couples.)

Judge Prosser, a circuit court judge in Winchester, ruled in 2004 that HB 751, effective 7/1/2004, allowed him to disregard the fact that a Vermont Court had assumed jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving the child of two women who had entered into a Vermont civil union.

For decades, conflicts between courts in different states in custody disputes have been resolved by federal law and complimentary state statutes. Basically, the first court which assumes jurisdiction gets to decide the case. This makes great sense, and is designed to prevent a disappointed parent from "judge shopping" in different states until he gets a decision he likes.

Judge Prosser ruled that HB751 set the public policy of the Commonwealth in opposition to the recognition of civil unions. And so he disregarded the Vermont court.

The case is pending now in both the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Vermont Supreme Court. This is a classic example of the ways that Bob Marshall's legislation - both HB751 and the amendment - will bring about a raft of consequences which have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

As I said in an earlier post, pay close attention to which side suggests that Virginians actually read the amndment and become informed. Don't listen to my spin - or to Vicky's. Read it yourself and ask yourself whether this amendment is necessary to accomplish your goal.

You've got to take a good look at Bob Marshall himself to understand why this amendment was constructed the way it is. It's really not *just* about gays getting married. Take a look at the legislation that he tried to pass that says only *married* women would be allowed to have in vitro in Virginia. That gives me HUGE insight into the religious beliefs that Bob Marshall holds and which he is delighted to impose on all of society.

Not Jack Herrity

Ginter: I was aware of that challenge. I don't really consider it a challenge since the Virginia judge violated federal law by ruling on a Vermont custody order. He never should have gotten into the case to begin with.

BTW, Victoria Cobb and I do NOT talk. These are my own observations.

NJH

GinterParked

Well, she and I don't talk either.

My point though, still seems valid, depsite your agreement with me that Judge Prosser's decision was in error.

Because of that decision, appellate courts in two states have been tied up for nearly two years trying to sort out a mess caused by Bob Marshall's language.

Your earlier point about standing is good. Gay and Lesbian Virginians are a relatively small part of the population. Unmarried straight couples are a huge part of the population.

Bob's amendment is 751 on steroids. Demographics tell me that it won't take long for plenty of litgants to obtain standing if this amendment passes.

Not Jack Herrity

Ginter: I doubt one case on a docket equals "tied up." I will grant you that someone somewhere is going to gain standing if this goes on long enough. The issue is simply one of statutory (or constitutional) interpretation.

So far, the people who are really agitated over this are the gay/lesbian community. You know there will be a gay marriage amendment, in one form or another. What do you guys care if heterosexual relationships are invalidated along with it?

To my way of thinking, that's your ticket to getting the thing reversed. If you truthfully think it will have the impact you claim it will have, you ought to sit back and let the thing pass and then enjoy the firestorm while everyone scrambles to reverse it. Either way, gay marriage will be outlawed, but why not have a little fun by letting it get really screwed up? Then maybe a few heterosexuals would be won over to your side.

I'm probably so caught up in strategy right now that I think I'm Dick Morris, but I honestly don't know why you guys are spending the time and money fighting a fait accompli.

NJH

Demographics tell me that it won't take long for plenty of litgants to obtain standing if this amendment passes.

???? what ????

Conservative Bible folks are having lots of kids.

Liberal secularists aren't having so many.

So Demographics is favoring the legal position of gay people?

The "no" folks are coming up with some very sill stuff.

Yeah, let's just tie up the will of the majority in the courts. That'll teach 'em a lesson.

Uh. That is why they're trying to pass an amendment ... so you can't tie it up in court and have some activist judge make laws on a whim.

GinterParked

NJH: Well, maybe it's becuase I've lived in this state since I was 2. I've made a career out of being politically involved. I have a family... and not just my partner. I have brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews (one of whom is starting at Tech in August. Go Hokies. From a W&M guy, that says something).

I care about this because it's horribly bad public policy. It's a misbegotten attempt to solve a falsely-perceived social "problem." It's a perfect example of what happens when you smack a fly with a sledge hammer. Shit goes everywhere.

I've been around long enough to remember when Virginia Democrats wore the conservative mantel. And, I'll say that if I could have voted in 1969, I would have voted for Holton, becuase, personally, I'm progessive.

But it amazes me to see the party built by Godwin and Dalton and Bateman - people who were truly conservative - being hijacked by extremists like Bob Marshall who are conservative in no sense of the word.

So, yeah, I could sit back and watch the shit fly. I'd prefer to talk the Commonwealth off the ledge.

"off the ledge"?

The amendment is straightforward.

The rhetoric against it is what's out of line.

Vote Counter

What bothers me is the 27% of Democrats who polled FOR the amendment. This must be the black churches vote we keep hearing about as the split in the party over this issue. Guess the GOP will back off their normal black vote suppression tactics this time for a change, eh?

With a 20% lead, they won't have to.

TCO

Ginter:

(troll) the fan is 10 times better than lawny Ginter.

(on topic): if we have gay domestic partnerships or marriages (and opponenents and proponents of both are probably pretty correlated) shouldn't we have it for 3 way unions and everything else?

(on topic): maybe it would be simpler to banish marriage as a concept. I mean it. Sorta.

(on topic): I have some friends who are gay married and they are really cool. I think very staunch. Almost makes me want to be more liberal then conservative on this issue.

(troll): funny joke about gays and lesbians that I could tell...

GOPHokie

You guys main complaint is that it hurts non-married hetrosexual couples.
Why do they deserve rights beyond what they have?
Married people have very few "rights" that single people don't have. About the only thing I know of is to file taxes jointly.
So you guys are arguing over tax filing, which we could eliminate with the FairTax.

I say if you favor gay marriage get behind the FairTax b/c then you wont need marriage to get preferencial treatment.
Problem solved.

GinterParked

TCO: Yeah, after 13 years of cutting Hell's Half Acre, I'll agree. Unfortunately, I'm still holding livestock, so the condo's out for now... which brings me to my next point..

No, we should not have it for 3-way unions, or for Steve-Baril-fantasized bestial relationships. Partnerships - same-sex or opposite-sex - are beneficial for society. People join their incomes, take an interest in their communities and work to better all our lives.

Personally, I think Bob Marshall is the spawn of something, but I'll not question his familial relationship. Attempts to drag the Mormons (damn, I bet Mitt Romney's worried), dog-lovers and Brad Blanton into the mix are nothing but red herrings.

Glad you like we gay folks. We like you, too, as long as you behave.

C'mon, dish. I have a funny one about a certain Virginia Beach preacher. We can share.

"Married people have very few "rights" that single people don't have. About the only thing I know of is to file taxes jointly."

Just for you GOP Hokie -

I have provided this link before - specifically for you - I do hope you will take the time to read it.

This is a document prepared by the federal General Accounting Office which identifies 1,049 federal statutes "in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor" as of 1996. There are 120 additional from 1996-2003.

As of 2003, about 29 have had marital status removed.

So, for the "unedumacated" - it ain't just taxes.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

JPTERP

Vote Counter, I suspect the M-D poll only included the first sentence of the ammendment. This is essential.

I know of quite a few moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who support a more restrictive definition of marriage. However, I know of absolutely no one who will vote for the ammendment as it is written. Regardless of how one interprets the civil union clause--college educated "secularists"--including some church going "secularists" that I know--favor civil unions for gay couples. Even if they don't view gay marriage as legitimate in the eyes of God, they still recognize its value in the eyes of the state.

Personally, I find this ammendment to be completely useless. Unless the objective is simply to single out a minority group for discrimination and further harrasment, I can see no compelling reason to vote for this. This is clearly a political stunt devised by some idiots in an effort to pander to morons. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to sugarcoat this.

TCO

Ginter: I don't think that bestiality has any say since it is just reductio ad absurdum. But I really do think that partnership is a bit of a taboo the way heterosexuality is. For instance, there are many cultures that do recognize polygamy, even legally. Why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed that. For that matter, why shouldn't non-sexual arrangements be allowed the "benefit" of marriage. And I'm not saying this to try to make a rediculous argument. I really don't see anything awful with more then 2.

The joke:
What does a lesbian bring to a second date? A U-haul. What does a gay bring to a second date? What's a second date?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds

NLS Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Facebook Fan Page

    SiteMeter

    Blog powered by Typepad