Yes, the Danville Register Bee.

Posted by Anna on 31 October 02006 @ 11am

Thanks for that. And here it is. I figured some paper must be backing this beleaguered amendment. Their logic isn’t so hot, complaining that “a single judge” could forever open marriage to same-sex couples. Just one judge? It’s been a few years since I took my Judicial Practices class at Tech, but I just can’t summon what single judge would have that power.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 October 02006 @ 11am

While we are picking and choosing from the Bible (and from Leviticus in particular) how ‘bout we outlaw blood sausage or even extra rare meat (Leviticus, Chapter 17, verse 10) since after all they aren’t actually that good for you anyway and God clearly wants no one eating blood (verse 12). And I do hope those preachers are not wearing mixed fabrics since that also seems to be a sin (Chapter 19, verse 19). How about a law against all those nice mixed fabric clothes out there? I hope all you amendment supporters aren’t wearing any mixed fabrics. And can we make it legal to stone witches and wizards (19, 27)?

Don’t forget all you good priests out there fighting the good fight against homosexuality to burn your daughters if they turn out to be whores (21,9).

Need I go on? Read the whole book instead of just what can give you God-leverage with your prejudiced agenda. It really is a good book worth reading.

My point with all of this is that it’s in the major book of the Torah and Bible that says homosexuality is bad: Leviticus. What I want to know is why Christians get to pick and choose like this. And furthermore to remind people that law does not and cannot accommodate all religious customs into legislature. The simple fact that to recognize the Christian god as the only god would violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution should make that clear.

Posted by Cory Capron on 31 October 02006 @ 2pm

I agree completely with the Rick Sincere quote on conservatism’s opposition to this amendment, and hope not to see our state constitution marred with this graffiti. That said, conservatives are rightfully wary of an unelected, unaccountable judiciary imposing gay marriage on the state. See Massachusetts.

So while I personally oppose the amendment, I can understand the fear of people for whom this is a big issue.

Posted by Judge Smails on 31 October 02006 @ 2pm

While I can understand wariness of judicial power, it’s also pure nonsense when the anti-gay right shrieks about the people of Massachusetts or New Jersey “waking up one morning to find that gay marriage had been imposed on them.”

The legislative histories and public opinion of those states couldn’t be more different from those of Virginia. Although it’s not their job to do so, what the courts found is in fact a reflection of the will of the people in their states. 56% of New Jersey voters support full marriage equality, never mind the compromise of civil unions. The precedents of years of expanding legal inclusion for the GLBT community through the legislature went into those decisions. We don’t have that history here.

No judge in Virginia, the only state in which judges must be both nominated and appointed by the legislature, is going to overturn Virginia marriage law.

Posted by David on 31 October 02006 @ 4pm