-
Yet another reason why I love my boyfriend:
while I was sitting around being angry and sad and disgusted over this , he went and created the following. Feel free to help me plaster this all over cyberspace, should you be so inclined.
A civilized society should not allow certain things. Virginia's Act 751 is a disgrace and
abomination for which I lack the vocabulary to properly describe. Perhaps it is best that
the English language doesn't contain words to express such concepts.
For those of you who feel inclined to express your feelings to those who perpetrated this act, the Virginia General Assemby provides the mailing adresses, FAX and phone numbers of all itsSenatorsandDelegates online. They also provide a complete list of e-mail addresses for their
Delegatesand Senators. I have linked those e-mail adresses into the lists below of who voted how.
For those of you who are less inclined to take up letter writing campaigns, just
disseminate this info as you see fit to others who might.
Some of these links are somewhat transient in nature and may not function. In that case
go to the <a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/" target="_blank">Virginia Legislative Info System
homepage</a> and search from there.
Here is the breakdown of the vote:
04/21/04 House: VOTE: PASSAGE (69-Y 30-N)
YEAS--Abbitt,Albo,Armstrong, Athey,Barlow,Bell,Blac k,Bryant,
Byron,Callahan,Carrico, Cline,Cole,Cosgrove, Councill, Cox, Drake, Dudley, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Griffith, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Hugo, Hurt, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, S.C., Kilgore, Landes, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Louderback, Marrs, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., May, McDonnell, McDougle, McQuigg, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Petersen, Phillips, Purkey,Putney, Rapp, Reese, Reid, Rust, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Shannon, Sherwood, Stump, Tata, Wardrup, Ware, R.L., Weatherholtz, Welch, Wright, Mr. Speaker--69.
NAYS--Alexander, Amundson, BaCote, Baskerville, Bland, Brink, Dillard, Ebbin,
Eisenberg, Hall, Howell, A.T., Hull, Jones, D.C., Keister, Melvin, Miles, Moran, Morgan,
Plum, Pollard, Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Suit, Van Landingham, Van Yahres,
Ward, Ware, O., Watts--30.
04/21/04 Senate: Vote: Passage - Enrolled Bill (27-Y 12-N)
YEAS--Bell,Blevins,Bolling, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Devolites, Hanger, Hawkins, Houck, Mims, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Quayle, Rerras, Reynolds, Ruff, Stolle, Stosch, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Williams--27.
NAYS--Deeds, Edwards, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Miller, Puller, Saslaw,
Ticer, Whipple--12.
-
um... yikes... um... I don't oppose gay marriage, personally I don't care what you all do... but I really think you're all going about this the wrong way. There's people out there that still need to be educated out of their closed minds and whatnot, and I don't think that they like having the issue of gay marriage shoved in their faces all of a sudden.
I really wish the gay community could take five years, back off, and ease the public into the idea, instead of going all out and slapping it in their faces. People tends not to like that.
Just a thought.
um... discuss....
Oh I wish you luck against this bill. I really do....
-
I do see your point, but...they HAVE been eased into it. I thought this issue was dead nearly a decade ago. It's not that there are people opposed that upsets me so much; it's the ridiculously wide scope of this bill. I'm all for people telling me my views are wrong if they're willing to do it in an intelligent debate sort of format. I don't assume people are idiots just because they don't agree with me. In most cases I do think big changes should be approached slowly and with care. Personally I think the 40 years or so that gay rights have been in the spotlight is slowly enough, but it's not that they're not rushing fast enough to jump on the bandwagon and embrace gay marriage that has me in a snit. It's that this is a GIANT leap backwards. It's incredibly rash, and even if I subscribed to their views, I'd still think it was illogical. There's no specification that two people of the same gender have to be having sex together for this law to apply to them. It's not even being done intelligently. I suppose that's lucky for people who feel as I do, because chances are it won't hold up long in court when they realise how problem-ridden it is.
-
I think the thing is that some in the society feels like a "line" needs to be drawn. They've pretty accepted that there are homosexual couples, ok, but most feels that if they let them get married what next? Someone marry their sister? a dog? That's what some guy on the radio I listen to had said... It seems like paranoia, sure a bill like this would be a giant leap backward, but the way they are seeing it, it's drawing a line. "cause after all what next? Some sicko marrying his dog? But who are we to say, let him marry his dog, they probably like it like that. But people are scared that it will come down to that if this same sex marriages are allowed. Society still need a little bit more education about these things...
-
I can't believe I hadn't heard about this earlier. I am officially sick and disgusted. I was scared of the south before, but damn. This is just too much.
More and more every year, I want to move to Canada.
-
*sigh* I think I need a hug. I posted this on my livejournal as well. I'd been surprised by the lack of response this has generated. Last night Sean told me he'd seen someone comment on my journal that they thought it was great and had started an LJ feed for it. Today I went to click on the link and was taken to Phelp's site. The one reply this generated on my livejournal is a hidden link to godhatesfags. I hate that being there. Seeing that in my own journal makes me want to cry. I'm leaving it up, though. There's no point in trying to get people thinking or talking if I delete all the comments I don't like. It pisses me off that (s)he disguised it like that, though. I have no way of arguing back, because it was anonymous. I have invited them to comment again, if they're willing to engage in an actual debate. I know that's probably pointless.
-
It is disgusting to see such a horrid bill pass any state's legislature. My general impression is that it will be would found unconstitutional on many levels, it's just so poorly written from a legal standpoint.
I can understand dwim's concerns about gay marriage being perceived as "in your face" by the mainstream (which leads to all these rash bills being proposed and sometimes passed). I just don't think we can wait until the majority is more "comfortable" with gays. Does anyone realize that there attempts in the '70's for gays to get married? And, of course, there was the '90's with Hawaii. All of these were a few couples in a state or two trying to get equal rights, nothing special. Conservative politicians who decide one court decision means Doomsday has arrived turn this into a big issue. How many people in Virginia really wanted their representative wasting his time working on such a bill? I bet very few even knew about it.
Sadly, sometimes our society's majority needs the judicial system to set wrongs right. Look at how much strife there was when African-Americans fought for the Civil Rights Act. They'd been freed as slaves in the 1800's, but still didn't have any true rights until the 1960's. No matter when gay marriage is brought up as an issue, there will still be a vocal opposition to it. I don't believe acceptance will happen until after legal validation of gay marriages occurs, and even then it will be a long time coming. People educate themselves slowly. My life is too short to wait for the majority to catch up with reality.
Though I have had my misgivings about how soon this issue came up again, I think now is the right time to have the issue resolved (though it will most likely take decades to happen nationally). Luckily, history is on the side of oppressed people.
And, I know you're cool, dwim. It's a good point to bring up for discussion, glad you played devil's advocate.
-
I mentioned to my wife some time ago that, with all these quick proposals popping up trying to define what marriage is and who it pertains to...okay, obviously the idea of two men or two women marrying ruffles plenty of feathers, I got to wondering when interracial marriages would be considered "unconstitutional" or whatever. Because, lord knows, there's plenty of people who view that as unnatural.
