Does anyone on flickr have one of those photos, that says: "To Northern Virginia"? I'd like to find one somewhere- I used to wonder why the distinction was made-- after this election. I understand. I think we should EMBRACE and ENCOURAGE this distinction between NoVA and the biggoted rest of the State. Perhaps it's become far worse than the stigma W.Va has gotten- which would you rather be?

"Webb drew his strength from the counties closest to Washington"

Though I am loathe to defend Virginians, let's not discount the support Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg, Charlottesville, and other pockets of sanity in non-NoVa.

It is party time in the (Rees Household) as 7 states just said no to the HOMOS!

Sorry Martin, couldn't resist my treasured gay bashing but as NBC put it this morning, the new breed of Dems elected are BLUE DOGS who are not so likely to embrace gay civil rights.

Mojotron3000, my brother-in-law was on that committee that succeed in banning same sex marriage in South Carolina, I am still rich as a troll and you are not and we so called homophobes are winning the war.

Suck on that!

Wow. What a result. I'm sure the institution of marriage will sleep soundly tonight. What, with all of the divorces resulting from...gay/lesbian marriage? Shockingly though, I posit that it is actually heterosexuals who result in the biggest undiagnosed threat to marriage. Divorce is the official cause of death for most marriages. Divorce is either caused by internal pressures--because two married people either can't stand each other any more, or, more likely, from external pressures--because one spouse found someone they like better, who’s quirks of habit and hygiene are as yet unexplored. Problems with drinking, drugs, gambling, lap dances, and other forms of addiction and substance abuse are threats to marriage which may either lead to internal strife or may merely be a reaction to marital strife, but I think enough attention is paid to them already.

The first undiagnosed threat to Virginia’s married couples is internal. It is easily solved by a constitutional amendment requiring married couples to remain medicated to stave off the threat of marital discord. Anti-depressants, painkillers, anti-anxiety medication, Viagra, muscle relaxants, and sleeping pills. If marriage comes with a prescription for Demerol, then go ahead and sign me up. I won’t care if my old lady snores or not.
a
To really protect marriage from that second threat, we should remove that temptation. Why not a constitutional amendment requiring burkas for everyone--men and women? That pesky internet seems to be a siren song for people looking to stray outside the bounds of matrimony, so why not get rid of that too. Dirty books and magazines too while were at it.

Failing that, we could get rid of at-fault and no-fault divorces except in cases of extreme cruelty, decriminalize adultery, and let people arrange their affairs as they see fit. Or just enact a constitutional amendment banning civil marriages, let people do whatever religious ceremony they want without legal effect, and then call it a day.

All kidding aside, I am disgusted that so many Virginians just wrote discrimination into their constitution. But is civil marriage such a wonderful vehicle to begin with? Shouldn’t such ceremonies be a matter of religion, and not of state? There are still some reasons that marriage is useful—namely the default order of inheritance, keeping track of paternity, providing economic protection for the stay at home spouse, and the ability of a spouse to make health care decisions to name but a few. Paternity is a lot easier to prove these days, though child support collection is still a mess. Maybe we should be moving towards an era without civil marriage. One can still have a wedding, buy a pretty dress, cut the cake, and exchange vows, but it makes much more sense to keep the state out of our relationships so long as there are no domestic violence or child support issues. We should be able to decide our own inheritance, who gets to make our health care decisions, who gets to raise our child, etc. Marriage is an ill-fitting garment to address all of these issues.

At least the crackers haven't banned gay sex outright...so you can still smoke hog all you want, you jast can't marry 'em. In some states a straight guy can't even pork his wife's butt.

Yes, I see your point CDTrave. I guess my concerns are that 1). Virginians are deciding this vote without an appreciation for the differences between a civil event and a religious event, and 2). writing discrimination into your state constitution is a lot different than simply passing a statute which the courts can analyze.

And yes, I am being completely elitist and assuming that the general public made a decision negatively affecting the rights of a minority without a basis that is consistent with the modern trends of civil liberties and human rights. Is it paternalistic to think that Virginians must internalize such values and respect for human dignity? The Abu Ghairib experience suggests to me that our culture cannot be allowed to internalize such blind hatred, lest we all suffer the consequences.

I'm not sure if that view towards democracy is a bigger problem than banning gay rights, but you will have to forgive me for my cynical views of the political process and the marketing of this amendment. And call me crazy, but I like having a bunch of judges decide whether laws are in keeping with our constitutional framework. This bypasses that system and was passed by appealing to fears and hatred of a minority group.

It is a basic and enduring component of legal systems that they must protect the minorities from the majority. From the code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest codes, “…then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak;…” The code also had some fairly draconian punishments and makes for a good read, so maybe I shouldn’t mention it, but regardless the principal has been around that (in theory) the law is here to protect the weak, not exploit them.

What if we denied gay and lesbian people driver’s licenses? That is a purely civil event--the courts would have a field day on that one, unless of course, it were written into the constitution such that the courts had to uphold it. If we separate the issues out—should gay people be allowed to make medical decisions for their terminally ill partners? Should they get tax breaks that the rest of us get? Since gay people can already adopt or have their own biological children for that matter, should we protect those children’s rights by allowing their parents the same legal rights as other children’s parents? Or do we just want to make life harder on those kids.

How could this matter to a straight person? Do we want to stop nepotism? Can a gay person pass a straight person over for a promotion, hire their boyfriend for a job, and not get into trouble because there isn’t a family relationship? (I’ve seen it happen for lower level jobs.) In such a case, I’m all for nepotism as an ameliorative measure. But we should all be on the same level playing field before the law I think.

I am not gay or a lesbian, nor have I ever played one on TV. But our country’s legal system is too big and complex to allow for this kind of incongruence. It is a legal issue, and not a social issue, as it has been portrayed. The adopted or biological children of gay and lesbian couples shouldn’t be the victims of such legislation. And it is an intolerant stance in a culture which I feel has mainly profited from its diversity.

So many intelligent people here. Now, about 70% across all 50 states and Virginny's 57% is overwelming? Well, if I were homosexual, I would much rather be in California or Washington state anyway.

I love the 'traditional marriage' license plates. The hateful little dorks that sport these conveniently forget that 'traditional marriage', as found in the Bible, includes polygamy (very common in the Bible and never condemned), the marrying of sisters (Jacob married sisters, including one he did not love), the forced marriage of VERY young girls, often for money or power, and, of course, absolutely no divorce except in the case of adultery.

Funny. I don't see any of the 'traditional marriage' folks fighting for those traditions.

Why not?

Actually, the voice of reason and decency is winning this war. 20 years from now the idea that we treated gays as second class citizens will be looked on as the BS and mean-spirited elitism that it is. Most young people these days truly don't give a rats ass if you are gay or not. Those are the voters of 20 years from now.

And as more and more straights get to know openly gay people it'll be harder for them to justify second class citizenship for them.

The INDIVIDUAL, THE INDIVIDUAL, THE INDIVIDUAL...
I am just saying ...individuals come and go..the game (the species) endures..the essence of HOMO culture is the struggle of ART over nature.. that's THEATAH THWEETIE.