… you are concerned that the amendment will be used by opposing factions in families seeking to deny unmarried partners of loved ones the right to hospital visitation, to decide about organ donation or burial, or to determine guardianship of children.
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“Political Science” is BS. There can be no controlled experimentation, and there are no reproducible results. It’s all conjecture.
Fear tactics like this: “…this is the first step in a series of rights being taken away from the citizens of Virginia.”
Or this: “…the amendment will be used by opposing factions in families seeking to deny unmarried partners of loved ones the right to hospital visitation, to decide about organ donation or burial, or to determine guardianship of children.”
As for different countries and states, that is why we have different coutries and states, because we have different cultures and values. This is not a communist country — if you do not like the culture in your state, you are free to move to another. If you do not like the culture of this nation, you are free to go elsewhere. (Canada is nice, but the violent crime rate is outrageous.)
A fine citizen you are, Jack. A fine citizen.
Seriously, one of democracy’s biggest problems is people like you. Not particularly well informed, strongly held beliefs, and no real interest in forging consensus or learning to live and let live. It’s hard to want to let someone play the game when all they want to do is wreck it.
When all else fails, go to the ad hominem attack.
There’s no ad hominem attack in there. The only attacking going on right now is you on the basic rights of others. You don’t like being called on it? Don’t do it. Very simple.
Jack – when exactly did you decide to be straight?
Let’s see. I’m “one of democracy’s biggest problems,” and “not particularly well-informed.” That sounds like an insult to me.
Now, what “basic right” am I attacking?
Res ipsa loquitur
Done, now.
For the first time on this blog, Jack, you have said why you support the amendment. I have, til this point, given you the benefit of the doubt as to why you support it. But you have just proven what I’ve suspected: there is no logical reason for supporting this amendment, only the emotional one of the social conservatives who somehow think that their morality is superior.
I noted that you failed to take on the Rev. Todd Davidson for his logic in why he – a man of faith – is against the amendment.
Lined up in support of the amendment are the morality police – who are unwilling to see any repercussions beyond defining marriage.
Lined up against is everybody else.
I will not argue further with you, Jack, and I am urging everyone who posts here on this issue to do the same. There is nothing that can be said to those who think their morality superior to ours that is going to make them change their minds.
No matter how you try to intellectualize this matter is still a pure and simple act of discrimination.
I’m a veteran. I’m a good citizen. I support my community and I pay my taxes. I tithe, donate my share to charities, and try to help those less fortunate. I don’t bother anyone. I’m honest and am a gentle and compassionate soul. I don’t lie or steal. I’m considerate and care for my fellow man. make a good, loyal, and trusting friend. I do onto others as I’d have them do onto me. I am truly sorry that I don’t measure up to your ideals..
I respect my fellow man up to the point where he feels that he is somehow justified to take away the rights of me or others. Yes, I will proudly be voting NO on the amendment this coming Tuesday- and in effect cancelling out your vote. I feel it the only humane thing to do…
As for me leaving and going somewhere else – it ain’t gonna happen! I’m here! I’m queer! Get over it! If you don’t like it – please feel free to exercise your right to go anywhere else where you feel more comfortable. I wish you peace and happiness on your journey!
Vivian– Just for you, I responded to the Rev. Davidson.
My logic is this — that the government should not sanction immoral behavior. Unlike the existing law, this is being decided by the people and the legislature, not the legislature alone. As such, the state is not imposing its morality on the people; the people are imposing their morality on the state. As I implied in my response to the Rev. Davidson, churches should be allowed to perform any marriage ceremony they want, just don’t require that the government of the people condone them all.
As for your arguing with me, I doubt you ever thought you could convince me, nor I you. However, I suspect there are still some undecided voters who read your blog. Will you allow my arguments to go unchallenged (many of them do, I notice), or will you simply ban me?
BS, your litany of good works will not save your soul. We are not saved by our works, but by God’s grace alone. Even if this amendment does not pass, homosexual marriage will still be illegal in VA. There is no reason for me to leave just yet.
If you are truly worried about the rights of others, you will support George Bush and George Allen against the Islamists, who do not just keep homosexuals from having their relationships recognized by the state, but execute them for it.
Jack,
Society can’t sanction “immoral behavior” if society can’t arrive at a consensus of what “immoral behavior” truly is or is not.
Until that time arrives, society should stay out of people’s personal lives.
It’s an odd time in our nation when a liberal Democrat is screaming for less government involvement.
Happy voting, everyone.