It looks like this could be a night where Obama wins by a greater margin than I could have imagined and equality in California falls by a greater margin than I would have expected. Indeed, I was hopeful that proposition 8 would fail in the most progressive state in the country. Unfortunately, hatred and bigotry look like they have won another temporary victory.

Regardless of how that turns out, at worst it can only delay the inevitable. As gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of our society become more accepted, as the lies and myths are debunked, the opposition to full equality will crumble. It looks like it may take longer than we’d hoped. As I head off to get some sleep, maybe the tide will change, but even if it doesn’t, it is only a matter of time.

• Congressman Moran stopped by early in the morning and thanked me for working against the amendment. He has been a wonderful supporter of equality in Congress and it was great to hear in his voice just how much he meant it.
• One republican poll worker who had not yet voted seemed quite concerned about the possible side effects of the amendment (sadly he seemed only midly concerned about the intended effects) but after a fair amount of discussion it seemed he was likely to vote no.
• A trio of highschool girls who were also republican poll workers (and wow, did that hurt my head) were against the amendment as obviously awful except for one who said, “I think I voted yes by mistake.”
• The older woman who, when she saw what I was handing out, said she was definitely voting yes. When I asked if she read the whole thing, she said it didn’t matter because she knew how she was voting.
• The pair of women who walked up together and said, “Duh! Of course,” when I asked them to vote no.
• There was a man who asked for me to explain what a vote yes and a vote no meant. The language of the amendment was apparently too convoluted for him.
• There was an evangelical Christian republican poll worker who proved to me that you can’t argue with someone who accepts as an axiom that you are wrong. His response was that perhaps if I prayed more that God would set me straight (pun intended in my paraphrase).
• The democratic poll workers were all amazingly supprtive. They were often as vocal as I was in their opposition to the amendment.
• There were three constitutional amendments on the ballot. The republicans tooka formal position in their sample ballot only on one. I’ll give you one guess as to which one that was.
• The number of people who knew how they were going to vote on everything surprised me. These people didn’t want any party’s sample ballot though some of them would take my non-partisan literature.
• The number of people who only wanted a particular party’s sample ballot was kind of scary. I can’t imagine being so mindless that I would do what any political party wanted me to do without a fair amount of forethought.

I could probably continue on like this for longer than anyone would want to read. To say that it was an educational day would be an understatement. It was certainly an exhausting day. Spending about 11 hours on my feet handing out literature was definitely tiring. As I drifted off to sleep that night, I was still hearing, “Please vote ‘no’ on number 1″ in my head. I was afraid I would be hearing it for days whenever there was a quiet moment but fortunately it was just the one night. Even though I’m not sure my presence really influenced many undecided voters (based on comparing those precincts with other nearby precincts that didn’t have a coalition poll worker), it was interesting to see the process in action.

In the weeks leading up to the election and even in the final few days, it seemed momentum was beginning to shift in our direction. Clearly, polls tell an incomplete picture.

The one thing that was clear was that northern Virginia was going to be a place where intolerance would not carry the day. I’m happy to say that was true. I live in district 8 which includes parts or all of Arlington, Fairfax, Alexandria and Falls Church. People voted against evil by 2 to 1. Unfortunately, statewide, they supported the amendment by 57% to 43%. If the polls were accurate this means that both the undecided vote and the inherent uncertainty in the poll went almost entirely toward the other side.

Only two districts voted against the amendment. District 8, my own, as I mentioned above and district 3. District 3 voted against the amendment by 53% to 47%, but only two jurisdictions carried the day, Richmond voted overwhelmingly against the amendment with 73% against. Also, Herico County eeked out a narrow majority of no votes by about 1%.

District 9 seems to be the heartland of hatred in the state, supporting the amendment by 3 to 1.

Looking at counties, rather than districts, here are the islands of hope within Virginia: Albemarle County (59% no), Arlington (74% no), Fairfax County (54% no), Alexandria (70% no), Charlottesville (77% no), Fairfax City (52% no), Falls Church (69% no), Fredericksburg (58% no), Lexington (62% no), Norfolk (54% no), Petersburg (65% no), Richmond (69% no) and Williamsburg (62% no).

So, much as I knew it was a long shot, Virginia was not the first to defeat a gay marriage ban at the polls. It wasn’t even as close as I thought it could be. I suppose Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and their ilk still have a stranglehold on the minds of most Virginians.

However, Arizona, may have defeated it’s constitutional ban! The no’s carried the day by 51% to 49%. However, it hasn’t been officially confirmed.

Colorado defeated it’s domestic partnership amendment and passed it’s constitutional ban. Idaho passed it’s ban. South Carolina passed it’s ban as did South Dakota and Tennessee.

Of this, only Arizona’s possible defeat is a true surprise. If there is any surprise here at home it’s that the “yes” votes were less than 60% of the population. This proves the tide is slowly turning but it takes time to truly change people’s minds. Unfortunately, during that time, countless of people’s lives will be harmed.

Now we find out just how right or wrong the attorney general is. My expectation is that an assault on domestic partnership benefits will be next. And another attempt at an adoption ban. I hope that unmarried heterosexual couples won’t be caught in the net cast by the amendment. But, if they are, they can send their thank you notes to Delegates Marshall, Senator Newman and their comrades. The cynical part of me says that they did it to themselves, but I can still feel sorry and pity for them.

I’ve reached the point of rambling so I’ll finish with this. We lost. Even knowing that was the likely outcome, I’m disappointed. We did make progress. People are beginning to understand. I hoped that the politics of fear and hate were finally going to break down. While there was progress, it still has a long way to go.

The only question is will we turn the tide before the American Taliban gets a complete stranglehold on all our lives? Because once they run out ways to legislate homophobia, who will they target next?

On a night where the weather was uncooperative, somewhere between 100 and 200 people showed up to hear the debate. Unfortunately, it seemed to be mostly a theater of the decided as roughly 80% of the audience seemed to strongly disapprove of the amendment with perhaps 20% of the audience in favor of it. It wasn’t clear how many undecided voters were actually there. This shows how much of a non-issue this is for the general public when only people whose lives are personally affected and those who through intolerance or misunderstanding want to hurt us.

The other disappointment was that the format was not interactive. Though audience questions were taken, they had to be pre-written before the debate started and were selected by the event sponsors. While this does allow them to screen out off topic questions, it doesn’t allow any follow up based on answers.

Still, despite this limitation, the event was interesting.

For example, according to Mrs. Cobb, our families aren’t families. According to her, we are “so-called families.” For a person who claims to be so concerned about the welfare of families to be so committed to working to ensure ours are disadvantaged is beyond comprehension.

Delegate Marshall reprised his well-worn litany of exaggerations and generalizations quoting limited studies and questionable statistics he said support his position that children should only be raised by heterosexuals, therefore marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. He said “gay marriage is like a square circle; not possible.”

Mr. McQuire and Mr. Koelemay made some excellent points about the unintended consequences of the amendment, some of the most serious being the consequences to victims of domestic violence. Ms. Cobb and Delegate Marshall tried to gloss over with responses that amounted to, “that can’t happen here. Trust us. If it does, we’ll fix it.” Something says they’d be very selective about the “unintended” consequences they decided to fix.

Sadly, the following questions that should have been asked, never were given a hearing:

How does allowing two men or two women to marry affect a single heterosexual marriage?

Name one consequence of gay marriage in Massachusetts except that thousands of gay couples have been able to protect their families?

Since these questions were not answered, make sure they continue to be asked! Questions like these expose the hypocrisy of the pro-amendment position, and those people who are undecided about how to vote need to hear both the questions and the loud lack of an answer.

The Catholic Church is apalled that Spain would do such a thing. Pope Benedict XVI even called on Spanish government officials to defy the law and refuse to carry out the ban. The level of hypocrisy in the leadership of the Catholic Church is amazing to behold. They spend years covering up the actions of their own pedophile priests, even to the point of allowing them to continue their practices in differenc dioces yet to allow two human beings to formally join their lives together in a loving, committed relationship is something they find immoral. To quote Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride, “They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.”

Fortunately, not all Christians are so rigidly closed-minded. The United Church of Christ has endorsed the concept of marriage equality. It is claimed that they are the largest Church in the US to support marriage equality. I congratulate them on their action and hope that Bush and his corps of advisors that uses religion as a weapon will take note that not all Americans will tolerate that behavior.

Congratulations to Spain!

I support this Mr Van Yahres and his attempt to undo the damage done by the Virginia Legislature last year. I urge everyone to write their delegates (you can find out who that is at the Virginia General Assembly website.

I wrote the following letter to my delegate (Plum):

Mr. Plum,

I urge you to support HB1633 which would abolish the Marriage Affirmation Act. The so-called Marriage Affirmation Act serves only to make gay and lesbian Virginians into second class citizens by making it legal, actually mandatory, to discriminate against us.

I know you did not support HB751 last year and thank you for that and I hope that you will vote to undo the damage that HB751 did.

Regards,
Linda Thomas

I’m not going to type in his whole letter, but the gist of it is that he (or whoever on his staff responded) didn’t truly read my letter. This was made clear by this paragraph: “Please be assured that despite my concerns about the clarity of the second sentence of S.J. Res. 40, I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. I will continue to work in the United States Senate to support traditional marriage.”

Ok, so I sent him a letter telling him why his position is wrong and he responded by telling me to rest assured that he will continue to work toward this wrong position. This is representation? I don’t expect my elected officials to agree with me on everything but I do expect them to respond with something that leads me to believe they are paying attention to what I say. At least Allen’s response, while disappointing, showed that my letter was read.

So, guess he needs another nudge to make him realize that I don’t agree with him.

Dear Mr. Warner,

Thank you for your letter, dated December 22, 2004 in response to my email regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, it does not appear that you read my letter before responding because the tone of your letter indicates that you think I agree with your position.

To be blunt, the FMA is evil.

You and your colleagues that support this amendment are frequently heard using phrases like “activist judges” and never address the real issue of civil rights and discrimination. To quote Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, “The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege.”

In your letter you say, “I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist of only the union of a man and a woman.” Why? How does any same-sex marriage diminish, demean or lessen any heterosexual marriage? It is clear how the lack of same-sex marriage does hurt same-sex couples. From inheritance to providing for the safety and security of children to taxes, same-sex couples are discriminated against by the Federal government. There is no reason to deny these benefits other than the desire to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans.

The courts have acted where legislatures have failed to do the right thing. Look at the history of our own state with regard to interracial marriage and you’ll see a clear parallel.

Please reconsider your position. I would be happy to meet with you to explain in more detail why supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega was quoted as saying “The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege. The recognition of homosexuals’ rights eradicates an unjustified discrimination.”.

It seems like Europe is collectively coming to its senses as America becomes more and more mired in misguided puritanism. How so?

In another article, Arkansas, having been told by the court that it can’t bar gays from being foster parents, is expected to appeal. Strangely it is ok for gays to adopt there. This is the exact opposite from Florida.

As 2004 closes, where are we?

If you live in Belgium,the Netherlands or parts of Canada you can marry. Sweden and Denmark provide civil unions and France, Britain and Germany provide some limited recognition.

Here, at home, you can marry in Massachusetts but the federal government won’t recognize your union at all. Eleven more states wrote discrimination into their constitutions with my own Virginia beginning an effort to do the same.

Thanks to Bush’s more or less open hostility toward gays, attacks on LGBT individuals have risen since the election. Some so-called religious
leaders have preached intolerance and hate while one church that tried to run an open, inclusive commercial was barred by two major television
networks as being too controversial.

Hopefully we can reduce the amount of gloom in 2005 and make strides toward making America a place that all Americans can be proud to live.

Looks like I’ve drifted from my headline, but that’s ok.

It is interesting when both side in an argument claim to be on the moral high ground. But, when you look at the arguments of those who wish to prohibit same-sex marriage more closely there is precious little morality actually in them. Instead you find intolerance and discrimination. You find Catholic Cardinals likening gays to cockroaches, Popes spewing hyperbole and Presidents who deliberately use fear to achieve a political advantage. Where is the morality there?

Somehow the words “moral” and “family” when used in the name of an organization have become almost like the words “democratic republic of” and ”people’s republic of” in the names of countries. The lose all meaning or worse mean exactly the opposite.

It is a telling fact that since the November election, attacks against LGBT individuals are up across the country. This is the message that has been sent to the country: that it is ok to hate and even attack those who are different. Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?

For those who call themselves Christians, think about the positions that some of your leaders are taking. Even if you don’t agree with someone else’s life, it is still appropriate to respect that difference. Though they say they are trying to protect society and families their actions bely those words. The only thing their actions do is promote hate and intolerance.

Christmas is a time of optimism and outside of the US there are signs of hope. Belgium and the Netherlands already allow same-sex marriage and several others are close to it, most notably, Canada.

As Americans, let us make the words that we say mean something: freedom and liberty should be for everyone, not just a select few that pass a sniff test. As we head into 2005, let us reverse the trend of 2004 and truly bring the country together.

His statement said, ““Attacks on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect, are becoming stronger and more radical every day.“.

This is utterly ludicrous.

Same-sex marriage is not an attack on marriage. It is not an attack on family. It is a celebration of both marriage and family.

I’m gong to keep saying that as long as the small-minded, intolerant minority keep trying to tell us that it’s wrong.