Couldn't have said it better myself, Sarah! Dinosaurs still roam the Earth, but thankfully fewer of them are winning elections.

THANK YOU! My partner & I have been together for 15 years... longer than most couples (gay/straight) have been together. We just want protection. I don't want to leave VA as my parents are here, but it might come to that.

Pray tell, where are you getting this 60 percent divorce rate. The common misconception that half or more of all marriages will end in divorces is based on a statistic fallacy, taking the number of divorces that occur in a given year and dividing it by the number of marriages that take place in that year. But divorces rarely take place in the same year as marriages. Not only that, divorce rates, by the better statistical measurement of number of divorces per 1000 marriages, peaked in the 1980s and have been dropping ever since. In any event, just as you don't strengthen currencies by spreading counterfeits, the way to strengthen real marriage is not to approve fake versions. Calling anything marriage (and same-sex marriage would only open the door for all kinds of arrangements) will only further weaken the institution.

Mira, being gay is not a choice. It is about who you are attracted to spiritually, physically, and emotionally, whether it is someone of your own gender or not. HIV infection is not limited to gays either; it is quite prevalent in the straight community. Children don't learn to be gay by what they discuss in school; they either are or they aren't. I didn't choose to be straight - did you? And as a straight married woman, I cannot understand what allowing gays to marry takes away from my marriage! We're talking civil rights here. Would you like to be told you couldn't marry the person you love?

Mira -- While you may have the personal (religious?) belief that marriage is solely between one man and one woman, if you want to enact/perpetuate discriminatory laws that harm same-gender couples and their families, and have them hold up in court, you have to come up with some valid (non-religious) reasons for the discrimination. You've totally failed. First, there is no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle." The homosexuals I know get up in the morning, go do fine work at respectable jobs, donate time and money to worthy causes in their communities, pay their taxes, make good neighbors, those with kids are involved in school and scouting activities, many are Christians active in their churches ... and when they're not busy with all those things, they tend to spend quiet evenings at home. Not a whole lot different from the lifestyle of most straight people I know. Reducing the lives of these people to a "lifestyle" based solely on what they might occasionally do in their bedroom ... something that is none of your business, BTW ... is absolutely absurd. As for what we are teaching our children ... we are teaching tolerance of those who may be different and, for those who eventually come to the realization that they are gay ... again, it is NOT a choice ... it is teaching that they have worth and can enter into fulfilling, healthy, successful romantic relationships, just like anybody else. Being gay is not something they "learn."

Mira -- as for the spread of HIV/AIDS, that is predominantly a result of promiscuity and drug use. It is NOT inherently a gay issue. Worldwide it is, in fact, predominantly a straight issue. Civil marriage in this country exists, in the form of certain benefits and protections granted to couples, primarily to promote the health and stability of families ... be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus any biological kids they have, or the couples plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, etc. That is based on well-established connections between the health/stability of such relationships and the individuals in those relationships ... benefits to their physical, mental, and emotional health ... and, likewise for any kids they might raise. All those reasons hold as strongly for families built around same-gender couples as those built around straight couples. Further, social problems that afflict minorities that have historically suffered discrimination (like heightened levels of promiscuity and mental illness) are recognized by mental-health professionals (and most people w/ common sense) to social stigmatization. All of these reasons are why the major mental-health organizations, and an increasing number of lay people who actually have gotten to know same-gender couples and their families personally, support same-gender civil marriage. If you are concerned about having healthy families and reducing things like AIDS, you should as well.

The beautiful thing about children--they aren't born with judgments and prejudices.
The sad thing is they are taught hate and discrimination.
I wonder if the Ken Cuccinelli(s) and the Rick Santorums of today--realize that in future history classes they will be the Bull Connors and the George Wallaces.

Wow mira - you must been in a coma since the 1970's and just woken up. Welcome back and glad you're OK! But just so you know. the world has changed a lot...

I agree with you that marriage is between a man and a woman but it's okay to grant gays civil unions, thus protecting their legal rights, which obviates the discrimination argument they most often postulate. Their civil rights are protected. Anything beyond that and they are being just as political as they accuse others of being. Besides, DOMA is still the federal law, regardless of Obama and Holder picking and choosing which laws they will or won't enforce, depending on which special interest group (of which the less than 5 percent of gays is one) they happen to be appealing to at the time.

@RME KRNL -- There are reasons ... both legal and sociological ... why civil unions do not, and probably can't be made to, give same-gender couples treatment equal to straight married couples. From a legal standpoint, there are a great many federal benefits that state civil unions laws cannot provide, precisely because DOMA (which you apparently support) exists. They are denied, social-security survivor benefits, beneficial tax options available to straight married couples, employer health-plan protections for their spouses, etc. .... all things they will continue to be denied even once DOMA falls. Further, it is almost inevitable when you develop two parallel sets of laws ... one for the majority and one for a minority ... that equal treatment will be denied, no matter the intent of the law. People confused (or claiming to be confused) about the distinctions between civil marriages and civil unions regularly deny same-gender couples treatment they are supposed to have under the law. Visit the state websites of Vermont and New Jersey -- two states that have tried civil unions -- and find the reports of bipartisan Civil Union Review Commissions; they both concluded they don't work, and likely can't be made to. I would also note that even civil unions, as flawed as they are, are opposed by such major groups as the Catholic Church, the Republican Party, and recent majorities of Virginia state legislators.

You base your view from a christian religious point of view, not based on the foundation of this country, a secular country. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. Guess what? Many kids today, and of the younger generation, are much more tolerant than you, and accept that fact that there are people who like the same sex. If you would get your head out of the sand... In this day and age, where we can communicate across borders and world wide, things are changing. Maybe you haven't read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? If you want to talk from a religious point of view... divorce is a sin, adultery is a sin, both are a choice. Being gay is not. Have you ever read the Supreme Court opinion on the case: Loving v VA? The mane is so appropriate. It was the case decided in 1968 involving interracial marriage. You could easily insert gay marriage with interracial. There is no difference. The real fact is, you and you phony excuse for not allowing gay marriage is rapidly dwindling away. What I find also interesting is that the area that leads the country in divorce, is the least educated, the BIBLE Belt. And they like to talk about "Family Value," Ask Newt Gingrich to explain i to you. He and his mistress wife are hypocrites. He's had at least 2 affairs that we know of...

I am teaching my child to be open-minded and accepting of everyone. That is something you might want to think about, Mira. I'm hopeful that the next generation will replace those in the current generation that thinks being gay is a choice and spreads misinformation about HIV. Where do you learn this stuff or do you just make it up?

Actually, encouraging marriage among the homosexual demographic may *reduce* HIV/AIDS infections by reducing promiscuity within that demographic, possibly.

Your children are not going to be turned gay by someone else: either they are or they aren't homosexual, already. So let people different than you be...that's what your children could be learning.

Amen, LG, amen!

....and by the way, Carol, there are many, many times when "being gay" IS a choice. I happen to know several people who made the "choice".

They say the truth will set you free...
1. The lack of tolerance on the part of the "pro-gay marriage" posters towards Mira for having a differing opinion was astounding. For a bunch of people who "preach" acceptance you showed a terrible lack thereof
2. This is not a civil rights issue. The mere assertion that the state should change the definition of marriage is ridiculous. The state's involvement in licensing marriage is for the sole purpose of permitting one man and one woman to form a union that will reduce their tax burden in return for the prospect of that union producing future tax payers for the necessary growth of the state...period. The state calculates future growth based on statistics that encompass the number of married couple that will statistically produce "x" amount of future tax payers (statistically speaking, that "x" is now represented by 1.86). The states involvement in marriage has nothing to do with religion, equality, or fairness. It is a business decision. Regardless of what you "believe", neither two men nor two women will ever be able to naturally produce offspring , therefore they should not be rewarded the tax break...period. Why should the state allow two men or two women to form a partnership that will benefit from a tax break without any benefit to the state? It makes no sense; the state loses revenue
3. If you want to argue "civil" rights, based on religion, "fairness", or "equality", I would be more than happy to take the opposing position

Kim -- Straight people sometimes engage in gay sex, to experiment or simply because they are in it strictly for the self-gratification. Some gay people enter into straight relationships/marriages because the social stigma associated with being gay puts them in denial about their sexuality until later in life; such relationships rarely work. Some people DO have a choice when it comes to the gender of the people they are emotionally and sexually attracted to ... but they are called bisexual, which is quite different from being gay. So no ... sexual orientation is not a choice. And while you present a novel variation of the marriage=procreation argument, it doesn't change the fact that civil marriage laws in the US establish no fundamental link between marriage and procreation. The real benefits of civil marriage, and the reason the state supports it through the granting of certain benefits/protections to couples, are the long-recognized relationships between stable marriages and the physical, mental, and emotional health of those in such relationships, as well as of any kids (biological, adopted, etc.) being raised by the couples. Those reasons apply just as strongly to families built around same-gender couples as to those built around straight couples.

Dave...why did you not address the tax issue?

...and Dave, I will have to take issue with your last statement. It has been proven in study after study that children raised in homosexual households do not fare as well as children raised in a traditional setting.

Kim, I doubt that many make that choice. Who would, given the problems and intolerance they would face. Perhaps you are talking about bi-sexual people who then make an opposite gender choice?

Kim, where is your proof that children raised by gay parents do not fare as well?
As for the pro-gay marriage people being intolerant, I think they are arguing against reasons set forth for the anti-gay marriage crowd, not being intolerant of the people themselves. Every one has a right to their own opinion and every one has a right to disagree. And for heaven's sake what do taxes have to do with anything?

Kim -- I did address the tax issue. Not every benefit given out by the government is tied directly to the expectation that there will be some sort of direct payback to the government; in fact, very few operate that way. But the costs associated with disintegrating families in this country are enormous, as are the social benefits of stable families. As for your claim that study after study has shown that children raised by same-gender couples do not fare as well as those raised by traditional families ... the exact opposite is true. Most studies show children raised by same-gender couples do just fine. The one notable study that claimed otherwise was the Regnerus study which, in fact, didn't do an apples-to-apples comparison between same-gender couples and straight couples, but compared kids raised by parents, at least one of whom had had at least one same-sex encounter sometime in life, with kids raised from birth by their biological parents. More than anything it was a study of the effects of parental instability. Even Regnerus has acknowledged that the study says nothing about the quality of same-gender parenting, and noted that the two kids in his study who were raised from infancy by same-gender couples turned out wonderfully.

...it’s as if you didn’t even consider the validity of my post. I understand that this is a highly emotional subject for the pro-gay marriage sect, but the state of Virginia cannot decide to pass legislation based on feelings. The purpose of the Virginia state legislature is to decide what is in the best financial interest of all of it’s residents and gay marriage just doesn’t fit that criteria. There is absolutely no positive for the state in this bill. It will not provide new or increased revenue. It will not serve to further the best interests of the state in any way.

I’m sure that none of you level-headed Americans want the state government to start passing bills into law that serve no other purpose than to reduce revenue to appease a minority mindset.

What exactly is the purpose of homosexuals needing the state to sanction their lifestyle? I’m still waiting on the argument that shows me how this would be beneficial to the state.The state cannot forcibly legitimize or normalize the lifestyle, no matter how many laws they pass. If you tell me “equal protection” under the law, that argument falls flat as the two are not equal on almost any level. We can discuss any level that you like, but we will have to take them one at a time as we only get 1500 characters a shot.

Carol, were you a gay marriage advocate before you knew your son was gay?...if not, I think you should ask yourself, why not?

...as I said before, the truth shall set you free.

Kim -- it is as if you didn't even read my response, much less consider its validity. I actually should say responses (plural) as I've explained twice why same-gender civil marriage benefits society. And again, there is nothing in civil marriage laws in the US to link civil marriage and procreation.

Kim McCoy, I've been an advocate for gay rights all my adult life.

Thank you, Michele. As a woman in an interracial marriage, I know too well the discrimination faced when black and white people wanted to marry prior to the 60's. Plus, as you say, what difference does it make to someone else, and whose business is it anyway who someone else loves? Thanks!

What's ironic is the case name: Loving v VA 1968. In the opinion by the Supreme Court, you could take out interracial and put GAY and the argument would be the same. It's only the ignorant and bigots that are against it... surely not people who believe in America.

Michele, well put! It's not the business of government, or anyone else, who someone loves. I see no problem with civil unions for same-sex couples. I have friends who divorced, and it was never because of the gay couple down the street.

Homosexual activists argue that gay“marriage” is a civil rights issue. They are wrong. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two people of the same sex, regardless of race, money, etc. will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Same sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,”. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union. Thank God, yes GOD gay marriage is for now still illegal. No, I'm not a gay hater or bigot or whatever, I just fear God!

Becky -- when it comes to civil marriage in the US, there is no fundamental link to procreation. Try again.

Becky, are couples who marry and decide not to have children circumventing "nature" or those who marry too late to have children. This is a silly argument. Your attitudes are indeed anti-gay.

Leatherneck, there are two Virginias. The representatives elected in Northern Virginia are, by and large, open to these changes, but the reps in the southern part of the state drive the agenda. This isn't how all the people of Virginia feel, by a long shot. And I can complain about decisions that I feel are unfair and unconstitutional and that hurt my family. We won't get over it till we change it.

Carol---this is how the people of Virginia feel through our elected representatives. They wouldn't be in office if they didn't reflect us. You had your chance. Don't try to blame it on North/South Virginia divides. Sorry you can't understand that.

Civil Rights (marriage certificate is a civil document) should never be put up for a vote-period). The constitution protects the minority from the majority.
As a gay woman, I am not asking you to like me, or believe the fact that I was born gay. I am demanding respect, and the same protections from my country and my state (commonwealth) of Virginia.

Leatherneck, I understand that the majority of Virginians elected conservative representatives due in part to gerrymandered districts that heavily favor republicans, so I understand that they may reflect "the majority" of Virginians. I'm not entirely sure of that, given how national attitudes have changed in recent years. Virginia is behind the times - again. I have to accept that this is what happened but I don't have to like it, I don't have to stop trying to change hearts and minds, and I don't have to stop helping elect different-minded officials. And there are definite North/South divides in Virginia, whether you accept that or not. I'm not blaming this on anyone other than the narrow-minded reps and government officials in this state who continue to discriminate against people I love. I do understand what you are saying,I just happen to disagree.
Please try to use your imagination and empathy and think how you would feel if the state told you you couldn't marry someone you love, if you had no right to see your partner in the hospital, or to inherit your joint assets. Imagine how you'd feel if you could be fired simply for being straight. I don't much care whether the majority has spoken on this issue - they are still wrong.

Oh wow, aab, you're so right that civil rights should never be put to a popular vote! Not much would ever have changed if that were the case. Thanks.

@Leatherneck -- Legislators who oppose legal recognition of same-gender marriage sometimes do so for religious reasons ... totally ignoring the fact that for discriminatory laws to be recognized as constitutional, that have to be justifiable based on NON-religious reasons. Sometimes they do so, justifying their positions by blatantly misrepresenting science; I won't speculate as to why they do that. Sometimes they do so in ways that show rather explicitly that they hold malicious and bigoted views regarding homosexuals. I have never heard ANY that presented valid, coherent, non-religious arguments to justify their positions. One always hopes that these legislators will start voting based on rational, informed, constitutionally-valid considerations, especially as the flaws in their positions become more and more transparently obvious. In the meantime, those very same rational considerations have been causing a rapid shift in public opinion regarding this issue -- in some states more rapidly, and in some (like Virginia) less so -- a shift that will eventually be reflected more and more in state legislatures. And, of course, it is always possible that Virginia will again be one of the last states in the country to address an obvious civil-rights issue, and the SCOTUS will make the decision for the state, as they did with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virgina. No matter how you look at it, though, there is absolutely no reason to give up and "get over it."

Are you that ignorant or just plain stupid? Can't have it both ways? First, we didn't have an election of state representative last year... it will be this year. Second, the many people here that support marriage equality did not vote for most of the clowns in the state legislature that are against it. Leatherneck? If I can make one assumption, you are a Marine? Maybe you should have a better understanding of the U S Constitution. Up until 1968, interracial marriage was against the law, even if one got married legally in another state. Study the case Loving v. VA. The idiot people of Virginia at that time still believed in segregation. Didn't make it right that we treated many people of Virginia as second class citizens. Is that the American way? Te simple fact is, marriage equality hurts no one, in fact is beneficial. The arguments against it are based on bigotry and ignorance. Marriage is a contract between 2 people... pure and simple, nothing more. In religious terms... gay marriage is no more a sin than adultery or divorce. Yet, so many churches seem to overlook that. That is the hypocrisy of these churches... picking and choosing which sins they overlook.... Thank goodness many more people are changing their attitudes and beliefs about gay marriage..... if anyone needs to get over it... it is you!

Hey Leatherneck... in the last election Mr. Obama carried the state handily over Mr. RobMe. Mr. Obama favors marriage equality... by your post, then the state should favor the issue. The one thing the republicans couldn't do was gerrymander the whole state, just the voting districts to protect themselves. The state twice now has voted for a democratic President... the times are a changing..

Mike---so now we were the "idiot people of Virginia" huh? Aren't you so proud of that remark? What part of the democratic process don't you understand? Keep up with the emotion---but this is a state of laws, and not of tearjerking whiners. Yes, even with the state going for Obama and two Democratic senators. What's the matter---you can't handle the truth? Get over it.

Apparently you are....Just using your logic... The state went for Obama and he favors marriage equality. Since it was a STATEWIDE election, one not based on districts, we get a clearer view of the state. Many of our state legislators do not represent the majority of the people's opinion. However, that's irrelevant actually. Just like Loving v. VA in 1967, Civil Rights are something that isn't voted on. The majority of Virginian's back then were racist. Public School systems were closed down rather than integrate. Because the majority of the people in the state felt one way did not make it right. There is no fundamental reason to not allow it. Maybe you should read the Brief filed by Ted Olson (former repub Solicitor General) in the CA Prop 8 case. Here a conservative republican makes a compelling reason for marriage equality, if you believe in the foundation of this country. As Haley Barbour (former Repub Party Chairman and x MS Gov) stated so eloquently 2 months ago... maybe you should see a proctologist. To many conservatives suffer from CRI - Cranial Rectal Insertion. A group of very myopic people...Glad the younger generation has some intelligence and see the idiocy of not allowing for gay marriage. Times are "a changin' " and it is you that should "get over it."

Gov Ultrasound certainly didn't improve our image!

Not as bad as many states in the South.... MS, LA, GA, AL, TN, even KY...

MIke, unfortunately, Va is worse than other states. We not only have the "marriage amendment"(one man/one woman only),Va also voted on and passed the "marshall/newman amendment". MN amendment outlaws civil unions and any rights accorded marriage are denied to gay people- Really broad, and a challenge hasn't made it up the courts, yet. That my fellow Virginians voted on that amendment after already having the marriage amendment....was a spit in my fellow gay Virginians eyes.

Mike Ritter, thanks for your replies to Leatherneck. As for Virginia not being as bad as some other states, I agree, but it's been said of Virginia that if you take away Hampton Roads, Roanoke, Charlottesville, and Northern Virginia, you're left with Mississippi!

You're an idiot to say that, then move if you don't like it

Sawmike, you can thank Ken Cuccinelli for that!

Shellie, I don't know if your "move if you don't like it" comment was directed at me or not, but if so, I love Virginia and especially love living in Vienna, but hate some of the political stances taken by our elected leaders at the state level. They are narrow-minded, small, bigoted, and sometimes very harsh and nasty and I think we can do a lot better. I will work to change the political climate.

Virginia moves slowly.......

I believe that Virginia also made it impossible for gay couples to adopt. So sad!

Melody, thankfully the world is changing, and eventually Virginia will change too. The younger generation is smart enough to realize that the garbage that many older dinosaurs are spewing is nothing more than discrimination and hatred thinly disguised as religion. Our younger generation is willing to look beyond the facade and seek the truth - and the truth is that love is love, regardless of whether it is between opposite genders or the same sex. I know the change is not coming fast enough, but it is at least coming. Hold on to hope! (And vote against idiots like Cuccinelli). :)

My concern is twofold. First, there is the extreme, self-righteous arrogance it takes to simply assume that your understanding of God's Word/Will is flawless and infallible, and that anyone who disagrees with you is faithless and/or ignorant of God's Word. There are legitimate reasons, based on Biblical and historical contexts and translation issues, why denominations like the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest US Lutheran denomination (ELCA), the United Church of Christ, etc. all allow consecration of same-gender relationships and./or the ordination of clergy in such relationships. Likewise for the two largest Jewish groups in the US, accounting for over 80% of American Jews. Those few passages that are commonly used to condemn homosexuality likely have nothing to do with same-gender couples in loving, committed relationships. Second concern ... that somebody like you feels it is your right to ignore the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, and enshrine your beliefs in the laws of this land.

Diana, Virginia already voted no on this issue, hence the constituional amendment and the legislation introduced in this general assembly session to repeal it.

You are so right .

Jim in Virginia, unfortunately you are right that gay people are not protected in Virginia. They can be fired or fail to be hired simply for being gay. Sodomy though is practiced by both homo- and heter-sexual couples so I'm not sure who you are banning by sending sodomites running from your properties. How do you know they are sodomites? Do you ask them? Do you spy on them in their bedrooms? Do you think you can tell by just looking? Really?

And by the way, Jim in Virginia, do you know the definition of sodomy? Would you turn away a married man and woman who engage in oral sex because he cannot have an erection? Again how do you know, how can you tell? Surely you don't ask!