Ya know, I could have sworn that it was just a few months ago that Katherine B. Waddell, running as an independent for Virginia House of Delegates, was being attacked by Republican Bradley P. Marrs for taking $10,000 from a "wealthy homosexual businessman." In other words, Waddell was being gay baited/bashed, in a crude, pitiful, and ultimately unsuccessful strategy by the right-wing incumbent. Yet yesterday, not even six months later, we witnessed the spectacle of Waddell voting, along with 72 others, for Virginia's anti-gay marriage amendment. What the hell? Wasn't Waddell supposed to be a "moderate" who supported abortion rights and who said of Marrs' gay baiting back in July, "I think it's unfortunate to single out groups of people...[I] believe in individual freedom and the right to privacy." Except now that she's elected, perhaps? Hmmmm....
Meanwhile, I wonder what that "wealthy homosexual businessman," George M. "Mac" Pence III, thinks of Waddell's vote. Back in July, Pence had this to say about Marrs' attack on Waddell: "I think the Republicans are walking on the backs of gay people to get elected." Yep. And Virginia Republicans are "walking on the backs of gay people" in order to STAY elected too.
Let's face it, this amendment is "way over the top" (in the words of Del. James M. Scott (D-Fairfax), "really dangerous" (in the words of Del. Kristen J. Amundson (D-Fairfax), and utterly uncalled for (in the words of Lowell Feld, unelected blogger and D-Arlington). Why "uncalled for?" Because, last time I checked, Virginia law ALREADY bans same-sex unions. So, what on earth do we need a constitutional amendment for? Is heterosexual marriage under siege from raging homosexuals, attempting to lure men away from their wives? As opposed to raging heterosexual men and women, engaging in (heterosexual) adultery and (heterosexual) affairs? Is our state legislature, in its infinite wisdom, going to ban those too? Hey, how about flirting with a married person who is not your spouse? I mean, c'mon now, isn't that an extremely dangerous threat to marriage that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks RIGHT NOW? At the minimum, shouldn't heterosexuals who "lure" other heterosexuals out of their married "lifestyles" be fined or something? Of course, jail time would be even better. Tarring and feathering, public humiliation in the stocks, or even stoning might be called for if the flirting is particularly persistent. The point is, this heinous flirting behavior has GOT to stop, by God!
The point is, marriage needs to be protected at all costs, even to our personal liberties. At least, that appears to be the view of 73 members of Virginia's House of Delegates, in their infinite stupidity..er, wisdom. Here's another idea for those 73 moral and political cowards: change our tourism slogan from "Virginia is for Lovers." How about, "Virginia is for Lovers, Except for Lovers We Happen to Hate?" I know, I know, it's too long and all, but it captures the sentiment of the "Sex Police Seventy Three" so well, we've just GOT to find a use for it! Hey Katherine Waddell, maybe you should look into this. Whaddya think?
P.S. By the way, congratulations to newly elected Democratic Delegates David Englin, David Bulova, David Poisson, David Marsden (hey, how come almost all the new Democrats are named Davis?), Chuck Caputo, and Shannon Valentine for voting against the Gay Hate Amendment. In contrast, I'm disappointed in just-elected Dan Bowling (D-3rd), although I realize he's a "conservative" Democrat. The most puzzling and disappointing vote of all? Steve Shannon (D-35), who received a decent 56% positive rating in 2005 from Equality Virginia, "a statewide, non-partisan, lobbying, education and support network for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and straight allied (GLBT) communities in Virginia." What on earth was THAT all about? C'mon Steve, you're a lot better than that!