Here's the Senate vote on the Virginia "Back to the 19th Century" Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. Congratulations to the 11 Senators who had the courage and moral fiber to vote "nay" on this monstrosity. (Democrats who voted "aye" are bolded; everyone who voted "nay" is a Democrat)
(floor) 01/25/06 Senate: VOTE: (28-Y 11-N)YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Hanger, Hawkins, Houck, Martin, McDougle, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Quayle, Rerras, Reynolds, Ruff, Stolle, Stosch, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Williams--28.
NAYS--Edwards, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Miller, Puller, Saslaw, Ticer, Whipple--11.
RULE 36--0.
NOT VOTING--0.
Now, here's the official summary of the amendment:
Constitutional amendment (voter referendum); marriage. Provides for a referendum at the November 2006 election on approval of a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. The proposed amendment provides that "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." The proposed amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Please note that this amendment doesn't stop after the phrase, "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." Study that last sentence, and ask yourself what on earth it means. Could it interfere with contracts between, say, two unmarried heterosexuals? Also ask yourself why on earth this is being added to Virginia's Bill of Rights (!!), "that section of the constitution that holds sacrosanct the unalienable rights of all human beings," according to Sen. Maime Locke (D-Hampton). Is the addition of this anti-human-right amendment to George Mason's Bill of Rights intended as irony? I doubt it. More likely, is it simply "a true historic regression" (Arlington County Board member Jay Fisette) and an attempt "to write citizens out of our most sacred document" (Del. Adam Ebbin)?
Whatever it is, this is a sad, sad day in Virginia history.