First and Last Time I Agree with the Sun-Gazette?

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/8/2006 1:28:02 PM

In general, I don't think too highly of the Arlington Sun-Gazette.  In an overwhelmingly Democratic county, the Sun-Gazette stands out for being right-wing, although with an independent/libertarian streak.  Not suprisingly, I rarely agree with just about anything this paper - which comes free in the mail every Thursday - has to say.  Still, I've got to agree with the conclusion, if not much of the reasoning, behind this week's lead editorial, "'No' on Constitutional Amendment."  Here are some excerpts:

On principle, we should be in favor of the proposed state constitutional amendment banning so-called Gǣgay marriage.Gǥ

We're gung-ho on the concept of domestic partnerships, a legal arrangement that would provide many of the legal benefits of marriage without using the word itself. And we think the General Assembly should enact such legislation.

But we, like most Americans, reserve the word GǣmarriageGǥ for one man, one woman. And we'd like to keep it that way, despite the efforts of an in-your-face fringe element within what is broadly known as the gay-rights movement.

As such, we should welcome a constitutional amendment defining marriage just that way, thus putting the issue out of reach of judges who might be willing to kill their careers in Virginia to unilaterally provide recognition to same-sex couples and set off a chain reaction of unnecessary court battles.

Unfortunately, the proposed amendment Virginia voters will be casting ballots on this November is overreaching, ambiguous and clumsily written. This sloppiness has given the amendment's opponents a great tool: A chance to reach out to moderates and conservatives with the argument that having no amendment is better than having this amendment.

We agree.

I agree too.  This amendment is so poorly written that it threatens the rights of every Virginian, not just those who happen to be homosexual.  I also agree with the Sun-Gazette that "the General Assembly would be advised to focus on those, rather than on what has been, in recent years, an ugly, mean-spirited assault on one segment of the commonwealth's population."

I wonder if I'll ever agree with this right-wing paper again?


Comments



Except for... (Doug in Mount Vernon - 10/8/2006 3:55:37 PM)
That little pathetic line about "an in-your-face fringe element" within the gay-rights movement.

So, basically, any gay or lesbian person who demands to be treated equally under the law is part of the "fringe".  That is bullshit.  In fact, the "fringe" elements of the gay rights movement DO NOT want marriage because they don't like the idea of conforming to heterosexual norms.

Whatever, to each their own.  So while I agree with the conclusion they reach as well, they are still denigrating and disrespecting gay people by implying that standing up and demanding our God-given natural rights, that we are "fringe".  Isn't that just about EVERYBODY who is gay?  Yep.

Jerks.



Yeah, I strongly disagreed with that line (Lowell - 10/8/2006 4:13:53 PM)
One of the many reasons I strongly dislike this newspaper.