Blogger Jaded JD has written an incredible post on why he is leaving left Virginia. The title, “It is well, it is well with my soul” is a reference to an old hymn that I associate mostly with funerals, as it was a staple in the church in which I grew up.
The hymn was written by Horatio G. Spafford in 1873, after two major traumas in his life. I think Jaded JD’s reference to it is appropriate: leaving Virginia, home to his paternal family for 382 years, has to be a trauma for him. The reason he is leaving left – Virginia moving toward the enshrinement of hatred into its constitution – is, as he says, “equivalent of spitting in my face.”
Not everyone impacted by this hate amendment has the option of leaving Virginia. But even to lose one good, productive citizen is one too many. I respect the religious views of those who view being gay as an abomination, but I strongly disagree with them. In times past, the Bible has been used to justify hatred of blacks, which I see as on par with this. We all know how well that worked out. We are still dealing with the effects of institutionalized racism in our country.
We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Religious teachings should guide our personal sense of right and wrong. Our country was founded on freedom of religion, which, in my mind, also means freedom from religion. The Marshall/Newman amendment is an attempt to codify hatred and its effects will be dealt with in generations – plural – to come.
UPDATE: Apparently, I (among others) mis-read the post linked to above by the Jaded JD. He has already moved from Virginia, as he points out in this post.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Well, wonder where he’ll move to?
According to Heritage:
“20 states adopted a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage on a ballot, while currently 11 states are moving to strengthen laws protecting marriage through constitutional amendment. 43 states protect marriage by statute.”
In fact, the only states without a constitutional amendment or statutory legislation protecting marriage are New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
By the way, why is it that you accuse others of “hate.” Just because someone thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman doesn’t mean they hate. I also don’t think white students should receive aid from the United Negro College Fund. It doesn’t mean I hate white students.
It’s funny how you complain when Republicans call the estate tax “the death tax” but you have no problem calling a marriage amendment “the hate amendment.”
from Encarta:
hate
verb (past and past participle hat·ed, present participle hat·ing, 3rd person present singular hates)
Definition:
1. (transitive verb) dislike somebody or something intensely: to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feelings of anger, hostility, or animosity
2. (transitive and intransitive verb) have strong distaste for something: to have strong distaste or aversion for something, somebody, or something that has to be done
noun (plural hates)
Definition:
1. feeling of intense hostility: a feeling of intense hostility toward somebody or something
You could see the hate in his eyes.
2. something hated: something that is hated
hate (n)
Synonyms: hatred, abhorrence, detestation, odium, revulsion, disgust, dislike, animosity, aversion, distaste, loathing
Antonym: love
The definition speaks for itself. And you know very well that the amendment goes beyond simply defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It is punitive in nature, eliminating any possibility (without further amendment) of recognition of a relationship between two – straight or gay – unmarried people.
Just as the miscegenation laws were about hate, so is this amendment.
So? I can not recognize something without hating.
Like you said, what a loss! It also reminds me of how Virginia progressively loses a lot of terrific people, families, businesses and business with all the hatefulness we already have on the books. So stupid. This amendment is not only hateful, it is pouring salt into wounds (HB751). Virginia is about to inscribe hate into its constitution coz the freak that is Bob Marshall thinks that he is some kinda God. Jaded JD should sue him.
Hate. According to your definitions we seem to see it spewing from the left during a time of war towards the president and his administration. Wonder how those who believe in the administration should react to that behavior?
We see it directed towards any Republican who feels that free enterprise and hard work is more important than handouts and bigger government.
We see it aimed at conservatives who believe that our country had traditions and institutions that should be protected, but are attacked mercilessly by an out of control ACLU.
Yes, lets talk about hate.
It just must be galling to some that after nearly 45 years of being bashed by the fringe left that conservatives are saying “enough!” and won’t be bowled over by extremeism.
We’re tired of seeing society fall deeper into despair without respect for our institutions; respect for the flag; respect for each other.
Divorce, crime, child abuse, violence, and, yes, hatred, are all up since the “baby-boom” generation and their social engineering. It’s time to return to some basic principles.
It’s a shame Jaded JD feels no longer welcome in the commonwealth, because the amendment is not a “hate” amendment, but is done to protect at least one institution that still survives in this state — the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.
It is really remarkable that apologists for this amendment continue to repeat the same nonsense – namely, that it is motivated by a desire to “protect…the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.”
If that is what the authors of the amendment were after, then that is what it would say. It does not. It says that there shall be no enforcement of contracts between unmarried people that are deemed to “intend” to “approximate” a long list of undefined attributes of marriage. You could drive a truck through this language.
The evidence is overwhelming that this amendment is intended to drive gay families out of this state, in other words that it is motivated by animus toward gay families. If you are defending it, knowing what it says, that is what you have signed up for.
I have said repeatedly that I do not condemn honest people who do just want to preserve the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. That is a legitimate position in a genuine debate going on in our society.
That is not, however, what this particular amendment is designed to do. There will come a point at which the apologists will no longer be able to deny this, and that point is rapidly approaching because good people like the Jaded JD are refusing to be silent.
OK, I’m all for returning to basics. Let’s start with the Golden Rule, one of my favorites. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” So, Jim, you and I agree on the need to respect each other. I respect that a religion only wants to recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is the perogative of religion. If I choose not to participate in that religion, I deserve respect for my position as well.
The reality for me is that the damage done on marriage – with 50% of them ending in divorce – has nothing to do with gay marriage/civil unions and, correspondingly, this amendment. Will passage of the amendment somehow make straight couples decide to stay together instead of not getting a divorce?
How, exactly, will passage of the amendment protect the “sanctity of marriage” when, at least from where I sit, it has already been violated – and not by those who are not allowed to even be married?
Vivian, are you making the case that if the divorce rate was lower, you’d oppose gay marriage?
No, not at all. What I am saying is what is it about opposite sex marriage that needs to be protected, giving it’s current state? Will passing the amendment make opposite sex marriage more stable?
I can’t find any justification for denying gay couples the right to participate in the same civil unions that straight couples do. (Note that I’m specifically differentiating between the religious “marriage”, which is provided by the church, and the “civil unions,” which is the piece of paper provided by the state.)
In this vein, you may want to read this piece by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute (hardly a bastion of liberalism) on the misplaced angst about marriage.
A better approach would be to start taking marriage seriously by strongly discouraging the Britney Spears drive-thru version. How about a requirement for pre-marital counseling in order to get a license? It’s much, much too easy for people to marry the wrong person. If we expect this to be a lifetime commitment, shouldn’t it require a little more effort?
Let’s get some things straight. I am a liberal and I do not hate George W. Bush, Republicans, Religious Fanatics, or conservatives. However, I am very angry. I am angry that we have a president that was installed by the Supreme Court packed with his daddy’s buddies. I am angry that the Republicans and so-called conservatives have allowed the radical fringe to take over its party. I am angry that this president has grabbed executive power at every turn, ignoring the Constitution, or, as he called it “a goddamned piece of paper”. I am angry that every democratic institution has been ridiculed and debased in order to achieve their questionable ends. I am angry that I am expected to tolerate their intolerance. I am angry that American citizens are all suspects because this administration is unable to actually capture any terrorists nor are they able to deal with rapidly evolving technology in a way that upholds due process and allows them to use it for productive ends. I am angry because history is being re-written to reflect a country that never existed and if it did exist is only existed for a few. I am angry that your so-called personal responsibility amounts to “I’ve got mine, screw you.” I’m angry that the American people have been conned and marketed by a bunch of snake-oil salesmen. I am angry that we have become so tolerant of the most nasty debates. I am angry because we look at each other as enemies. I am angry because GWB and his cabal have embarked on disastrous foreign adventures that have resulted in torture and the death of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. I am angry because our selected president sat there like a zombie on 9/11 for SEVEN minutes, frozen. I am angry because Osama bin Laden is still free and 50 people from my hometown never got back on the Long Island Railroad on the evening of 9/11. Some of them have never had any part of their physical selves recovered. I am angry because my friend had to bury an empty casket. Did I mention that I’m angry that instead of capturing Osama bin Laden we invaded Iraq? I am angry because military heroes have their integrity questioned if they disagree with the administration thereby questioning the honor of every man and woman who ever wore a uniform. I am angry because this country is sinking into fascism. I am angry because I used to be able to travel anywhere in the world and have people admire me simply because I was an AMERICAN and we were special. I am angry because Christianity has been transformed into the business of religion with Corporate Jesus as its savior. I am angry because my beautiful country has been sold to the highest bidders. I am angry that New Orleans was allowed to drown because the people who were supposed to love this country don’t really give a damn. I’m angry because there is no “American Dream” anymore; it was sold to the highest bidders. I’m angry because we are so shallow that a persons only worth is their bank account. And most of all I’m angry because there are 38% of the population that don’t seem to understand what they have given up and don’t mind who they drag into their hell with them.
So let’s get this straight once and for all; I don’t hate anyone but I am damned mad.
And no, I don’t think it’s ok to deprive AMERICAN citizens the right to have loving relationships in whatever form that may take because your religion doesn’t allow YOU free will.
Ok. I’ll admit it. I have not read the language of the proposal.
My personal philosophy: allow civil unions…between a man and woman, a man and a man, a man and a dog, a man and a dolphin, a woman and a cat, a woman and a woman….and then give no benefits from the state to any of ’em.
It’s up to one’s religion to decide what copecetic and the state should have nothing to do with it.
As long as the state issues licenses for people to marry – let’s not even allow ourselves the silliness of contemplating marriage with our pets – they should not be allowed to discriminate against any citizen. The religious part is voluntary, not necessary to be married, and cannot be performed without that license.
Anon 11.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. None of us who are Republican care about our country. Everything you said is right. I cannot defend it. Please, forgive us all for our terrible misgivings. We are just doing it all wrong. Lets go back to Democrats running the show, as they did from 1958-1994. Those days never had recession. Never had social strife. Never had questionable wars. Never had anything to get angry about. Life was perfect. And we all treated each other so well.
I appreciate your ability to see another person’s point of view and admit that Repbulicans really don’t care about our country. Now, wasn’t that easy?