How they voted

Politics, Virginia 1 Minute

This photo, taken by Del. Mark Keam, was all we had last night to know how the House of Delegates voted on Tracy Thorne-Begland. We now have the roster, via RTD. The 33 delegates who voted in favor of this highly qualified candidate were:

David B. Albo, R-Fairfax
Kenneth C. Alexander, D-Norfolk
Mamye E. BaCote, D-Newport News
David L. Bulova, D-Fairfax
Betsy B. Carr, D-Richmond
Barbara J. Comstock, R-Fairfax
Rosalyn R. Dance, D-Petersburg
Peter F. Farrell, R-Henrico
Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax
Charniele L. Herring, D-Alexandria
Patrick A. Hope, D-Arlington
Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk
Matthew James, D-Portsmouth
Mark L. Keam, D-Fairfax
Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott
L. Kaye Kory, D-Fairfax
James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr., D-Accomack
Alfonso H. Lopez, D-Arlington
G. Manoli Loupassi, R-Richmond
Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond
Delores L. McQuinn, D-Richmond
Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico
Thomas Davis Rust, R-Fairfax
James M. Scott, D-Fairfax
Mark D. Sickles, D-Fairfax
Lionell Spruill Sr., D-Chesapeake
Scott A. Surovell, D-Fairfax
Luke Torian, D-Prince William
David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville
Jeion A. Ward, D-Hampton
Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax
Joseph A. Yost, R-Montgomery

As for the others – well, you’ll have to read their names over at the RTD.

Published

27 thoughts on “How they voted”

  1. Kudos to the handful of Republicans who had the guts to make what had to be a tough vote for them. Boos to the ten who abstained. That was just gutless and unecessary becuase in the General Assembly you usually never vote no on a judge, if yuo don’t want him elected, you just don’t vote. It takes 51 to be elected.

  5. If he were a confirmed adulterer — publicly shacking up with a married woman, perhaps — would that not be cause to deny him a judgeship?

  7. The comparison is quite valid in the minds of many Virginians, and apparently of many people in the 30 other states that have had referenda on the subject. As such, his actions are a legitimate issue for his qualifications to the bench. While neither his homosexual behavior, nor those of a man shacking up with a woman not his wife, are illegal (although if the woman is married SHE would be committing a Class 4 Misdemeanor), both are immoral.

    Immoral behavior is a legitimate reason to vote against putting someone on the bench.

  8. You are the ONLY person making that comparison. This isn’t about gay marriage or amendments – this is about a person being denied a judgeship based SOLELY on the basis of his being gay.

    We get it, Warren. You and Bob Marshall are homophobic bigots. At least he admits it.

  9. Immoral behavior would be cause for REMOVAL from the bench, but surely you’re not suggesting that every judge sitting now has never done anything immoral, right?

    If so, you’re no more intelligent that those who voted against him. And judging by the numbers of people who are looking at this and wondering, “what the hell,” your opinion is probably-and thankfully-in the minority.

  10. No, Vivian, it is about his ACTIONS, not his BEING.

    Colby, a judge that advocates or openly engages in immoral behavior should be removed from the bench, and a similar candidate for the bench should not be approved. That said, we all engaing in immoral behavior occasionally. None of us is perfect. Everyone why tries fails. That is different than advocating for immoral behavior, and flaunting immoral behavior.

    My opinion may be in the minority, but the votes in thirty states indicate otherwise.

  11. Um, no. Have you read the statements of Bob Marshall? Have you read the statements of the “Family” Foundation? It was all about his being gay.

    And continuing to compare someone being gay with gay marriage amendments just shows how much of a homophobe you are. Thank goodness you are in the minority.

    1. These are MY statements. I have not read their statements, and cannot vouch for them.

      Even California voted my way. That’s a pretty big minority.

  12. Vivian, you are welcome to the ad hominem attacks. Enjoy. However, I would have no more problem with a celibate homosexual judge as with an unmarried, celibate heterosexual judge.

    1. Um, no. Having an aversion to homosexuals is the definition of a homophobe. It’s a fact that you and Bob Marshall are that. And bigot – well, just look up the definition.

      I don’t know why I waste my time with you. I have yet to see you post anything other than BS comments here, anyway.

  13. The largest immoral thing on this page are the actions and words of Warren. While you might feel comfortable judging others, you yourself will now be judged on your homophobic behavior and your insistence that homosexuality is inherently immoral.

    These pronouncements of yours are worth nothing. Who are you to judge those who are different in their lives? Not all share your opinions, in fact the tide is turning in a big way.

    If you can’t stand that, I suggest you find something else to do. Your commentary here today proves once and for all the empty, mindless nature of Republicans or whatever you claim to be.

    To me, you are a worthless bigot, and your actions will affect only those that don’t see through your bluster and spin.

    1. It is not MY pronouncement. And it does seem that the majority of voters in thirty different states are on my side. Those are the voters that Marshall and the other Republicans were elected to represent.

      -Warren

    1. No — voters in thirty states voted to amend their Constitutions to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriages. Why would they do that if they thought there was nothing immoral about homosexual unions?

          1. I love how every discussion about “morality” seems to skip over those pesky Greek and Romans. And, out of curiosity, conservatives claim to support the Constitution: What exactly is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment?

            And, again, out of curiosity, have you ever violated Va. Code § 18.2-361?

Comments are closed.