Treated Equally by Their Government - Not in Virginia!

"It would be nice if, for once, the Old Dominion didn't have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming." That line above caught our attention in an e-mail from Equality Virginia. Then it lead us to the full article below. We asked Barton Hinkle, writer for the Richmond Times Dispatch, for permission to introduce it to our blog readers. He said yes.   We performed one of the first same-sex marriages just days after approval in Washington, D.C. And we will continue to drive up to the nation's Capitol, presently the closest zone of equality for same-sex marriage. However, it will be such a pleasure when the opportunity comes to Virginia , and those bumper stickers can reflect for everyone that "Virginia is for Lovers."                                                                                                                                     Blessings ... Revs. Elisheva and T. Wade Clegg III Hinkle: Repeal the marriage amendment A. Barton Hinkle bhinkle@timesdispatch.com  Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:00 am Last week's twin Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage have left final disposition of the question to the states. So now would be a good time for Virginia and the 30 others with constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions to start repealing them. Even the most strident social conservatives generally do not dispute the principle animating the drive for same-sex marriage: the "fundamental right of all people," as the Cato Institute put it during litigation over DOMA and California's Proposition 8, "to be treated equally by their government." Governments must not discriminate "based solely on differences that are irrelevant to legitimate governmental objectives." But there is no compelling governmental reason to deny gay couples equal marriage rights or the benefits that attend them. Government's elemental duty consists of protecting individual rights from aggression. Same-sex marriages imperil nobody's rights. They harm no one. Hence opponents have conjured up other rationales. We are told, for instance, that marriage equality somehow threatens "the institution of marriage." This is akin to arguing that letting gay couples open bank accounts threatens the institution of banking. It not only does not follow, it is counterintuitive. Voluminous evidence suggests other social forces have eroded traditional marriage while gay marriage has left it unscathed. Marriage's worst declines occurred in the 1960s and 1970s - long before gay marriage arrived on the scene. And where gay marriage has been legalized, other marriages have not suffered. Massachusetts approved gay marriage a decade ago. Marriage rates there shot up shortly afterward as gay couples wed, and have remained steady since. What's more, in states that have legalized gay marriage, divorce rates have been lower, on average, than before legalization. They also have been lower than the national average. Nationwide, marriage rates are higher among those who tend to support gay marriage - well-to-do college graduates - than among cohorts that support gay marriage less. This shouldn't come as a big surprise. Time and again, social conservatives confronted with imminent progress have predicted dire consequences that never came to pass. Women's suffrage was condemned as an "exceedingly dangerous" experiment that would destroy chivalry, defy God's will, violate biological law, and require "a radical change in human nature of which the world has never given the faintest sign." Women gained the vote - and yet somehow, Western civilization abides. Opponents of integrating the armed forces similarly denounced the notion as an "experiment" that would "cripple our national defense" and "result in ultimate defeat." It didn't. Foes of integrating the schools warned that doing so would ruin "the amicable relations between the white and Negro races," bring "unending violence and strife," and destroy public education. It didn't. Critics of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" warned that letting homosexuals serve openly in the military would threaten "unit cohesion," "break the all-volunteer force," etc. It didn't. Perhaps because of this record, the dwindling cadre that opposes gay marriage is falling back on less empirical arguments: Marriage is for procreation; polygamy's a-comin'; the Bible condemns homosexuality. (True. It also decrees, in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, that a bride who is not a virgin "shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." Maybe we should look elsewhere for legislative guidance.) As the case against gay marriage has grown weaker, public support for it has grown stronger. Seven years ago, 57 percent of voters approved Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. Today, 56 percent of Virginians think gay marriage should be legal. That is bad news for Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor, who remains staunchly opposed to gay marriage in particular and to homosexuality in general, which he considers "intrinsically wrong." It might be better news for Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe - if McAuliffe had any discernible principles, or courage to match them. McAuliffe gave tepid, pro-forma applause to last week's Supreme Court decisions but refuses to say whether Virginia should repeal its gay marriage ban. That leaves only Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate, who notes Virginia's sordid history in matters marital: Not until 1967, in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving, was Virginia's ban on interracial marriage overturned. "If it weren't for the courage of the Lovings," Sarvis says, "I might not have been able to marry the woman I love. But today, Virginia still isn't for all lovers. That's why I want to honor the Loving legacy and lead the fight now, in this election, to recognize same-sex marriage in Virginia." The clear trajectory of the issue indicates that same-sex marriage eventually will come to pass, in Virginia and the rest of the country, just as women's suffrage, school desegregation, interracial marriage and all the rest did. It would be nice if, for once, the Old Dominion didn't have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. bhinkle@timesdispatch.com

It's Worth Reading Again!

It's Worth Reading Again! I asked the ACLU if I could reprint their article received June 26, 2013.  It is below, just in case you did not see it, and need to retain access to their site.  It is important to retain accurate information and read actual cases, and one important source in this fight for equality is the ACLU.   http://www.acluva.org  Stay involved ... the fight is not over We do not assume that everyone knows that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are leaders in this on-going movement. We urge you and yours to stay actively involved. Rev. T. Wade and I have been active supporters and  visited Congress with HRC supporters when seeking to repeal Don 't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), among other critical topics. Since that ridiculous law was ended, so much work has been accomplished to bring us to to the high Court's decisions of June 26. Stay Vigilant! Be ALL that you can be, but BE who you are! Much love ... Reverend Elisheva Major U.S. Supreme Court Victories for Marriage Equality! Today, the ACLU of Virginia, along with thousands of allies and LGBT community members around the United States, celebrates a monumental victory in the fight for the freedom to marry.  In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court made a historical decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, recognizing that there is no valid reason for the federal government to treat legally married LGBT couples any differently because of their sexual orientation. The Court ruling came in Windsor v. U.S., an ACLU lawsuit filed on behalf of Edie Windsor, a widowed lesbian who, after the death of her spouse Thea Spyer, was required to pay over $360,000 in federal estate taxes -- taxes she would not have owed if she were married to a man. In the second LGBT rights case decided today, the Court ruled that proponents of Prop 8, a California referendum that overturned the freedom to marry in that state, did not have legal standing to challenge a federal court decision that Prop 8 was invalid and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decision has the effect of restoring the freedom to marry for Californians.  The result is that one-third of Americans now live in jurisdictions in which the freedom to marry is equally available to LGBT and straight couples. What does this all mean for Virginia?  First, the federal government will now treat all Virginians legally married in other states the same regardless of sexual orientation.  That means the 1,100 federal benefits tied to marriage will become available to legally married Virginians regardless of the fact that Virginia doesn't recognize their marriages.  As an example, the Secretary of Defense issued this statement today concerning actions the Defense Department will take that will affect members of the military and their spouses stationed here: "The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court's decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law and it is the right thing to do." Second, while we celebrate the freedom to marry now accorded our friends in California and the 12 other jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, the discrimination written into Virginia's constitution in 2006 (which prohibits any governmental recognition of any relationships other than marriage between a man and a woman) remains unaffected by today's decisions.   That is why the ACLU of Virginia is recommitting itself to ensuring that the freedom to marry can be enjoyed equally by all Virginians.  While we moved closer to that goal today, in Virginia it remains a goal to be achieved rather than a reality to be celebrated. We look forward to working with you in this important effort.