It Really Is About Gay Marriage

| | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

The following letter by John Grigsby appeared in Leesburg Today last week:

Why are so many people volunteering their time with coalitions like va4marriage.org and virginiaisformarriage.com, in support of the Virginia Marriage Amendment? In my case, it comes down to a few pictures.

If you visit galluccio.com, you will see displayed with pride a "family portrait" of two New Jersey men, Jon and Michael Galluccio, bare-chested in tuxedos, alongside their four adopted children, one of them a similarly-dressed adopted boy. All the chatter on this issue is meaningless against the backdrop of this picture; a Rohrschach Test for the marriage amendment if there ever was one.

You may, like the ACLU of Virginia, Loudoun's Democrat Committee, the Democrat leadership nationally, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, various "gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender (GLBT)" organizations, and Governor Kaine, all very active opponents of the Marriage Amendment, view this grouping of people with a gentle smile. To you, two dads are just as good as a mom and a dad, and at least better than just one mom or just one dad. "What's all the fuss?" you ask.

If you are like virtually all Republicans in Loudoun County and statewide, as well as many if not most traditional Democrats, who support the amendment, your reaction is like mine. You feel broken-hearted. You feel an aching sadness.

As a father, I look back with gratitude for what my dad contributed, as a man, and for what my mother contributed, as a woman, to my upbringing. As a dad, I see everyday how my wife and I both contribute to the development of our girls and boys in ways that are complementary. While either parent may change diapers, arrange field trips, buy groceries, and etc., parenting doesn't simply reduce to a task list. Boys need a father, and girls do, too. Likewise for a mother. Apparently it's not "modern" or politically correct to say this, but I unashamedly believe this is how things were meant to be, and that men and women aren't interchangeable, as far as parenting goes.

Yes, there are reasons, seldom intended, why some children will never have the benefit of a mom and a dad under the same roof. However, a marriage of two men removes the possibility of a mom-it says that "mom" is a superfluous category, and unnecessary. Creating an institution that in its very nature denies a boy or girl even the remotest possibility of a mom on one hand, or a dad on the other, is wrong. Like others, I am working to pass this important amendment to make it tougher for a Democrat-appointed judge to do to Virginia what was done to Massachusetts.

Given the steady strides judges have made to usurp the role of the legislature, and the importance of this institution to society at large, marriage as "one man, one woman" gets my support and my vote on Nov. 7.

Despite the attempts to cloud the issue with diversions about the impact of the proposed amendment on heterosexual couples (who can get married and avoid that alledged impact), this amendment is about homosexual marriage.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It Really Is About Gay Marriage.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/650

24 Comments

Yes, and it is about Muslim marriage with 4 wives and fundamentalist Mormon marriage with 40 wives, and group marriage, and adult incest, etc.

First homosexual marriage, then the others.

Kathy said:

If I were to shove you and it didn't lead to genocide, does that make my action any better for society?

Jack said:

Huh?

We already have a very effective law against gay marriage. If you don't want the issue to be clouded by questions about the impact of this proposed amendment on common legal arrangements among non-gays (including LLCs and elderly people who want to give a specific friend or relative the power to make medical decisions for them), then why do you have that language in the amendment? Just write an amendment that bans gay marriage without trying to completely torpedo our current body of contract law.

It's not anyone's fault that this amendment is so flawed and that the debate has wandered into other legal territory except that of the Republican leadership in Richmond. Not my fault, not the gay rights advocates and not the chambers of commerce who are appalled by this language. You guys screwed this up yourselves. The best thing for you to do is to vote against this amendment this year and then come back next election with an amendment that doesn't depend on judicial activism to avoid voiding thousands of otherwise legal contracts.

If this amendment passes as it is currently written, the effects in the courts will be such that fiscal conservatives will be alienated from the Virginia GOP for many, many years. If you think you've got a dangerous party spilt as it is then just wait until small business owners start feeling the effects of this reckless amendment.

Jack said:

As I said, heterosexuals can get married, so the amendment does not harm them.

How will it affect small business owners?

Loudoun Conservative said:

The amendment could increase costs and reduce religous freedoms for small business owners by requiring them to provide benefits to "married" homosexual partners. Currently this is optional.

This argument about the amendment voiding contracts is a silly red herring. The amendment doesn't change the status of same-sex couples under VA law. We have more than 2 years of history under current law and no contracts have been voided yet.

The amendment prevents judicial activism, to which we are as vulnerable as other states. The only reason to oppose this amendment is that you want to get rid of VA's current marriage protection laws.

Anyone want to take a stab at answering Victoria Cobb's excellent question: if one man / one woman doesn't suit you, how do you define marriage?

zimzo said:

Wait, I'm confused. Isn't the Republican Party the gay party now?

Jack said:

'The amendment could increase costs and reduce religous freedoms for small business owners by requiring them to provide benefits to "married" homosexual partners.'

I think you have this backward.

Zimzo!! We finally agree on something: you are confused!

Moderate 5-19 soon to known as A Moderate Voice said:

Once again allow me to be the voice of reason. What the Foley mess taught us is that there are likely just as many Gay Republicans as Gay Democrats. The difference is the gay GOP closet just has a better lock on it.

The Velvet Mafia has long been known to be a very active and powerful GOP gay group as are the Log Cabin Republicans. Once again this is an issue that does not necessarily have to be politicized; however Mr. Grisby is so egregious in his clear hate of Democrats he has even been sued for his ridiculous antics

Now let’s try to look at this issue without the partisan rhetoric. I don’t agree with Gay marriage, (and FYI I’m not a Republican). I do think children are much better served with a mom and a dad. I think marriage and the family are the backbone of our society, and gay marriage is not good for society as a whole. As a Christian, (Wow a Christian who is not a Republican, maybe I should charge for people to see me since some think I’m an endangered species). LOL

I do feel there should be some way for homosexual couples to have “partner rights”, things like hospital visits, property ownership etc. I’m not sure how to go about this. Unlike Mr. Grisby I don’ has all the answers, but I can’t imagine two people being together for 30 years or more yet not having the right to visit the other if sick in the hospital.

So my question is this, is there some type of “acceptable” way homosexuals can have partner rights yet not marriage. Or I’m I out on a branch all alone on this one?

Jack said:

To take slight issue with you, what we have learned from Foley is that disgraced Republicans resign, disgraced Democrats are given leadership positions.

Moderate 5-19 soon to be known as A Moderate Voice said:


Really, is that all you learned Jack?

How sad I am for you.

Jack said:

And what have YOU learned? Whatever it was, it was certainly not statistics.

Jack said:

Oh, I also learned that when Democrats DO resign in disgrace (Torricelli), it's because they are trailing badly in the polls, and then they violate state law to get another name (Lautenberg) on the ballot.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jack, you have too many ideas to play the part of a right-wing pundit.

but you agree that this, "gay marriage is not good for society as a whole" idea is at the heart of the conservative opposition to gay marriage, isn't it? Or are there other reasons?

Jack said:

I cannot say what is in other's hearts.

Walter said:

Mr. Grigsby is fomenting the politics of division that will destroy the GOP. There are many reasons why Republicans too are voting against this ill-conceived piece of social engineering. See:

http://www.votenova.org/gop

Arthur De Volve said:

I am trying to think of one financial construct of marriage that is not available to individuals by other legal means?

TH said:

Just a question: Will this amendment preserve Virginia law from being overthrown by activist federal judges or just those in Virginia, who are largely conservative anyway?

Jack said:

The VA Marriage Amendment can be overturned by a federal judge.

TH said:

Thank you, Jack. I hadn't heard that. So, I wonder why there is all this effort for a state amendment when the effort really should go toward a federal amendment if the point is to protect the definition of marriage under Virginia law.

HA said:

Grigsby is a convicted slanderer. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Put your money where your mouth is, HA: Give us your real name, tough guy.

Otherwise, throwing around terms like "convicted" and "slanderer" makes you sort of worm-like.

Jack said:

Whether or not Grigsby is a "convicted slanderer" is irrelevant. That is what is called an "ad hominem" argument: Grigsby is a convicted slanderer, so no position he takes is valid.

Attack the message, not the messenger.

I assume when John gets back online he will weigh in but my understanding is he wasn't convicted of anything and the truth of what happened (contra Mod 5-19's remark) is John did something actually quite humorous that some humor-challenged idiots decided to sue him over. I think some people take the Washington Post a little too seriously.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM