that mysterious Virginia marriage amendment

Once Jesus is invited back into the conversation here, we discover a shocking, politically-incorrect fact: Jesus continually taught against divorce. Given the higher-than-average divorce rates among U.S. Christians, how curious that Dobson & company aren't so concerned with an ammendment making divorce illegal.
Their cherry-picking theology is not impressive and has little to do with Jesus.

FYI - here's a link to a list of 280 Virginia clergy who signed a statement opposing Ballot Question #1: http://www.votenova.org/clergyVoteNO

I looked at a summary of state amendments and was interested to note that this was on the ballot in a large number of states, mostly red ones. As such, it probably wasn't so much aimed at gays as aimed at increasing the turnout of the Republican base. It does look like bigotry, though.

Look like bigotry? Is is bigotry.
As a gay man in a committed relationship with my partner of six years, raising a four year old son we adopted as an infant, I can tell you these amendments are aimed directly at families like mine. They go a step further than denying us legal marriage, by also prohibiting "marriage-like" legal status like domestic partnerships and civil unions, and even threatening to nullify legal arrangements we make to secure even a few protections, like medical powers of attorney. Oklahoma's ban on gay adoptions, and recognizing gay adoptions finalized out of state, would leave gay parents in doubt of their legal relationships to their children.
I've documented some of the cases of what gay couples face when denied these rights and protections, as well as the full list of benefits and protections. As it stands now, as we make commitments to one another and build families together, we assume many of the burdens and obligations of marriage (to borrow from the New Jersey ruling), but are denied the benefits and protections afforded other families. Not only that, but in doing so we are also effectively subsidizing subsidizing state-sanctioned families with benefits we are denied, while having taken on the same responsibilities.
My family is fortunate enough to live in a state that has not passed one of these amendments, but for those gay families who do, they now have to wonder if they'll be able to visit one another in the hospital, or to make medical decisions for one another, and whether they'll be kept apart during a partner's last moments. They have to wonder if their legal documents still have any weight.
Beyond that, these laws are also aimed at unmarried heterosexuals. Ohio's amendment effectively relieved unmarried heterosexual couples the right to file domestic violence complaints.
But at the of the day I look at the news and I wonder. Britney Spears has been legally married twice. Once for 55 hours as a drunken joke, and once for two years. The latter marriage was borne out of busting up her second husband's family while his girlfriend was pregnant with his second child. I've been all-but-legally married to the same man for six years, and our commitment is no less deep than Spears commitment to either of her marriages. Yet in both of hers, she's enjoyed benefits and protections we're still denied. Explain to me the justice in that?
Finally, David, I read your book and found it hard to discern just where you came down on gay equality. That you could actually not know about the Virginia amendment is astounding, and also suggests that you just haven't been paying attention. That pretty much sums up progressive evangelicals on gay issues. Maybe the support equality or something close to it, but they'd much rather not think about or talk about it.
Which doesn't do much to help us protect our families. Because I guess there are more important things, even though most of the benefits and protections sought come into play during times of crisis like the illness or death of a partner, when a family needs the most support. We'll continue committing to each other, our families, and our communities without that support, until enough people decide it's the right thing to do, to treat us like any other family of human beings.

Terrance, Shouldn't your sexual choices not be meted out to an innocent child? Marriage is not a man and a man. Even adopted children should have a mother and a father. A family is and always has been a man and a woman.
It is not the majority population's fault you and your life-partner were "born" gay.
Children still, no matter what, come from the union of a man and a woman. Not even test tube babies can change that fact. A fetus still has to grow in a woman.
That a Constitutional marriage amendment has to be even considered is a sign that our society has reached a breaking point. Obviously the GLBT community is the intolerant ones here. What can possibly come out of the licensing of same-sex "marriage?" Has anyone (on the Left) really even considered the absolute oxymoron of "same-sex" marriage? What knid of mind embraces the altering of marriage and family? "If" a person is "born gay" they should not use innocent children for political power. Has not God or nature, told you something? Use of our "human" intellect would help in this matter. Homosexuality does not produce children. That is not the fault of non-homosexuals or the "religious right." I thought this was all about natural conditions? BTW, how many gays and lesbians are admonishing non-homosexuals NOT to embrace promniscuity, licentiousness, hedonsim. And homosexual sex "if" they are not homosexual? Condom-morality is not exactly the Gospel. I think it would be interesting to see if "gay parents" teach the same things as non-homosexuals. How many parents even desire their children be included in their sexual condition? But this is the case of a child in a gay/lesbian home from the moment a child reaches an age to understand what's going on in their world. Marriage must be always a man and a woman, so that the children of society know that there is a basis and foundation for which society stands. "Anything goes," has been seen throughour history to doom civilizations to riuns. Why wouldn't those that feel they are born homosexual, realize that marriage and family should not be forced to change because of their congenital condition. In all seriousness, once this Pandora's box is opened for real, what is next? Species are only seperated by congenital condition as well. Non-human animals are "born that way" too. All of the scientific evidence points that way. And many people really "love" their pets. Same-sex marriage? Why not different-species marriage?
That slippery slope is a reality now.

Hey all, sorry to be late to the discussion. Always remember you can also email me at davidkuo@beliefnetstaff.com. Perhaps one of the reasons that I missed the discussion was because I was deep in book-writing mode. That means I was behind on things and not up to date (kind of repetitive, huh?). And that is what I found striking - that I, as a "casual" viewer (making me probably much like most Virginians) didn't see more about the initiative. Neither, for that matter, did neighbors with whom I talked. I tend to think that the issue has lost steam. All that being said, my own views on gay marriage? One of the things I am trying to do is to not get into divisive debates but to try and focus more on the spiritual end of things. This is not a cop out so much as it is a hope that in this blog, in stuff I say in print or on TF, that I can make the case that evangelicals like me need to disentangle - fast - from the political process for a while so that Jesus becomes less associated with a political agenda and more associated with what he says he came to do. Make sense?
Thanks, David

"All that being said, my own views on gay marriage? One of the things I am trying to do is to not get into divisive debates but to try and focus more on the spiritual end of things. This is not a cop out so much as it is a hope that in this blog, in stuff I say in print or on TF, that I can make the case that evangelicals like me need to disentangle - fast - from the political process for a while so that Jesus becomes less associated with a political agenda and more associated with what he says he came to do." I do so hope Andrew Sullivan WILL engage you on the subject of marriage equality. It's a conversation evangelicals (I know AS isn't an evangelical) need to have with the greater religious and non-religious communities, not just within your circle of like-minded believers. This IS a social just issue and will not go away. Have you read his thoughts on marriage equality?

Well, I long ago stopped thinking I owe anyone an explanation for whom I love. I also long ago stopped believing that my orientation means I have to expect less and accept less from life than others. The choices we made were to commit to each other, and to become parents. Our son's birthparents chose us from among more than a dozen families to be his adoptive parents. We said yes to him before even laying eyes on him. It's the best choice we've ever made together.
Bottom line, I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs. People can believe what they want about families like mine. What I'm concerned with is how my family is treated. To be honest, I don't even care whether it's called marriage or not. Call them civil unions or reciprocal beneficiaries. That's fine, if it gives our families protections we currently don't have. I don't think we have to agree on everything, when it comes to gays and lesbians, to get there.
In that regard, I can find some common ground with people like Jim Wallis, who is opposed to same-sex marriage, but support legal rights and protections for our families. Like I said, it's a position that's at least a step forward from the status quo. And it's a majority position, according to polls. While a majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage (though that majority has shrunken considerably since 1994, when the issue hit the national political scene, and continues to diminish), a majority answer in the affirmative when asked if they support some legal rights and protections for same-sex couples. When I broke out the categories of those rights and protections in a post on my blog, most people who commented support nearly all of them. I highly recommend Wallis' writing on the subject, which is towards the end of his book God's Politics. The reason I ask the question is because, like I said earlier, I actually have a lot of common ground with some progressive evangelicals on other issues. I'd be willing to work with them on those issues. But it's hard to form coalition with someone I know isn't going to stand with me when it comes to issues that affect my family.
We form coalitions by meeting each other halfway; meeting in the middle of the road, as it were. If we have common ground on other issues (poverty, war, the environment, etc.), then we ought to be closer to meeting in the middle by way of compromise. I'm stepping out onto that common ground here, trying to find if there's a place where we can meet in the middle on this.
That's all.

Donny, "Shouldn't your sexual choices not be meted out to an innocent child?" - You, like many "christians", continue to confuse homosexuality with child molestation. "Marriage is not a man and a man." - Actually, in many places it can be and it is. "Even adopted children should have a mother and a father." - Which would explain why SINGLE people are allowed to adopt. "A family is and always has been a man and a woman." - Gee, some on your side would say that's just a couple and that it takes children to make a "family". Who ya gonna trust, eh? Those 'heathens' in lands where a family can be a man and a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman? Or what about in Amurrikkka where it's one man, one woman at a time?
"It is not the majority population's fault you and your life-partner were "born" gay." - Who's "fault" is it then? God's?
"Children still, no matter what, come from the union of a man and a woman." - As if that had anything to do with mariage. "That a Constitutional marriage amendment has to be even considered is a sign that our society has reached a breaking point." - You are SO right about that. The Constitution used to say that ALL men (and presumably women, too) were created EQUAL. Wonder who 'broke' it, eh? "Obviously the GLBT community is the intolerant ones here." - How so? "What can possibly come out of the licensing of same-sex marriage?" - Um, more marriages. DUH! "Has anyone (on the Left) really even considered the absolute oxymoron of same-sex marriage?" - I'm on the left, and I don't see it as an oxymoron. "What knid of mind embraces the altering of marriage and family?" - Open ones. Thanks for asking. ""If" a person is "born gay" they should not use innocent children for political power." - This is a non-sequitur and illogical. Try again and do better next time, Donny. "Has not God or nature, told you something?" - Well, God tells me I am a child of God. And nature tells me I am a part of nature. Yer point? (You DO have one, don't you?) "Use of our "human" intellect would help in this matter." - Methinks you are unfamiliar with human intellect. Your strange usage of quote marks leads me to believeit even more. "Homosexuality does not produce children." - You've said this before, Donny. What IS your point? I mean, I know plenty of heterosexuals who are either incapable of producing, or who choose not to produce children. So? "That is not the fault of non-homosexuals or the "religious right." - You've said THAT before too. Who's "fault" is it then, God's? continued below...

curiouser and curiouser -
Thanks for taking the time to answer back to Donny's delusional rantings. Hopefully your comments be read by someone else whose mind and heart is open to listening to the other side - like the host of this blog. But methinks we'll just have this argument amongst ourselves.