Virginia is for lovers-- unless you're gay and wanna get married

They sure have been together a long time to not have been lovers.

Saweet Headline! Tell it like it is Hooksters! Diggin the raw grains n bold print.

It is unbelievable to me that anyone thinks they should get to dictate how others live their lives and who they can and can't marry.

Oh, god...now we're bringing God & the Bible into it...........

"GOD does not like my situaton and I don't like HIS position on my situation but I have to live with it."

Actually, you don't.

we all know who = Moron

* Language stronger than "darn," insults, ethnically or racially disparaging language, and comparisons to Hitler usually result in speedy comment deletion and may get you blocked from further commenting.*

Someone actually had to point this out? REALLY? Think about that for a minute as you read this article and some of the comments. Some of us are trying to become nicer people as a society, and the ironic thing is that certain Christians won't allow it. You don't know God if you think He approves.

Inspiring article.

Catherine Gillespie and Andre Hakes are models of stability and responsibility.

We are are lucky to have them in our community.

Well said, BARTLEBEE

@Golden Helmatv - The Hook has run quite a few pieces on panhandling. Go find those.

Well I'm not a liberal Ponce, so politics doesn't, or shouldn't have any thing to do with it here. Its a matter of being a hypocrite, or not.

People like you who go on the internet and "ask" questions like that by comparing a legal consensual adult relationship between two people of the same sex to incest, or worse to pedophiles, etc, prove you have no argument. You instead have to smear these people by comparing them to criminals as if that had any basis in reality. Simply call it similar to incest, then suddenly you feel you've made a point. You haven't. All you've done is lower yourself by using the same sort of slanderous foul methods racists, hypocrites, self righteous bigots and the like have always used to justify their bigotry.

Again, I don't know if Christ thought it was right or wrong. Why? Because he never said a word about it one way or the other. So if it is wrong, apparently not wrong enough to merit a word or two from the master on the subject. What I do know however is he condemned people like you who sit in self righteous judgement over your brothers and sisters for their petty sexual transgression, as hypocrites in whom the greater sin lies.

I don't have a problem with them one way or the other. Sure its unpleasant to see two men kiss, in fact its nauseating. But so is seeing a father changing a babies diaper in the men's room. So is the smell of Indian food (to me). There are lots of things I don't like in society, but that's life. Adults learn to focus on what concerns them and to ignore that which doesn't. At least that's what adults used to do.

They are in no way an infringement to me in any way, shape or form, and the fact that you people feel two gays getting married somehow lessons your own marriage, doesn't say a lot for the worth of your own marriage. Because it doesn't hurt mine. And what they do, holding hands in public or getting married at the courthouse, in no way infringes on my life.

And if I see two guys on the TV kissing, I turn the channel. If I see two girls on the TV kissing, I turn up the volume.

We like some things, we don't like other things. And just because something that is completely harmless to us and in no way infringes on our rights, is "unpleasant" to us, or we "disagree" with it, ...doesn't mean we get to infringe on the rights of others enjoy those things if that's what they want. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Suppose the gays said heterosexual marriage was an abomination to them? Should they be able to block two hetero's from getting married? Don't think so. So why should people like you, try to block them?

Our laws are based on the old adage, "My right to swing ends where your nose begins". If they're not hurting you, then its not your business and you should keep your "nose" out of it. Worry about your own life, and your own sins, and let others worry about theirs. If more "Christians" in this country would try that for a change, they'd have a lot more converts. More people would hear and heed his message, if the Christians would stop breaking Christs own commandments and start trying to emulate his example. Christ didn't condemn people for sexual transgressions, so who are you to do so?

Reread my comment. I never said "you" compared them to pedophiles. I said people "like" you, who compare it to other things, like incest, rape, and the like. And they do. In fact its been compared to that by our political leaders in public recently, so its not me bringing it in. I can't bring something in that's already been introduced. Comparing Homosexuality to criminal acts implies its of the same nature, which is taking a religious opinion and selling it as law or morality.

As for your comment, your question infers that homosexuality is immoral. Which contradicts everything else you're saying, if indeed it doesn't matter to you. Then how can you call it immoral?

However, after reading your comment again, and in light of this latest comment I'm seeing that your issue is not that you think homosexuality is immoral, but that you are confused as to the word you're looking for.

The word you're looking for, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is "mores'", (pronounced "mor-ayz") . Mores' are related to morals, but aren't morals themselves. They're based on what a society finds socially acceptable. Your argument on gay incest does in fact have merit in contradicting social mores with regards to the original reasons for the outlawing of incest (hereditary flaws passed on within the same family) . So not sure what the answer there would or should be. Sounds sick, but again being unpleasant doesn't make it my business. So if that's what they wanted to do I guess its their business. Whether or not they should marry, however is another story since family members share a great deal of legal protections already with regards to the transfer of wealth. Sounds sick though. But it is a good question.

I don't normally comment on articles on the internet, but for some reason I feel a need to try and bring a little clarity to this conversation. Jesus Christ did address the issue of homosexuality in the New Testament. In Romans 1 starting at verse 18 (See below). The bottom line is that those who participate in the act of homosexuality are acting contrary to the law of God and are worthy of death because of it. Now, the fact remains that just like any other breaking of laws, either against man or God there are consequences for those actions and the commiting of such acts are totally up to you. If you do the crime you do the time.18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And to pick and choose text in the Scripture to back up your beliefs, while specifically ignoring things like its' backing of slavery, putting people to death, working on the Sabbath, etc, well, it just further points out the true hypocrisy of many leading the so-called 'Christian' way of life.

@Just Saying. See, thats the problem with you Bible thumpers. You're too busy thumping it to bother to read it or learn about it.

Jesus didn't "say" anything in Romans. Romans was written by Paul, long after Jesus' death.

There are only 4 books in the current Canon of the New Testament where you can find Jesus' words, and those are the Synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of St John. No other place in the New Testament will you find Jesus' words.

I suggest you buy yourself a nice "Red Letter" Bible and study it sometime, prior to going on the internet to thump it. Then you'll see Jesus' words (printed in Red ink) and won't be confused next time, and preach nonsense simply because you don't know anything about the book you're busy waving at people to call them sinners with.

And when you're reading Jesus' words in the 4 Gospels, you'll read how he ALWAYS, condemned the self righteous pious hypocrites like you who spent their time condemning the petty sexual transgressions of others. Those caught in sin he smiled on. Those doing the "catching"....not so much.

Some people get their sense of morality from the bible. Some get them elsewhere. Some people say that the separation clause prohibits anything religious being a part of our system of laws... (but that is not what it says... it says the government cannot sanction one religion over another) but thats another story...

So it appears that if someone gets their value system based on the teachings of christianity then their votes don't count? When someone quotes their interpretaion of the bible for their beliefs it is no different than someone saying there is no god anywhere and that we are all the product of a big bang. You MAY be able to logically disprove that jesus is the son of god, but science cannot disprove the existance of a supreme being creating the big bang.
The question then becomes how far do you want to take it in the context of your own life. If someone wants to stop at jesus or allah they are entitled to their opinions based on that and get one vote accordingly. If I find a stray dog and "save" him then he will go his entire life beliving me to be his "god" and make his values based on my teachings and his faith in me. That is nature. So when someone tells you they believe in the bible for thier values they are simply giving you their reasoning behind their beliefs. It does not make it "wrong" it makes it different. The legislatures and the courts will decide things as nessasasry. That is why las vegas has legal prostitution and idaho does not.

So does that mean that laws requiring people to wear clothes are unconstituitonal? What about people having sex in their front yard?

It really does not matter WHERE people derive their value system, from it only matters whether or not the restrictions we place on public behavior (or private for that matter) are within the framework of the constitution and its amendments.

We lock up people for looking at naked pictures of 17 year old girls when many of our grandmothers were married at 16 and had a kid on their arm by then.

Society does have the right to determine what it thinks is right and wrong and the supreme court rules as to its constituionality and thats the end of it until we repeat the process change ther law by vote, or amend the Constitution by ratification. It doesn't matter where they draw their value system from which is why we need to have discussions about values and how they affect not only individuals but society as a whole.

I have zero problems with gays marrying, I have problems with gays . cross dressers transexuals post preop too many pieces parts and I'm so confused wanting to use a restroom in front of a six year old child who should not have to deal with the impact of that while at his birthday party at chucky cheese. And I do believe that society has the right to determine how far it wants to go to make exceptions from the norm.

There are people who think that a 30 year old man who gets aroused by a 16 year old girl is sick and a pedophile and should be jailed or castrated or both, but that a 21 year old man who looks at a 18 year old boy and has lust should be protected at all costs. Even if the 18 year old looks 12 and the 16 year old looks 24. It is very easy to defend the couple like the ones referenced in this article and I hope they get all they want, but there are some reasonable discussions that should be had as to what is acceptable public behavior. We spend so much time trying to protect children from confusing impressions and the gay community should accept some responsbility to not provide undue influence by the extremists among them anymore than christians should have their beliefs at the forefront and should do thier best to distance themselves from the religious nuts.

Virginia will allow gays to marry in due time. In the meantime no law can stop two people from loving each other and there are plenty of legal contracts than can be entered into to
gain the same protections as hetero couples. It may not be perfect but it is 1000 times better than 20 years ago.

Bartlebee, wow. You sure maligned that guy pretty good before acknowledging that his question was legitimate.

Take a breath and count to ten. It will be alright..

Also if you read what I wrote, you'll see I didn't necessarily say his question was legitimate as asked, as if you look closely before jumping to your keyboard to "malign" me, I pointed out the fallacy thereof as it presupposes that being gay is immoral. Now, take a deep breath, and have a nice day.

ebyn knott The state does not prohibit gay marriage it just does not sanction it as a legal entitiy. The state apperently feels that it is up to the voters of virginia to decide what types of legal entities to recognise and can do so until the voters change their mind or a court rules that it is unconstituitional on whatever grounds the court uses.

Just like the state chooses to place certain limits on medical procedures and does not allow regular doctors to buy mri machines because they cost the hospitals profits. This is certainly discrimination but is considered for the public good. Just like interacial marriages were once considered taboo. Things change and it is an evolutinary process. When people were against interacial marriages it was because they thought that we would end up with blacks pulling whites into poverty and embracing the black culture instead of the other way around. It is obvious that their fears were completley false as we have so many succesful interacial relationships to prove them wrong and no whites ever act ghetto.

So the fear that gay marriages will confuse impressional young children into homosexual experimination and blend the genders away from the traditional strong male and vunerable female roles will need to be disproven too. It is obvious now that gays are all over the tvs and movies and men are portrayed as sensitive and emotional and it is okay to avoid confrontation and not take up for the womenfolk that we are evolving to a better place where we will all be equal and we can finally let women change the tire in the rain without feeling emasculated. This does not make men look like sissies. This equality is what we strive for. There is too much male comptetion out there and we need a testoterone check anyway.
The future generations will be able to be influeneced by nothing more than instinct when it comes to a partner and the result will be genderless household where the kids can finally play together as one. Just imagine a nice playdate where the little boys put on make up and the little girls are running around slinging dog poop on each others head and laughing at fart jokes. It will be wonderful

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Ooooh! Awesome! Im gonna show everyone how totally-not-gay I am by tattooing that right on my chest God's word! Praise him!

Leviticus 19:28: "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."

Uh,. Well darn it. Maybe I'll put it on a T-Shirt....

Leviticus 19:19: “‘Keep my decrees... ...Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Mm hmm. Well maybe Jim the Barber can just carve 18:22 into my hair, that'll let those homos know...

Leviticus 19:27: “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

God Damnit, how am I going to let all those homos know how totally-not-gay I am?

Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Well... umm.. "shucks", I guess. Screw it, Im going to go to Red Lobster...

Leviticus 11:12: “...of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.”

Aha! This time I got you god, I wasn't going for the shellfish. I was going for a nice juicy rare steak and some butter biscuits...

Leviticus 3:17: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout Your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

What? Oh I give up. Biblical homophobia is harder than Ted Stevens' rentboy. Wait, did I say that out loud?

Sure, let the carpet lickers get married. One always looks like a man anyway - as long as it stuffs a tube sock down its pants and doesn't also dress in a gown I don't see a problem.

@Toni, Christ had special words for such as yourself. Hypocrites who proclaim their so called righteousness while condemning their fellow man over petty sexual transgressions that are none of their business. Hypocrites, in who lies the greater sin.