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

Many enamored couples choose Valentine's Day to get married, and André Hakes and Catherine Gillespie would like to be among them. But even on Valentine's Day with a big chocolate-filled, heart-shaped bribe to Clerk of Court Llezelle Dugger, it ain't gonna happen in Virginia.

About three dozen people crowded into the Charlottesville clerk's office as Hakes and Gillespie went through what has become an annual tradition: requesting a marriage license.

Dugger would like to accommodate them, except for one problem. "I have sworn to uphold the Constitution of Virginia." And that constitution the people of Virginia amended in 2006 to make sure that couples like Hakes and Gillespie could never tie the knot in this state.

"It's a very important civil right we do not enjoy in this state," says Amy Marshall, who also would like to get married. She says frequently people here are astounded when told that she and her partner can't.

Hakes and Gillespie have been together 16 years. "We own property together; we have a child together," says Gillespie. "The implications of not having legal protections are frightening."

When friends in DC or Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal, ask how can they live in Virginia, Gillespie's answer is simple: "It's my home."

They'll be back again next year. And should Dugger ever be able to grant their request for a marriage license, she promises, "I'll be open at 12:01am."


The reason they can't get married is it is wrong and perverted; forget the PC stuff it is just wrong.

Wrong and perverted.The sort of thing I heard folks saying when I was growing up about why we should not integrate the schools. Blacks and whites might start marrying each other-and that was an abomination and a sin against God and man.

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

well, I guess it is apparent who the idiot is in the comments section here

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

You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept that YOU don't get to tell OTHERS how they live their lives.

Same sex couples don't destroy your marriage. Only you and your spouse can do that.

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.

Bottom line. If I'm GOD then I decide what is right or wrong. If GOD is GOD then HE decides what is right or wrong. Where do we find the answer? The BIBLE. SCRIPTURE is clear on the black and white issue and SCRIPTURE is clear on the gay issue. Both the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT states that it is wrong for a man to be with another man or a woman to be with another woman. It is not wrong for any race to mix. It is wrong for man & man, woman & woman, and beliver & non-beliver. That is it. GOD decides. GOD does not like my situaton and I don't like HIS position on my situation but I have to live with it. I'm single, straight, & I love sex, but I DO NOT want to get married.

Oh, 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.

Gay Marriage = Oxymoron

we all know who = Moron

Nevermind. Just, nevermind. Devoid of reason...

* 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.

Id like to see an article in the Hook stating......"The Downtown Mall is for shopping, entertainment, and an enjoyable experience....that is unless you're accosted by a Panhandler the City refuses to deal with"

I will not return there and spend my $ until action is taken.

Inspiring article.

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

We are are lucky to have them in our community.

Actually if you're Christian, then you're supposed to be following the commandments of Christ, not the Mosaic law of the Torah.

Christ didn't say anything about homosexuality one way or the other. What he DID do however was condemn all those who spent their time condemning the sexual transgressions of others. Those people he called "hypocrites", and said in them "lies the greater sin". So whether its right or wrong, I don't know. But what I do know, is Christ said all you Bible thumping Christians speaking out against the gays and lesbians, are the hypocrites and in whom lies the greater sin.

Well said, BARTLEBEE

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

I don't care who marries who... but I do have a question...

If society has made the determination that people should be able to marry as long as they and they alone feel that that is what they want to do and societies "judgment" is both irrelevant an unconstitututional then my question is:

Why can't a man marry his son?
Why can't a brother marry his brother or a sister her sister?

or to make it really tricky: why can't a mother marry her son if she is post menapausal or a father marry his daughter if he has a vasectomy or she gets her tubes tied?

Can you really claim "morality" for incest when there is zero chance of a retarded offspring?

Will those who protest in the streets for gay marriage come out and support darryl and his other brother darryl?

just curious how sincere peoples claims to being socailly liberal really are....

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?

barltebee, I didn't bring pedophiles into the ring for this... i am talking about a homesexual relationship between two men who happen to have the same parents...

Why not? If they want a consensual relationship then how can we deny them with the precedent of gay marriage out there. Gay marraige is based on the legal precedent that we do not have a legal right to judge.

My questions are not based on chiristianity or any other religous judgments and i stated i don't care who marries who as long as both people are of age and say" I do" without duress.

I just have heard people for gay marraige say that "incest" is wrong... and when i ask them about homeseuxual incest they say it is "still" wrong.

So my question is simple "why is it wrong if a child cannot be sired?

I don't think it is nor should be... I don't care about any of it... but If your going to tell people that morals don't matter than lets go for it. ....

By the way YOU are one throwing pedohiles in to polute the argument. Mine is a legitamate apples for apples comparison.

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.

It doesn't matter what your religion says. The ability to marry whomever you choose as long as they are consentable and of a consentable age is an inalienable right, period. That's why there is a separation between church and state, so that our laws are not overly influenced by any church. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will one day include freedom to choose to marry someone of the same sex too.

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.

Folks, the Bible is a book. That's it. Just a book. Live by it if you please, but do not force it on me. I have lived a wholly good life, provided for my wife and children, never committed a non-driving crime (sorry speed limit), am charitable, and good to this earth and to others. And guess what, outside of weddings and funerals I haven't attended a church service since forced to in Middle School. Do not tell me I'm a sinner. The Framers had the foresight to realize the Constitution should be a living, breathing document. Those who wrote religious texts did not. Things that are written in these texts, Bible, Torah, Koran, cannot accommodate all modern ways of the world. Sure, the 10 Commandments help society, but they relate to a moral code we should all abide by. Christianity has been, and continues to be, a search for the layman's path to Heaven, but it's also always been perverted in a power, money grubbing way that contributes to as much violence on a worldwide level as it does salvation. And that's without even tackling the issue of, why in the world do Christians believe their religion is 100% correct when there are so many others out there.

To those that compare marrying a non-related person of any sex to that of animals, relatives, mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons, I say this: Get your nose out of 'books', wake up and realize that your narrow view of the world infringes on others, and if you don't like it, well, tough. The same people who won't watch a show with two guys kissing, or are visibly disgusted by the act, are the same ones who have no problem with senseless violence on tv, movies. Your God is cool with violence depicted in brutal ways, but not with love between to caring individuals? You've perverted your God in the way that best suits you, not the world.

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.

This is just proof that I really do live in REDNECK HeLL, you people are ridiculous!

@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.

@Downtown Brown. (love the handle). Don't let Bible thumpers like "Justsaying" muddy the waters for you. He like most of these Bible thumping types know little to nothing about the Bible other than how to bonk their fellow man over the head with it.

The fact is Jesus never said one single word, throughout his entire 3 year ministry on the subject, one way or the other. He never said it was a sin. He never said it wasn't. He never mentioned it. Once. And all these Bible thumpers saying he did, are ignorant of the book and the man they claim to follow. Jesus' words appear in 4 books of the modern canon and 4 books only. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all 4 written after his death by his Apostles and their scribes and prior to being written down were vocally recorded using the Hebrew Oral Tradition (a very accurate way of recording data not written down, similar to what you saw in the movie Farenheit 451 when they recited books word for word).

The book Justsaying is thumping above, doesn't have one single word of Jesus' in it. He's quoting from Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and Jesus is not quoted once in it.

Paul was not one of Jesus' 12 apostles, or one of his followers, and in fact never even met Jesus. Not once. He never saw or heard him speak during his entire 3 year ministry.

Paul came after Jesus died, and was a convert to Christianity who claimed a vision on the road to Damascus, and whose books the Catholics used to build most of their doctrines.

Jesus' words appear only in the 4 Gospels of the Canon, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. No where else.

Like most Bible thumping evangelicals and "born again's" Justsaying doesn't has demonstrated he doesn't even know where in the Bible the words are of the man he apparently claims to follow. Kind of hard to follow Jesus, if you don't even know what he said, or where in the Bible he said it.

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.

Good post Bill. Don't agree with all of it, but well thought out and written.

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..

@Meanwhile. 1. I didn't malign anyone.I just refuted what they said. 2. The one who needs to take a deep breath is you apparently, if your entire comment is to come in and tell me to take a deep breath.

My breathing's fine. Apparently yours is not.

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.

The state has no legal ground to deny or interpret faith issues on behalf of ministers. Gay marriage is 1st amendment right. It is the fundamental right of the clergy to interpret there own faith and they should not be prohibited from performing gay marriages. Its unconstituional.

Some faiths allow gay marriage; some do not. It is this simple:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You may not personally like it that like the pastor at my church will preform these ceremonies, but you have no right to deny them. Its how I interpret God's will and his message. Most importantly, the STATE HAS NO RIGHT to prohibit them or interpret scripture on my behalf.

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

God bless you each and everyone but God's Wrath is coming so get prepared you unbelievers. God is gentle, kind hearted. He has already layed his Laws down to mankind whether they believe or not is their loss and damnation. Fear not.

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?

None of that was said by Jesus. You're quoting from the Torah which was a book of Mosaic laws for the Jewish people, written thousands of years prior to the birth of Christ.

Again, throughout his entire three year ministry Jesus never once mentioned anything about it, one way or the other. So if he felt it was a sin, he apparently didn't feel it one important enough to bother mentioning.

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.

Sodomites and muff munchers, keep your vile perversions in private as you should. You wanna "get married" and play jail house roles about who be the husband and who be the wife? Then move to Massachusetts or one of the other supporters of deviated preversions. Why can't you just be happy we don't throw you in jail and we let you practice your disgusting perverted nasty actions? Why do you want to have your perverted lifestyles recognized as just like everyone else's? The rest of us 95% will always ridicule you and make jokes about you. That will never end. That's because lesbian sex and sodomite sex is a sick joke and we laugh at you for your oral-anal filthy perversions. We expect Dogs to sniff turds and each others' butts, but when humans do it, it's just plain nasty. Of course we elect some of you to the board of supervisors just 'cuz we like our token perverts...

@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.

Bartlebee..Are U one of them?And what do I care what Christ may have said?

No, but I am an American and a member of the human race. Neither of which you can claim.