« Del. Ben Cline ... #praying | Main | Real Government Reform? »

January 25, 2014



If I thought for a second that government would get out of marriage all together, I might say fine. But this amendment wouldn't just go away, but be replaced with a law forcing recognition. Considering what has happened to the couple in Oregon who owned that bakery, that is absolutely the wrong way to go. We don't need new laws making another protected class.

And make no mistake; this is exactly why Mark Herring is wrong. His fight won't end with the elimination of this amendment to Virginia's Constitution. He will take it that next step. He didn't campaign on this to begin with, and it is clear he has little regard for rule of law. Rather than government working to regulate the pursuit of happiness of homosexuals, it will instead start to regulate the very liberty of those who consider it a sin.

If a change is desired, Mark Herring is not the one who should pursue it, unless you want a future where churches are coerced into performing ceremonies they disagree with and business owners are thrown in jail for choosing to hold to their values.

Eric Koszyk


You are wrong on several levels. First of all the bakery you are talking about is in Washington, not Oregon. Second of all the lawsuit had nothing to do with marriage equality coming to Washington. The bakery violated a Washington law that was already in place before marriage equality -- in the state of Washington it is against the law to refuse service based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. The bakery would have violated the law regardless of there being legal same sex marriage. It would be the same if the bakery refused service to Jews or Christians, blacks or Chinese.

Churches will never be forced to perform ceremonies of people who are not members of their congregation. I'm married to a Jewish woman; we're both agnostic. There is not a church (or synagogue) in the country in the nation that would be forced to marry us, nor would we seek that.

Also, when Herring was campaigning he did let it be known that he is in favor of marriage equality.

I am very happy with his decision. The rights of individual adults to marry who they love should never be put to a vote. I don't have the right to tell you who you can marry and you don't have the right to tell be who I can marry.

It would be an embarrassment if Virginia is one of the last states to be forced to recognize the basic civil rights of two adults being able to marry -- just as embarrassing as "Loving V Virginia" is, the case that got rid of laws criminalizing interracial marriage nationwide.

Eric Koszyk


Whoops. I confused the recent case in Oregon of a bakery with the case last year in Washington of a florist.

Still, the case in Oregon makes my point. Oregon does not have marriage equality yet, it only has domestic partnerships. The case against the bakery had nothing to do with marriage equality or, for that matter, domestic partnerships. The bakery violated a 2007 state law which makes it illegal not to serve people based on account of their sexual orientation. The bakery would have also violated the law if it had discriminated against blacks, whites, Jews or Christians, since that is also against Oregon state law.

The 2007 law provides an exemption for religious organizations and parochial schools but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation.


Religious freedom trumps sexual orientation.
You say churches won't be forced to perform SSM unions. But many didn't think Photographers or Bakeries would be forced to participate in the celebration of gay marriage either.
Three bakery cases in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, with the photography case taking place in New Mexico

The comments to this entry are closed.