Wow — Virginia's law outstrips even Ohio's reading on the Gratuitous Hate-o-Meter.

The Supreme Court already covered something like this in Romer v. Evans, which invalidated a Colorado state constitutional amendment that expressly forbade any government entity to enact any protections for the rights of homosexuals.

The Virginia legislature no doubt knows that this kind of law won't last long, but when a federal judge cuts it down he'll get hate mail for it, and they'll say, "we did our bit. It's these damned liberals on the bench that muched everything up." It's a cheap way to score political points.

The sad thing is that the legislature's enactment presumably reflects what the Virginia electorate wants. And there's precedent here, too — it was a Virginia law against miscegenation that the Supreme Court struck down when it affirmed the right of racially mixed couples to marry.

That case was aptly named "Loving v. Virginia". Maybe that should be the slogan on bumper stickers. Or Virginia v. Loving, as it was the state that made the unprompted declaration of war here.

Damn, Brad got home from the game first and got first crack. I saw your post and wanted to be the first one to comment because I agree wholeheartedly. The gay marriage thing has become a posturing opportunity for politicians to prove their intolerance to an intolerent constituency.

The Texan may win the upcoming election, but sometimes I am damn proud to be from Massachusetts. Not that our bigots are any less bigoted, but there are anough pols, judges and ordinary intelligent, tolerant people to actually allow the occasional bit of progress.

My only question to you Rich, is when will your outrage with Bush and his reactionary social agenda actually lead you to vote for the boring liberal from Massachusetts?

And to all you bible-wielding moralists out there, remember, Leviticus also says you can't eat bacon . . .

This is why I'm constantly grumpy. If I highlight an area where I disagree with Bush, it's "How can you justify not loathing him given that he believes X?" If I don't, then I'm a shill for the administration.

I think we would both agree that both candidates are sub-optimal (to say the least). It's a matter of choosing from a menu full of crap. And sometimes I just want to talk about the issues – even if it detracts from your narrative about "Right-wing Rich".

But to your question, I do count (a lot of) Bush's social agenda against him. But if he supports something reprehensible with no chance of passing (like the Federal Marriage Amendment), do you become a one issue voter – I will not vote for him no matter what – or do you weigh the likely outcome?

The principled side of me feels dirty compromising, the pragmatic side says it's the only way that makes sense.

The centrist in me is disgusted and alarmed when either panders to his base.

So I don't know, I have no final answer here. We each have to use our own calculus, I guess.

Oh, and Brad, definitely "Virginia v. Loving" for the bumper sticker – though it's a joke only a lawyer could love....

Just make sure you consider that Presidents can effect their social policies by judge appointments — most notably, Justice Stevens isn't getting any younger. If Bush gets reelected, he'll have to hang on for four more years (at least). A 3-6 breakdown (left to right) could mean big trouble on the SCOTUS.

I can't imagine Bush could get somebody like Scalia through the Senate in this day and age, if the Estrada fiasco was any indication. Still, that doesn't mean he won't be trying. This article talks about the possible roster changes to the Supreme Court under the steerage of either candidate. There is speculation that Kerry might nominate Laurence Tribe if he were elected. That would be a gift. He's a brilliant man, good person, and we probably all agree with most of his conclusions, which tend to be based on sound law and logic.

In the interest of bipartisanship (by which I mean contempt for both the Democrats and Republicans), Kerry has not exactly embraced his home state's progressive stance on gay marriage. It's an open question whether an overt fascist is really worse than a coward on the side of right. It takes a combination of both to make America today.

Rich, please understand me, I'm all about pragmatism here. My argument about the Patriot Act was that with Bush in office we get it passed with Kerry's gutless OK vote. With Kerry as president it nevers makes it to the table. It's not that Kerry's principles are any better (although I believe they are), it's all about what awful new laws will be passed with each man in office.

So let's talk pragmatic. A gay marriage ban might not pass, you're right. It might, but it might not. However, as Brad points out, the more righties we have in the courts, the more likely we are to have restrictions or rights for our gay brethren. The Patriot Act above is another example of one that did pass with Bush but wouldn't have with Kerry. Kerry's stance on gay marriage shows his willingness to pander for votes, but I'd much rather have a guy that will say he's against full marriage rights to give himself a chance of getting elected - but won't really stand in the way if he is - than a guy who will use his power to put forth as many restrictions as possible.

I agree the choice sucks - that's why I voted for Nader in protest last time - but the choice is also clear . . .