Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Gay Marriage Vote and Its Implications

It passed a few days ago, but I just thought I would do a little analysis of the vote. As many of you all know, it passed the House 73-22 down from 79-17 last session. Here are the vote changes:
Dick Black-Dave Possion: Yes to No
Preston Bryant-Shannon Valentine: Yes to No
Chap Peterson-David Bulova: Yes to No
Harvey Morgan: Yes to No
Albert Pollard-Rob Wittman: No to Yes
Jim Dilliard-Dave Marsden: Not Voting to No
Gary Reese-Chuck Caputo: Not Voting to No
Marian Van Landingham-Dave Englin: Not Voting to No
Ken Melvin: No to Not Voting
Bobby Orrock: Yes to Not Voting
Tom Rust: Yes to Not Voting
Lionel Spruill: Yes to Not Voting

I also noticed that most of the democratic votes for the amendment were Richmond Metro and Southwest legislators. I am not sure why Richmond would be against it anymore than any other place, but SW makes sense. Minority Leader Frank Hall of Richmond voted in favor both times and Sen. Creigh Deeds also voted for it last time and voted in favor in committee this year. Certainly some dems must be upset with their top officials voting for this amendment.

If I can say one good thing about the dems its this, they don't go after people based on one vote they didn't like. They realize a generally like minded legislator is better than one from the other party. I think the GOP should take a cue from them on this. Trying to kick Potts out is one thing, he has totally defied the party and his constituents on everything. Trying to remove people like Joe May is another thing altogether. Hopefully the GOP will not again make primary challenges based on one vote. I also hope people like Joe May and the other "gang of 17" members will make sure to carry the GOP issues and do what they can to prevent another round of primary battles in 2007.


  • At 1/18/2006 4:35 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said…

    That’s a great analysis; I didn’t realize support was waning so much.

  • At 1/18/2006 5:07 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I don't think general public perceptions have changed, just legislators.
    Much of it will rest on whether the dems continue to gain seats.
    As we saw, all the new dems voted for the amendment except Bowling, who's predessor voted for it as well.
    If the dems would regain the house, it may not pass (even though it would only be a bill to overturn the amendment, assuming it passes the Senate and in November)

  • At 1/18/2006 6:29 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said…

    For this to fail, your still talking about some signifigant gains in the House of Delegates, not for Democrats, for liberals. I believe it only takes a majority to pass an ammendment, so thats 28 pick-ups.

  • At 1/18/2006 9:18 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said…

    Wisdom beyond your years in the last grafof the post, GH. You're begining to talk as though you believe that politics should lead to responsible governance. A radical notion around some parts. But you're right. Otherwise the whole party-thing begins to look like a bunch of cranky kids fighting on a playground.

  • At 1/18/2006 9:20 PM, Anonymous saywhat?? said…


    The amendment will become law in November, no doubt, but you're wrong when you say public perceptions on gay marriage haven't changed. Opinion on this subject is slowly but surely changing. One day Virginia will be embarrassed about having this amendment and we'll undo it, as we had to slavery and segregation. It will take a while, but it will happen. History is on the side of gay rights and the tide is (ever so slowly) turning.

  • At 1/18/2006 10:12 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thanks Scout for the kind words. I think it is typical of the majority to be looking for those who aren't exact in their thoughts b/c we think since we have the majority we should get everything our way. We GOPs are worse than most for this line of thinking (remember Kilgore not being conservative enough?).
    I don't agree with that assessment saywhat. I think it may turn toward civil unions, or to getting rid of government sactioned marriage (j/k on that).
    I think most feel that "marriage" is what it is. Civil unions will probably become popular in the future though. Marriage may be allowed in liberal areas like Mass and NY, but I doubt it will ever be allowed in Virginia. I have been wrong before though.

  • At 1/18/2006 10:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is a WORLD of difference between opposition to gay "marriage" and this piece of crap legislation.

    I for one will have to vote against it when it comes up for citizens - if it had just stuck to gay marriage I would have been in favor. Unfortunately, this amendment will outlaw many other agreements besides just marriage - and I believe that is exactly what the proponents want.

  • At 1/19/2006 1:13 AM, Blogger Charlie said…

    here's a question i've wondering about. to what extent (if any) is this amendment motivated by a desire to boost turnout when it goes on the ballot?

  • At 1/20/2006 2:28 PM, Blogger Ben Kyber said…

    I hate to plug myself, but I talk quite a bit about this on Blue In VA.

  • At 1/20/2006 10:54 PM, Blogger Politicl.Animal said…

    If you're thinking Richmond, think churches.

    Specifically, compare ethnicity of pro-amendment votes and then check their church affiliation.

    You may find something.


Post a Comment

<< Home