Reactions to California gay-marriage court ruling

Item by Chris Graham
[email protected]

The California Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage.

And this impacts Virginia … how, exactly?

“The people of Virginia in 2006 voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage for days such as this. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote a handful of judges should not be able to toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children,” said Victoria Cobb, the president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, one of the leading proponents of the effort to amend the Virginia Constitution to ban gay marriage in 2006.

“Regardless of the insanity of California’s courts, the law in Virginia is perfectly clear – we recognize that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that children deserve both a mom and a dad. Because of that, our children can rest easier,” Cobb said.

Interesting perspective there. Dyana Mason, the executive director of Equality Virginia, a civil-rights group that was a key partner in the campaign to fight the marriage amendment in Virginia in ’06, sees a silver lining in the decision in California.

“All Americans should celebrate the California Supreme Court decision today,” Mason said. “Interpreting that state’s constitution, the Court ruled that their same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and that all couples, gay and straight, have a right to marry the person they love.

“Unfortunately in Virginia, we took a different path with the 2006 passage of the so-called ‘marriage amendment’ banning any type of relationship recognition for same-sex couples, even though a majority of Virginians did and continue to support civil unions. We will continue to work to change hearts and minds and to seek full equality under the law,” Mason said.