Last week I received a trackback to my follow-up entry on Virginia's "progress" on a ballot measure which would define marriage as one man and one woman, with an extra dash of bigoted contract restrictions just for fun. To say that the blog entry linking to my post was poorly reasoned would be a laughable understatement. Normally, I'd just let this portion of the argument fade away, but I'm intrigued by the manner of the trackback.

The author included the link to my entry with a number of other posts from the blogosphere concerning Virginia's potential Constitutional change. I didn't scan through all of them, but based on the author's link to mine, I need to make assumptions about motive. Was the author attempting to provide a balanced view of the topic? Was the author attempting to illustrate his allegedly insightful post by exposing my analysis? Was the author simply trying to gain readership for his views? All are plausible, I suppose, although I doubt my acceptance of the first possibility is correct. That's what I'm going with, which I'm using as my excuse to reply.

To recap, the General Assembly pushed the bill forward, making acceptance of a joint bill between the Senate and House of Delegates inevitable. So this is what's in the tracked post [sic everywhere, but you could've guessed that]:

... This is great news, there is no greater feeling then stopping sin.
...

One man named Gabriel disagrees [ed. note: source not provided]:

This story doesnt surprise me. the south has many good things, but when it comes to gay marrige , homophobia is the first re-action. I honestly pitty their ignorance and narrow mindedness.

Believing in something such as God, the Bible and Biblical values is not ignorance and it’s probably the least narrow mindedness. Homophobia may be a first reaction but who wants to see something un-natural? It is Biblically wrong to be gay.

Let's see, believing the Bible and Biblical values is the least narrow-minded? I don't follow. I'm not making any judgments on Christianity here because I think Christianity can be compatible with modern liberty. Not as practiced by people who argue the way this author has, mind you, but I think it can be done. However, we derive the law of the United States Commonwealth of Virginia from the Constitution. (Why not keep this focused on Virginia?) It's rather convenient because the state Constitution offers protection for everyone. In a strange coincidence with the United States Constitution, the state provides freedom of religion. You can believe in the Bible, but you can't discriminate because someone's view of God is inconsistent with yours. The actual basis for laws requires equal protection, with no caveats for Biblical restrictions that I can find. And I don't even think there's an "un-natural" qualification, which is probably wise because that sounds subjective.

Next, the author provides this nugget:

Dyana Mason, executive director of the Equality Virginia, said the measure would "write discrimination into the Virginia constitution."

Its obvious Mason has no moral values and has jumped on the liberal bandwagon. After all, it’s the popular thing to do now.

Come again? Last time I checked, George W. Bush claimed the presidency. Republicans control the Congress. I've read too many family values, Homosexual Agenda, activist judge speeches to believe that. But I have witnessed the Bush Administration's spending habits over the last five years. People voted for that, so the liberal fad argument might be on to something.

Yes, I skipped the "no moral values" claim on purpose, since I missed the obviousness of it. I assume you did, as well. So, why bother?

Which leads to the end:

"This is going to change the way gay people are treated for the rest of my lifetime," Richmond auto dealer Mac Pence said.

Just because the gays can’t legally get married doesn’t mean they will be treated differently.

Gays and lesbians can't marry their partner of choice, and they might even have contract restrictions placed upon them that others might not face, but that doesn't mean they'll be treated differently. If I jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, that doesn't mean I'm going to die, either. I'm not going to try it, though, because I have a brain that understands logic.