The whole process took about an hour, but I feel pretty good about it. My opinion might change, however, if the proposed Marshall-Newman Amendment passes.
Here's the text:
Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:
“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”?
Forget about George Allen, bond initiatives, or any of the other crap. Forget about being pro-choice, or pro-life, and what that means with regard to stem cell research. Even if you disagree with homosexuality in general, this amendment is offensive. Not only is it offensive because of the homophobic undertones, but it's offensive because the language is so overly-broad that some court somewhere could interpret it as making contractual agreements between unmarried persons that involve some right typically associated with marriage invalid.*
Oh, and let's not forget that it defies the principle of comity.
See, one of the things that works so well is that governments have this understanding by which they're supposed to recognize the validity of other government's laws, in a "You don't tell us what to do, we won't tell you what to do either." That's why if you get married on a whim in Vegas, you're still married when you get back home. So, with this amendment, Virginia is saying that they'll refuse to recognize unions that are perfectly legitimate in the place where they occurred.
*I think there's a good basis for an equal protection challenge on this basis. I mean, what exactly is the legitimate governmental purpose behind the law, and how exactly does the provision accomplish that purpose?