General: July 2004 Archives

It's nice to feel included by the Democratic Party. I'm so happy that they are addressing our issues and trying to make sure that we are treated as equal citizens in this country!

BOSTON - (KRT) - Since May, gay and lesbian residents in Massachusetts have been able to marry their same-sex partners.

But gay marriage was barely whispered from the podium during the Democratic National Convention here this week. Party strategists and gay and lesbian delegates alike say the controversial fight for equal marriage rights must take a back seat - for now - to the more immediate goal of defeating President Bush.

Sen. John Kerry supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage at the federal level and in his home state of Massachusetts, a position that's angered some gay activists. (source)

I've been sick the last few days. Monday morning, I awoke at 3:30 with a migraine. I then realized that I couldn't move my head from side to side. I sat up in bed and couldn't even bend my head down. I thought it was all connected to the migraine. I felt nauseated and clammy.

I didn't even try to go back to sleep because I knew it would be pointless. I was too miserable to sleep. I rested in bed for another 45 minutes, then decided to get in the shower thinking that the warm water would help. It didn't, but it did feel good. I got ready and went to work.

After 9:00, I called my doctor's office and asked when I could get in to see him. I was lucky. They asked if I could make it at 1:20pm that day.

I show up at his office, and I'm feeling very tired. I felt that was normal since I woke up at 3:30 and didn't get much sleep. After waiting for 10 minutes in the waiting room, they called me back. After taking notes on my symptoms, taking my blood pressure, etc., the assistant put me in this room and said the doctor would be in shortly. I was sitting on this padded examination table. It was hard to stay away, and I was in a fair amount of pain from not being able to move my neck. I caught myself half way dosing while sitting on the table. I eventually laid down on the table, waiting for the doctor.

He finally came in after twenty minutes of waiting. We talked for a bit while he reviewed the notes that she wrote down. He then tried to turn my head and asked if it hurt. I screamed out in pain. He said, "Wow, I guess you do hurt." He then called the nurse in and asked her for an injection of something. I asked what it was for. He said, "I'm going to give you something for the pain."

She returned with the syringe and he gave me the shot. He turned out the lights and said that he'd be back in 15 minutes after it had time to work. After a few minutes I could feel some relief in the pain. I found myself feeling like I was floating on a cloud. There was music coming from the speaker in the ceiling. It was Imagine, by John Lennon. I never actually thought much about the song, to tell you the truth. But, with nothing else to do while this drug did it's thing, I listened to the words. They made a lot of sense to me:

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

It occurred to me, as I'm lying there on the table, suddenly feeling so much better, that religion is what is causing so much pain, intolerance, bigotry, death, isolation, suicide, and mayhem in the world today. Not only religious fanatics such as Osama bin Laden, but the Religious Right in general who, through their religious beliefs, somehow feel that that gives them a license to make others suffer because of what they believe.

I think of people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Gary Bauer, and many others, and I wonder, are they any better than Osama bin Laden? That may seem outrageous to you. Osama bin Laden is killing people he feels are "infidels" based on his religion, to achieve his goals. The people I mention above are doing the same thing, in their fashion. They don't kill people directly, but they do kill their spirit. They dehumanize them and make it easier to devalue what contributions the "infidels" contribute to society.

They do this in a variety of different ways. In the most recent examples in the news on gay marriage, they make arguments that if we allow homosexuals equal access to marriage, before long we will have to grant marriage to someone who wants to marry his goat or his dog. That, my friends, is dehumanization. Suddenly, by making that statement, they are saying two things; 1) the marriage of a homosexual couple isn't worth as much or at the same standard as theirs, and 2) if homosexuals are allowed access to marriage, it's only a matter of time before they will want to have relationships with an animal. They call this the slippery slope theory.

But those are just words, and we are taught as children that words can never harm us, right? I suppose that is a good thought to tell children, but we all know that words can hurt more than anything else. Words are very powerful, as are actions.

The tools that Osama bin Laden uses are guns, planes, and bombs. The tools the Religious Right and various members of Congress use are words. It's hard to know which one is stronger. For example, just one week ago, the House of Representatives actually passed a bill called the Marriage Protection Act.

Marriage Protection Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny Federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of: (1) the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that provides that no State shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other State; or (2) this Act.

That is the power of words. That short passage states that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is off limits to ANY court in the land, including the Supreme Court. And finally, let's look at the "or (2) this Act". What does that mean? It's the most dangerous of all, and the most unnoticeable.

The Act includes itself as being placed beyond the scrutiny of any court in this land. In other words, it can not be ruled unconstitutional since the courts do not have the authority to touch it.

Is that Constitutional? Many think not. The bill outwardly violates equal protection and access to the courts. It also singles out a specific group of people (in this particular case, gay people) for second-class status, also unconstitutional.

The danger here is not singling out the gay community. We are used to that and we will fight the bigotry the best we can. The greatest danger is the undermining of the Constitution itself. If the courts are conveniently denied access to rule a law unconstitutional, where does it end? Which group or cause will be in the cross hairs next?

If this is allowed to succeed, we will lose much more than our right to marry. America will have lost democracy itself.

A great article about the happenings the last few weeks in Congress.

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Florida's ban on adoptions by gays narrowly withstood another legal challenge, but some dissenting federal judges condemned the nation's only such blanket prohibition.

In a 6-6 vote, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, declined Wednesday to reconsider the case of four gay men who had appealed an earlier adverse ruling by a three-judge panel of the court.

One dissenting judge said the law was "irrational" under the Constitution's equal protection clause because it singles out gays. Another said he would move to change the law if he were a Florida legislator. [...]

Gov. Jeb Bush said Thursday the decision not to reconsider the case "validates Florida's conclusion that it's in the best interest of adopted children to be in homes anchored by both a father and a mother."

But in a sharply worded dissent, Judge Rosemary Barkett noted that no other groups, including child molesters and domestic abusers, are barred from adopting in Florida. (source)

You ever take notice at how out of sync priorities can be? I suppose it is because of people's irrational fear of the unknown.

Case is point... A federal court has upheld Florida's ban on adoptions by gays. I thought it was an excellent point by Judge Rosemary Barkett that no other group, including child molesters and domestic abusers were barred from adopting in Florida. Absolutely amazing.

I apply this rationale to gay marriage and I wonder if it's the same kind of fear at work. I'm always wondering, what are people so afraid of?

It's that time again folks. Last week, we saw the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment. With that defeat, attention is now shifting to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

DOMA basically says that any state need not honor the marriage of a same sex couple who was married in a state that allows same sex couples to marry. For example, Iowa would not have to honor a marriage performed for a gay or lesbian couple who went to Massachusetts to get married.

Many are saying that DOMA is unconstitutional and would not withstand a challenge. Apparently, enough people in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee agreed on July 14th by passing The Marriage Protection Act on a vote of 21-13. It's sponsor, Tom DeLay (R-Texas), says Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to remove issues from federal courts' jurisdiction.

Noting that DOMA is vulnerable to court action on constitutional grounds, they are trying to remove the authority from any court from ruling against DOMA. Perhaps Tom DeLay should read the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty clear. I'm not sure what the outcome will be tomorrow but you know what? It doesn't matter! If it passes, it will be overturned because you can not pass laws singling out one group of people in this free nation for a citizenship that is second-class.

In a nutshell, the Marriage Protection Act is an attempt to prevent us from having access to the law and the courts. The Constitution will not tolerate that.

(Washington) Two leading LGBT civil rights groups warned Wednesday that The Marriage Protection Act is unconstitutional and if it is passed Thursday they will fight it to Supreme Court.

The bill would block federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases challenging federal Defense of Marriage Act. [...]

But, Lambda Legal said that it was never intended to be used to prevent an identifiable group from being blocked from the judicial system.

"In attacking both gay people and the historic role of courts, this bill clearly violates our Constitution and will never be allowed to stand," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"Just 13 months ago, I sat in the U.S. Supreme Court when the justices delivered their ruling striking down an antigay law in Texas. The Court made clear that laws cannot single out gay people to treat us as second-class citizens," Cathcart said.

"This bill tries to do exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has just rejected -- and if it ever passes, it will take its place alongside the now-dead Texas law in the dustbin of discriminatory attempts to treat gay people as second-class citizens." (source)

We live in interesting times.

Something to ponder

Twenty-five states introduced legislation this year that sought to amend the state constitution to prohibit the performance and/or recognition of marriages between same-sex couples and in some cases more (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.)

Fifteen state legislatures staved off discriminatory amendments. Those were: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington.

Amendments (initiated by legislators or citizens) will appear on ballots in 11 states - Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma , Oregon and Utah. The proposed amendments will appear on the November ballot except in Missouri, which will appear in August, and Louisiana, which will appear in September.

Signatures continue to be gathered in Ohio and North Dakota to put amendments on the November ballot in those states.

Three state legislatures - Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin - must re-approve amendments that were passed in the 2004 legislative session in their upcoming legislative sessions. (source)

And this is happening in Iowa!

Some Iowa school districts are changing their policies to protect openly gay students. About 17 school districts across the state including Ames, Des Moines, Urbandale and West Des Moines are protecting homosexual students by making changes to their anti-discrimination policies. Critics of the policy change say that all students should be protected against sexual harassment, but school officials say that gay students often get the brunt of the abuse. (source)

The Bahamas, yet another place that I won't be going for vacation.

Do homosexuals have the same right as regular tourists to spend their vacation in The Bahamas? And do homosexuals living in the country have a right to push their views on society? These were some of the questions being addressed by veteran journalist P. Anthony White and Cable Bahamas' Dr. Keith Wisdom on 102.9 Island Fm's radio talk show "Parliament Street" on Sunday.

The show's co-host, attorney Fayne Thompson, noted that there appears to be a section of society that is on a campaign to turn such visitors away from The Bahamas because of their lifestyles. He questioned how, in the context of freedom of speech, does one deal with the intractable difference between those foreigners who feel free to live such a lifestyle and those who feel that fundamentally, such a lifestyle is wrong. (source)

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley concerning the homosexual menace in California. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. - Thomas Jefferson

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. - Chief Justice Earl Warren, in delivering an opinion declaring Virginia's "tradition" of banning interracial marriage unconstitutional

I can understand that the Republicans wish that gays and lesbians would just go away with their wishes to be equal in this country. I can understand the deep seeded hatred they have for us. Most of us grew up with this so we understand these attitudes.

In Washington, it's all very civil. They won't say what they really think about us. They won't use terms such as dyke, faggot, queer, and the like. They will use terms such as sanctity, family, and children to mask what is really going on.

It's no different than beating a queer up behind the high school after a football game. It was all in the name of fun and they were only doing it as a favor for the greater good of society.

Now, the Senate is doing this for the greater good of marriage. I don't even think that many of them believe that. It's a way they can gay bash without calling us faggots. It's a way that they can try to sell to the American people that they are doing something for the greater good of American Society.

At the end of the day, all they have done is to denigrate a segment of society they care nothing about. Personally, I wish they would just come out in more honest terms like the good old days. Then at least, you knew the monster you were dealing with.

All of this aside, what really offends me is that they think gays are so foul that opening up the Constitution for ad hoc editing and revising seems to be no big deal to them, where we are concerned. I suppose they view it as the lesser of two evils. Or perhaps, they don't give a rats ass about the Constitution? As long as we are in there doing the editing, let's slip abortion and interracial marriage in the mix as well. Why not? Hell, let's cover the rest of what they would consider the social ills of America.

Senate Republicans prepared two versions of a constitutional amendment on marriage, unable to agree among themselves on how best to get a vote on a measure that President Bush made an election-year priority for Congress.

The likely outcome is that neither proposal will get a direct vote after Democrats just last week had agreed to allow one.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said there was "great interest" among Republicans for a simpler approach that would add only one line to the U.S. Constitution: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Democrats rejected Frist's request to hold votes on both it and the original version that included another sentence: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Proponents of the amendment said they included the second sentence to clarify that state legislatures — but not courts — could still establish laws recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships between two people of the same sex.

"There's been a considerable amount of debate and a lot of scholarly thought and a lot of constitutional experts that have been approached as far as what would be the best language," said Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, who authored the original version.

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the last-minute effort to get votes on two different versions reflected a lack of care in drafting the amendment. (source)

I noticed a few interesting items today in the news.

Gay Marriage is dead in New Mexico
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a county clerk's request to issue more marriage licenses to gay couples.

The court, in a one-page order without comment, unanimously denied Victoria Dunlap's request to lift a temporary restraining order that blocks her from handing out same-sex marriage licenses.

No surprise to me here. This stems back a few months ago when New Mexico was handing out marriage licenses to gay couples. It was about the time San Francisco was doing the same. There was an order for the court clerk to stop issuing the marriage licenses. She pursued the issue in court. This was the result of this ruling. So, for the time being, gay marriage is dead in New Mexico.

Church displays controversial sign
Members of the Lighthouse Mexico Church of God gathered today to watch as their pastor hung a controversial sign warning against homosexuality.

It's the second such sign posted by the church; the first one was vandalized.

Reverend Ronald Russell maintains that he is not against homosexual people but is in fact trying to “help them.”

He believes they will be condemned to hell.

That is why he says that when his first sign was vandalized, he had a second one made up – one that he feels is less offensive.

His said if he did not display the sign, he would have failed as a religious educator.

Personally, I don't really care what they put up. I don't go to the church and I think they are just showing their ignorance. If it's what they believe, they can knock themselves out, as long as they don't incite violence against others.

Of course, there always seems to be a few nuts out there who will read "Gay is Not OK!" and think that it is a license to go out and do harm to gays. Then the church will turn around and say, "Oh no! We weren't suggesting that!" Or, they'll say something like, "...he wasn't even a member of our church", like that gets them off the hook. I've seen it happen time after time.

On a somewhat related note.... many of you know that I vacation in Ogunquit, Maine. Well, not too far from where I stay is a Church of Christ. This particular church is very conservative, although I'm not sure all are. At any rate, I went to Ogunquit off-season once, and found a very homophobic sign in front of their church saying that "gays are going to hell", etc.

I then went up a few months later when it was in-season. The sign had been taken down, I imagine so all the gay tourists wouldn't see it. It's amazing the power that money has.

"We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are."

"Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?"

- Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Price winner

Story

Another hate crime has happened in Kentucky. Some feel that it has started because on Election Day citizens will vote on a constitutional amendment which would ban same sex marriages in the commonwealth.

At least it was reported as a hate crime and no one was killed. And, they have the bashers in custody and it sounds like the police are taking it seriously.

The terrible irony in all of this is that Matthew Ashcraft, the man he brutalized for being a "faggot", is a straight man who was there with some of his gay friends. Matthew saw the attack about to happen and tried to stop it.

A 38-year-old man, who Newport police say levied the city's second brutal hate-motivated beating this year outside a Monmouth Street gay bar, is scheduled for a preliminary hearing Thursday in Campbell District Court on one count of first-degree assault.

Police say Steven Ard (pictured), of Dayton Street in Newport, attacked 19-year-old Matthew Ashcraft with a metal baseball bat just before 11 p.m. June 26 outside Woolly's on Monmouth.

Witnesses said Ashcraft, of Independence, was beaten when he tried to stop Ard from attacking another man leaving the bar that Saturday night.

Leon Hughes said he had just stepped out of Woolly's about 10:30 p.m. to take the bar's golden retriever, Maggie, for a walk, when two men came toward him after they exited Taylor's Landing Tavern next door.

"They said, 'Come here, faggot! Why don't you and your little faggot dog come here?'" Hughes recalled. "Then he started coming closer and charged me. He hit me in the ribs and the next thing you know, Matt and his friends were there. Matt was trying to get them off me basically." [...]

According to Ard's arrest citation, as a result of the attack Ashcraft suffered a fractured skull, cranial bleeding and a blood clot on his brain -- all classified as potentially "life-threatening" conditions. (source)

In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them. - George County (Mississippi) Judge Connie Glenn Wilkerson

Wilkerson, 65, has served as justice court judge for seven years. In 2002, the Mississippi Supreme Court amended the state's Code of Judicial Conduct to specifically call on judges to avoid "expressions of bias or prejudice,'' including demeaning remarks based on "sexual orientation.''

Wilkerson, who has served as a justice court judge for eight years, said in 2002 the letter was in response to a news story about the killing in San Francisco of Dianne Whipple by two dogs.

Whipple's lesbian partner was suing the dog's owners and Wilkerson said he was expressing his opinion about a California law that grants partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members.

Lambda Legal filed an ethics complaint with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. Following an investigation the commission charged Wilkerson with willful misconduct and breaching the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi. The commission asked the state Supreme Court to sanction Wilkerson for his statements.

But, in a 5-2 decision, the high court chose not to sanction said Wilkerson was only exercising his First Amendment rights. (source)

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, even judges. But, if you were going before this judge on a legal matter, and you happened to be a gay couple, do you think he could be impartial? That's the real question.

Below is the full text of Judge Wilkerson’s letter in the George County Times back in 2002:

Dear Editor:

I got sick on my stomach today as I read the (AP) news story on the Dog attack on the front page of THE MISSISSIPPI PRESS and had to respond! AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE!

I never thought that we would see the day when such would be here in AMERICA.

The last verse of chapter one of the book of Romans in our HOLY BIBLE is my reason for responding and sounding the alarm to this. You need to know as I know that God in Heaven is not pleased with this, and I am sounding the alarm that I, for one, am against it and want our LORD to see and hear me say I am against it.

I am sorry that the California Legislature enacted a law granting gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members. Also, that Hawaii and Vermont have enacted such a law, too. In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of a mental institute instead of having a law like this passed for them.

I don’t know, but I believe if we vote for folks that are for this we have to stand in the judgment of GOD the same as them. I am thankful for our Legislators and pray for wisdom for them, on such unbelievable legislation as this. May GOD bless each one of them in JESUS CHRIST’s name I pray!

Thank you for printing this.
Connie Glenn Wilkerson

Other sources

In the last five years the military has fired around 1,000 gay service members with skills sorely needed in Iraq, according to a UPI analysis.

The military next week will recall from their civilian lives some 5,600 soldiers to fill out the ranks of 141,000 soldiers serving in Iraq. The service is calling in those former soldiers who have very specific skills tailor made for the Iraq conflict -- food service, truck driving, auto repair, combat engineers, administration specialist, paralegal, healthcare and infantry. It is the largest mobilization of the Individual Ready Reserve in two decades.

However, according to numbers provided by the Army and by the Defense Department, at least 948 gay former service members with the very same specialties have been forced out of the military under the don't ask-don't tell policy that bars homosexuals from serving. Not all of the 948 are from the Army.

For instance, the Army is seeking 790 motor transport operators -- truck drivers -- to pull a year's duty in Iraq. At least 113 military truck drivers were forced to leave the armed forces between 1998 and 2003. (source)

Related blog entries

Starting today, House Bill 751 is now law in the State of Virginia. Below is an except from the law.

For more information, visit Stand Up for Equality (http://standupforequality.org/).

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gay activists rallied in major cities statewide to protest a new law that critics said could nullify legal contracts between same-sex couples.

The state law, which goes into effect Thursday, prohibits civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements "purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."

Critics said it could be used to nullify medical directives, wills, joint bank accounts and other agreements between gay couples.

"(The law) clearly states that gay and lesbian people in this state should not feel welcome," said Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia, the state's largest gay rights organization. "It seeks to strip the only tool that gay and lesbian couples have to protect their families." (source)

I've never been to Virginia. But, it goes without saying that I won't be going there, ever. In fact, if I'm traveling and my plane happens to have a layover there, I will choose another route. I won't even set foot in the damn state. If they want to be that way, let them have it. And, if I lived there, I'd seriously looking into moving, because I wouldn't want to pay taxes to them.

This law isn't simply saying that we don't want gay unions, it's also saying that gay people cannot form any legal relationships what so ever. We can't enter into any contract to tie each other together, be it a "domestic partnership", a "civil union", or a "marriage". Many legal experts are also saying that the wording of the law could also prevent other social contracts as well.

When I read about things like this, it really brings home to me how easily people are scared about what they don't understand and how easily threatened they are. It doesn't give me much hope for our race. What is something really bad were to happen? We seem to need someone to blame and we always need a scapegoat. Now, that scapegoat is our community, at least in the state of Virginia.

I think there is also something to be said for doing a bit of research to find the companies who have headquarters in Virginia. Why support them? This is something

When I hear things like this, it really brings home to me that the only thing that speaks louder than the rhetoric of these kinds of bills, is MONEY! Don't support discrimination against yourself. If some company is giving you grief, boycott them, as in the case of the Foot Locker. That's the best way to fight it.

Finally, here's a thought for you if you live in Virginia. A will is a legal contract between you and another person. If you are gay, it's highly doubtful with this new law in place that the will is going to be valid. If you live in Virginia, have a will with your partner, be aware that there may be a problem with enforcing the will.