A mixed group of students and local activists marched in protest today as part of a national day of action against the passage of California's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Related: Students protest Proposition 8
Nearly 100 students and residents joined for a march from the drill field around campus and back chanting slogans, bearing signs and waving and cheering at passing cars.
"We're in southwest Virginia, we want to improve the LGBT community's visibility and we want people here to know we exist," said organizer Tami Grossman.
The sophomore theater arts major put together the Facebook group that organized the protest herself.
"I started the Facebook group on a whim Monday night after a friend of mine at Mary Washington sent me a link to the national Facebook page," Grossman said. "This isn't just a California issue, it's an issue across America."
"I'm gay, I want my right to marry," Grossman said. "I want to live in an America where I'm not just tolerated, but accepted."
As the group got moving some participants handed out signs with slogans as simple as "Why do we still have to protest this crap?" to a paraphrase from Richard Le Gallienne's translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: "I have no care about that book above; so I be written in the book of love."
Grossman said she saw gay marriage as a matter of simple fairness and tied it to the separation of church and state.
"[Religious] marriage is a religious ceremony. I think the state should allow a civil union and if the church wants to have a ceremony, that's fine," Grossman said. "I'm not interested in forcing the local Catholic Church into performing my marriage."
Several protestors said they wanted to draw attention to the gay and lesbian community in Blacksburg and at Virginia Tech and to highlight what they see as an injustice.
"I'll never be able to wrap my mind around how gay love is any different than straight love," said junior computer science major Maggie Mooney. "I want to draw attention to gay rights as an issue."
Dorothy Atkinson a theater arts graduate student said she brought her support as a straight ally.
"I have a lot of gay friends, this feels like a huge issue. This is a huge civil rights issue," Atkinson said.
Junior computer science major Tom Dinkelmeyer said he was disappointed by the vote in California.
"I have a lot of gay friends, it troubles me that their marriages will be invalidated," Dinkelmeyer said.
David Merryman, a junior theater art major, said he was let down as well.
"I was very disappointed by the ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, but most especially Prop. 8," Merryman said.
Passers-by seemed surprised to see such a large and vocal gathering on campus on a Saturday, but nearly all voiced support by cheering or waving, passing cars honked and waved their encouragement as well.
After the protest returned to the drill field, a group of more than 30 students remained to continue the protest.
Graduate student Daren Maczka said he was upset by this recent turn in American politics.
"I think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue," Maczka said. ""What we had was a democratic vote to take away a minority group's rights."
Maczka said he wanted to expose what he saw as a fundamental unfairness in a majority voting to take away a minority group's rights.
"It's baloney, they used lies to pass [Prop. 8]. They told people their kids would be indoctrinated, that their churches would be censored," Maczka said.
Sophomore computer engineering Taylor Eubank said he thought exposure to gay and lesbian people was key to understanding and tolerance.
"When I was still in high school, I would've been against gay marriage," Eubank said. "Now that I've had a chance to hang out with some gay people, I realize that these are regular people. There's nothing wrong with them."
Eubank shouted most of the cadences for the group as it marched.
Grossman said she felt like the march was successful.
"I'm happy, I think the flash mob failed in front of D2, but I'd call it a success," Grossman said.
"We had an open house with a lot of high school seniors visiting today. I think it's cool, hopefully they'll see that there's a chance for them to get socially active early," Eubank said.
Leave a comment 22 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I am proud to see Virginia Tech stand up for what is right --- equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation. Well done students.
Reply to this Top
I'm sorry, but Tami, acceptance can't be marched for. Everyone deserves to be loved, but somethings are just not intended; some things are just not normal. And by normal I mean "the norm" which is the average. The average person is heterosexual. Therefore being gay is not normal. Which classifies it further as a sexual deviancy. A deviancy from the norm. If the right to a union is extended to homophiles, what is the justification to deny it to pedophiles or necrophiliacs? Ya'll want to marry anyone right? (This is in jest, but I still do not support gay marriage because sodomy is against the law, and the bible says two men not ought lay together.) Anyways, I have seen so much hate come out of this "No on 8" campaign that it is ridiculous. Just because people believe other things than you does not make them a bigot.
Reply to this Top
Thanks for covering this very important day in American history. People will remember it. And there will be more to come. In the end, the fight for equality is not about the majority demanding 100% compliance to "the norm" -- it is about average Americans waking up and realizing that they already know a gay friend or have a lesbian as a member of their family and then choosing to advocate for a treasured human right -- the right to love another consenting adult (not corpses or children) and to be given protection under the law that the state affords to members of the majority. Justice should never be put on the ballot, because given the tyranny of the majority, justice will often lose...
Reply to this Top
religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and the new gay marriage and similar LGBT official recognition issues are on a collision course. In California, 70% of black Americans do not see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Our Declaration of Independence states that rights are endowed by our Creator. You can believe that or not, but it is a part of being American. For new rights to be declared, we the people need convincing that it fits the description in our founding documents.
Reply to this Top
Fr. Russell, the right to love another consenting adult is not hindered by this legislation. The only aspect of your statement that is under assault is civil recognition of this love, which is more of a dollars and cents issue than one of love. I've said it in response to other columns, and I'll repeat: the government should butt out of marriage of any sort, not meddle equally in the unions of both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Reply to this Top
Dear Anonymous, the average person is also white and male. Does that mean that people of color or females should be denied rights? I guess being black or Asian in the US is considered deviancy and therefore they should not have equal rights as white people, right..... right?
Reply to this Top
Rand, Deviancy by choice should be discriminated, not deviancy by birth. Hence, those of color shouldn't be discriminated. Those who choose to be gay (enough BS it is a choice)should be discriminated. Religious freedom or not, the US was founded on White Christian Values. That's history and fact. Part of those values find homosexuality wrong, immoral, and sin. Believe what you want, according to MY CHRISTIAN FAITH, homosexuals will burn in the eternal fires of damnation.
Reply to this Top
Although most people follow the faith of their parents or whoever raised them, religion is a choice, not a birthright. I can choose to attend a synagogue instead of a church, a mosque instead of a temple. Does this mean we should discriminate based on religion because it's a choice? No, of course not. This comparison, of course, oversimplifies the issue. Although coming out of the closet is a choice, your sexual orientation is not. Who would choose to be treated unjustly in our society; what high school kid would want to be called "fag" by his peers and pushed against a locker? But at the end of the day there are millions who opt for honesty, in schools, places of worship, the workplace, etc. Why? Because they did not choose their sexual orientation. They chose to be honest with themselves and others. We should respect those of all sexual orientations and stand in solidarity with those who make the brave decision to come out of the closet. On the other hand, religion might be a "choice," but millions in a particular faith tradition may not see this because their childhood and life has been structured in such a way that there are few, if any, other options available. For them, religion might not seem like much of a choice at all. Despite these complications, I still think my point stands.
Reply to this Top
According to the "norm", the Christian values of love, forgiveness and tolerance are becoming deviant behaviour. So are maintaining a normal weight and the responsible use of credit, come to think of it. It is an over-simplification to think that this is simply about a wedding or even about sex. It is also about the custody of children and survivor's benefits. It shouldn't be about hate, fear, and intolerance. It amazes me that alcohol abuse and domestic violence are considered more benign than long-standing, supportive relationships between two people who happen to have the same "parts".
Reply to this Top
I don't care whether homosexuality is a choice. I don't have any problem with a consenting adult choosing to do whatever they want with another consenting adult, so long as it is not infringing on my rights. I think decisions about adoptions, fertilization, etc. are best left to the agencies that offer them, and unions between individuals are best left to the churches or other social organizations themselves. This raises a question in my mind: are there churches or religions that openly accept homosexuals and approve of their lifestyle? If not, why not? I once heard a minister say that while he does not personally condemn homosexuality, he doesn't understand why a homosexual person would want to be a part of his church, which teaches that it is a sin. It's remeniscent of Michael Corleone repeating vows at his son's baptism while hits are being executed at his behest. Note: I am only making this analogy because it highlights the irony; I am not suggesting that the notions of murder and homosexuality are analogous.
Reply to this Top
Another point: I'm not sure on this, but it seems to me that "survivor benefits" are available to homosexuals. I am single, and whenever I open an account, I am able to name beneficiaries of my choosing. Same goes for my will. Doesn't marriage just change who gets your stuff if you fail to specify a beneficiary? I don't think it's the case that a homosexual can't elect to leave everything to their partner. I'm not sure how it would work in the case of, say, life insurance, but I'm guessing even those policies would accommodate naming whichever beneficiary you choose.
Reply to this Top
"Doesn't marriage just change who gets your stuff if you fail to specify a beneficiary?" More than that, legal marriage grants around 1400 rights, around 400 state, 1000 federal. The GAO did a report listing all of them: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
Reply to this Top
Cool, thanks for the link.
Reply to this Top
"I'll never be able to wrap my mind around how gay love is any different than straight love," said junior computer science major Maggie Mooney. Straight love includes penis in vagina.
Reply to this Top
That would be "straight sex", hokie_1997, not "straight love". Thanks for playing, you may go now . . .
Reply to this Top
The rights of the minority cannot be taken by the majority. Simple as that. May I point you in the direction of the Civil Rights movement?
Reply to this Top
[part two of my incredibly long post...] Incest is illegal for a good reason, and that is the protection of gene pools. I only bring up these latter two “sexual deviances†for preemptive reasons. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws in 2003, so your point on that issue is moot. Even furthermore, “sodomy†before this decision referred to ANY kind of non-procreating sex act, including oral, and according to the average, I’d be willing to bet you’ve participated in this kind of sodomy yourself. Your interpretation of scripture may or may not be true, but in the case of gay marriage laws its truth is completely irrelevant. No one is trying to force churches into performing gay ceremonies. Churches will always be allowed to practice what they preach, as well they should. The marriage rights being sought after relate only to secular legal issues, such as the right to inheritance and the right to make life support decisions for one’s spouse.
Reply to this Top
“Average†is not a synonym for “normal,†and any dictionary or pre-teen advice magazine will tell you the same. “Average†is generally a midway between extremes, but “normal†is more like something that’s within the range of a set of values. The average person may be straight, but that doesn’t mean that gay people are abnormal. In terms of sexuality, the “range of values†is a scale of “GAY to STRAIGHT.†It’s really apples vs. oranges – you can’t use one term in relation to the other the way you’re trying to. Please pay attention to this next bit closely: We (gay rights supporters) are fighting for equal marriage rights (legally, not religiously) between two consenting adults. Your logic is ludicrous, and sadly this is about the millionth time I’ve had to rebut it. Pedophilia is between an adult and a child, so that’s not at all what we’re talking about. Necrophilia is between a live person and a dead person who is DEAD and therefore unable to consent, so that’s not what we’re looking for, either. Bestiality is between a human and a non-human, and since we’re only concerned with human-human relationships, don’t try to pull that one on us, either. If you want to bring up incest, I’d like to ask how it’s more dangerous for a brother to marry his brother than it is for a brother to marry his sister.
Reply to this Top
Just a note: my two posts below are in response to Anonymous's post beginning with "I'm sorry, but Tami..."
Reply to this Top
There is seems to be an awful lot of judging going here. I am not a religious person, but from what I understand that is supposed to be left up to God. I can tell you all that someone in my family curses gays and says "why do they want to call it marriage? They want to redifine the term when for thousands of years it has meant a man and a woman." He gets upset talking about it. I really don't know much about this. I thought most states allow civil unions. Is this the case or not? Do gay people want to use the term marriage? If so, isn't that a religious term or at least have origins there? Personally, I believe that all people should be treated fairly. Whether we are talking about the Bill of Rights, safety issues, etc.....to me absolute fairness is what we should strive for. Everyone should be able to get together and have protections for wills, insurance and such.
Reply to this Top
A Hokie: Thank you. Your comment just plain makes sense. As a straight Christian, I can't for the life of me figure out why this issue of gay marriage remains a debated topic in politcal forums. Why are they being denied this right? Religion is not a good enough reason. I worry that most lawmakers are Christian or share similar Christian values and that they will make judgements based on those values. I trust them to make more objective judgements, but since this remains an issue after so many years, I'm beginning to wonder...Gays getting married in NO WAY infringes on my rights or my well-being. Therefore, WTF?
Reply to this Top
Marriage is a rite, not a right. You are never entitled to something which, by its very nature, requires another person's consent. That said, for the billionth time, get the whole issue out of the government's hands. All laws should be written to treat each INDIVIDUAL equally, and any individual should be able to dictate what happens to their possessions and wealth when they die.
Reply to this Top