"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.

According to the Commonwealth Coalition, which has formed to fight the ballot measure,

"The proposed amendment under consideration is written in vague and ambiguous language that will have unintended but serious consequences unrelated to "gay marriage." Among other things, the amendment would permanently bar legislative consideration of civil unions, which are supported by almost 60% of Virginia voters, and prohibit legal recognition of domestic partnerships or any other legal arrangements for unmarried partners. It will also take away from our legislators the authority to define marriage and give that authority to unelected judges. The proposed amendment has the potential to:

Create uncertainty about the ability of public and private employers to offer domestic health benefits to any unmarried domestic partners, which many employers currently do. This could leave thousands of Virginians (including dependent 'step children' in unmarried homes) without access to private health insurance, generate lawsuits against businesses, and hurt the ability of Virginia businesses to compete for the best employees.

Prohibit the application of domestic violence laws to persons in unmarried relationships. If domestic violence laws don't apply, partners in unmarried relationships are more vulnerable and without access to key resources to help protect their health, safety and ability to leave an abusive relationship.

Render it more difficult for unmarried couples to determine guardianship for their children, secure their inheritance rights, visit their partner in the hospital or arrange for their partner's burial. Hospitals, businesses and individuals will be confused about the legal rights of partners in unmarried relationships; and the amendment will be an invitation to intra-family lawsuits over guardianship agreements, wills and estates, living wills and medical powers of attorneys and burial rites.

Bar persons in unmarried relationships from going to court to enforce any financial or other agreement that defines their relationship. Since the amendment prohibits recognition of such relationships, a question can be raised whether allowing the courts to enforce such agreements is tantamount to recognition prohibited by the language of the amendment..."

Read more about the Virginia ballot measure.

Anyone who does not see this as a full frontal attack on the LGBT community obviously doesn't have a clue about what's going on in Virginia and in states across the country.

There has been a lot of debate within the community about whether the fight for same-sex marriage is one that we should be engaging in right now. Some critics of the same-sex marriage movement see marriage as something that would primarily benefit the already most-privileged elements in our community. Other critics see the movement being guided by an assimilationist discourse that undercuts a drive for true liberation.

But as I see it, we as a community are simply not in a position at the moment to pick and choose our fights. We don't have the luxury of saying, "Oh, we really don't like marriage as an institution, just leave our domestic partnerships intact and we'll be fine with your amending the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage." The proposed Virginia amendment, just like so many other legislative & ballot measures, is intended to permanently disenfranchise and marginalize LGBT people and their families.

We can certainly discuss & debate the problems with marriage as an institution -- and we should -- but we should not allow such debates to distract us from the reality of an all-out assault on our rights from a right wing that does not make fine distinctions between and among different types of relationship recogntion (marriage vs. civil unions vs. domestic partnership). These people are out to strip us all of any rights. To think otherwise would be to be naive in the extreme.