Now that newspapers are celebrating the in-progress homosexual "marriages" in California with front page articles, radio stations with top of the hour gushes about "newlyweds" and television news with live remotes from various city halls and courthouses throughout the Golden State, there's not much more to say, but to let the circuses speak for themselves. Funny how four people can overturn the will of an entire state. Except that this issue is no laughing matter. Pro-marriage advocates two weeks ago, however, gained almost double the necessary petition signatures required to get a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage on the California ballot this November. That will be the for all the marbles. (About 694,00 were required and more than 1.1 million signed. Read more here.) The Wall Street Journal, ever looking for a financial impact, quotes something called the Williams Institute,"a think tank on sexual-orientation law at the University of California at Los Angeles's law school," as predicting homosexual weddings "will generate $684 million over three years for California's economy" but that "the social impact — and the impact on the nation — is expected to go far beyond the economy." Thank goodness for understatements.

Which brings us to Virginia for two reasons. The California Supreme Court decision one-upped (as difficult as that is to imagine) the infamous Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, which started this nonsense, by granting marriage licenses to non-Californians. Massachusetts clerks do not. (By the way, in California, licenses now read "Party A" and "Party B" in lieu of "bride" and "groom." How sentimental. How much is this going to cost Hallmark to reprint its wedding cards?) Still, how many of these couples will return to their home states and begin legal challenges to have their "marriages" recognized in those states? Plenty, according to the Alliance For Marriage. Not only that, New York Governor David Patterson has issued an executive order for his state to recognize "same-sex marriages" performed in California, Massachusetts and Canada (read the news release here). Virginia's homosexual lobby, through its words and legislative actions, has made no secret of its desire to whittle away, water down and eventually overturn the Commonwealth's Marriage Amendment. Will law suits be far behind?

The other reason Virginia comes to mind is that during the 2006 campaign, one of the many points of misinformation by the homosexual lobby was that, if passed, the Marriage Amendment would have the "unintended consequence" of prohibiting any couple (brothers, sisters, business partnerships) from entering into contracts and doing business together. Of course that hasn't happened and will not happen. Best proof yet? A neighborhood newsletter (we leave no stone unturned in our investigative journalism; click here): One of the leading fundraisers against the Marriage Amendment, Mac Pence of Richmond, and his partner, have bought a historic mansion on Monument Avenue and are converting it to a bed and breakfast. We doubt they even considered that they couldn't start this business together, proving the homosexual lobby's disingenuousness from the beginning. In fact, we're still waiting for that first lawsuit to be filed over any one of the several imaginary grievances that were so hysterically predicted.

Of course, this is but one small example of the falsity of their 2006 arguments. The only difference now is that with the California ruling they will create more misinformative arguments and make them louder, stronger and more frequent. Some will be emboldened to seek the courts. Why not, especially if four people can change the will of millions of voters? Which makes the bizzare scenes coming from California more than a just cause for concern.