I'm going to chronicle some of what's being said in the debate over Virginia's so-called marriage amendment. I'm still trying to figure out why the state deems it necessary to "protect" marriage between one man and one woman. I believe that law has been on the books for awhile now, right?
In any case, it doesn't make sense to me to amend the state constitution. It's like tacking a law onto a law, only it would be duplicative on marriage, and harmful to other relationships--professional and personal. I think no one really knows what the amendment would do, other than make life busier for lawyers--and their clients--trying to make sense of it.
It's too bad Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine didn't stand up to keep the amendment from coming up for a vote in the first place. He says he's opposed to the amendment, but also opposed to same-sex marriage. Yet, he deemed it necessary to bring it up for a statewide vote. He could have shown leadership; instead, if the amendment passes, he, and the rest of Virginia, will have to deal with the "unintended" consequences.
The problem with the NO supporters is that there's no easy bumper sticker to state their opposition. Read the following, and what Equality Virginia has to say as well.
Roanoke Times: Marriage Amendment Fight Evident On Campuses
Roanoke Times: Could A Constitutional Amendment On Marriage Have Unintended Consequences?
Roanoke Times: Does The Law Affect Domestic Violence?
Virginian Pilot: Groups Use Faith To Back Both Sides Of Amendment
Daily Progress: Council Eyes Symbolic Resolution
Planet Blacksburg: The Lyric Theater In An Altered State
Free Lance-Star: Churches Split On Gay Marriage
Excerpt from the second article in the Roanoke Times:
"It is almost a lawyer's annuity bill -- this proposed amendment
seems to be an invitation for courts to step in," said A.E. Dick
Howard, a University of Virginia law professor who is often regarded as
the father of Virginia's modern constitution. "There are so many areas
that this amendment might sweep up -- contract law, wills, medical
directives, domestic violence -- there is quite a list. Ultimately, it
is for a judge and the lawyers to tell us what it means."
The debate has thrown into sharp relief the need for action by
partners in all unmarried relationships. Some are considering drafting
wills, powers of attorney and other legal documents. Others say they
might leave Virginia if the measure passes.
As the campaign ratchets up in the final month, opponents want to
tap into the public uncertainty among heterosexual couples to help
defeat the measure, while proponents hope to quiet those concerns.
Supporters say the measure is vital to codify Virginia's definition
of marriage into the constitution and to protect against "activist
judges." But critics say it is discriminatory and redundant, given the
1997 ban on same-sex marriage. Critics also say it would jeopardize
many legal and domestic violence protections.
The referendum, which requires a majority vote for passage, would
ban same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. It also
would block Virginia governments from recognizing relationships that
mimic marriage, or that "approximate the designs, qualities,
significance or effects of marriage."
The text of the amendment, in full:
The proposed amendment in full:
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 15-A. Marriage.
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.
It's a bad amendment that needs a home in a landfill. Stay tuned for more updates as we approach election day.
Recent Comments