Four years ago, we were fighting the passage of the Marshal Newman amendment. One of the issues brought forth was that of domestic violence in the case of unmarried couples. An attorney in Ohio, which passed a similar amendment ahead of Virginia’s, warned about what lay ahead. As we all said back then, in their efforts to “get teh gays,” ridiculous on its face since gay marriage had been illegal in Virginia for more than 30 years, this amendment ensnared all those straight unmarried couples. Among them, Love and her accused murderer George Huguely.

Unfortunately for the writer of the article, it is not as simple as changing the abuse laws already on the books. When Marshall Newman passed, it wasn’t just a law, it was a constitutional amendment. To fix it requires a repeal of the amendment, a rather arduous process requiring that the amendment pass the legislature twice with an election in between, before it would end up on the ballot. If the political will existed, the earliest such a repeal could be put to the voters is November 2012.

I doubt that the political will to fix this exists. And until there is, there will be more Yeardley Loves.

UPDATE: Just in case you think I’m kidding about a law change, take a look at the fate of this bill, introduced by Sen. George Barker.

EDIT: Click here for direct link.

Council of Elected Leaders

Senator John Edwards

Senator Janet Howell

Senator Mamie Locke

Senator Patsy Ticer

Senator Mary Margaret Whipple

Delegate Bob Brink

Delegate Adam Ebbin

Delegate Al Eisenberg

Delegate David Englin

Delegate Bob Hull

Delegate David Marsden

Delegate Donald McEachin

Delegate Brian Moran

Delegate Ken Plum

Delegate David Poisson

Delegate Jim Scott

Delegate Vivian Watts

Consistent NO Voters and Supporters:

Senator Benjamin Lambert

Senator Louise Lucas

Senator Henry Marsh

Senator Toddy Puller

Senator Dick Saslaw

Delegate Kris Amundson

Delegate Mamye BaCote

Delegate David Bulova

Delegate Chuck Caputo

Delegate Jennifer McClellan

Delegate Harvey Morgan

Delegate Jim Shuler

Delegate Mark Sickles

Delegate David Toscano

Delegate Shannon Valentine

Delegate Jeion Ward

Yes Voters Who Changed to NO:

Senator Creigh Deeds

Delegate Ken Alexander

Delegate Frank Hall

Delegate Dwight Jones

Delegate Steve Shannon

Delegate Katherine Waddell

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

A legal lesson for voters in the Tammy Skinner case

All voters should have learned a lesson from the dismissal of the charges against Tammy Skinner, the woman who shot herself and intentionally killed her unborn child but could not be charged under the existing statues because of the wording of the statute.

We lawyers know that when it comes to statutory construction, what was intended is irrelevant. It is what the statute says that counts. Yes, we were all outraged by her admissions, but the judge was correct in dismissing the charges based on the wording of the statute.

It is now up to the legislature to change the language to make it clear what was intended. Similarly, although supporters of the proposed marriage amendment say that it is not intended to invalidate perfectly legitimate contracts and agreements between unmarried partners, the broad wording of the amendment could very easily be read to do exactly that.

Judges have to decide cases based on the statutes as written, not as intended. The proposed amendment is not well drafted, and for that reason, should not be passed. Otherwise, we will end up with a Tammy Skinner-type situation very quickly, and we will have to go through this process all over again.

Josephine Ursini Krantz
Virginia Beach

Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

… you believe that the Bill of Rights should be used only to grant rights, not take them away.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Our Commonwealth has some of the lowest crime rates and lowest unemployment rates in the nation. Businesses flock to the Commonwealth because our schools and universities produce a robustly educated workforce. All of this is possible because Virginia families are already instilling decent morals and ethics in our children without intrusive government. Our Commonwealth and its families are doing just fine without this amendment. Virginia families “ain’t broke” and they don’t need “a government fixin’”. I hope that you will join me on Tuesday and vote NO on Ballot Question #1.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Conservatives do not take kindly to legislative use of constitutional documents. We are skeptical of public fads and passions that try to seize a moment to trivialize the great structures of republican constitutional democracy. Given the power, nobility, and significance of this particular document, not just to the history of Virginia, but to the Nation and the world, and given the fundamental belief of conservatives in constitutional limitations on governmental powers over individual rights, my prediction for Tuesday is that no clear-thinking conservative in Virginia will permit this time-honored document to be sullied or diluted with legislative redundancies. No sentient conservative will vote for Marshall-Newman. Although many of my predictions are not worth the electrons they’re printed on, this one is a lock-cinch forecast. Its only backers will be citizens who have been flim-flammed by the “Defense of Marriage” rhetoric (sheesh – who wouldn’t vote to “defend marriage”) or constitutionally reckless, philosophically liberal social engineers who lack conservatives’ reverence for the historic significance and government-limiting functions of well-honed constitutions.

And then we have bill namesake State Senator Steve Newman’s paper urging the citizens of Lynchburg to Vote NO. The editorial appears in The News & Advance, calling it “overkill:”

Voting “no” on the proposed amendment – as it’s worded – is not voting against traditional marriages; if voters consider how judges throughout the country have been ruling during the past year, they will see that time and time again, the legal definition of marriage remains a contract between one man and one woman.

While the intent is laudable – to translate the majority’s morality into a code of laws – the amendment’s language misses the mark.

Because it goes far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages, we should be the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment. Not because we don’t adhere to a strict moral code, but because amending the constitution just isn’t necessary.

Once again, to summarize:

Supporters of the amendment – social conservatives

Opponents of the amendment – everybody else

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

“There is a natural order of things, a natural order where gay marriage is an impossibility,” he said, books tucked under his arm and waving a hand for emphasis, like the disheveled college professor he often resembles. “For example, a woman’s arm is constructed at a certain angle so that she can adequately cradle a baby. This is the way we’re created. There are just certain things that nature intended.”

Who knew that a woman’s arm was constructed to hold a baby? Guess you better tell all those fathers out there that their arms were not constructed that way.

For nearly 15 years, Marshall, one of the conservative state’s most conservative lawmakers, has been wielding a heavy stick marked with his brand of moral and religious certainty.

Recall I said earlier that this was an attempt to impose a certain morality on the rest of us? Who died and put Bob Marshall in charge of the morality police?

Marshall’s critics said what they see in his push for the amendment is what they have always seen from him: an effort to thrust his narrow view of religion into law — in this case, in conflict with the religious freedoms that they say the state constitution enshrines.

“He will go to any lengths to promote his religious view, and I think that’s dangerous. He’s doing the same thing with this marriage amendment,” said Del. Katherine B. Waddell (I-Richmond), who clashed with Marshall for several years when she was the state chair for a national Republican abortion rights group. “He’s imposing his own religious views onto us. That’s exactly what he’s doing. He’s interjecting his religion into legislating.”

Yep. That’s kind what we have been saying. But that’s not all.

Marshall dismisses such attacks with characteristic aplomb. But he also describes tussles with his opponents in the same way he talks about his days of getting into schoolyard brawls: “Once you’re in the battle, you never give up. Never.”

Hear that folks? Bob Marshall has no intention of stopping his crusade to inject his definition of morality into our laws. Tell me, Mr. Marshall. Who should be next? Blacks? Women?

All of these folks around here in the Virginia blogsphere are claiming that they are not homophobes, yet their leader calls himself the “chief homophobe.” All of you know that this amendment isn’t about stopping “activist judges” (as yet unseen in Virginia) , it isn’t about “protecting marriage” (from what I have yet to figure out) – it is about bigotry, pure and simple.

Tell Bob Marshall to take his bigotry back to his native DC. Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

We can do it, folks. We can be the first state in the union to turn back one of these amendments. We don’t have to write discrimination into our constitution. We don’t have to allow others to impose their definition of morality on us. We don’t have to allow government into our private lives. WE CAN VOTE NO AND DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT!

Let’s get to work. Contact all your friends, family, co-workers. Remind them that we need them to VOTE NO.

BELIEVE!

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

To summarize:

Voting yes – social conservatives

Voting NO – everybody else

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

If you are in Hampton Roads and have some time to spare, please email Jason or call the local office – 622-8283.

Five days. Help Virginia become the first state to turn back one of these amendments.

“First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”

— Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

While the Marriage Amendment finds supporters and detractors, both with solid arguments and justifiable conclusions, the core of this impending Amendment is fallible. It is fallible simply because the government is in no position to impose and sanction a level of morality upon the people of this Commonwealth.Who amongst us has been found so flawless and righteous that we can put ourselves in the seat of the scornful and determine what morality should look like. As a member of the clergy, I am offended that I am not trusted to make spiritual decisions about who should and should not be married…I must be told overtly what marriage means. It becomes clear that this level of government entanglement could potentially lead us down a slippery slope towards additional Amendments that allow the government to exercise its authority in matters that citizens should be free to make decisions about. If one follows the same Bible that I do, as a Baptist minister, the God that is understood does not force anyone to even follow HIM, but suggests that He is a knocker, who is waiting to be let in. Even He allows us to exercise free will, but in doing so, expresses unconditional love for us.

Furthermore, Jesus articulated, just before His Ascension, “ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” (Acts 1:8b) The directionality of His discourse is just as important as what He said. His purpose was to inform His disciples and us, that our first witness, our first experience of changing the conditions under which we live, is to take care of home. We have not cleaned up our own houses, at this point, and until we do, we, nor the government, is in position to clean up anyone else’s house. Jerusalem was the home of many of the disciples, so He was telling them that before you transition outside of your own home, you must make sure that I am firmly planted and rooted in your home and then you can spread to your community/neighborhood, and then to places where hope is lost, but the first place that we must correct is our individual houses. We are not yet in position to dictate what others should do in their house, because ours are so filled with filth and inconsistency!

While I do not support, nor would I participate, in the marriage between two individuals of the same-sex, I do not want the government to dictate to me that this is what I should believe.In addition, this proposed Amendment is redundant; as it is already illegal for Commonwealth citizens to marry individuals of the same sex…what is it that is trying to be hidden? Half of current heterosexual marriages are ending in divorce, will there be an Amendment condemning the practice of divorce as well? In this Commonwealth, we have children who have no homes, we have seniors and others who cannot afford medicine and health care, we have overcrowded prisons, we have social programs being under-funded and un-funded, we have transportation concerns, un-funded educational mandates, underpaid police officers, firefighters, and educators, inferior technology in various corners of the Commonwealth, unequal access to a myriad of programs designed to promote equity, rising costs of a College education (the list could continue)…but we focus our attention on defining something that has already been defined…defining marriage should be the least of our concerns, we need to define how we are going to address the real issues, and we will then find ourselves on the path to success.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his speech, “I See the Promised Land” talked about how he received a letter from a young lady who concluded by saying that she was happy that he didn’t sneeze after he was stabbed near his heart because if he had sneezed, he likely would have died due to the proximity of the stab to the main arteries of his heart. He then went on to discuss all of the things that he would have missed “If He had sneezed.” He said “If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting-in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream. And taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy, which were, dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can’t ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have had a chance later that year, in August, to try to tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been down in Selma, Alabama, to see the great movement there. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been in Memphis to see a community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I’m so happy that I didn’t sneeze.”

We must not sneeze in our handling of this Marriage Amendment, because if we sneeze, we will give the government a level of authority that it should not have! If we sneeze, we will be focusing on peripheral, and not real issues! If we sneeze, we will be allowing the government, not the church, to impose its morality on the citizenry! If we sneeze, we will redefine what has already been defined! If we sneeze, seniors, and others like them still won’t be able to afford health care and prescription medication! If we sneeze, the working poor will still struggle to make ends meet! If we sneeze, some children still will be without sufficient food and supplies! If we sneeze, transportation will still be of great concern!If we sneeze, college tuition costs will continue to rise! If we sneeze, our civil servants (teachers, fire-fighters, and police officers) will still be underpaid!

This issue is neither Republican nor Democrat…please don’t sneeze on November 7, 2006!

Todd C. Davidson, Senior Pastor
Piney Grove Baptist Church

I think so. The black electorate had no reason to be energized in this election. The largest majority of black voters in Virginia are in the 3rd and 4th Congressional districts, neither of which have competitive races. George Allen – his black endorsements notwithstanding – has done nothing to endear himself to black voters. Jim Webb’s outreach has been lackluster, although a bit better in the last couple of weeks. What has been happening, though, is that supporters of the amendment have been working through the network of churches to spread the word. In doing so, they have awakened a group to go to the polls that may have otherwise stayed at home. And that group mostly votes for Democrats.

These amendments have been used to energize the base. In this case, I think they energized the Democratic base.

Wouldn’t it be sweet if the result is both a win for Webb and a loss for the amendment?

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment, Jim Webb, George Allen

The RLC supports a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny, the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The RLC resolution, adopted unanimously by the Board of Directors, opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment as clear violation of these principles.

“Marriage is a religious, social and personal matter,” says RLC Advisory Board Director Douglas Lorenz, “that should not be dictated, endorsed, subsidized or restricted by any government. The right to pursue individual happiness is a fundamental liberty that should be free of all state intervention. True love and genuine personal commitment do not need legal support or sanction.” (via Rick Sincere)

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

bigot

One entry found for bigot.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb

I wish everyone could have attended the “debate” last night. Sponsored by Hampton Watch, the NAACP and Alpha Phi Alpha, the event featured two amendment supporters – former delegate Winsome Sears and Rev. Ray Johnson – and three opponents – state Senator Mamie Locke, 3rd district Congressman Bobby Scott, and Commonwealth Coalition Campaign Manager Claire Gastanga. (Sorry – I don’t know how to put the tilde in.) Three to two sounds unfair, except that Johnson brought his congregation with him.

I have the entire “debate” on tape and, if I find time, I’ll post it. As I sat there and listened and took notes, one word kept coming to mind: bigots. The fact that the crowd was mostly black was not lost on me. Yes, black folk can be bigots and that certainly was what was on display last night. The entire argument waged by Johnson and Sears was one of bigotry and I found it appalling. It was like a KKK rally, only the folks under the hoods were black.

Blinded by bigotry, these folks used the Bible as justification for their position. I see absolutely no differences between the claims made by these black bigots and similar claims made by white bigots to justify discrimination against blacks. Of all the groups who should just get this, it should be blacks. After all, it is not as if gays are unknown to the black church. In my home church – the one where my father was ordained in 1946, the one that I grew up in, the one that my family still attends, where my brother-in-law is a deacon and my sister a deaconness and a member of the choir – every prominent family had at least one gay member.

Blinded by bigotry, these people are unwilling to acknowledge the effects of this amendment on their own families, on their friends, on their co-workers. Blinded by bigotry, these people would rather focus on running gays out the state than worrying about things such as the breakdown of the black family, the crime in black neighborhoods, and the high unemployment.

“Protect marriage,” they say. From what? Are gays responsible for the fact that over 50% of all marriages end in divorce? Are gays responsible for the fact that non-traditional families outnumber traditional ones? Actually, believe it or not, Sears said that they were! She said that we should look to Scandinavia, where gay marriage is legal, and people over there are not getting married. Um, earth to Sears – how can you conclude that gay marriage had anything to do with that? That’s like saying babies are born out of wedlock, and black people have babies, therefore black babies are born out of wedlock! It’s absolute BS.

(Sears, by the way, has an agenda. She said something to me afterwards about these politicians not representing their voters. My sense is that she has plans to run again. I guess losing to Scott by 39 points wasn’t enough of a lesson as to who is out of step with the voters in the 3rd.)

I actually started this post early this morning and I’ve been stewing about it all day. Fortunately, I ran into Virginia Beach School board member and pastor Todd Davidson this afternoon. After chatting with him, I finally calmed down. Davidson is voting NO. Rather than me giving you his reasons for doing so, I’ve invited Rev. Davidson to write a piece for this blog and I’ll post it.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Rev. Dr. Dwight Jones via Blogging the Amendment

Bob Gibson via Waldo Jaquith

The Galax Gazette via Twin County Combustion

David Boaz from the Cato Institute via Blogging the Amendment

Lisa Ward via Equality Loudon

Claire Ward via OMT

That’s enough for now. Going back to work

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

umm, i know my comment will be deleted, but here is the point, you are only allowing one argument, is this for posterities sake??? to make yourself feel good??? bias is one thing, but to blatently say i will delete your comment for disagreeing is down right sad, make a vote yes column and you gain some respect, keep up this crap, and you lose it, thank you for your time
anon.

Oct 30, 12:31 AM

When I put this page up back in August, I announced what the page was for: a place for folks who were voting NO to declare such. At the top of the page is a warning that voting yes comments would be deleted.

To the anon poster (who lacks the cojones to use his/her name but attacks me) and all of the others: I have given ample opportunity on this blog for people to talk about the so-called Marriage Amendment, both pro and con. I have not deleted a single comment from a person voting yes posted elsewhere on this blog. I post almost daily on the amendment.

But my Voting NO page is there for a reason, one which should be obvious to everyone: I am an opponent of the amendment and the page is designed to ID others who feel similarly. If you have ever worked a campaign (and you, anon, and others who challenge my Voting NO page obviously have not), then you would understand voter IDs. When people canvass on behalf of a candidate, it is to ID voters that support that candidate. Do you think they keep track of those supporting the opponent? No, they don’t.

What you are asking – that I provide space for those supporting the amendment – is ludicrous. Should the Allen website provide space for Webb? Should the Drake website provide space for Kellam? Does any candidate provide space for the opponent to make their case? Absolutely not.

Any number of blogs out here could have started a vote yes page. Lord knows there are enough blogs out there who do support the amendment. The fact that none of them chose to do so is their problem, not mine.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Good job, Joel. Glad you’re voting NO.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Parse them anyway you like, but those 87 words [of the amendment] seek no less than to undo what Mason wrought in Virginia’s first days, sentiments that have stood the test of 230 years.

[...]

The mere possibility that such gracelessness might find its way into Virginia’s high-minded Bill of Rights – among protections for religious liberties, assembly and free elections – is insult enough to the commonwealth’s founding sentiments.

But the marriage amendment’s intent – to deprive unmarried people of basic legal rights otherwise guaranteed by Virginia’s constitution and by common law – makes a mockery of Mason’s hope of protecting the inherent rights of all men to be equally free and independent.

Go over and read the whole thing. And then Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment, Marshall Newman Amendment

VIRGINIA’S PEDIATRICIANS SAY “MARRIAGE AMENDMENT” WOULD HARM CHILDREN

The “Marriage Amendment” will be harmful to Virginia’s children, said Dr. Colleen Kraft, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Virginia Chapter today. “The Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics is asking Virginians to critically evaluate the consequences of the Marriage Amendment on the rights of children in our Commonwealth. This Amendment clearly, albeit unintentionally, divides children’s rights based on the marital status of their parents.”

Dr. Kraft announced the Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics has approved the following statement:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics, Virginia Chapter, firmly believes that the family is the principal caregiver and center of strength and support for children.

Children do not choose their parents or their families.

Many children in Virginia have been and will continue to be raised in nontraditional families, regardless of laws prohibiting or recognizing these families. The issue at stake is whether these children will benefit from being raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections that are considered crucial to all other parents.

Children in nontraditional families often experience economic and legal insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their relationship to nonbiological parents.

By approving a marriage amendment to the Virginia constitution, legal recognition of nontraditional families will be denied and children will risk:

• losing legal recognition of their relationship to both of their parents
• losing health insurance and other benefits from their parents
• losing the right to have both parents present for their care and comfort in hospitals and other medical settings
• losing the protection that comes from both parents’ ability to be involved in medical and educational decisions
• losing their ability to travel with a nonadoptive parent
• losing the right to stay with their surviving parent and if their other parent dies
• losing inheritance rights and benefits from a deceased parent

Discriminatory practices against these children are based on the assumption that their parents are different from other parents in ways that are detrimental to their well-being.

For the sake of children, it is important that all Virginians support the important link between the health and well-being of all children, the support and encouragement of all parents, and the protection of strong family relationships.

The Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics urges all Virginians to vote “NO” on Amendment #1.

Beverley Bayes, M.D., FAAP, a pediatrician in Northern Virginia, comments, “Twenty five years of research has shown that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. Restrictions on the civil rights of children in non-traditional families, such as not allowing visitation in a hospital ICU by the non-adoptive parent, or the right to remain with the surviving mother or father in the case of death can result in devastating loss and incredible anguish for these children.”

The data supporting this statement can be found in an article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the July 2006 issue of PEDIATRICS, “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children”. This article concludes that “Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

The Virginia Chapter of the Academy has distributed a one-page summary of the harmful impact of the amendments to all pediatricians in Virginia and has encouraged them to discuss the amendment with the parents of their patients.

Senator Janet Howell (32nd District), the American Academy’s National 2006 Child Advocate of the Year, urged all Virginians to vote against the amendment. “The so-called ‘Marriage Amendment’ is really an Anti-Child Amendment. Until today, the impact on children has been overlooked. All Virginia’s children deserve legal protections. No child should suffer because a poorly worded constitutional amendment takes away their rights and protections. Virginians are kind and want to help all children. For the sake of children, please vote “NO” on November 7.”

Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment, Marshall Newman Amendment

Rev. Orwig put together today’s press conference in response to a rally by the Tidewater Pastors Council, a group that favors the amendment.

“This issue of gays and lesbians and their place in society has been tearing up our churches,” Orwig said. “But there’s this notion that Christianity is just the voice for the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells and the evangelicals when there are a great number of clergy who don’t practice that way and live that way. I think we were finally tired and said it’s time to do something.”

The clergy who oppose the amendment attended the pro-amendment rally, to the surprise of the amendment supporters. I guess they thought everyone agreed with them.

One of the supporters was the Rev. William Owens , a Memphis-based preacher. No disrespect, Rev. Owens, but why are you meddling in Virginia affairs? Rev. Owens had this to say:

“I marched with Dr. King. I did not march one foot, one yard, one block, for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman!”

You may have marched, Rev. Owens, but you must not have known the man. As I pointed out in my op-ed, his wife, Coretta, was supportive of gays and believed that Dr. King would have been as well:

My husband … said ‘I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.’ Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.

I’d like to thank the Rev. Orwig and his fellow amendment opponents for doing the right thing and standing up to be counted.

Help defeat the amendment. Volunteer and contribute today. And please Vote NO on NOvember 7.

Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment, Marshall Newman Amendment

For me, it means that the people of New Jersey will have to deal with this issue. Not the people of California, New York or North Carolina, and, certainly, not the people of Virginia. Unless someone has figured out how Virginia can be annexed by New Jersey, the effect of that ruling here is zilch.

Now, a whole lot of folks out there are using this ruling as a reason for supporting the so-called Marriage Amendment here in Virginia, saying that the same thing – those activist judges again – could happen here. Well, before you get your panties in a knot, I urge you to head over to the SW Virginia Law Blog and have a look at the analysis provided by Steve Minor. Since one of Mr. Minor’s areas of practice is Constitutional Law, I think he might just be on to something here:

The opinion is written in such a way that it could never be followed in Virginia. The Court cites all the protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation written into the law of New Jersey. None of this background exists in Virginia law. I doubt that the analysis in this case would make it any more likely that some day the Virginia Supreme Court will find that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage violates the Virginia Constitution.

[...]

The opinion distinguishes New Jersey from other states that “have expressed open hostility toward legally recognizing committed same-sex relationships,” and includes Virginia in that list, along with Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.

So there you have it.

Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1

Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment, Marshall Newman Amendment

(And yes, David. I borrowed your picture. Hope you don’t mind.)

UPDATE: For those of you in Manassas, head over to the Sacred Heart Catholic Church parish hall where Bruce Roemmelt  will be debating Bob Marshall on the amendment tonight at 7:30 pm. The debate is sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, Council 9285.

Today, Allen leads by 14 among males; Webb leads by 9 among females. Allen leads by 15 among white voters. Webb leads by 62 points among black voters. Blacks made up 14% of likely voters in SurveyUSA’s turnout model. If blacks vote in larger numbers, the Democrat benefits. If blacks vote in smaller numbers, the Republican benefits. 90% of Republicans vote Republican. 90% of Democrats vote Democrat. Among Independents, there is movement to Webb. In SurveyUSA’s most recent poll, on 9/29, Webb trailed by 7 among Independents. Today he leads by 13, a 20-point swing. There is movement to Allen among the most educated voters. There is movement to Webb among the least educated voters. Allen’s lead is the largest it has ever been in rural areas. Allen’s lead is the smallest it has ever been in suburban area.

Interesting that the analysis points to the black vote.

Also polled was the so-called Marriage Amendment. Like the last poll, this one did not read the entire amendment. The question was identical and reflects an increasing awareness of the amendment:

Of those voters who are certain, 37% are ‘Certain Yes,’ 28% are ‘Certain No.’ Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released 9/29/06, Yes and No have moved in parallel. Then, the measure passed by 10 points, with 52% ‘Not Certain.’ Today, ‘Certain Yes’ is up 8 points. ‘Certain No’ is up 9 points. Democrats oppose the measure by 27 points, up from 5. Republicans support it by 46 points, up from 33. Only among Democrats is the movement in opposite directions: ‘Certain No’ Democrats are up 14 points, from 28% to 42%. ‘Certain Yes’ Democrats are down 8 points from 23% to 15%. In the DC suburbs, the measure trails by 5 points. In the Shenandoah, the measure leads by 25 points. Those supporting George Allen for Senator back the measure 6:1. Those supporting Jim Webb for Senator oppose the measure 3:1.

The largest groups of uncertain voters are blacks and those in the Southeastern region. I guess we know where we need to work

I do find the negative change among Democrats puzzling. Perhaps somebody can weigh in on this.

h/t to Kilo at Spark it Up

Technorati Tags: George Allen, Jim Webb, Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Unlike Ohio, Virginia voters have been alerted to the very serious adverse potential consequences of this proposed amendment well before the election. Our voters didn’t have adequate time to get fully informed before they voted. The consequence has been that police, prosecutors and victims have been in a state of perpetual confusion since the amendment passed. The litigation has snowballed from one case to 45-60 cases and, until the Supreme Court of Ohio resolves the issue, victims in 10 to 12 counties are without coverage because of court decisions holding the law unconstitutional. The situation has been complicated by the fact that those who dismissed concerns about the impact of the Ohio amendment on unmarried couples as “absurd” have now joined unmarried defendants appealing their convictions in arguing before the Ohio Supreme Court that the plain language of the amendment prohibits its application to unmarried couples.

Can it get any clearer?

How about this?

John B. Russell, a former Assistant US Attorney and Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia who currently serves as the chair of the criminal law section of the Virginia Bar Association, said that defense attorneys in Virginia will have an “ethical obligation” to raise a constitutional challenge in cases involving unmarried perpetrators.

Still not convinced?

James Nachman, a criminal defense attorney practicing daily in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, echoed Mr. Russell’s view that defense attorneys would be ethically obligated to raise a constitutional claim and said that the amendment would have “a significant negative effect on people cohabiting.” “It is unnecessary to wreak such havoc with this broad and far-reaching amendment, ” Nachman added, saying he would be voting no and urging voters to reject the amendment.

To put ummarried domestic violence victims at risk is unconscionable.

Vote NO on Ballot issue #1.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

One problem: once again, they failed to poll the entire amendment. Look, the whole thing is going to be on the ballot so why do these pollsters insist on only polling on the first part of the amendment? Same thing happened when I was polled in that mystery poll on 10/12.

Read the whole thing. And then Vote NO.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Governor Linwood Holton and First Lady Anne Holton Also Sign On

Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine today became the 200^th lawyer in Virginia to sign the statement of the Virginia Legal Review Committee, which expresses concern about the significant and largely unpredictable legal consequences of the amendment to the Virginia constitution proposed in Ballot Question #1. Governor Kaine’s wife, First Lady Anne Holton, and father-in-law, former Republican Governor Linwood Holton, also signed the statement.

Governor Kaine made his announcement standing in front of the Executive Mansion with his wife and in-laws.

Representing a combined 75 years of marriage, Governors Kaine and Holton and the two Holton First Ladies also announced today that they will be voting NO on Ballot Question #1 on November 7^th.

Governor Kaine reaffirmed his strong personal belief in marriage between one man and one woman. “Virginia law on that point is well-settled and is not challenged by the proposed amendment,” Governor Kaine said. “But the vague language of the amendment could upend this well-settled law.”

The Governor reviewed the range of potential unintended consequences presented by the proposed amendment, including the denial of domestic violence and family court protection to unmarried victims of family abuse, and the threat to the validity of private agreements between any unmarried individuals.

Speaking from her perspective as a former judge, First Lady Anne Holton, characterized the proposed amendment as a “legal morass.” “Defense lawyers will be obligated to represent their clients by using every loophole in the language of the amendment,” the First lady said. “There are lots of loopholes in the proposed amendment for them to use to try to overturn a conviction.”

Governor Holton described the Bill of Rights in the Virginia Constitution, which Ballot Question #1 would amend, as a “sacred document” that “must be protected.” “The Bill of Rights has never in Virginia’s 200 year history been amended to take rights away,” Governor Holton said. “I urge voters to vote No on this effort to do so.”

Former First Lady “Jinks” Holton spoke as the non-lawyer in the family. “I’m not a lawyer,” she said, “but I know that when hundreds of lawyers are already fighting over what the language means, we shouldn’t be voting to put it in the constitution.”

The Virginia Legal Review Committee is made up of lawyers and legal scholars who have signed a statement expressing concern about the “significant and largely unpredictable legal consequences” of Ballot Question #1, the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that will be before the voters on November 7^th.

Video from the event is available here.

UPDATE: Here is the statement released by Democratic Caucus Chairman Brian J. Moran:

Today former Governor Linwood Holton, the first Republican governor since reconstruction, joined Governor Kaine, former Governor Warner, former Governor Robb and I, in opposition to the amendment on this fall’s ballot. The amendment goes too far in infringing on the rights of married individuals, endangers our ability to be competitive in the new economy, and threatens our protections of women and families. I continue to urge Virginians’ to vote NO on ballot question #1.

As a former Prosecutor, I can say with certainty that this amendment poses problems for our ability to protect victims of domestic violence, particularly in providing protective orders to women and children in danger. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I hope we don’t take a step backward in our laws to protect domestic violence victims.

I’m honored and proud to be on the same side with these great Virginians on this important issue and to join their voice urging Virginian’s to vote NO. I hope that Virginia voters will heed today’s bi-partisan message and vote NO this November 7th.

In fact, McDonnell’s opponent for the attorney general’s office in the 2005 election, state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath), voted in favor of this amendment as a legislator.

It is not a lie that Deeds voted in favor of the amendment. The problem is the implication that such a vote means support for the amendment. It was this that prompted Deeds to issue a statement yesterday, which says in part:

 

Recently, it has come to my attention that va4marriage and other supporters of Ballot Question #1 have been using my name routinely in speeches, letters and OpEds to bolster their arguments in favor of the so-called marriage amendment. Since my name is being used in this manner, I believe that it is important for the voters to understand what I do and don’t believe about the proposed amendment and to know how I am voting on November 7th.

I will be voting NO

While I have no problem with the Pilot reprinting the article, I think they erred in not pointing out that Deeds is not an amendment supporter. I have emailed the Pilot and requested that this information be included in the Corrections on the editorial page.

Technorati Tags: Creigh Deeds, Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Some years back, when Virginia’s old Byrd organization was in its death throes, a Capitol wit suggested a TV commercial for a member of the rear guard.

The idea was to show the lawmaker with his body lashed to the hands of a gigantic clock. Then an announcer would intone: “Holding back the hands of time is a 24-hour job.”

With the current ballot amendment on gay marriage, it feels as if many Virginians are once again trying to wrestle back the hands of time. All the legislative statutes and constitutional amendments in the world will not change the fact that homosexual men and women exist, that legions of them have stripped off anonymity and shame, and that they are moving forward with pride.

[...]

Now, the rest of us can recognize them for who they are – our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, asking to be treated with respect and judged by their values, views and accomplishments.

Or we can erect battlements and engage in hand-to-hand combat, fighting our way into a future where human rights will, almost certainly, one day prevail.

History students will recall that Virginia tried that once before, along about 1960, to our futility and eternal shame. They called it Massive Resistance back then; school integration was the cause.

[...]

Profound societal changes do not occur overnight. But equality and fair play are such quintessential American values that I think I know where this one’s headed. It would be a proud moment if Virginians elected not to shackle themselves on Nov. 7 to an ultimately futile effort to still the hands of time.

Yeah – what she said

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

The people flowed in and out for breakfast, so Webb addressed the crowd twice. In addition, he chatted with people one-on-one. For many, this was their first chance to see and hear Webb. As I moved from table to table, I heard people speaking favorably about him. Because this gathering was at a church, and because many of the people there were black, I went to this breakfast with two things in mind, both of which I asked attendees about.

First, I wanted to know if the endorsement of Allen by blacks was having any effect on the black vote. This group was admittedly a Democratic one, so as expected, I didn’t get anyone who would admit to supporting Allen. (Interestingly enough, I spotted one of the four ministers that was at the Allen/McCain rally in the group. I didn’t get a chance to talk to him, though.)

The second thing I wanted to know was where they stood on the so-called Marriage Amendment. I had approached Del. Spruill earlier on the possibility of handing out Vote NO lit at this breakfast. Spruill, who is strongly against the amendment, said I couldn’t because there were going to be some ministers there who were supporting the amendment. Many of these ministers are from churches that Webb will be visiting tomorrow, and they had told Spruill not to bring Webb if Webb was going to speak against the amendment. So no lit, just conversation.

Unlike the Allen question, a number of the folks admitted that their pastors had said that they were against gay marriage. There was some confusion, though, as when I asked if they were voting NO, some told me they were, even though they were clearly against gay marriage. (Such confusion is not unusual, by the way.) Of course, I took the opportunity to explain why they should be against this amendment, how it isn’t about gay marriage at all. Having Del. Dwight Jones, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus and senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Richmond come out against the amendment this week was powerful information to share with them. Every single person that I talked to said that, after further consideration, they were going to vote NO.

I got a chance to chat with Webb about his church visits tomorrow. He seemed a little intimidated by the prospect of visiting 17 churches on one Sunday. I told him not to worry – he would be fine. With some churches having two or three services on Sunday, it wouldn’t be too bad, with short stops in each church. Somebody then mentioned that 17 churches equals 17 offerings I mentioned that I put a $100 check in the plate at each church I visited last year when I was campaigning. Seeing Webb’s eyes get wide, I quickly mentioned that, of course, I only attended one or two churches each Sunday. (When I campaigned, I stayed for the entire service. That is a luxury that a state-wide candidate cannot afford.) He seemed to relax after hearing that

I guess what flashed in his mind was the $750 he paid last night for his appearance at the NAACP statewide conference. For all the courting of the black vote that George Allen has done, seems he never got around to joining the NAACP:

Allen spoke first. During an hour long give-and-take before about 200 NAACP members, Linda Thomas, president of the organization, asked Allen if he had ever officially joined the group. “If you’re offering me a membership, I accept,” Allen replied.

After the appearance, Allen went in a back room with Thomas, filled out the lifetime membership form and was asked for the $750 fee.

“Oh gosh – you didn’t tell me that,” Allen said.

After inquiring about the less-expensive plans, Allen wrote the full check and asked for a receipt.

Webb, without further prompting, opened his speech with the quip: “I’m going to bite the bear before the bear bites me and buy a lifetime membership.” Wanna bet that the NAACP sees a bit of a surge in memberships from this?

Kudos to Delegate Spruill for another fine pancake breakfast. The event was well-attended and included a number of local officials, including Chesapeake Vice Mayor Dwight Parker, Delegate Kenny Alexander (89th-Norfolk), and Portsmouth Clerk of Court Cynthia Morrison. The food was good, the company was great. I think Webb picked up some solid votes today.

Technorati Tags: Jim Webb, Phil Kellam, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Discriminatory amendment has other negative repercussions

BY VIVIAN J. PAIGE
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

— Martin Luther King Jr.

There is no one more revered in the civil rights movement than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Like a soldier in war, he paid the ultimate price in the battle for the civil rights of blacks in this country. Lest we forget, King was first and foremost a minister, a man of God.

Were he alive today, I believe King would be voting no on Ballot Question 1, the Marshall-Newman constitutional amendment, also known as the “Marriage Amendment”:

“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.”

The above quote on injustice from King came from his “Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963.” He goes on to say: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” So goes this amendment.

King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, came to the same conclusions as I have about where her husband would have stood on this issue. In a speech she gave in 1994, Coretta King said:

“I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband … said ‘I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.’ Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. … The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice.”

In an attempt to deny rights to gay Virginians, the legislature has proposed an amendment that goes far beyond that and ensnares any unmarried pairs. Business groups are concerned about its effects on legal agreements and their ability to attract and retain qualified employees. Women’s groups are concerned about its effects on domestic violence laws. All are concerned about this invasion of privacy. For the first time in history, Virginians are being asked on Nov. 7 to take away rights, rather than grant them.

I’m gay, and contrary to what supporters of the amendment will tell you, this amendment is not about gay marriage. Gay marriage has been illegal in Virginia for more than 30 years and will continue to be illegal whether this amendment passes or fails.

What the framers and supporters of Ballot Question 1 are trying to do is to impose a morality on all of us, one that is based on their interpretation of the Bible. This is a familiar tactic and is the same one that was used as justification for denying blacks civil rights.

Amendment supporters have reached out to black pastors, trying to convince them to turn a blind eye to this parallel. Some black pastors have taken the bait, preaching from their pulpits misinformation similar to that of the white bigots of yesteryear.

King discredited that argument more than 40 years ago. His Bible — and mine, and that of my father, also a minister — is one of love and acceptance, not one of hate and discrimination. King gave his life in his belief that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the words of the song sung frequently in our churches, “May the life I live speak for me. May the service I give speak for me.”

Let the life of King, the service of King, speak to us and lead us to do the right thing. Vote No on Ballot Question 1. We should not allow discrimination against anyone to be written into our Bill of Rights.

Vivian J. Paige, of Norfolk, is a CPA and former candidate for Norfolk city treasurer. She is a member of the advisory council of the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes Ballot Question 1.

Three Richmond-area House Democrats — including a Baptist minister — who supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage now say they’ll vote against it because it’s too broad.

[...]

House Minority Leader Franklin P. Hall; Del. Dwight Clinton Jones, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of South Richmond; and Del. A. Donald McEachin of Henrico say the three-sentence proposal that will face state voters Nov. 7 goes far beyond simply defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

[...]

Three other local lawmakers, who voted against the measure in the legislature, reiterated their opposition and urged Virginians to vote no — state Sens. Benjamin J. Lambert III and Henry L. Marsh III and Del. Jennifer L. McClellan, all of Richmond.

[...]

“It’s unneeded,” said Jones, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. “Voting against the amendment does not suggest that an individual does not believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

After further interpretation of the measure, Jones said he recognized “the unintended consequences of this amendment.”

[...]

“Like the blind man cured by Jesus, even after much prayer, the first time I looked at this amendment, I didn’t see its breadth or its basic meanness,” he [McEachin] said. “Only after I was touched a second time was I able to see this amendment in its true light.”

Seeing the light, indeed. Volunteer and contribute today. And Vote NO on November 7.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

All these journalists are doing the supporters’ work for them. Bans on gay marriage have passed everywhere they’ve been placed on the ballot. That’s what the supporters of the Virginia amendment want voters to think they’re voting on. But that’s not what the Virginia amendment really does.

[...]

It’s not just about same-sex couples, and it’s not just about marriage.

[...]

Journalists should not call this “the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage.” Rather, they should give readers and listeners a more accurate summary, along the lines of “the proposed amendment to restrict gay rights” or “the amendment on unmarried couples.”

Hear, hear!

h/t The Virginia Progressive

Technorati Tags: Marshal Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Marriage amendment is antithesis of GOP values

Like most Virginians who visit the polls this November, I will be voting Republican, but unlike most Republicans I will be voting against the proposed constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage by defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. This amendment is the very antithesis of the values upon which the Republican Party claims to stand.

I vote Republican because I don’t like the government to tell me what to do. I don’t like Big Brother defining how I should live and what values my family should or should not hold. I don’t like the state taking half my paycheck and redistributing my hard-earned wealth.

In theory, the Republican Party stands against the “progressive” ideology of the “Nanny State,” yet this gay marriage amendment that it champions embodies the progressive agenda to a T.

This amendment is designed to expand the scope of government, allowing the state to intrude into the American family, redefining it as a government institution rather than as a private contract.

Al Piette
Virginia Beach

When respondents were read the arguments on both sides of the question, enough voters showed a willingness to reconsider that the gap narrowed to a virtual tie — 48 percent said they supported the measure and 47 percent opposed it, within the poll’s margin of error of three percentage points.

The actual poll question:

13. (Supporters say the measure would mean that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in the Commonwealth of Virginia.) (Opponents say the proposed language is too broad, and would endanger contracts made between unmarried heterosexual couples.)

With these arguments in mind, if the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Amendment One?

                Yes     No     No opinion
10/12/06 LV      48     47           5

Getting out the word about this amendment and its unintended consequences is critical. I’m doing my part. Are you?

Volunteer and contribute today!

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Marriage Amendment

One of the things I used as part of my conversation was this New York Times article (registration required), which appeared on the front page of today’s Pilot. Although it carried a different headline, the message was clear:

Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.

Households are not declining, but married couples are. This is why defeating the amendment is so critical: the amendment’s reach to all unmarried couples.

And as I pointed out to the assembled group, the issue of the amendment is not a partisan one. As if on cue, David at Equality Loudon points us to several posts by Republicans who are against the amendment. One of them is this piece, from the Washington Post. Referring to the amendment, the author says:

The election presents the commonwealth’s long-neglected moderate and libertarian Republican voters with a rare opportunity to challenge the party’s religious extremists without supporting a Democrat.

Read the articles, read the entire amendment, and then Vote NO on November 7.

Volunteer and contribute today.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

On the Record is hosted by Joel Rubin and airs Sunday at 10:30am on WVEC.

October 8, 2006

Bishop Gerald O. Glenn
New Deliverance Evangelistic Church
(street address removed)

Re: The Senate Campaign
The Proposed Marshall/Newman Amendment

Dear Bishop Glenn:

This regards your qualified endorsement of Senator Allen’s campaign and your support of the proposed Marshall/Newman constitutional amendment. Having looked at your web site I have concluded that you are a fair-minded man who will at least consider the issues I raise instead of rejecting them out of hand.

First, as to the qualified endorsement, I was pleased that you have conditioned your approval of the Senator’s candidacy on a pledge to cease running attack ads based on an article Mr. Webb wrote 27 years ago.You may be under the impression that Mr. Webb has been attacking the Senator for his statements years ago; however, this is not the case. Mr. Webb’s ads to this point have consisted of one which quotes President Reagan praising his military service, one which refutes the Naval Academy attack ad, and one questioning the Senator’s support for the Iraq war. In fact, Mr. Webb was specifically asked by Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room on CNN a few days ago whether he thinks Senator Allen is a racist. He refused to address the issue and asked instead to talk about the issues in the campaign.

Contrast this to Senator Allen’s statements last week that in spite of his two minute commercial advocating a return to the issues he will continue running the Naval Academy attack ads because they go to Mr. Webb’s character and attitudes toward women. His most recent ad, with Ms. Janice Buxbaum, debuted AFTER the two minute commercial, and contains flatly false statements to the effect that she was misquoted in Mr. Webb’s article even though she is not even named in the article.

This is grossly unfair, as Senator Allen is surely aware that Mr. Webb apologized many times for the tone of the article and that he as Navy Secretary tripled the number of jobs available to women in the Navy and established regulations against sexual harassment. Allow me to quote from Mr. Webb’s blog:

The first female graduate of the naval academy to make the rank of admiral, Rear Admiral Michelle J. Howard, credited James Webb with helping the careers of women by opening up logistical ships to women. She was the first African_American woman to skipper a Navy ship. [Earl Kelly, “First female grad to make admiral reflects on career,” Capital_Gazette 5/27/06]

Mr. Webb has not impugned Senator Allen’s character, yet has spent his entire campaign fending off attempted character assassination instead of being allowed to talk about the issues. Surely if Senator Allen were serious about returning to the issues he would not be digging for even more women to revisit the same old complaint about Mr. Webb, yet his campaign remains squarely in the mud.

Second, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the Marshall/Newman Amendment. I understand and respect the fact that you have deeply held religious convictions concerning the sanctity of marriage and that it is only to be between a man and a women. However, this amendment is not necessary and is indeed so poorly written that it will seriously affect the rights of all unmarried couples.

There are at present one federal statute and three Virginia Code §20-12.1 states: Virginia statutes banning recognition of same sex unions.

“in 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act … which recognized the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for all aspects of federal law … The General Assembly finds that the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that ‘A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law’ … The General Assembly hereby concludes that the Commonwealth of Virginia is under no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize a marriage, civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement purporting to bestow any of the privileges or obligations of marriage under the laws of another state or territory of the United States unless such marriage conforms to the laws of the Commonwealth.”

Virginia Code §20-45.2 prohibits recognition of same sex marriages in Virginia and Virginia Code §20-45.3 prohibits recognition of same sex unions in Virginia.Given all these statutes just why is it necessary to amend our constitution with a vague and overbroad amendment, the interpretation of which may result in serious unintended consequences for heterosexual couples and others? Here is the full text of the amendment:

Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:

“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 (emphasis added). 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.”

I have heard and read many assertions by supporters of the amendment that it will not affect heterosexual relationships. It is an established principle that when seeking to know the law one first reads the plain language of the law. This amendment applies to ALL unmarried relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Only where there is ambiguity do lawyers and judges seek out the legislative intent, and in such situations there is always room for dispute and much litigation. For instance, just what are the “design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”? If this amendment passes it will be fertile ground for endless litigation on its meaning and effect for years to come at a cost of millions of dollars in state and local funds.

I am not alone in this assessment. Hundreds of lawyers throughout the state are on record opposing the amendment. Included in their number are former Attorneys General Stephen D. Rosenthal and Anthony F. Troy and former Republican candidate for Attorney General Wyatt B. Durette. Governor Kaine, many businesses, newspapers, and city and county governments have stated their opposition to this amendment.

Please do some research and come to your own conclusions. Just remember that a vote against the amendment is not a vote in favor of same sex unions. It is merely a vote against a poorly written and harmful change to our constitution which seeks to take rights away from people. One should never be casual about changing the constitution, which is the foundation from which all of our legal rights flow.

Thank you for taking the time out to read this letter and consider its contents.

Sincerely,

Carla

And in case anyone is wondering, Carla is an attorney, so she knows what she’s talking about.

Great letter Carla!

On principle, we should be in favor of the proposed state constitutional amendment banning so-called “gay marriage.

[...]

Unfortunately, the proposed amendment Virginia voters will be casting ballots on this November is overreaching, ambiguous and clumsily written. This sloppiness has given the amendment’s opponents a great tool: A chance to reach out to moderates and conservatives with the argument that having no amendment is better than having this amendment.

We agree.

[...]

This amendment should be rejected at the polls on Nov. 7.

Hear, hear. Help defeat Ballot Issue #1. Volunteer and contribute today.

h/t RK

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment

Voter registration offices around Virginia were inundated with complaints from residents who received letters last week saying they may not be signed up to vote.

The Family Foundation is a strong proponent of the so-called Marriage Amendment (ballot issue #1). In addition to sponsoring a “survey” of 2.1 million households, they sent letters out, containing the following:

“Each voter will be asked if he or she would like to define marriage as a union only between one man and one woman in the Commonwealth,” the letter states. “By amending our constitution this way, Virginians can be sure that our state law banning same-sex marriage is not overturned by an activist judge, leaving/forcing our Commonwealth to uphold/recognize Vermont values.”

Remember the charges that the amendment opponents were spreading fear and lies? It is the Family Foundation that is spreading fear and lies. Look at the letter. Look around the net for the number of people who have been push-polled in that survey. The Family Foundation is not about family at all. Instead, they are attempting to appeal to homophobia in pushing their agenda.

Gay marriage is already illegal and this amendment’s passage or failure will not change that, so enough already with the homophobia BS. What will change is that unmarried couples – any unmarried couples – will be denied basic rights. What will change is that the very activist judges they are trying to avoid will be forced to decide what constitutes “the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

Read the whole thing, Virginia. And then Vote NO on ballot #1.

Help defeat Ballot issue #1. Volunteer or contribute today.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Marriage Amendment

The five of them pledged to Vote NO!

What have you done to help defeat the amendment today? Volunteer or donate. And take every opportunity to talk about it with your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and yes, strangers.

Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Marriage Amendment