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.
Today’s Virginian-Pilot has an editorial regarding the proposed constitutional amendment, which not only seeks to define “marriage” as being between a man and a woman but also includes the above passage. It is this passage which causes heartburn for the VP and for our governor, Tim Kaine.
Much of what has been written about this amendment focuses on the unintended consequences of that paragraph. Many believe it is too vague, which will create difficulties in custody arrangement or domestic violence enforcement. My problem with the amendment is a simple one: Virginia is continuing its long history of discrimination.
In 1959, the schools of Norfolk closed rather than integrate. Until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal. As a black woman, I see no difference between those actions and this attempt to relegate gays to second class citizenship. Why not simply ban gays from living in Virginia, like Oregon once did to blacks?
What are the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage” that are so special to marriage that gays should not have? The right to visit a partner in the hospital or inherit? The benefit of filing a joint tax return? The obligation to pay a partner’s bills? Can somebody please explain to me why doing these things is somehow a threat to straight marriage?
If Virginians are going to amend the state constitution, the least they can do is know what they’re doing.
And they now have no choice but to consult their conscience on whether it will allow them to strip their neighbors, friends and strangers of some of the basic protections and benefits of citizenship to which everyone should be entitled.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Hear, hear, Vivian! This amendment is a fundamental issue of civil rights that applies to each and every person (since every person has a sexuality, presumedly). When is Virginia going to get things right, finally?
I agree, Doug. Let’s each do our part to help this amendment fail.
Well, this is weird. I’ve read the passage, but it says to me that it’s banning the government from deciding who will marry, doesn’t it? It says to me that government shall not create a law that decides which unmarried people can marry. I better come back and read it again, or go read the whole thing, because to me, taken out of its context, it sounds pretty good that the states does not define marraige for anyone. Marriage should simply be marriage.
How did we let these radical idiots take control of our government, anyway? Oh, wait, we didn’t. We allowed them to steal our election process!
What you’re missing is the first sentence, which I didn’t reproduce above. It says: “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.”
Note that word ONLY. So marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. And further, no other status for unmarried individuals – be it civil unions or otherwise – will be created or recognized in Virginia. Go to Vermont, get a civil union, it won’t be recognized in Virginia.