A message for Phil

I had a chance to talk to Phil Kellam, candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, at my party Saturday. I had heard that he supported the so-called “marriage amendment” and wanted to hear for myself whether this was true. As it turns out, Kellam said that he planned to vote for the amendment, as he believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I took the opportunity to say that he needs to re-think his position on this, as this is not all that the amendment says. I told him that others, including Governor Tim Kaine, will not be supporting the amendment. He seemed a little surprised. (Seems his staff hasn’t brought him up to speed on this.) And I told him that Virginia need not enshrine hatred into our constitution and reminded him that in our lifetimes – his and mine – Virginia finally allowed interracial marriage (the Loving case in 1967). Finally, I talked to him about my own situation. At the end of our conversation, Phil promised to look into this issue a bit more.

As if on cue, today’s Pilot contained an op-ed piece on this. So Phil, this one’s for you:

ISN’T VIRGINIA SUPPOSED TO BE FOR LOVERS?
BY PAT LAVELLE

Come to my office, and you’ll see my coffee cup, a present from my girlfriend, proclaiming “Virginia is for lovers.” Usually I overlook the message as a kitschy slogan, and head straight for my daily caffeine fix. But now it takes on new significance.

In November, Virginians will be asked to decide whether language should be added to the Constitution to enshrine existing marriage restrictions for same-sex couples, as well as limit the rights of all unmarried couples.

Virginia found itself enmeshed in a similar debate 40 years ago. By nearly all accounts Richard and Mildred Loving were an ordinary couple. They were married in 1958 in Washington, D.C., and being native Virginians, they moved back to the state the following year to be closer to family and friends. Five weeks after coming home they were hauled off to jail by the local sheriff.

Their offense? Violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law. Richard was white, and Mildred was black. And, like 17 other states at that time, Virginia had a law barring white people and people from other races from marrying each other. As one state judge explained the law, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.” Meanwhile, Virginia’s Attorney General argued that, because the law applied equally to blacks and whites, there was nothing wrong with it. In other words, the state essentially argued, “separate but equal” was OK.

But the Lovings could not accept the idea that their relationship was wrong. And, fortunately, neither did the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 1967 decision aptly titled Loving v. Virginia, the court proclaimed unanimously that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man” and that the law was “directly subversive of the principle of equality …”

Viewed in historical perspective, the law Loving v. Virginia overturned is by nearly all accounts a dusty artifact of injustice. One almost wonders how the state could have made such a law. For most Virginians, that piece of our commonwealth’s history appears as a blemish now corrected.

But Loving v. Virginia still resonates today. If anything else, it encourages us to think carefully about who we are and what we stand for, in considering laws that restrict the relationships of our families, our friends, and our fellow Virginians.

This is not to deny that same-sex marriage is a difficult and controversial topic. Indeed many Virginians believe in good faith that it is immoral.

The proposed marriage amendment, however, goes far beyond enshrining Virginia’s existing legal ban on samesex marriage in the Bill of Rights, and it is this reach that should encourage all Virginians — even those strongly opposed to same-sex marriage — to vote against the amendment.

More particularly, it enshrines in the Bill of Rights the existing ban on any separate legal status for all unmarried couples, and equally bans private contracts that protect their rights in areas often associated with committed relationships. The amendment seeks to permanently ban “separate” in favor of undisputed inequality.

The more important reason for rejecting this amendment lies in what it could do to Virginia’s families. It could threaten the ability of committed, but unmarried, couples (either straight or gay) to visit each other in the hospital and make enforceable wills that pass along their shared homes or property to the surviving partner. It could kill the ability of companies and other health insurers in the commonwealth to provide benefits, if they choose, to all unmarried partners.

Finally, in addition to all of these potential practical consequences, it sends a powerful and regrettable message: Virginia is for only some lovers.

Virginia’s families deserve better. If Loving v. Virginia taught us anything, it is that we should tread softly in restricting the rights of our fellow Virginians, particularly in an area as sensitive as committed relationships.

The law that gave rise to Loving v. Virginia was an unfortunate chapter in our past. Let’s make sure that Virginia is not opposed to loving again.

Pat Lavelle is a Richmond attorney who defends the rights of low-income tenants, workers and homeless individuals. He lives in a committed relationship with his girlfriend of five years. The column was distributed by the Virginia Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization.

Vote No, Phil.