Yesterday’s opinion in the Daily Press deals with the issue of the Marshall/Newman amendment. One of the arguments in favor of the amendment is to deal with the possibility of so-called “activist judges” in Virginia. (Of course, the fact that no such judges exist in Virginia is of no consequence to supporters of the amendment.)
Two courts – New York and Georgia – both ruled that same-sex couples have no right to marry. Virginia is certainly no New York. So much for “activist judges.”
The Daily Press opinion goes further:
The amendment is utterly unnecessary. The threats to marriage in our society in no way come from committed same-sex couples seeking the legal protections of marriage.
[…]
Sexual orientation ought not to define a person’s legal rights. The amendment would do that, and for that reason alone it ought to be defeated.
[…]
So here’s a bet: If this amendment passes in November, one day, when it is stricken, people will wonder how on earth it was ever allowed to stain the Virginia Constitution.
I agree, especially with that last part. Only problem I have is that I may not live long enough to see it stricken. The best thing, in my opinion, is for the amendment to fail.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Thanks for bringing the “uselessness” of this activist judge argument to light.
I hope that Virginians are more compassionate than in 1959 when the state resisted integrating our public schools. Prince Edward County closed their public schools for five years. I am an optimist and believe that VA has progressed and the compassion and commensense of Virginians will reverse a history of hatefulness. So hopefully my optimism will be rewarded by the vast majority of Virginians casting their “VOTE NO” to put an end to this modern day bigotry inherent in the Marshall/Newman Amendment. .
Actually, the amendment is necessary. It will put in the Virginia Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. It will keep state judges from making law with the stroke of a pen, not only this year, but as long as this amendment stands.
This amendment does not define a person’s legal rights and the Daily Press knows it. It simply defines marriage as between one man and woman. NO ONE’S legal right will change from current law because of this amendment.
No ones legal right, benefits, or priveledges will change because of this amendment. Virginia law already encompasses what the amendment sets out to do. Domestic violence laws will not change (which is another argument I hear a lot of). This amendment is good for the state of Virginia and I hope voters will not fall for these scare tactics on election day. Vote yes on election day.
I refer you back to an earlier post on the amendment in which Del. Marshall, the sponsor of the amendment says it is unnecessary.
Look to Ohio for what happened with a similarly-worded amended regarding domestic violence. The threat is real.
Bottom line to me is fairly simple: do we want to enshrine in our constitution discrimination? Obviously, you think that is OK. I do not.
Let me also refer you to the economic argument against the amendment.
Regarding domestic violence, I wrote about this yesterday. Here is the definition of a “family or household” member as used by domestic violence laws:
“Family or household member” means (i) the person’s spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (ii) the person’s former spouse, whether or not he or she resides in the same home with the person, (iii) the person’s parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, regardless of whether such persons reside in the same home with the person, (iv) the person’s mother-in-law, father-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law who reside in the same home with the person, (v) any individual who has a child in common with the person, whether or not the person and that individual have been married or have resided together at any time, or (vi) any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person, and any children of either of them then residing in the same home with the person.
Which one of those six classes are going to change because of the marriage amendment?
I disagree with your reasoning.
I’d say that (v) and (vi) are definitely in jeopardy. In other states things such as domestic violence laws have been rendered unenforceable when a state adopts a marriage amendment b/c the rights (and legislation) pertaining to married couples are rendered mute for cohabitating couples with or without children. This is just another unnecessary government intrusion into everyone’s home.
The ‘religious right” will downplay this to get the amendment passes but everyone knows they love forcing their morality onto others and they don’t agree with cohabitating non-married straight folks either.
Buzz, Buzz,
Mosquito
As I said, (vi) makes our law stronger than other states. And the amendment will not change that fact. Government is not trying to intrude on anyone’s home with this law. It just defines marriage as between one man and one woman, as it has always been in Virginia.
(v) will not change, and I don’t see how you can argue that it will. (v) has nothing to do with marriage. It clearly applies only if you have a child with another person.
No one is trying to downplay anything. I am stating a fact that the amendment won’t affect Virginia’s laws. Virginia’s domestic violence laws are some of the best in the nation, and they will stay that way.
hr, you neglect the obvious fact that laws are subject to interpretation in light of the constitution, not the other way around.
If the Marshall-Newman amendment were to pass, please explain what you think would stop the current definition of household from being ruled unconstitutional if it were challenged in a lawsuit.
Further, this stain on our constitution would in no conceivable way be “good for the state of Virginia.” Our economic engine relies on the ability to attract smart, creative people to live here. The business community just rid itself of a handicap that prevented all but the largest employers from offering health insurance benefits to the family members of all of their employees – this amendment is designed to replace that handicap, and worse. It’s the worst thing that could happen if we want Virginia to be a leader in the knowledge economy.
David,
I don’t neglet that fact. It’s just that it does not apply here. The amendment says nothing about a household, and part (vi) of the defition above does not reference marriage, civil unions or anything else that this amendment bans. There is nothing to interpret. The domestic violence laws and the amendment do not cross each other. There, I have explained what would stop the current definition of a household from being ruled unconstitutional.
This amendment only defines marriage between a man and a women. It will not keep businesses from attracting smart, creative people to Virginia. After all, I’m here (haha, just kidding) It does not seem to have affected other states that have passed an amendment to their Constitution.
This amendment will also attract those who want to live in a state that bans gay marriage. The economics can be argued both ways. I think the economics argument is overrated on both sides. This amendment is not going to affect economics of the state whether it is voted yes or no.
“Relationships of unmarried individuals.”
What do you think that means? You have explained nothing. All that you have done is to (again) state your personal opinion on how unelected, unaccountable judges will interpret this language, and your personal opinion has no foundation.
What does have a foundation is the real, material experience of people in other states with similarly worded amendments, and the people with boots on the ground in the domestic violence services field.
The information economy is not going to benefit from attracting people “who want to live in a state that bans gay marriage.” Yay, let’s get in line behind Alabama! If this sort of thing didn’t affect economics, then the business community wouldn’t have lobbied so hard for the Small Business Insurance Parity Act. The testimony was that surrounding states had a distinct competitive advantage in their ability to recruit the best employees.
You may argue the economics “both ways,” but the business community doesn’t. I think they have more credibility.
David–
Remember that old saying? Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open.
I thnk we’re dealing with a “fixed” reality.