I got back a little while ago from a local fundraiser for the Commonwealth Coalition, the Vote “NO” campaign. It was an ice cream social held at the Fred Heutte Center in Ghent. The Hampton Roads Men’s Chorus provided some fine entertainment. I had hoped to have a couple of pictures that I took on my cell phone (as usual, I forgot to take my camera) but after spending an hour getting them transferred out of my phone, the pictures were pretty bad.
The crowd was small but obviously energized to do their part to help defeat the Marshall/Newman amendment. Representatives from the Coalition’s partners were also there, including the Tidewater Partisans, Equality Virginia, and the newest partner, the League of Women Voters. Introduced was the Coalition’s Hampton Roads Field Coordinator Jason Robinson.
I attended this fundraiser as a demonstration of my support for the Vote “NO” campaign, which released this list of advisory committee members and organizational members last week. Like them, I firmly believe that this amendment needs to be defeated. I believe that government should stop at the door of my home, and not interfere into my personal life. I believe this amendment, worded very similarly to that of Ohio, will have consequences far beyond what the writers intended. More than anything else, I believe writing discrimination into our constitution is absolutely, without a doubt wrong.
Over the next few months, I will be doing what I can to help defeat this amendment. I urge you to do the same.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
For one, this amendment has nothing to do with the home. It defines marriage between a man and a woman. For another, it is not discrimination. Once again, it only defines marriage between a man and a woman. It also prevents other relationships that equal marriage, including civil unions.
I will be doing everything I can to help pass it.
We have already established that you don’t know anything about discrimination. So let’s talk about something you supposedly do know about: principles of conservatism. I notice that you are quick to pounce on anything I post about race or discrimination but that when I post about conservatism, you have nothing to say. How about commenting on the posts that I have about Dean’s book? Or, perhaps, is his analysis too close to the truth?
I wasn’t interested in it. Would you like me to go comment on it?
I “figure that hr conservative is a straight white male and doesn’t have the faintest idea of what discrimination does to folks in real life.
If that vote no amendment passes I will re-think living in the state I was born and raised in. I was hoping Virginia would grow and redeem herself of her hateful, racist history. But if the racists, bigots, and homophobes succeed in getting this amendment passed I may relocate to a saner, more progressive atmosphere. This amendment will hurt our economy. HIgh tech corporations won’t re-locate to a state with these standards. They won’t be able to employ the bright, talented people they need. I love Virginia…but the hateful folks who give Christianity a bad name seem to have too much power in this state. Hopefully, Virginians will speak out and vote this amendment down. That’s what I’m praying for.
I love how radicals who want to hijack traditional marraige to fit their own definitions resort to calling people “homophobes” (hint – no one’s afraid of anyone), “racists” (as if homosexuals are a race), “bigots” (intolerant of other lifestyles).
I’m not afraid of any homosexual, I am against no race, and I celebrate lifestyle diversity.
But marriage is for a man and woman.
An NAACP scholarhips is not for a white guy. The National Organization for Women doesn’t fight for my rights. And the Pilot’s new “diversity” reporter isn’t going to interview anyone who looks like me.
Want to change the definiton of marriage? Well, don’t stop there! Change the defintion of minority to include whites. Change the definition of women to include men. It makes as much sense.
And if you think High-tech corporations aren’t going to move right next to the nation’s capital because of a marriage-protection amendment, you’re delusional.
I was referring to Virginia’s hateful racist history…I “assume” that most Virginians are aware of our hx.
“After Virginia’s school-closing law was ruled unconstitutional in January 1959, the General Assembly repealed the compulsory school attendance law and made the operation of public schools a local option for the state’s counties and cities. Schools that had been closed in Front Royal, Norfolk, and Charlottesville reopened because citizens there preferred integrated schools to none at all. It was not so [in]
Prince Edward County. Ordered on May 1, 1959, to integrate its schools, the county instead closed its entire public school system.
The Prince Edward Foundation created a series of private schools to educate the county’s white children. These schools were supported by tuition grants from the state and tax credits from the county. Prince Edward Academy became the prototype for all-white private schools formed to protest school integration.
No provision was made for educating the county’s black children. Some got schooling with relatives in nearby communities or at makeshift schools in church basements. Others were educated out of state by groups such as the Society of Friends. In 1963–64, the Prince Edward Free School picked up some of the slack. But some pupils missed part or all of their education for five years.when Prince Edward County closed their public schools for years rather than integrate them.” source http://www.vahistorical.org/civilrights/pec.htm
Virginia should not continue repeating past mistakes. Marriage should not be a “special right” only granted to heterosexuals.
Says who?
That’s like saying “adult” shouldn’t be a special right granted only to adults. If you start calling children “adults,” it changes the definition of what “adult” is.
If you want to make policy in 2006 based on what happened in Prince Edward County in 1959, that’s your right.
I’d rather make policy based on what’s true in 2006.
The bottom line is this – You want to change the defintion of marriage, so it’s up to you to present a case why marriage should be changed.
Your attempt to reignite a race war isn’t reason enough.
If marriage licenses were not issued by the state, and there were no licenses then this contractual agreement would be subject to any prejudices one wants. However, since it is a STATE license it has to be available to everyone. Unless of course you want to get to the point where a citizen can be refused a driver’s license (also issued by the state) because someone has decided they don’t like blue eyed (or brown eyed or green eyed) people. Be careful what you wish for. Over 50% of marriages fail (higher in “red” states) do you really believe it’s because gay people want to marry or because human beings are by nature incapable of monogomy?
Anon, a license is not a right.
I find it interesting that so much of the arguments surround gay marriage – which is already illegal – with very little attention being paid to the rest of the amendment. Let me refresh your memories:
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.
There is nothing in there about gays, it speaks to unmarried individuals. I have older clients who live together but don’t get the piece of paper because of what it would do to their benefits. These people’s relationship is in danger because of the amendment.
Retail Alliance, one of the partners in the Commonwealth Coalition, had this to say about this part of the amendment:
“While the issue of same sex marriage is normally outside the scope of business issues addressed by the Retail Alliance, the amendment may have contractual implications on current and future business arrangements, therefore, the association has concerns about the impact of the amendment should it be approved by the voters. Specifically, a number of contractual business arrangements exist that share common characteristics with the legal rights afforded through marriage. Business arrangements that share such common legal characteristics with marriage include partnership agreements, joint tenancy and tenancy in common ownership structures, “key man” insurance contracts, and business succession agreements. While it is unclear whether these business arrangements would be invalid when they involved business partners who are ‘unmarried”, the possibility of an impairment of these common business structures remains a concern for the Retail Alliance.”
If there is any doubt about what this amendment will do, you should vote NO.
There is an often-missed connection between the Marshall/Newman amendment and the Allen v. Webb Senate race.
It’s beyond sleazy to have George Allen and his Republican friends in the Virginia legislature use this socially volatile issue, of an amendment to Virginia’s Bill of Rights, to define homosexuals as second-class citizens, in order to bolster Allen’s Senate race and help propel him towards his desired 2008 presidential candidacy.
Recognize and mention that this is a not just a key race for Virginia. But this is a nationally spotlighted contest – between our currently polarized and unproducing Congress, and the need for common sense, pragmatic, intelligently thought out solutions for major threats facing all Americans. This is about both holding the Republicans accountable, and offering a better alternative. It is about a united moderate center governing rather than two opposing poles in intractable procrastination. And that Virginia is more properly seen as purple – and that we could help turn this great nation towards a more hopeful future – and coincidentally trip up Allen on his mind-boggling aspiration to actually take the helm of this nation in 2008
I am gay, something I did not choose nor could imagine choosing and which has been both a context and a burden in my life. Growing up gay is no easy matter and it seems anathema that my state would add to the atmosphere of bias, prejudice, and discrimination rather than recognize our equal rights. The Republicans insistence to preclude what are the values of a younger, educated, enlightened electorate that is marching towards us, is to deny the real will of the people who will live in this state long after close minded obstructionists are forgotten.
Constitutional amendments are made very difficult to pass for a reason – our most fundamental document is not to be readily tinkered with. And should this amendment pass, it will take a generation to repeal it.
Just how difficult do Republicans want to make an already difficult life more difficult? How separate do they want to make us from our family and our friends and our neighbors and our colleagues? For this certainly does not make life easier or more connected. This does nothing for heterosexual marriage and it certainly hurts every gay person in the state.
Bill – except for pouring salt into the wound, the first sentence of the amendment simply codifies what is already law. So it is unnecessary. But by focusing on that sentence -and that is all that they want you to to focus on – we fail to see that bigger picture: that ALL unmarried couples, including straight ones, are at risk. I have seen nothing that tells me that this amendment is good for Virginia.
Perception – being the powerful concept that it is — does have an effect. The passage of this amendment will give cover to all the spawn of the earlier KKK, who for some reason, take solace in bullying others and in feeling a level of superiority over someone.
Social inclusion of homosexuals will more readily happen under the protection of civil recognition of the equality of all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation.
And if you taker a moment and notice the hatred spewed against homosexuals by posters in blogs all over the net – they are almost always anonymous posts by those who won’t show their face in the light of day.
Oh don’t get me wrong: I definitely want to see this amendment defeated. And I think that the majority of Virginians will agree.
I do agree that many of the posters hide behind pseudonyms instead of posting under their own names. Perhaps it makes them bolder to be able to do that. But for me, anonymous posters have little credibility.
Ok… so I’m mostly nobody as Ralph Ellison so eloquently stated, “an invisible man…” No one knows me but damnit, my opinion matters so here goes: >whew< This amendment is a CROCK! Here I am, a Black Gay Republican (don’t get it twisted, I’m a Republican not a conservative *ick*). Having typed that let me say my partner (yeah, he’s a Dem) and I don’t give a damn about marriage as an institution what we care about is marriage as contract. This stupid amendment (beyond all of the rhetoric about ‘gay marriage’) will mean the more then $10,000 we’ve spent to protect each other (power of attorneys, living wills, wills, life insurance policies, etc) may very well be MOOT! We did these things simply to protect each other in case one or the other of us have to be hospitalized or die. It means our house, the artwork, hell even the dogs, who are considered PROPERTY not family members in eyes of the law, may be up for grabs by the others family when one of us dies—REGARDLESS OF OUR STATED INTENTIONS! I had long hard conversations with each of my family members (more then 20-8 sisters/3 brothers, their older kids, my parents, etc) making it clear that if I am hospitalized they damn well have NO RIGHT to make a decision for me, their OPINION matters and that opinion would help my partner of a number of years make the decision. Seems easy right? NOT! (Sorry for babbling on). I don’t have any local immediate family, what I do have are 2 great aunts and 4 or 5 2nd cousins (whom I don’t particurarly care for) who will have the right to make my decision for me if this amendment passes and I am incapacitated (because they are considered family! This is oh so wrong! Ok, so let’s get rid of the gay part of this. I have a sister, she and her boyfriend have been together for 18 years and never married… uh oh… SAME DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS as apply to me… hmmm Oh yeah, they never did the “legal stuff” to protect each other but if she’s hospitalized he will just say, “yeah I’m her husband” and that will be that…