By now, no doubt everybody has seen the reports on the Mason Dixon poll regarding the Marshall Newman amendment that will be on the ballot. In case you somehow missed it, here is the report from the Virginian-Pilot and here is the one from the Daily Press.
While the headlines scream that 56% of the likely voters poll support the amendment, buried is the fact that Mason-Dixon only polled on the first part of the amendment! Now, I’m not a pollster but it seems to me that not reading the entire amendment probably had an effect on the answers.
Brad Coker, the managing director of Mason-Dixon, said that they only polled on the first sentence because, according to the Daily Press, he considered the rest of the language “superfluous.” Superfluous? Let me restate it for you, Brad:
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.
Heck, even Governor Tim Kaine, who believes marriage is between a man and a woman, is voting against the amendment because of the rest of it. From an earlier Washington Post article:
The amendment “in my view disenfranchises . . . unmarried people, both same-sex or heterosexual couples,” [Virginia Governor Tim] Kaine said. But he took his criticism one step further, saying that the proposed amendment was discriminatory:
“There’s nothing else in the [Virginia] Bill of Rights that takes away rights of people. We’re equal citizens in the state; we ought to be treated equally.”
Brad must have re-thought his earlier “superfluous” comment, though. After he was challenged by Commonwealth Coalition campaign manager Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, he conceded the point (from WVEC):
“In her defense, we polled on this issue in one other state where we saw that the additional language can suck support down. So there is some merit in what she’s saying,” Coker said.
He said the full text will probably be part of two or three other polls the firm will conduct before the election.
Good. I believe that when polled on the entire amendment, the numbers will reflect the concern of many that this amendment goes too far.
Our challenge is to get people to read the entire amendment. I’m going to continue to do my part on this. I urge others to take up the challenge issued by Alice Marshall and display the entire text of the amendment on their blogs.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It’s dirty tricks not to include the entire amendment since that is what’s being proposed to be added.
The really good news is that they only polled the first part of the amendment and it still was only supported by 56% of those polled. As you said, Vivian, opponents of the amendment will significant rise once the whole amendment is read.
What is unfortunate is that some people might only read the first paragraph will they enter the voting both. That, however, is why opponents must continue to spread the word about the harm the amendment would do.
Am I the only one who doesn’t really buy Kaine’s opposition to gay marriage? I mean…sure, he might oppose complete marriage equality, but he probably supports civil unions and anything like that 100%.
I’m not sure. If I recall correctly, Kaine was in favor of the amendment without the additional language. It’s the additional language that is giving him heartburn, as it should anybody.
Vivian, I just posted about another breakfast townhall meeting on my blog this Saturday:
http://hrconservative.blogspot.com.
Would you mind doing a post about this, I am sure everyone on both sides of the issue would like to come. I just found out about it myself, so I don’t know how many actually know about it. Thanks.
Mr. Gary Byler, Virginia Beach attorney will be speaking for our side. I am not sure who will be speaking for your side.
Guess I for one need to do some quick calls to find out. Thanks for the heads up, HR.
I will be representing the “Vote No” side of the Amendment debate. Here’s some information on my back ground:
Personal: Since 1983 to Present Mr. Hamar has practiced law in the Hampton Roads area with several area law firms and formed Michael B. Hamar, P. C., in March, 2006. Mike has concentrated his practice in the areas of banking, real estate development and finance (both residential and commercial), commercial and corporate practice, and tax-exempt financing, and real estate acquisition and loan documentation. He is a long time member of the National Association of Bond Lawyers.
Education and Bar Admissions: University of Virginia, B.A. in History, with high distinction (1974); University of Virginia, J.D. (1977) (Mike’s classmates included among others, Senator George Allen; Congressman Randy Forbes; Evan Thomas of Newsweek). Michael is admitted to the Virginia State Bar, the Alabama State Bar, and the State Bar of Texas.
Appointments and Activities: Michael was a member of the Virginia College Building Authority (“VCBA”) by gubernatorial appointment by Governor Jim Gilmore from July, 2000, to June, 2004, serving as the Authority’s Vice Chairman from July, 2002 to June, 2004. VBCA is the state bond issuing authority for financings for public and non-profit private colleges and universities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
No, Tim Kaine is opposed to civil unions – and he still thinks that this particular language goes too far.