The Tidewater Libertarian Party is presenting a town hall meeting this Saturday, August 5 on the Marshall Newman amendment. The format will be similar to that of the last Drake/Kellam debate:
* Each representative will be give 2 minutes for opening remarks
* Everyone planning on asking a question will be given a number on a 3 x 5 card
* The moderator will recognize people wanting to ask questions in the order in which they raise their hands
* The person to whom the question is being asked will have 2 minutes to answer the question; the opposing view representative will be given one minute to rebut
* Representatives will be given two minutes for closing remarks
* Time keepers will be provided as a reminder of time remaining to answer questions
Breakfast begins at 8:30 am and the meeting starts at 9am. The event is open to the public and costs $6.25.
Representing supporters of the amendment will be Virginia Beach attorney Gary Byler. Representing opponents will be Norfolk attorney Michael Hamar.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I, Michael Hamar, 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.
Perhaps someone well-versed in the legal angles of this can answer one question I have: What ever happened to the concept of a common law marriage? Does Virginia still recognize such unions?
Good question, Terry.
Thanks for posting Vivian.
FT– Virginia does not currently recognize common-law marriage. The amendment will not change this.
Soph:
Let’s clarify.
There is no such thing as a Virginia common law marriage. You can only get married in Virginia with a license in a ceremony officiated by someone authorized to do so.
Some other states do, however, permit marriages to be formed at common law, i.e., simply by living openly together as husband and wife, as Virginia once did.
Currently, Virginia does recognize common law marriages legally entered into in another state between one man and one woman.
The amendment will likely change this as common law marriages are likely to be held to be “a legal status” approximating marriage that cannot be recognized in the Commonwealth under the proposed amendment. That means that Virginia will become a magnet for individuals in common law marriages who want to escape the need to divorce. All they’ll need to do is move to Virginia and declare that the marriage can’t be recognized here. Think about the implications of this for family stability, etc. [None of the other state constitutional proposals go this far which is why this issue hasn’t surfaced before].
This is one of the many unknown and, perhaps, unintended consequences of the proposed amendment, about which it is important that you and other proponents of the amendment need to become better informed.
Claire Gastanaga
VoteNOVa.org
Claire, thanks for the clarification. Just one more reason to Vote NO.
Actually, Attorney General Bob McDonnell addressed this question at Tuesday’s Town Hall meeting in Loudoun. He explicitly stated that the amendment would prohibit Virginia from recognizing common law marriages recognized by another state. He presented this fact as if it would not change anything.
I also noticed something strange – McDonnell repeatedly cited the language from HB 751: “purports to bestow” in place of the actual language of the amendment: “intends to approximate.” Surely he knows what the language of the amendment is. He otherwise chose his words very carefully, so I can’t think that this was accidental. What do you think, Claire?
It wasn’t accidental. It’s part of the campaign to mislead people into thinking that the amendment won’t change current law and is of limited effect.
In fact, there are many significant differences between the language of HB 751 and the constitutional amendment that will effect significant change in current Virginia law and impose unknown and far reaching consequences on all unmarried Virginians and people married in other states by common law whose marriages will suddenly not be recognized in Virginia.
These consequences are not limited to same-sex couples as in the case of the mean-spirited law that is commonly called HB 751.
They are equal in effect on straight couples, whether young couples choosing to live together before marriage or older couples choosing to live together in part to avoid the adverse financial consequences of losing a pension or other benefit … consequences that can follow remarriage later in life.
No one really knows what the far reaching consequences of the language in the proposed amendment will be.
One thing is clear, though. We shouldn’t accept the idea that we should vote to put language in the constitution without knowing exactly what it means.
And, no one has explained why we should write discrimination into the constitution for the first time since 1902 (poll tax and literacy test). Virginia did the wrong thing then and we don’t need to do the wrong thing now.
Claire,
Thanks for the answers.
Seems this amendment is not just a ploy to gin up the turnout of social conservatives in an election. Nor is it simply another attempt by neoconservatives to deny citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed pursuit of happiness. It’s also poorly-crafted legal writing that isn’t likely to hold up when it’s challenged.
In other words, it’s not just backward, it’s a waste of time and money. If I missed something, please advise.
— Terry
One of the problems with enacting such an amendment is the effort that it will require to overturn it. HB 751 is bad enough, yet there hasn’t been a challenge. Why? Well, the way I see it, a perfect case has not presented itself.
Let’s again look to the civil rights movement. Everyone is aware of Rosa Parks. But she wasn’t the first person to sit down. Others before her did, but they weren’t the “right” plantiffs for a case. I recall reading that one of the earlier people arrested for doing so was a young woman who was a single mother and had some other issues. It was decided that they needed someone with a better background in order to challenge the law.
The poll tax is an interesting case as well. While Virginia enacted it in 1902, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 didn’t specifically address it and a case from Norfolk – that of Evelyn Butts – went all the way to the SCOTUS in 1967 before it was overturned, the same year the Loving case was decided (interracial marriage).
I don’t have 65 years to wait for this to be overturned. I am committed to doing all that I can to defeat this horrible amendment.
Go Vivian!
And we can defeat it – the momentum is building. Two more editorials on board today with the specific message “Read the whole thing”:
Roanoke Times: Marriage Amendment Can be Defeated
Virginian Pilot: Only Half the Story on the Marriage Edict
My partner and I are looking forward to attending but, and maybe I missed it, ahem… WHERE is this going to be?
Its in the link in the original post.
Yes, it is. Sometimes, the links are hard to see. From the link: “Meetings are held at the La Casa Della Pasta Restaurant is located at 485 Independence Blvd at the intersection of Edwin Drive.”
Lawrence – please come over and introduce yourself. I’ll be there as well.