The front page of the Virginian-Pilot today contained a story about the business groups opposing the Marshall Newman amendment. Featured is Retail Alliance, located in Norfolk.
Opponents of the amendment, which is on the ballot Nov. 7, say it could hamper businesses’ ability to recruit and retain gay workers, and they worry that it could generate legal challenges against companies that offer insurance benefits to their employees’ unmarried partners.
[…]
“I don’t think anybody can sit down from a legal standpoint and tell you what it means,” [Retail Alliance president and CEO Donald] Porter said. “We think the second paragraph is flawed. Usually what happens with flawed legislation is it costs the taxpayers because somebody’s going to challenge it and it costs us money to defend it.”
One of the arguments in support of the amendment is that they want to remove the possibility of “activist judges” making law in Virginia. (Forget for a minute the fact that such judges don’t exist in Virginia.) The broad wording of the second paragraph means more litigation, which really means judges making decisions on what the amendment means. So, in effect, amendment supporters are inviting judicial interference. That is something most folks try to avoid.
Read the entire Retail Alliance statement here. And Vote NO on NOvember 7.
Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
As mentioned in my blog, I notice no one remembers the brains at the Retail Alliance also thought that gas prices were too low and wanted legislation to stop it.