Well, Attorney General Bob McDonnell finished his live blog here a bit ago. Included in the questions were some softball ones and some hard ones. I believe one of his answers should leave no doubt that he is planning a run for governor in 2009:
[…] I do have a distinct interest in the elections in 2009, and plan to be on the ballot. Being Attorney General is a great job, but I believe I can accomplish alot for the citizens of Virginia as Governor.
The AG will be facing Lt Gov Bill Bolling in 2009. Bolling openly stated during his run for his current position last year that he was planning to run for governor in 2009. And while Bolling has not been as visible in the blogsphere as McDonnell, he has been around, attending both the Sorensen and Martinsville bloggers’ conferences. The thing that struck me about hearing Bolling speak in Charlottesville is how he is positioning himself for 2009. Bolling is attempting to play to the middle, which is, of course, where the votes are. To one of my Republican friends, this was quite funny, since Bolling is quite far to the right. (If I recall correctly, Bolling said in Charlottesville that some people call him a “right-wing nut.”)
Let me give the AG a bit of advice if he is serious about a gubernatorial run in 2009: stop running to the right. You are leaving a trail of published opinions, blog postings, media quotes and so forth that will make it impossible for you to appeal to anything other than the right wing of the Republican party. And there aren’t enough votes there to win the governor’s mansion, let alone a primary against Bolling.
As I am sure he expected, many of the questions revolved around the Marshall Newman amendment. AG McDonnell is an outspoken supporter of the amendment and chose to combine two questions into one answer, his only comments on the amendment:
[…]The General Assembly has placed the ballot question before the citizens to raise to a level of constitutional protection several statutory provisions limiting marriage to one man and one woman and prohibiting civil unions and similar relationships. The amendment was proposed in the wake of the United States and Massachusetts Supreme Court decisions which created a concern that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) might be invalidated on constitutional grounds.
Opponents have stated that the constitutional amendment will affect the ordinary civil rights of Virginians concerning wills, contracts, and advanced medical directives, as well as weakening protections for unmarried partners who are victims of domestic violence. I believe legally this is absolutely incorrect. The General Assembly’s Privileges and Elections committees passed an official explanation of the Amendment with a strong bi-partisan majority, Democrats and Republicans, agreeing with that legal analysis. The central issue is whether marriage in Virginia should remain between one man and one woman. That is what November’s vote is about.
Contrary to what hrconservative says, this is just one man’s opinion on what he believes the answer is and certainly is not definitive. Unfortunately, the AG did not answer my followup question to this answer:
Mr. McDonnell
At the time the explanation was passed, the Washington Post reported:
Several constitutional scholars and a House staff attorney who penned the original language for the committee said in interviews Wednesday that they believed the approved language went beyond the limits of state law.
The language “carries with it some problems under the neutrality standard . . . because it argues points that proponents and opponents have already brought before committees,” the attorney, Mary Spain, told the committee.
“Discretion is the better part of valor here,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond. ” . . . This could potentially be very misleading for voters, and that’s not neutral.”
You say the committee passed the language with “strong-bipartisan support” but the vote was 12-6 vote (nays: Scott, Brink, Alexander, Sickles, Dance, Englin – all Democrats). Do you still believe that the explanation was neutral and not in violation of the Code?
As Attorney General for the Commonwealth, do you not have a responsibility to advocate for all of its citizens?
I already knew the answer to the “strong-bipartisan majority” piece. According to the General Assembly website, the House Privileges and Elections Committee consists of 21 members:
Putney (Chairman), Ingram, Marshall (of Prince William), Hargrove, Jones (of Suffolk) (Vice Chairman), Albo, Rapp, Cole, Cosgrove, Frederick, Fralin, O’Bannon, Bell, Phillips, Scott (of Fairfax), Brink, Alexander, Joannou, Sickles, Dance, Englin
The vote, as mentioned in my question above, was 12-6, with all 6 of those who were against the “explanation” being Democrats. Of the remaining 15 members, 12 are Republican, 2 are Democrats and 1 is an Independent. With three members absent, the very best that the ayes could have included were 9 R’s, 2 D’s and 1 I. I hate to disagree with the AG, but that ain’t a “strong bi-partisan majority.” (Note: The Senate P&E Committee voted 9-5. I do not have the vote breakdown but the committee consists of 15 members, 8 R’s and 7 D’s.)
So, here’s my point: if the AG is wrong about the “strong bi-partisan majority” approving the explanation, couldn’t he also be wrong about the other stuff?
One thing he is right about. The supporters of the amendment only want to talk about the part of it that the AG says is the central issue: “whether marriage in Virginia should remain between one man and one woman.” Unfortunately, that is not all the amendment is about and when voters read the whole thing, they see that.
The only way we can be sure that contracts and wills will not be voided, that medical directives will not be ignored, that domestic violence laws will not be invalidated, is to Vote NO on NOvember 7.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
For one thing, you did not expect him to answer that question, did you? He gave his legal opinion about the amendment, and he did not break any laws. If I was a public official, and I was accused of something I didn’t do by WaPo (what a great conservative paper that is), I wouldn’t dignify it with a response either.
Next, the amendment is not going to affect any current laws.
Good live-blog though. It rocked!
Saying it over and over still doesn’t make it so. You may believe that to be the case but as I posted on your blog, opinions are like a________, everybody’s got one.
As I replied on my blog, he gives the opinion for the state of Virginia. Everybody don’t got one of those.
I just looked through the “official opinions” issued by the AG since he took office and, unless I missed it, he has not issued one on the amendment. So at this time, he is speaking as an individual, not as the AG.
The only thing I have been able to find related to this argument is a reference to an “official opinion” issued in 1994 by former AG Gilmore, who interpreted the domestic violence laws as NOT applying to gay couples:
I don’t know what “entitled to deference by the courts” means and have been unable to track down exactly what legal weight is given to AG opinions in Virginia (other states clearly lay out what weight is given to their AG opinions) but in any event, we don’t have one (yet) from the AG. (The Gilmore 1994 opinions are not on the AG’s website.)
Oh, and you can take all the stabs you want at the Washington Post but the quotes are from the individuals, not the Post.
It actually does not apply to gay couples or any unmarried couples not living together, unless they have a child together. But the fact remains that it does apply to anyone who lives together, and will continue to apply if the amendment is passed.
Thanks for the permission to put down the DNC newsletter, or, uh, I mean the Washington Post.
I notice you conveniently ignored the fact that the AG’s opinion at this time is his own. 😉
And – the domestic violence laws can’t apply to unmarrieds who cohabitate if the amendment passes simply because it would approximate marriage.
He has already submitted the explanation, which was voted on by the Senate and House subcommittees. That is the opinion for Virginia. He was speaking TODAY as his own person. But he has submitted something for the state of Virginia already.
And, no, domestic violence laws are defined by the sixth “prong” as household, not marriage. In fact, the first and second “prong” says if you are married or ever were married, domestic violence laws apply. The rest of the prongs are “when do they apply if you are not or ever were married.” It does not approximate marriage. In fact, the prongs after the first two are “outside of marriage, when do they apply” prongs. It is so obvious. It does not approximate marriage. Ohio does not have household in their definition.
If first prongs did not say anything about marriage, you would have a point. But the law goes out of its way to define domestic violence laws outside of marriage,and includes household. This is grasping at straws.
The explanation was not an opinion. On that, you are wrong. Did you bother to look at the link I provided of his official opinions? They are a totally different animal from his office writing an (illegal IMHO) opinion.
And, I disagree on the your interpretation of domestic violence rules. Again, you are talking about an opinion and yours carries no more weight than mine. Has the AG issued an opinion on domestic violence? No.
I didn’t say it was an official AG opinion. But he did submit his opinion on what the amendment would do.
You may disagree, but you disagree with your eyes closed. Its like me saying the sky is blue, and you looking down at the ground, closing your eyes, and saying “The sky isn’t blue, I can’t see it, it doesn’t look blue.”
The fact remains that the law says domestic violence laws apply if you are married or ever were married, then gives more instances when they apply, and it includes household. If they were to approximate marriage, the four prongs of the law after the “marriage” prongs would not be there.
HR – you are just wrong on this. The explanation was not an AG opinion, pure and simple. I know they taught you a bit how to think in school.
You are a classic example of a RWA follower. Because an authoritarian figure says so, you believe it. My eyes are wide open. There has been no AG opinion on the amendment.
The current law on domestic violence does not apply to gays and if the amendment passes, will not apply to any unmarried couples. The courts have long said that the domestic violence laws of Virginia were intended to protect those who are in marriage-like relationships. If no such “marriage-like” relationships are allowed to exist under the amendment – and I think we can agree that the amendment prohibits any kind of “marriage-like relationships – then domestic violence laws will not apply.
Bottom line is this: the whole concept behind this amendment was to limit litigation. Yet by its very nature, it encourages it. The answer as to if domestic violence laws apply will be made by the courts – the very courts that you and other supporters are seeking to avoid.
We would not be having this conversation if the amendment had stopped with the first sentence. It didn’t. And that’s why it is going to be defeated. The amendment reaches too far.
You are correct that domestic violence laws do not apply to gays or unmarried couples that do not live together or have a child together. That is the law. However, it does apply to those who live together, whatever their relationship. This is why it does not approximate marriage.
I said it wasn’t an AG opinion, then you criticized me and said it wasn’t an AG opinion. Who’s not thinking?
He did submit the explanation though. I suppose a robot came up with that, and not the AG himself. . .
You said “But he did submit his opinion on what the amendment would do. Explanation is not equal to an opinion and carries NO weight. Get it? The AG’s office drew the explanation. With 400 attorneys in the office, you think HE wrote it?
You are talking in circles on the domestic violence issue. Let me copy and paste it for you again:
So, in the only official opinion on the matter, “cohabitating” means living together as “man and wife.” Um – isn’t that marriage??? And if the amendment says “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” how can you argue that its passage would not change the law?
Talk about grasping at straws! Don’t they teach logic in school anymore?
Common tactic, get mad when your arguments are proved silly.
Come on Vivian, is that the best you can come up with? A secretary probably wrote it, but he was told what to write. That is pitiful. I come here to debate, not to entertain something like that.
I have not talked in circles. I have stated the same thing about three times now. And I will again: The current law is that domestic violence laws apply to unmarried individuals who live together. I have not seen the 94 opinion and I have not seen it referred to anywhere else, but it’s not being followed, because that is not current law.
Who’s REALLY talking in circles here?
Vivian, I’ve got to sleep. Post something and I will respond in the morning. Who else are you going to have live-blog in the future?