I had the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth Coalition this afternoon at a gathering on the Eastern Shore. It was a wonderful opportunity to discuss the impact of the so-called Marriage Amendment with a group of interested individuals. Every one in the room pledged to Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1.
One of the things I used as part of my conversation was this New York Times article (registration required), which appeared on the front page of today’s Pilot. Although it carried a different headline, the message was clear:
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
Households are not declining, but married couples are. This is why defeating the amendment is so critical: the amendment’s reach to all unmarried couples.
And as I pointed out to the assembled group, the issue of the amendment is not a partisan one. As if on cue, David at Equality Loudon points us to several posts by Republicans who are against the amendment. One of them is this piece, from the Washington Post. Referring to the amendment, the author says:
The election presents the commonwealth’s long-neglected moderate and libertarian Republican voters with a rare opportunity to challenge the party’s religious extremists without supporting a Democrat.
Read the articles, read the entire amendment, and then Vote NO on November 7.
Volunteer and contribute today.
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
What a shame that we aren’t encouraging marriage rather than finding ways to give more to people who don’t bother to marry.
What a shame that “we” think this so-called marriage amendment in anyway is an encouragement for folks to get married. This “my way or the highway” attitude is going to hurt Virginia in so many ways.
Jane’s comment reminds me of the guy who said that the solution to unmarried domestic violence victims being denied protective orders is for battered women to marry their abusers. Now there’s a bright idea.
This amendment is not about heterosexual couples. Unmarried heterosexual couples chose for themselves whether the rights granted to married couples are worth the responsibilities. If they want the rights, they can get married.
Jane – I’m not sure I understand what you are say. What does “finding ways to give more to people who don’t bother to marry” mean? What has been given to those people?
Jack – you are entitled to your beliefs. I tend to believe the experts who say otherwise.
Vivian:
A have already debunked that opinion on Equality Loudoun: http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=378. If you like, I can repost the debunking here.
Jack – you call it “debunking,” when in fact it was simply your argument that it doesn’t apply, and I disagree with your argument. Further, the bait and switch tactics of the pro-amendment crowd in other states – who made the same arguments as you have – is laid out perfectly at Equality Loudon.
We have to agree to disagree here. And for those following this, when in doubt, Vote NO!
If a heterosexual couple wants the rights of marriage, they can get married. Certainly you cannot disagree with that.
I have to agree with Jane. As an arguement to defeating this amendment you use the reduction of married couples in America. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the amendment. You almost seemed pleased that married couples are in the minority now. If you want people to vote no for this amendment you can’t defend it with “well people are not getting married anyways” theory. Marriage should be encouraged, not discounted. It is proven that having a mother and a father in the same household (which means most of them are married) fosters a better environment for the child. Vivian, look at the African American communities around the country, are they better off that 70% of all children are born out of wedlock. We should be encouraging marriage, not discouraging it.
Jeff,
I don’t think Vivian is discouraging marriage at all. However, this amendment intentionally denies rights to citizens who want to engage in a union. The amendment discourages marriage, if anything.
Besides, any time we begin denying rights in a governing document, we run a very slippery slope. What other rights are we willing to prohibit once we state which individuals can marry whom?
How about an amendment prohibiting those with genetic defects from marrying? They are just going to perpetuate that defect in society, right? So, it would just be better for all of us if we didn’t recognize that union.
See how silly that sounds. Substitute genetic defect with homosexual now. How is it different?
We do not discriminate in this country on beliefs and marriage is a sacrament between you and your God. But unions, regardless of sexual preference, is a statement of shared, legal responsibilities — both good and bad. If two people are willing to make that legal committment, what right is it of the state to say know? The state merely should recognize that legal committment.
It is proven that having a mother and a father in the same household…
Jeff, this is one of the most widely cited statetments by the pushers of these “marriage” amendments, and it’s erroneous. The studies this statement is based on compared children from intact families with a mother and father with children being raised by a single parent due to divorce. Think they found a difference? Duh.
There were no gay families involved – but that doesn’t stop unscrupulous activists from misrepresenting the data to fit their own agenda.
The evidence actually shows that there are no differences in outcome for children raised by gay and straight parents. What children need is love and stability. I agree that we should encourage marriage. It’s good for the individuals and good for society.
Jack – actually, we can’t agree on that. There are some circumstances where heterosexuals can’t afford to get married, but they are living in committed relationships. For all practical purposes, they are married (I’ve even seen them go so far as to have a religious wedding ceremony) but don’t get the marriage license. They carefully construct other legal documents, which may be disregarded with the passage of this amendment.
Jeff – what Jim & David said 😉
Vivian — How can these couples afford the legal documents but not a marriage license, which is about $25?
It is not the cost of the marriage license that is the issue. In the case of seniors, it is the loss of retirement and medical benefits that takes place when a widow or widower remarries. In the case of younger people, it is often tax liabilities and other debts that creates problems. These are just a couple of examples as to why I’ve seen people have religious ceremonies without getting a license.