NoVA Scout, over at Too Conservative, offers up his view on Voting NO on Ballot Issue #1, the so-called Marriage Amendment.
Conservatives do not take kindly to legislative use of constitutional documents. We are skeptical of public fads and passions that try to seize a moment to trivialize the great structures of republican constitutional democracy. Given the power, nobility, and significance of this particular document, not just to the history of Virginia, but to the Nation and the world, and given the fundamental belief of conservatives in constitutional limitations on governmental powers over individual rights, my prediction for Tuesday is that no clear-thinking conservative in Virginia will permit this time-honored document to be sullied or diluted with legislative redundancies. No sentient conservative will vote for Marshall-Newman. Although many of my predictions are not worth the electrons they’re printed on, this one is a lock-cinch forecast. Its only backers will be citizens who have been flim-flammed by the “Defense of Marriage” rhetoric (sheesh – who wouldn’t vote to “defend marriage”) or constitutionally reckless, philosophically liberal social engineers who lack conservatives’ reverence for the historic significance and government-limiting functions of well-honed constitutions.
And then we have bill namesake State Senator Steve Newman’s paper urging the citizens of Lynchburg to Vote NO. The editorial appears in The News & Advance, calling it “overkill:”
Voting “no” on the proposed amendment – as it’s worded – is not voting against traditional marriages; if voters consider how judges throughout the country have been ruling during the past year, they will see that time and time again, the legal definition of marriage remains a contract between one man and one woman.
While the intent is laudable – to translate the majority’s morality into a code of laws – the amendment’s language misses the mark.
Because it goes far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages, we should be the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment. Not because we don’t adhere to a strict moral code, but because amending the constitution just isn’t necessary.
Once again, to summarize:
Supporters of the amendment – social conservatives
Opponents of the amendment – everybody else
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Most people are social conservatives? Glad to hear that!
A constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper with writing on it. While this writing may be elegant and extremely well considered, unless the ideas in the document are properly implemented, the document itself is useless. People in their daily life, not poets, give constitutional government meaning.
Amendment 1 seeks to protect the traditional understanding marriage. As traditionally understood, marriage is our bedrock societal institution. Marriage protects the rights the children to a good and proper home. When people legally marry, they honor God’s gift of life by accepting the legal responsibility to raise their children properly. Society honors married couples for their willingness to accept this responsibility voluntarily.
Homosexual rights advocates would have us believe that marriage is a civil right that they are being wrongfully denied. In other states, homosexual rights advocates have succeeded in persuading judges with this argument.
Unfortunately, there is no good reason to believe that Virginia judges are any wiser than judges elsewhere. Because of the precedent set in Massachusetts and New Jersey, we need the marriage amendment to protect the traditional understanding of marriage.
The search for activist judges in Virginia is on!
Seriously, y’all need to drop that fear-mongering stuff. Judges in Virginia are appointed by the legislature so tell me that the conservatives would dare appointment an activist one. As I have said before, show me an activist judge in VA and I’ll show you one who is not on the bench.
The NJ decision is equally of no bearing in VA. NJ is one of five states that has no statute banning gay marriage, and, in fact, it was an appeal relating to that state’s Domestic Partnership Act that created the court case. The NJ decision was built on their existing statues none of which exist in VA. So another red herring.
Lots of people have religious ceremonies without getting a state-issued marriage license. Likewise, a lot of people get the license without the religious ceremony – they call it a “civil ceremony.” Please don’t say “When people legally marry, they honor God’s gift of life by accepting the legal responsibility to raise their children properly” because you are mixing the civil with the religious, leaving out any other reason to get married other than having children, ignoring that people have a faith that is different from yours.
This is a democracy, not a theocracy, and was founded as such. Those of you who want to inject YOUR definition of religion and morality into the laws of this nation conveniently ignore that basic fact.
The erosion of the support for this amendment is a testatment to the democratic nature of our country. It’s defeat will cement the committment to that ideal.
When one of the guys the amendment is named after changes his mind and the other guy is a quack…
The simple solution is to keep your religious beliefs out of our Constitution! The term “our” refers to all citizens. THAT was the clear intention of our forefathers in writing the constitution… Our country was founded on a great principle that all men have a rights -one such right is to practice whatever religious beliefs one has – or to practice none at all! That is the reason for “the separation of Church and State…” To do anything otherwise unravels the true meaning of our Constitution and mocks all who have fought and given their lives for these liberties.
Cory – I need a link on Newman changing his mind.
Oops! Misread the above. It was his paper and not himself.
I guess pigs aren’t flying yet.
It is difficult to understand how one could confuse someone like “NoVA Scout” for a “conservative” in light of his scrupulous failure to recognize the reality of the SJC’s imposition of homosexual “marriage” based upon John Adams’ Constitution. Indeed, the merits of his arguments are best judged by his scrupulous failure even to mention the Massachusetts situation.
The proponents of the marriage amendment are fear mongering? The opponents of the marriage amendment suggest that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, yet these people have not provided one scintilla of evidence that supports such claims. Is that fear mongering?
I do hope the judges in Virginia are as modest as you suggest. However, like any good Republican I prefer to trust, but verify.
Our laws exist as they do because of Christian religious belief. Fortunately, theocratic government seems to be contrary to Christian religious belief. So let’s stick to the legal issues.
From a legal perspective, the tradition a marriage is about protecting the rights of children. If adults have reasons for forming unions other than having children, what is there for the government to be concerned about? Why do they need the government’s endorsement?Is not what goes on in people’s bedrooms is their own business?
If what goes on in people’s bedrooms is their own business, then you must be voting NO on the amendment 😉
“If adults have reasons for forming unions other than having children, what is there for the government to be concerned about?”
Just wondering but, A) are you married? and if so B) did your wedding vows include anything about bearing children?
Do you really think that all homosexuals that want to be married don’t want to raise children?
No, Citizen_Tom, I don’t believe that you really do “trust but verify.” If you had ever bothered to even get the first clue about the nature of the Commonwealth’s judiciary, you’d know that they pose absolutely no threat to your bigoted laws limiting the benefits of marriage. So spare us the platitudes that you spout to pretend that you’re a decent citizen respectful of the basic dignities and rights of others.
VJP – Judges and ministers conduct marriages in bedrooms?
Cory Capron – Are we are talking about the law or me?
As I see, unless a law needed to protect somebody’s rights, the law is not needed. Marriage protects the rights the children to a good and proper home. What has the union of a same-sex couple got to do with producing children?
It’s got a hell of a lot to do with protecting the rights of children and their parents. I have no interest in allowing bigots like you in the bond between a child and both of his parents. And this amendment simply gives you another tool to do that.
MB – You don’t have the foggiest notion of who I am, yet you have no reluctance to call me names and attack my motives.
VJP’s blog provides an appropriate format for orderly discussion. We could discuss your concerns, but first you have to express those concerns coherently and without rancor.
Everything I need to know about you to justify that description comes from your own words here, Tom. If you don’t like the description, don’t justify it. Very simple. You may not like to hear your actions so clearly labeled for what they are, but I am not interested in providing comfortable cover for someone who so confidently attacks the basic dignity of others.