Blogging the Amendment

Offering a Forum to Discuss the Pros and Cons of the Marshall/Newman Amendment

Bearing Drift is Asking a Good Question

Bearing Drift asks “So, Exactly How Is This ‘Limited’ Government?” James Atticus Bowden responds with arguments about the history of marriage and government as institutions and the influence of Liberal Secular Humanists in the definition of “cultural consensus.”

What do you think?  Is the proposed marriage amendment an example of “limited government”?  Is there a compelling reason for government to limit the benefits of government defined unions to “marriages” between one man and one woman?  Why shouldn’t America adopt the English and French tradition of a civil marriage/union and a separate religious sacrament?

June 30, 2006 Posted by | limited government | 10 Comments

What is the definition of family?

Shaun Kenney and the Jaded JD, who has now reminded folks that he’s a member of the Virginia blogosphere weighing in from New England, engage in a spirited debate about the definition of “family,” with David Weintraub and James Atticus Bowden, among others.

June 29, 2006 Posted by | religious doctrine, Traditional marriage | Leave a comment

The Amendment in the Blogosphere

There are some very smart folks out there in the blogosphere. 

NoVATownhall has two long and well argued threads with good commentary (pro and con) about the Marshall/Newman amendment here and here.

I particularly enjoyed being reminded of this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:

 In Alexis de Tocqeville’s Democracy in America in Chapter 16: Causes Which Mitigate the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States he writes: “I am aware that a secret tendency to diminish the judicial power exists in the United States….by thus lessening the independence of the judiciary they have attacked not only the judicial power, but the democratic republic itself.”
[p.s.,If you can find this in the long thread, I’ll know that you really read all of the comments.]

Equality Loudoun, one of The Coalition’s partner organizations, continues some of the discussion here.

Keep up the good work!

June 27, 2006 Posted by | activist judges, children, domestic violence, limited government, politics of marriage, Traditional marriage | 9 Comments

I’m Not Emeril on the Amendment

I'm Not Emeril has a thoughtful post on the Marshall/Newman amendment up on his blog.

Although he says not sure yet how he'll vote on November 7, Alton raises a number of questions of concern about the serious implications of the amendment for all unmarried couples.

One question I'd like to pose for discussion… Alton refers to "liberal" courts and there's been much discussion of activist judges.  Unlike many states, Virginia's legislature elects our judges who serve terms of 6, 8 or 12 years depending on the court.  The legislature has not had any trouble recently not reappointing judges whose records they question.  In light of this, does the expressed concern about activist judges have a factual foundation in Virginia?

June 24, 2006 Posted by | activist judges, straight couples | 2 Comments

Women’s Shelter Concerned about the Amendment

The Loudoun County version of the Times Community newspaper had this report on June 22nd about a women's shelter's concern over the impact of the Marshall/Newman amendment on domestic violence victims.

Here's a story the shelter (SAFE) used to illustrate why it's not OKAY just to have assault laws cover domestic assaults involving unmarried couples:

She escaped to the Sheriff's department, where officers referred her to SAFE – Services to Abused Families. By then she was in bad shape.

"There wasn't an inch of her body that wasn't bruised," said SAFE justice service advocate April Baumgardner.

Workers quickly took the victim to the hospital and filed for an EPO – Emergency Protective Order. The police in turn filed an All Points Bulletin on the boyfriend.

Because of a proposed state constitutional amendment, that scenario could change. There would be no emergency protection. Nor would there be an APB for the boyfriend. The incident would not be treated anymore seriously than a parking lot scuffle.

A proposed marriage amendment, which goes before voters on Nov. 7th, would ban same-sex marriage and partnerships such as civil unions that resemble marriage.

SAFE worries the language of the amendment could affect how it responds to domestic violence cases with unmarried couples.

"We wouldn't have been able to get the EPO," Ms. Baumgarder said. Too, the boyfriend would be charged with a misdemeanor instead of the current felony.

One other thing…. without the protective order, there's no way to keep domestic violence perpertrators from bringing the fight into the workplace … and the #1 cause of death of women in the workplace?  Murder.

June 24, 2006 Posted by | domestic violence, GLBT couples, straight couples | Leave a comment

Ohio Matters

Proponents of the Marshall/Newman amendment say that concerns expressed about its impact on domestic violence cases  have “no validity.” 

Funny that’s what the proponents of the amendment in Ohio said, too. During and after the Ohio amendment campaign, the head of Citizens for Community Values, the key proponent of the amendment, dismissed the domestic violence argument as “absolutely absurd”

So, what are they saying now?

In an Amicus Brief by Citizens for Community Values filed on behalf of an unmarried man appealing a domestic violence conviction in the case Ohio v. Carswell, which the Ohio Supreme Court has just agreed to hear, the very same folks who dismissed these concerns as “absurd” now are arguing that the defendent is right — that the Ohio constitution (which has identical language to one of the three sentences in the Marshall/Newman amendment) prohibits the state from prosecuting unmarried abusers under Ohio’s domestic violence laws. 

The intermediate appeals court in Ohio had held that the constitution did not prohibit prosecution of the abuser and it overturned the trial court decision amending his charge to simple assault.  This meant that he would face higher penalties, so the abuser appealed. 

And, now Citizens for Community Values are there supporting his arguments … arguments that they told voters were “absurd.”

What credibility,then, should we attach to the claims of the proponents of the Virginia amendment that the concerns of 60,000 plus unmarried domestic violence victims are invalid? 

June 22, 2006 Posted by | domestic violence, GLBT couples, straight couples | Leave a comment

Businesses Are Waking Up to the Consequences of the Amendment

Last week the Greater Falls Church Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose the Marshall/Newman amendment and to join The Commonwealth Coalition.  Chief among the business reasons identified for opposing the amendment were its potential impact on private agreements between unmarried couples that "approximate" the "design, qualities, significance of effects of marriage."  The Chamber branded the proposal "frivolous" because it is redundant of existing law and would impose unnecessary costs on taxpayers.  Read more.

June 22, 2006 Posted by | economic impact | 1 Comment

Welcome

Welcome to Blogging the Marshall/Newman Amendment.  Our intention is for this blog to serve as a forum on the proposed amendment to Virginia's bill of rights that will be on the ballot.  Constructive comments from proponents and opponents are invited.  Thanks for stopping by!

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga

Campaign Manager

The Commonwealth Coalition

http://www.voteNOva.org

June 20, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment