Blogging the Amendment

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

Another Lesson in Unintended Consequences

NOVA Townhall gives some additional circulation to The Coalition’s email from last Thursday.

Just another lesson in unintended consequences over here at VoteNO central where a broad coalition of Virginians is fighting the Pandora’s box that is Question #1 on the fall ballot.  🙂

Our grassroots effort is focused on ensuring that every voter reads all of the language of the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment, and we appreciate NOVATownhall’s help in getting our message circulated around the blogosphere.

Voters who read the text of the amendment will vote NO. 

We appreciate every opportunity to urge voters to “Read it all” before they vote.


July 29, 2006 Posted by | unintended consequences | Leave a comment

Coalition Poll Results

The Commonwealth Coalition released poll results today showing that, when voters read the Marshall/Newman amendment, support fell 23% to well below 50%.

You can find The Coalition’s press release and the full text of the no longer “confidential” memo from its bi-partisan polling team over on the front page of The Coalition’s website.

Now, let’s get out and educate voters!

July 28, 2006 Posted by | unintended consequences | Leave a comment

Unintended Consequences

Found this quote from Senator George Allen over on Raising Kaine:

“I’m really concerned about the unintended consequences of hasty government action, worrying about a perceived problem that has not yet occurred, and then doing something that ends up being untoward.”

Sounds like an effective argument against the Marshall/Newman amendment. 

But, it seems the Senator was addressing the reasons why the Congress shouldn’t act “rashly,” without understanding the consequences, on internet neutrality legislation.

Applying the Senator’s words to the Marshall/Newman amendment: there is no “fire” here; there is no problem to be addressed in Virginia; no one has made the case why the Virginia bill of rights should be amended to include discriminatory language that no one understands, and that we all have reason to believe will intrude government into the private lives of every unmarried Virginian.

Let’s all vote NO against the Marshall/Newman amendment that represents “hasty government action” “worrying about a perceived problem that has not occured” and will certainly “end up being untoward” for thousands of Virginians and their families.

July 28, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage, unintended consequences | Leave a comment

The Rebellion Gets Into the Exchange

Bacon’s Rebellion features a colloquy among and between James Atticus Bowden and Brian Drake and Jonathan Weintraub.  Thanks to Jim Bacon for offering the opportunity for reasoned dialogue on the amendment!

July 26, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage, Traditional marriage | 1 Comment

Reasoned Debate?

Skeptical Observer calls The Commonwealth Coalition’s website “dishonest” for depicting all of the Virginians whose private lives will be affected by the Marshall/Newman amendment.  The Coalition is for keeping the government out of all of our private lives and for ensuring that couples will continue to have the right to make medical decisions for their loved ones and guardianship arrangments for their children.  We’re against this Pandora’s box amendment that writes discrimination into the constitution and jeopardizes the business climate of Virginia.

July 22, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage, straight couples | 2 Comments

Commonwealth Coalition Shows Strength

The Commonwealth Coalition published the list of its Advisory Council members and current organizational partners yesterday.  Read more on 750 Volts.

July 21, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What judicial activists?

The USAToday reported two more court decisions today that were adverse to the interests of amendment opponents and to gay families.  The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to keep their amendment off the ballot this fall and the 8th District Circuit Court of Appeals (yes, that’s a federal court) overturned a trial court decision that had held Nebraska’s same sex only focused amendment unconstitutional.

So, now we should be able to spend our time debating the merits (or demerits) of the proposal before the voters in November and not the tired and discredited shibboleth “activist judges.”

And, Virginia voters who oppose the amendment are forewarned that they can’t count on there being any judges out there to do their job for them if they fail to turn out and turn down ballot question #1 on November 7th.

July 14, 2006 Posted by | activist judges, politics of marriage | 7 Comments

Daily Press — Judicial Activism Argument “Deactivated”

Writing about the recent court decisions in New York and Georgia, this week the Daily Press echoed Coalition comments about the limited vitality of the “judicial activism” argument in VA:

That argument took a beating last week. Courts in two states – Georgia and New York – ruled that same-sex couples have no right to marry.

Now it’s probably easier to find a Frenchman happy about the World Cup outcome than it is to find an activist judge in Georgia. But New York, now there’s a different situation. You’d expect a state that would make Hillary Clinton a senator to have the kind of politics that would champion activist judges. Right? Yet New York’s highest court ruled that a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is constitutional.

The Daily Press goes on to label the proposed amendment, which it says is “hard to explain outside the context of prejudice against gays and lesbians,”  “utterly unnecessary,”  and “excessive,” and predicts how the future would judge its passage as public attitudes evolve:

So here’s a bet: If this amendment passes in November, one day, when it is stricken, people will wonder how on earth it was ever allowed to stain the Virginia Constitution.

My money’s on the same side as the Daily Press.

July 13, 2006 Posted by | activist judges, politics of marriage | 3 Comments

It’s Official — We’re Number 1

The ballot order has been determined and the Marshall/Newman amendment is ballot question #1.

July 12, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage | 4 Comments

New Banner


Art from our own Vivian Paige for those who want to show their support …..

[Edit by Kenton] Add this to your own blog:

<a href=””><img src=””></a&gt;

July 11, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments