Blogging the Amendment

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

Bart Hinkle Blogs On the AG’s Opinion – Finds It Wanting

Barton Hinkle, conservative columnist for the Times Dispatch, has this to say about today’s McDonnell opinion on his blog:

as I’ve pointed out before (in the May 16 column, “Could a Judge Misinterpret the Marriage Amendment?”), the advocates of the amendment seem to have painted themselves into a logical corner.

If the threat to traditional marriage from activist judges is so dire that existing statutory language banning gay marriage is not sufficient, then what is to prevent those same (unidentified) activist judges from misinterpreting the marriage amendment and invalidating existing statutory language on other topics? Judges elsewhere have ruled that state marriage amendments invalidate the protections of spousal-abuse laws for unmarried persons, for instance.

McDonnell says he can “find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians.” But what’s to stop an “activist judge” from doing so?

Good question?  Answer… nothing!


September 15, 2006 - Posted by | activist judges, politics of marriage, unintended consequences

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: