Editorial Boards Across the State Join in Opposing Ballot Question #1

Newspaper editorial boards around the state are finding fault with Ballot Question #1:

Arlington Sun Gazette 

“The defeat of the gay-marriage ban would surely be taken as a sign across the nation of a seminal shift in public opinion. That would be a mistaken notion. Were the General Assembly to start from scratch and build a better-worded, less punitive measure, we, and we suspect most Virginians, would support it.

There are more pressing issues facing the Old Dominion than monogamous homosexual relationships, and the General Assembly would be advised to focus on those, rather than on what has been, in recent years, an ugly, mean-spirited assault on one segment of the commonwealth’s population.

This amendment should be rejected at the polls on Nov. 7.”
Connections Newspapers

“The second paragraph is so broad, it is likely to be interpreted by lawyers and judges to create a wide variety of unintended consequences.

The proposed amendment states that Virginia, “shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

This sort of broad language creates uncertainty, and uncertainty in the business world is never good.”

Falls Church News Press

“We heartily commend the Falls Church City Council for its unanimous vote Monday night to oppose, with strong language, the Marshall- Newman Amendment on the ballot in November. If the voters of the Commonwealth are effectively alerted to the wide-ranging negative consequences of this ill-conceived measure, and turn it down in November, then this City Council will be remembered for its courage at the cutting edge of this latest battle for social justice not only in Virginia, but nationwide.”

Newport News Daily Press

“In short, the amendment is a bad idea on many levels, a point that has been explored on this page before. But clearly it would act as a legal wedge between gay Virginians and the kind of healthy family life that all Virginians, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to strive for. That legal barrier will reinforce the negative mythology about gay lifestyles by the very fact that it will deny gays and lesbians the right, through marriage or civil union, to openly celebrate and strengthen the relationships that make a lie of that mythology.”

Roanoke Times

“This amendment is unnecessary — state law already prohibits gay marriages, and no Virginia judge is likely to overturn that in the near future.

The amendment is mean-spirited, blocking not only marriage by gays, but any legal contract between an unmarried couple that could “approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.””

Staunton News Leader, “Flawed Amendment Redux” (August 11, 2006; you’ll have to order it from the archives)

“There is no need (aside from panding to a political sub-set) to amend the state constitution to make that which is already illegal more illegal. … Gay marriage is illegal in Virginia. That’s enough.  We should vote “no” on this issue.”

Virginian Pilot

“The amendment is so broad that no one can accurately forecast its unintended consequences on private agreements that have nothing to do with the marriage vows.

It would, quite simply, put a cloud over legal arrangements made between unmarried parties, gay or straight. And in that fatal insult to fair play lies the only chance to defeat it.”

Washington Post

“The amendment is muddle-headed and absurdly broad, duplicates what is already in state law and carries the germ of a thousand unintended consequences. Virginia voters should reject it.”