Blogging the Amendment

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

Richmond Times Dispatch Says NO on Ballot Question #1

In a lengthy editorial published this morning, the conservative Richmond Times Dispatch opined:  “On this amendment, as written, we incline against.”

The editorial asks two questions: is the amendment necessary?  will it accomplish what is intended?  The answers to both are no.

“First, Is the amendment necessary? The answer: Probably not — not now.”

The TD points out that gay marriage and civil unions are already illegal in Virginia and that the Federal Defense of Marriage Law protects Virginia from any forced application of other states laws that conflict with ours.

“Second, What would the amendment accomplish? The answer: Probably not what is intended.”

The TD points out that contrary to getting judges out of the business of defining marriage, the amendment, as proposed, has exactly the opposite effect:

“If adopted, would the amendment enable the most mischievous judges to find in the amendment’s second and third sentences whatever meanings they might choose? In seeking to make it more difficult for judges to invalidate Virginia’s laws regarding marriage — laws not under current onslaught — would the amendment actually make it more difficult for the legislature to correct a wacky judiciary’s crazy spins on the amendment’s language?”

Like The Commonwealth Coalition itself editorial opinion around the state is divided in its reasons for doing so but united in saying NO to Ballot Question #1!

Whether you are for full marriage equality or merely against messing around with our constitution in ways that will result in nothing more than litigation and unbridled judicial intervention in our most private decisions, one thing is clear:  the right answer to Ballot Question #1 is NO, NO, NO, a million times NO.


October 29, 2006 - Posted by | activist judges, politics of marriage, unintended consequences


  1. I must say I was disappointed but not surprised. I figured that was coming. I used to think the Times-Dispatch was a conservative newspaper, but that all changed last fall when it took the part of gays and lesbians against former 68th District Delegate Brad Marrs because he supposedly was acting “homophobic.”

    Marrs was ultimately defeated by Katherine Waddell. However, I thought it was quite a delicious development when Waddell doublecrossed her gay and lesbian supporters and voted in favor of the marriage amendment, although she curiously claims to be against it now. Fortunately, she can’t get her House vote back.

    Comment by Terry Mitchell | October 31, 2006 | Reply

  2. […] | Marriage. The Richmond Times-Dispatch (a generally conservative venue) opposes the amendment.  (Analysis of the editorial: here and here.) […]

    Pingback by Nightmare scenario in which George Allen (R-VA) wins by a single vote. at Southern Discomfort | November 6, 2006 | Reply

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: