Blogging the Amendment

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

Culpeper Star Exponent Says NO!

It’s a difficult decision says the Culpeper paper … but the answer the editorial board reached is NO to Ballot Question #1.  Here’s why: 

There’s plenty of conjecture and uncertainty to go around. On the surface it seems crystal clear, but this is far from a cut-and-dry issue. Therefore, taking a stand for or against the marriage amendment is a very difficult decision.

On one hand, we certainly back traditional marriage and understand the genuine intent of a nationwide cultural movement that seeks to prevent homosexual unions and polygamy.

On the other hand, we don’t know if changing the state constitution with this wording is necessary. Constitutions should be changed sparingly, and we believe the legal framework is in place to properly maintain the status quo in Virginia.

If specific challenges arise down the road, let’s cross that bridge when we need to. Until then, we ever so slightly lean toward a no vote.

The Star Exponent is right.  There is no “fire” or “emergency” here. 

Caution and common sense counsel, NO on Ballot Question #1.


November 5, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage, unintended consequences | 5 Comments


The Commonwealth Coalition has been saying since July that, when voters are informed, this election is a statistical dead heat.  The Washington Post poll a couple of weeks ago added credibility to our case.  Today, Mason Dixon shows unequivocally that this election is TIED. 

We can become the first state to say NO!  We can make the right kind of history on Tuesday.

It’s all up to you!  If you have friends, family, or co-workers that you haven’t talked with about why they should vote NO, please call them.  If you haven’t signed up to work the polls on election day, please call 804-643-2050, 703-442-9590 or 757-622-8283 to volunteer.

Vote NO on NOvember 7th! 

November 5, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage | Leave a comment

Jerry Falwell’s Home Town Newspaper: Ballot Question #1 is “Overkill,” Virginia Should Be First to say NO!

The Lynchburg News and Advance editorialized against the proposed amendment to the constitution today saying the amendment is “overkill.” After recounting all the reasons why the amendment is unnecessary, the editorial concludes:

Because it goes far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages, we should be the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment. Not because we don’t adhere to a strict moral code, but because amending the constitution just isn’t necessary.

What is necessary is parents sharing their moral values with their children, having open and honest discussions about how they feel and why.

What is necessary is families taking responsibilities – and the consequences, good or bad – for their lifestyles decisions.

The proper role of government is not that of parent – or big brother.

November 5, 2006 Posted by | politics of marriage, unintended consequences | Leave a comment