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.

Advertisements

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

5 Comments »

  1. Could someone please explain to me the importance of voting “NO” vs. “YES” I am very confused on the whole voting desicion. Thanks!!

    Comment by CMM | November 6, 2006 | Reply

  2. If you vote yes, ALL unmarried couples–not just gay couples–would not be recognized. If you were a woman living with a man long term but you weren’t married, if something happened to you he could not make any decisions on your behalf as spouses can.

    Comment by Patricia Beninato | November 6, 2006 | Reply

  3. If this admendment ends up passing, is it possible that the fight for the rights of all civil unions will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court? I would at least imagine that this will put Virginia’s constitution at odds with Federal Law.

    Comment by Justin | November 7, 2006 | Reply

  4. OK. We lost. But, 57% isn’t the 70+% a defense-of-marriage amendment passed by two years ago in Georgia. It’s just a 7% margin. What needs to happen now is a five year plan of repeal. The Volstead Amendment lasted only 4 years in the federal constitution and the US Constitution is harder to amend than the VA constitution. We need to launch a campaign that will collect and keep in front of the voters the human toll of the amendment–what happens to people when the legislature cannot create civil marriage or civil union or expand domestic partnership. Every custody battle, contested will, contested domestic abuse prosecutions and, God forbid, attempts to roll back domestic partnership benefits. The outfall from this needs to be kept a visible issue with the tagline “Is this what you intended?”. But we have to take the long view. This won’t be fixed next year or in two years. You have to wait until public sentiment catches up, but you can also help it catch up. I would oppose any challenge to the US Constitution of the amendment. You have to let the voters get there on their own for the issue to really die. You might win a challenge based on the US Constitution, but you run the risk of losing in the court of public opinion.

    Comment by Tim | November 8, 2006 | Reply

  5. looks, like ya lost…

    Comment by Le Fantome De L'Opera', previously known as Anon | November 8, 2006 | Reply


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: