Next fall, all of the members of the Virginia House and Senate will be up for election.
There are a number of state legislators who stood with The Commonwealth Coalition from the beginning of the campaign and who volunteered to serve as members of our Council of Elected Leaders.
Others voted NO during the legislative consideration of the proposed amendment and worked diligently during the campaign to persuade voters to say NO to discrimination speaking on behalf of The Coalition and on their own to thousands of voters.
Still others were yes voters during legislative consideration of the amendment but had the courage to stand up during the campaign and urge voters to reject Ballot Question #1.
All of these folks will need and deserve your support in the 2007 contests and beyond:
Council of Elected Leaders
Senator John Edwards
Senator Janet Howell
Senator Mamie Locke
Senator Patsy Ticer
Senator Mary Margaret Whipple
Delegate Bob Brink
Delegate Adam Ebbin
Delegate Al Eisenberg
Delegate David Englin
Delegate Bob Hull
Delegate David Marsden
Delegate Donald McEachin (although he voted yes in the 2006 session, he joined the Advisory Council and the Council of Elected Leaders in spring 2006, saying he had made a mistake)
Delegate Brian Moran
Delegate Ken Plum
Delegate David Poisson
Delegate Jim Scott
Delegate Vivian Watts
Consistent NO Voters and Supporters:
Senator Benjamin Lambert
Senator Louise Lucas
Senator Henry Marsh
Senator Toddy Puller
Senator Dick Saslaw
Delegate Kris Amundson
Delegate Mamye BaCote
Delegate David Bulova
Delegate Chuck Caputo
Delegate Jennifer McClellan
Delegate Harvey Morgan
Delegate Jim Shuler
Delegate Mark Sickles
Delegate David Toscano
Delegate Shannon Valentine
Delegate Jeion Ward
Yes Voters Who Changed to NO:
Senator Creigh Deeds
Delegate Ken Alexander
Delegate Frank Hall
Delegate Dwight Jones
Delegate Steve Shannon
Delegate Katherine Waddell
Please join me in thanking these leaders for their willingness to Stand Up and Speak Out against Ballot Question #1 and for their support of our campaign!
The Commonwealth Coalition released this statement last night:
November 7, 2006
(Richmond, Virginia) Speaking on behalf of The Commonwealth Coalition, campaign manager, Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, released the following statement regarding today’s election results:
We regret deeply that Virginians voted today to write discrimination into the Virginia Constitution. Virginians are much more mainstream and fair-minded than this amendment – and we’re becoming more so every day. It won’t be long before Virginians acknowledge that we’ve embarrassed our state by having written exclusion into our Constitution.
We’ve always said than an informed voter was a NO voter. We simply ran out of the time and money needed to reach enough voters before the election.
One of our biggest obstacles in this campaign was that many thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion and were afraid or unwilling to invest themselves in this effort. Our opponents said at the outset that they expected to win 70% to 30%, and too many people were willing to believe them.
That makes us even more grateful to the hundreds of organizations and thousands of Virginians from across the political spectrum and all walks of life who did take a stand and join this campaign, particularly our founding partner Equality Virginia and the Weinstein family and the anonymous gay couple whose significant investments jump-started our campaign last April.
The alliances that The Coalition has helped build will provide the foundation for future action to undo the inequity done today.
Dyana Mason, Executive Director of Equality Virginia and Field Director for The Commonwealth Coalition added, “We know that our work is really just beginning. We will redouble our efforts to reach out and include all Virginians who might not yet understand our issues and the obstacles before us. This is a long-term effort, and we’re more mobilized, more energized and more ready than ever before.”
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.
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!
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.
Dahlia Lithwick takes on Ballot Question #1 over on Slate today. After stating the obvious .. Virginia already has laws taking away any relationship recognition from same sex couples, she adds this riff on the search for the unicorn, the mythological “activist judge”:
Why the terrific urgency to gild—or should I say, further tarnish—the state’s anti-gay-marriage lily? Its supporters advance a single argument: It’s an insurance policy against “activist judges” who might someday rise up and strike down the many existing state laws banning gay marriage. Last week, the state’s lieutenant governor, Bill Bolling, announced that the “amendment is necessary to protect traditional marriage from possible judicial assault.” Judicial assault from whom? The hemp-wearing, patchouli-burning vegetarians who dominate the Virginia bench? State judges here are exceedingly conservative, having been selected by our exceedingly conservative legislature. A local Web site is carrying out an enthusiastic search for Virginia’s unhinged, liberal-activist judges. They’re proving tough to find.
After pointing out the irony that proponents are relying on these same state court judges to deflect the serious legal consequences forecast by Arnold and Porter in its 70 page tome on the topic, she goes on to conclude with this advice to Virginians:
If you want to protect traditional marriage, fine. You already live in a state that does so in multiple ways. But, before you vote “yes” on this marriage amendment, ask yourself if you’re so afraid of imaginary liberal-activist judges striking down all those laws someday that you want our custody, contracts, medical directives, and domestic-violence laws re-evaluated by the judiciary today. Don’t end your thinking on this issue by asking yourself whether you believe the institution of marriage should be sacred. Instead, ask yourself whether you believe so strongly in its sacredness that you’d turn Virginia into a vast constitutional Noah’s Ark—where only married people are welcome, and the state’s 130,000 unmarried couples are left out in the cold.
The non-partisan Virginia Legal Review Committee now includes more than 200 lawyers who’ve lined up to say that they support the 70 page memo written by the law firm of Arnold and Porter that concludes that passage of Ballot Question #1 will have serious adverse consequences for Virginia:
This exceedingly broad and untested language is the most expansive such proposal ever to have been put before the voters of any state. The language goes well beyond existing Virginia law, which bans same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions but does not apply to opposite sex couples nor prohibit “recognition” of any “legal status” approximating any aspect of marriage or to which is assigned any marriage-like rights or benefits.
Approval of the Amendment could cause significant disruption to settled legal rights, duties and protections in the Commonwealth, allow those seeking to escape their legal obligations elsewhere to clog our courts, and insert the courts into the private affairs of Virginians. These effects go far beyond the claimed purpose of the Amendment: to reserve marriage for one man and one woman.
Included on the list are Governors Kaine and Holton, the First Lady of Virginia (a former judge), two former Attorneys General of Virginia, a former Republican candidate for Attorney General and Governor, the managing partner of one of the state’s major law firm and more.
And, here’s what the “father” of the 1971 Constitution had to say on the legal issue in C’ville, a Charlottesville Newsweekly:
“I’ve spent my life thinking about constitutions,” says A.E. Dick Howard. “I’ve thought about it a lot, I can at least say that.” The day Howard speaks to a reporter, he has just returned from casting his absentee ballot for the November 7 election. He has a lot to say about why he voted “no” on the marriage question.
“[The amendment is] grand sounding, but as you read it, you say, ‘What in the world does it really mean?’ You think you know what they’re talking about, but you’re not sure, in practice, where it goes,” he says. “It responds to a non-problem.”
Not many people know the Virginia Constitution like A.E. Dick Howard does. How could they? After all, Howard, a UVA law professor, was the executive director of the commission that rewrote the modern Constitution in 1971.
“This is a bad amendment,” says Howard, even for the reported majority of Virginians who believe that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
This guy isn’t some flaming liberal hell-bent on shoving gay rights down the throats of red-state America. “I don’t represent the gay rights community,” says Howard.
What he does represent is the wizened elder who has a broader view of the State Constitution—what it should do, and what it has no business doing. And the State Constitution has no business in the realm of marriage, he says.
An older, married gentleman, Howard, who is reticent about his personal politics, is a distinguished professor who has written volumes on Virginia’s Constitution as well as the Magna Carta. His resumé is impeccable, characteristic of the legal elite: Born and raised in Richmond, he got his undergraduate degree at the University of Richmond before going on to a Rhodes scholarship and then UVA law school. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. He has argued cases before the State and federal supreme courts. In addition to heading the committee that rewrote Virginia’s Constitution, he has served as a constitutional consultant to countries on nearly every continent: Brazil, the Philippines, Hun-gary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Albania, Malawi, South Africa. It’s a respectable record for a man of any political inclination.
“The people of Virginia are properly concerned with the status of marriage and I have no objection to their making that judgment through the statute book,” Howard says. “And if a majority of people of Virginia think that it ought to be defined as between a man and a woman, they’re entitled to that.” But there’s a huge difference between a statute book and a constitution, and everyone casting a ballot on this amendment should consider the difference.
On the other side of the legal debate is the 13 page “opinion” from AG Bob McDonnell, who has voted for this amendment as a delegate, raised money for va4marriage, accepted thousands in direct and indirect campaign contributions from members of the board of the Family Foundation, and campaigned for its passage.
Who supports McDonnell’s interpretation of the law? Is there any non-partisan support for his view?
Today the Family Foundation announced that three former Republican Attorneys General (Gilmore, Earley, Cullen) have said that they support McDonnell’s view.
But, where is the rest of the legal community? In late October, Republicans were trying to get lawyers to sign something saying that they supported the McDonnell opinion. The deadline to respond was October 31st, then October 25th … inquiring minds want to know what happened to the list? Perhaps they couldn’t get anyone to sign? Or so few wanted to align themselves with the AG that it might be embarassing?
No matter what … the bottom line for the average voter is this …
Common sense says that, when the lawyers can’t agree what something means, it doesn’t belong in our constitution.
The only thing that dueling lawyers get you is lots of litigation that will require state and local government to spend our tax dollars on lawyers and lawsuits instead of schools, roads, health care, crime … the much more important issues of the day!
This week, the Richmond Free Press (a leading African-American owned newspaper) joined the Richmond Times Dispatch in advocating a NO vote on Ballot Question #1:
Ballot Question #1 proposes to ban same-sex union. It is totally unnecessary. Already, state law defines marriage as being limited to one man and one woman. It is a political red herring. It was designed by President Bush’s far rigth supporters. Their sinister goal: To divert attention from substantive issues (including the Iraq war, poverty, affordable housing, inadequate health care and education) to turn out conservative voters for this critical mid-term election
Vote “No” on Ballot Question No. 1
Editorial, November 2-4, 2006
If you’ve got an hour to spend, watch Mark Levine debate the amendment on his Inside Scoop show. You’ll definitely learn something about the amendment and about debating!
A very thoughtful piece by Delegate Steve Shannon that appeared in the Connection Newspapers yesterday reviews the potential for far-reaching unintended consequences from passage of Ballot Question #1 and advises “voters should reject Ballot Question #1 in November.”
Shannon points out the irony that, as drafted, the proposed amendment is an invitation to judicial activism and undemocratic in its ultimate effect:
Since the language first appeared in a conference report — the last day of the 2005 legislative session — constitutional scholars and legal practitioners have struggled to discern a clear meaning of these two sentences. The difficulty is that many of the terms used are not previously defined in our laws with meaningful specificity. Ask 100 people to define the “effects” of marriage or the “significance” of marriage, and you will probably hear 100 different answers.
Confusion over comparable constitutional language can be seen in Ohio, where the courts are wrestling with the issue of whether unmarried domestic violence victims are still entitled to the protection of the state’s domestic violence laws. Ohio trial courts have weighed in with differing decisions, and the issue is now pending with the Ohio Supreme Court, which has yet to render a decision.
If enacted, the untested language in the last two sentences of Ballot Question #1 may lead to unintended public policies being made through judicial decisions. The amendment certainly will leave our citizens without a uniform understanding of rules in important areas such as estate planning and domestic violence protections. Many businesses will be hesitant when considering the types of permissible benefits available to employees.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, citizens will lose their right to petition the legislature to remedy any unintended consequences quickly, as is done perennially with so many of Virginia’s statutes.