Friday, July 21, 2006

Rank Dishonesty

Was looking over posts as Waldo Jaquith's indispensible vapoliticalblogs.com, and came across a link to the "Commonwealth Coalition," which has the goal of defining deviancy down by defeating this year's constitutional amendment to constitutionalize marriage.

And what should greet me? An honest picture from some Castro Street gay "pride" parade? Two men? Two women? A polygamist family? A man looking lovingly into the eyes of "man's best friend"?

No, instead, the Commwealth Coalition greets us with a late middle-aged couple, a man and a woman. Apparently, the picture changes, but I never came across a single picture honestly portraying the goals of the Marshall/Newman amendment's opponents.

Who do they think they're kidding?

12 comments:

Charles said...

Maybe one of them had a sex change?

NoVA Scout said...

It may have been a picture of me and my wife, Young. An example of a middle-aged (in my case, bordering on elderly) couple whose marriage has never been threatened by other folks' sexual orientations. Then again, it may not have been. There are probably millions of other heterosexual married couples with the same experience. I haven't seen the picture.

Waldo Jaquith said...

I think you're looking for this or this, and probably this.

As long as I'm posting, I must point out that you're under no obligation to mention that I put together that aggregator. It is an ongoing collective creation of all political bloggers in Virginia, without whom it'd be a blank page. While I'm glad it's useful to people, it required so little work on my part to put together that, frankly, I feel like a fraud any time I see somebody (kindly) crediting me for it.

f mcdonald said...

The couple in the third picture want to get married?

James E. Martin said...

Because the amendment will have lasting and disastrous implications for those who have already been married in Virginia... Also, if you like domestic violence, vote for this amendment (it will almost certainly invalidate our domestic violence laws).

voteNOva said...

Anyone who reads the full text of the Marshall/Newman amendment cannot help but see that it has unexplained, untold and potentially severe consequences for all "unmarried" Virginians. The pictures on The Coalition's site change to show the full range of people into whose private lives the Marshall/Newman amendment would, if passed, intrude. This is the Pandora's box amendment.

Read before you vote, Virginia! Even a casual reading of the full text of the amendment (you can find it here, http://www.votenova.org/resources)will prove that there is much more here than meets the eye or is revealed by the scripted, sound-bite arguments of proponents.

James Young said...

NoVA Scout, you so consistently parrot the rhetoric of the far Left, I fail to understand why you continue to characterize yourself as a "Republican." JEM's comments are, of course, in the same false vein. Though it's certainly refreshing to see the far Left worried about judicial activism, with the false charge about domestic violence laws. It's really too bad that opponents of the amendment have to prey upon voter ignorance. Talk about "scripted, sound-bite arguments"!

And Waldo, I always try to give credit where credit is due. Good ideas are worthy of credit, even if the come from guys with whom I usually don't agree.

David said...

James, I can't seem to find the part in the proposed amendment where it specifies that only same sex unmarried couples would be affected. Is it written in special type that only you can see?

It's unclear what you think the goals of amendment opponents are, if not to defeat the amendment and prevent the intrusion it would allow into the lives of both gay and straight couples and their families.

You really ought to familiarize yourself with domestic violence advocacy if you are going to talk about it. Your lack of knowledge (and concern) is all too evident.

James Young said...

Well, David, I can't seem to find that part of the amendment that says that it would eviscerate domestic violence laws. Is it written in special type that only you can see? The assertion of opponents that it would is just silly. See, two can play that game!

Why don't you people just 'fess up? You don't want tolerance; you want affirmation, and approval of your perversions. I am entirely familiar with domestic violence advocacy. I am also familiar with the Chicken Little games that opponents are playing.

No dice.

David said...

Domestic violence is not a game. Ask the unmarried victims in Ohio who have been told that they are not eligible for protective orders.

If the legislature had intended specific rights for unmarried couples to be exempt, they would have included clarifying language to that effect in the amendment. They had the opportunity. Such language was proposed and was voted down. This illustrates the intent of the legislature that the language is to be interpreted as broadly as possible.

James Young said...

No, David, the "game" is belittling you debate opponent with smart-ass, specious comments. You know, like asking "Is it written in special type that only you can see?"

Are you pathologically incapable of telling the truth? You are of course aware that your argument has no validity. Homo "marriage" advocates like to point to two cases in Ohio where trial courts used that state's amendment to invalidate domestic violence laws, but like others who have done so, you scrupulously avoid mentioning that the Ohio Court of Appeals has already reversed those lower court rulings. Sadly, even a constitutional amendment cannot avoid the problem of judicial error (see First Amendment v. McCain-Feingold).

Virginia is in even better legal shape than Ohio, assuming that there was some basis in Ohio law to do what was done, and it wasn't just some activist judges trying to make a political point. Virginia's domestic violence laws are not based on marriage, but instead are based on "households." Virginia law clearly defines the "class of victims" of domestic violence as any "household member" who "cohabitants" or "resides" with another person. It has no reference to marriage or, in fact, any relationship at all between the two people who reside together (Code section 18.2-57.2). Basically, Virginia's domestic violence law applies regardless of the relationship, and what was suggested was merely an effort to place in effect what was already there, and unaffected by the amendment. Regardless of what happens in Ohio, Virginia's domestic violence laws are safe.

David said...

I'm surprised that you are still making this misleading argument. Actually, the domestic violence statutes in Virginia and Ohio for all intents and purposes mean exactly the same thing. In defining who is eligible for protection under domestic violence law, Ohio law refers to both "spouse" and "person living as a spouse," while Virginia law refers to a person who "cohabits." And how does Virginia law define a couple who cohabits? As a couple "living together as husband and wife."

At any rate, the uncertainty resulting from the conflicting Ohio court cases means in practice that victims who need them are being denied protective orders, and defense attorneys are milking the situation for all it's worth.

You still have not addressed the fact that the amendment language does not specify that it only applies to same sex couples, a fact which renders the premise of this entire post nonsensical. However, I apologize for my belittling comment. It was uncalled for.