That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.Now, anybody who's not a homosexual activist or an anonymous/pseudonymous coward (this means you, "NoVA Scout"), why don't you explain why you are so threatened by this?
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
The Marriage Amendment
The ever-entertainingly insane Alice Marshall thinks supporters of Virginia's Marriage Amendment (which it's opponents call the Marshall-Newman Amendment, in the apparently ill-informed belief that they have successfully demonized Delegate Bob Marshall in the eyes of most Virginians) should reprint its text in full. No problem:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Why doesn't the first paragraph suffice?
If the goal is stop homosexual marriage, that seems simple enough.
*stopping - forget to preview every time.
It seems that para 2 outlaws common law marriages between any combination of people (male/female included).
What gives the state that right?
While I am not a Virginia lawyer, nor a domestic relations attorney, I am reliably informed that Virginia has NEVER recognized common-law marriage, Alicia.
Actually, it doesn't mean me, Jim, given that I'm a heterosexual who has been married for more than 20 years and who, while pseudonymous, have not particular traits that would identify me as a "coward." (whenever you say that, I always feel like you have in mind to come TP my house once you find out who I am).
I don't find the amendment threatening. I just find it stupid and unnecessary. A lot of us conservatives don't like to see constitutional documents used for this kind of thing. The drafting strikes me as fairly imprecise. I tend to call it "Marshall/Newman" because it's a good identifier and I can't figure out what the amendment has to do with "marriage" which is by statute in Virginia a legal estate recognized to be between one man and one woman even without this amendment.
I have little doubt that the amendment will pass, because I dougt many people have much time to think about it and the conservative objection is, I acknowledge, a fairly esoteric concern compared to the emotionality of the the debate around this.
I still think it's a dumb idea. I also think that the Constitution of Virginia is a degraded document when this kind of superfluity comes into it.
Actually, it DOES mean you, "NoVA Scout," since the single, indisputably verifiable trait --- your pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding --- which can be discerned from your internet behavior is that you lack the courage to attach your name to your opinions.
And I've never TP'd anyone's house. I would hardly start now with the likes of you. That is, like most of your comments, a vacuously self-serving and belittling assertion.
As for your so-called "conservative" arguments against the amendment, it's difficult to believe that anyone with your claimed credentials would be satisfied with a mere statutory enactment as sufficient. Only someone who has missed the last sixty-eighty years of judicial activism --- or only pays lip service to "opposing" it --- could be. Were it that you directed your concerns to the "constitutional" monstrosities which have arisen during that period with as much vigor as you direct at those who would preserve the Constitution and the institutions which pre-date it.
James: what are all these "claimed credentials" you're so concerned about? I lay no claim to greatness. I'm just a working stiff with a law degree.
In any event, you'll be tickled to know that I have spoken out against many constitutional monstrosities, not only this particular Virginia amendment. I've done this largely as a matter of personal political preference, but once in a while in court. Conservative political theorists don't much care for constitutions being used as legislative vehicles. I share that view.
PS: what was your answer to Nathan's first comment?
Contrary to some evidence, I don't feel the need to answer every question posed to me.
OK, just curious. It's an interesting question.
Post a Comment