Today, he writes to criticize Attorney General Bob McDonnell, saying this:
The emphasis is added. As I understand it, Hinkle is suggesting that the same activist judges who would disregard the law and 5000 years of civilization to create some "right" for homosexual "marriage" might also cite this amendment to "invalidat[e] existing statutory language on other topics" to the detriment of homosexuals.
Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell has issued an opinion that the proposed marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution “will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives,” and so on. He’s said as much before. But as I’ve pointed out before (in the May 16 column, “Could a Judge Misinterpret the Marriage Amendment?"), the advocates of the amendment seem to have painted themselves into a logical corner.
If the threat to traditional marriage from activist judges is so dire that existing statutory language banning gay marriage is not sufficient, then what is to prevent those same (unidentified) activist judges from misinterpreting the marriage amendment and invalidating existing statutory language on other topics? Judges elsewhere have ruled that state marriage amendments invalidate the protections of spousal-abuse laws for unmarried persons, for instance.
Let me explain it to you, Bart. The potential problem isn't "activist judges" who rule absurdly to illustrate what they [presumably] believe to be an absurd amendment. The potential problem is "activist judges" who pervert the law to achieve their personal political preferences, e.g., homosexual "marriage." Thus, an "activist judge" inclined to rewrite the definition of the word "marriage" to allow a couple --- or group --- of perverts to call their activities "marriage" is not going to be inclined to extend the reach of the marriage amendment to deny them the equal protection of laws against domestic violence, search and seizure, etc.
It is a measure of the desperation of perversion's proponents that they are left to suggest that their own allies on the bench might use the marriage amendment to harm them. Like most of the sturm und drang of the far Left, it is nonsense.