The Song Remains the Same

I'm certainly glad that someone has the time to do this research. Once again, that illegitimate Conservative tactic of using a Liberal's own words against him/her is used to provide a great history lesson from the folks advocating passage of Virginia's Marriage Amendment:

Virginians have seen the ‘Unintended Consequences’ argument before. Can you tell when the following statements were made?

1. “As an unintended consequence of the legislature’s reckless action, even contracts by heterosexual members of the same sex – mothers and daughters, grandfathers and grandsons, sisters and brothers – may be called into question.” Tracy Thorne, vice-chair of Equality Virginia.

2. “The unnecessarily antagonistic language goes well beyond prohibiting gay marriage. There may be other ramifications involving wills, medical directives, insurance policies and home ownership agreements.”

3. “But the law’s language has some concerned that it could effectively prohibit a variety of private contracts between two people of the same sex, regardless of their relationship. Others worry that the bill threatens similar contracts between people who are not gay partners but are simply both of the same sex.”

4. “The bill’s broad language would preclude contracts to share assets or provide for medical powers of attorney, and though its sponsors deny they intend to do so, it would seem to ban even certain contractual business relationships undertaken by people who happen to be of the same gender.”

5. “Both gay rights activists and independent legal scholars agreed the nation’s now most strongly worded anti-[gay]marriage statute could have considerable impact on the ability of same sex couples to enter into legal agreements with each other. The new law will abolish the rights of same-sex couples to execute a will, sign medical directives or craft custodial agreements, according to Dyana Mason of Equality Virginia. Equality Virginia, located next door to the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Union, is expected to announce a lawsuit by early summer.”

6. “Critics say the law...could negate powers of attorney, wills, leases, child-custody arrangements, joint back accounts and health insurance granted by companies that recognize domestic partnerships.”

7. “But some legal experts say the law is so vague and ill-defined that it could interfere with legal contracts such as powers of attorney, wills, medical directives, child custody and property arrangements and joint bank accounts.”

8. “Concerns are being raised that a new Virginia law affirming the state’s prohibition against same-sex marriage could have widespread impact on contract law in the state. Some worry that the law could undermine contracts between unmarried people of the same sex that govern both personal and business arrangements, such as real estate holdings, prenuptial agreements and business partnerships.”

9. “The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia announced yesterday that it will challenge a new state law that bans civil unions. The ACLU said it is seeking same-sex couples to come forward and serve as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Specifically, the group is looking for homosexual couples who have contracts or other agreements that have been invalidated by the law.”

10. “I see a whole lot of potential plaintiffs.” Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU,

11. “Equality Virginia, a statewide gay rights group, will join the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in looking for people harmed by the law to become plaintiffs in a lawsuit that will seek to have it overturned.”

12. “This is a law that is so broad and sweeping, I don’t think there will be any shortage of potential plaintiffs.” Daniel Ortiz, UVA law professor.

13. “Mark Usry, a local representative for Equality Virginia, previously known as Virginians for Justice, said the group will sponsor a lawsuit challenging the bill and asked attendees to donate money.”

Are these quotes from today? Are they about the Marriage Amendment?

No. They were used by Marriage Amendment opponents to question the Marriage Affirmation Act, HB 751, when passed by the General Assembly in 2004. Opponents of Virginia's state constitutional amendment defining marriage are using the same tired arguments they used two years ago when Virginia passed into law the Marriage Affirmation Act.

"Opponents to the the amendment are as wrong today as they were then," said Victoria Cobb, Executive Director of the Family Foundation. “Virginians need to be reminded that these same groups warned of “unintended consequences” in 2004 and even promised lawsuits. We are still waiting for the first lawsuit. I suspect we’ll be waiting long after the Constitutional amendment passes because opponents are simply wrong.”

Sources: Roanoke Times, May 7, 2004; Virginian Pilot editorial, June 2, 2004; Free Lance Star, May 18, 2004; Washington Post, May 9, 2004; Washington Blade, May 7, 2004; LA Times, June 20, 2004; Associated Press, May 24, 2004; ABA Journal Report, July 16, 2004; Washington Times, July 2, 2004; RTD, July 1, 2004; Roanoke Times, July 1, 2004; Roanoke Times, July 1, 2004; Daily Progress, May 5, 2004

What is it about the far Left that gives them such trouble with facts?