![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Virginia's Marriage Amendment
Two separate articles in today's paper have me looking ahead to election day. Virginia voters will be deciding whether to amend the state constitution to include a heterosexual definition of marriage. Together with a pretty tight senate race, this ballot initiative is raising a fair amount of pre-election day noise in this area. I already have a pretty good idea how I'm likely to vote, but its going to be interesting to see how events in other places might impact the outcome of the vote.
The first article appeared on the front page of today's Washington Post. Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." The court has given the state legislature six months to draft legislation offering same-sex couples equal rights as opposite-sex couples.
This decision is likely to fan the flames of the debate here in Virginia. Virginia already has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage, so in that sense, the proposed constitutional amendment is redundant. However, supporters of the amendment argue that it is necessary to prevent the Virginia courts from declaring the law unconstitutional. I'm sure that the supporters of this amendment will now point to New Jersey as exactly the kind of situation they are trying to prevent.
The second article, from the second page of my Virginia Edition Metro Section, described a case now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. A man accused of abusing his girlfriend is arguing that he cannot be prosecuted under Ohio's domestic violence laws, because they violate the new State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and other relationships that sought to "approximate" marriage.
This article points out a serious flaw in the language of the proposed amendment here in Virginia. The exact language of the proposed amendment reads:
While the first sentence is pretty unambiguous, the second clause is directed to "unmarried individuals" without any reference to gender. Regardless of your position regarding same-sex unions, this second clause should give voters pause, for the very reasons illustrated in the Ohio case. This sweeping language could have significant impacts on existing rights and protections for unmarried couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Unfortunately, the debate has focused so single-mindedly on the first clause, that the dangerous implications of the second clause are not being highlighted so that voters can make a responsible choice.
On the larger issue of same-sex marriage, I belief that the government should not be in the business of regulating the morality of consensual relationships. I have argued that much of the problem in this area lies with people who are unable (or unwilling) to recognize that there are two different meanings of "marriage." In a religious sense, it is a sacred union instituted by God. I have no issue with that, and I believe that religious institutions have the right to define the nature of that sacred union for the members of their congregation. On the other hand, in the civil sense, a marriage is a contract between two individuals that conveys certain legal rights and obligations. For the government to exclude same-sex couples from these contractual relationships is blatantly discriminatory and is as improper as the anti-miscegenation laws were before they were overturned.
So, I will be voting against Virginia proposed amendment, both because it is discriminatory for the state to ban same-sex marriage, and because the language of the amendment is dangerously flawed. But I'm afraid that I'll be voting on the losing side of this issue (what else is new?). The most recent polls still show that a majority of voter in Virginia support the amendment, and while the numbers have dropped, I doubt they will shift enough in the next week to change the outcome of the vote.
The first article appeared on the front page of today's Washington Post. Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." The court has given the state legislature six months to draft legislation offering same-sex couples equal rights as opposite-sex couples.
This decision is likely to fan the flames of the debate here in Virginia. Virginia already has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage, so in that sense, the proposed constitutional amendment is redundant. However, supporters of the amendment argue that it is necessary to prevent the Virginia courts from declaring the law unconstitutional. I'm sure that the supporters of this amendment will now point to New Jersey as exactly the kind of situation they are trying to prevent.
The second article, from the second page of my Virginia Edition Metro Section, described a case now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. A man accused of abusing his girlfriend is arguing that he cannot be prosecuted under Ohio's domestic violence laws, because they violate the new State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and other relationships that sought to "approximate" marriage.
This article points out a serious flaw in the language of the proposed amendment here in Virginia. The exact language of the proposed amendment reads:
“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.
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.”
While the first sentence is pretty unambiguous, the second clause is directed to "unmarried individuals" without any reference to gender. Regardless of your position regarding same-sex unions, this second clause should give voters pause, for the very reasons illustrated in the Ohio case. This sweeping language could have significant impacts on existing rights and protections for unmarried couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Unfortunately, the debate has focused so single-mindedly on the first clause, that the dangerous implications of the second clause are not being highlighted so that voters can make a responsible choice.
On the larger issue of same-sex marriage, I belief that the government should not be in the business of regulating the morality of consensual relationships. I have argued that much of the problem in this area lies with people who are unable (or unwilling) to recognize that there are two different meanings of "marriage." In a religious sense, it is a sacred union instituted by God. I have no issue with that, and I believe that religious institutions have the right to define the nature of that sacred union for the members of their congregation. On the other hand, in the civil sense, a marriage is a contract between two individuals that conveys certain legal rights and obligations. For the government to exclude same-sex couples from these contractual relationships is blatantly discriminatory and is as improper as the anti-miscegenation laws were before they were overturned.
So, I will be voting against Virginia proposed amendment, both because it is discriminatory for the state to ban same-sex marriage, and because the language of the amendment is dangerously flawed. But I'm afraid that I'll be voting on the losing side of this issue (what else is new?). The most recent polls still show that a majority of voter in Virginia support the amendment, and while the numbers have dropped, I doubt they will shift enough in the next week to change the outcome of the vote.