Apparently, Gov. Kaine is having strong misgivings about this over-the-top, unnecessary, and overreaching "anti-gay-marriage" amendment to the Virginia constitution. According to Kaine, the amendment is severely flawed because:
It just has consequences far beyond marriage. Folks who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe that, I support that as the law. But to potentially, for example, outlaw contracts between unmarried couples--and I think that's a fair read of the second and third sentences of the bill--there's just no reason we need to do that.
Exactly right. For good measure, Kaine adds, "We shouldn't be throwing stuff into the Constitution that has offbeat consequences." That's for sure!
Now, the only question really is this: will the voters of Virginia reject this pathetic, puerile piece of political pandering? Or will they allow the Virginia Bill of Rights, written by George Mason and adopted in June 1776, even BEFORE America's own Declaration of Independence, to be sullied with a clause that expressly TAKES AWAY peoples' rights. Keep in mind that the Virginia Bill of Rights served as a model for America's own Bill of Rights, and that this anti-gay-marriage malarky is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what a "Bill of Rights" is all about. Also keep in mind that, in Virginia, the law ALREADY defines marriage as between "one man and one woman." So how is this amendment anything but overkill and blatant pandering to homophobes and the Pat Robertson right-wing "base" of the Republican Party? Answer? It isn't.