Remember to Vote No, Virginia!
--------------
In the 2006 General Assembly session, Delegate Bob Marshall proposed legislation requiring that the parties contemplating marriage choose one of two types of marriage license: a license with grounds for divorce or a license without grounds for divorce. A license with grounds for divorce would require that the parties to prove either adultery, a felony conviction, or cruelty to be granted a divorce. A license without grounds for divorce allows the parties to get a divorce based on any grounds including living separate and apart for the requisite time currently allowed under the law.
As the law stands now in Virginia, either party in a marriage may obtain a divorce if and when the husband and wife have lived separate and apart without any cohabitation and without interruption for one year. Under the type of marriage that Marshall tried to introduce, a married couple would not be allowed to obtain a divorce except in extreme situations such as adultery, physical violence to the spouse, abandonment or felony conviction resulting in at least a one year jail sentence. Were a young couple to opt for this type of marriage, then a law-abiding spouse would be prohibited from obtaining a divorce from a criminal spouse who only served 11 months in jail.
Had Marshall's proposed law been enacted, many if not most young couples would choose a license with grounds for divorce. To choose otherwise at such a euphoric time would give the appearance of a partial commitment. When applying for a marriage license, it is usually far beyond any comprehension of the optimistic parties involved that their particular union may well be among the 50% of marriages that end in divorce. But in the long term, this law would indeed have had measurable impact in significantly reducing the divorce rate.
This bill would have served to protect marriage directly by making it much more difficult to obtain a divorce. But there are several reasons why it failed to pass. The first reason is a simple one. Our legislative system is designed so that poorly written and ill-considered legislation dies in committee. Our legislators did their job in this case, and this is exactly what happened in the case of Marshall's proposed divorce bill.
Bob Marshall's busy history as the patron of intrusive proposals designed to impose his personal views on all Virginians with repeated attempts at controlling their private lives has earned him at very best a reputation as a person plagued with "issues". The second reason that his divorce bill failed to move forward is that Virginia's voters have a low tolerance for such personal micro-management on the part of State government.
That brings us to another signature piece of Marshall's craftsmanship that is currently in play: the proposed Constitutional amendment on marriage. While most voters have their minds made up on same-sex marriage, Marshall has taken advantage of this hot button issue to include additional language that not only outlaws civil unions between any couple no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be, but it also prohibits the recognition of any partnership's rights or benefits if they approximate the rights and benefits of marriage. The divorce bill failed, but the proposed amendment cleverly punches a hole in assumed privacy and provides yet another back door for Marshall in involving government in rights and decisions for all couples regardless of sexual orientation.
The second paragraph of Marshall's proposal reads: "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."
Same-sex marriage is specifically prohibited in the single sentence of the first paragraph. This first paragraph is redundant in that Virginia already has law on the books prohibiting same-sex marriage. Yet the new resolution repeats exactly the same idea in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Beyond Marshall's reliving the adrenaline rush of last year's law, who benefits? The first paragraph of the amendment will not preserve, improve or further sanctify a single troubled marriage. It will not stop one same-sex marriage because such a marriage is against the law anyway.
How will Marshall's amendment affect the average Virginian should it actually be passed in November? Regardless of what individuals say outcome will be, the truth of the matter is that we don't know yet, and we will not know for years to come until costly test cases make their way through the judicial system. Married couples enjoy about 1,000 legal rights, privileges and benefits not extended to those in other relationships such as siblings, parent and child, or unmarried couples. Will two siblings or two friends be permitted to co-own property with the right of survivorship? Will such contracts be declared illegal? How will disputes be reconciled?
The reach of this amendment could extend to hundreds of special situations and affect literally thousands of citizens adversely. As an example, many widows and widowers on fixed incomes who are fortunate enough to have a committed relationship later on, do not have the option to remarry since to do so before the age of 60 would make them ineligible for social security benefits upon which their well-being depends. Would such a couple be permitted to own a modest home together? When one of them dies, will half of the the property be taxed as income, perhaps forcing the survivor to sell the home? No matter how authoritatively this amendment is marketed, its proponents don't know either.
This scenario is merely one among numerous ramifications that our lawmakers have failed to examine properly, merely one possible consequence of how unsuspecting people may well be swept up in the fallout of bad law. Perhaps this is not what Bob Marshall intended to legislate, but certain roads are paved with good intentions. If Marshall intention was to prohibit only same-sex contracts, then he should have spelled that out in the first place. Camouflaging Constitutional discrimination as marriage protection is at best disingenuous. At tax payers' expense the courts may well be wrestling with the Constitutional fallout of such an amendment long after the widows and widowers of today are long gone.
The responsibility for putting such a harebrained amendment before the people of Virginia lies not only in the Marshall's easy indifference in playing fast and loose with our State Constitution, but our legislators share the responsibility. Roughly one out of four of Virginia legislators are attorneys, and they should know better than to move along such lousy legislation that is bound to catch vulnerable citizens in its crossfire. The tragedy that they do know this, and the record speaks for itself. Vocal lobbying tactics on the part of well-organized special interest groups have played a significant role. Have our legislators become so intimidated that they are now convinced that to raise legitimate questions about poorly worded proposals is committing political suicide?
Many vocal proponents are fond of claiming that the amendment has nothing to do with discrimination. Instead, they say, it has to do with the protection of marriage. Yet these self-appointed marriage defenders decided not to get on board with the divorce bill. Why not? Because this is not about marriage, that's why. Defense of marriage is a cover for homophobia. The record shows that they have little desire to support legislation that affects real marriages directly. Rather, they seek to preserve their own freedom to marry, divorce, or do both repeatedly. At the same time they attempt to stake out the moral high ground by attacking the extremely small gay and lesbian minority. This is commonly known as bullying. And the quiet failure of the divorce bill, which would have had a direct and immediate impact on preserving marriages, betrays this hypocrisy and demonstrates that the proposed amendment indeed has everything to do with discrimination.
We don't pay our legislators to play political football with personal relationships and private lives. And this fall voters will have an opportunity to choose whether or not to buy into Bob Marshall's package deal. Rejection of this amendment will let our legislators know that Virginians are not receptive to being manipulated, and that we expect our public servants to behave responsibly and demonstrate the leadership that put them in office in the first place.
The Amendment is redundant and unnecessary on the face of it, since there is already a law on the books that says no same sex marriage. The second paragraph is a killer in its broad implications going way beyond same sex marriage. It is so blatantly poor drafted I almost wonder if it was left as-is deliberately by those legislators who, as you say, should have known better--- in order to ensure the defeat of the amendment in due course. Thus, those legislators can tell their hard core base they voted for it, but see, it didn't pass the voters, so don't blame me. Do you suppose?