The Marshall Newman Amendment has been receiving more and more attention over the last few months. There are several reasons that one can attribute this to. Among those reasons are that A) VirginiaGÇÖs Constitution should be used to protect Virginians, not take rights away from them and B) the wording of the amendment is so broad that the discrimination would extend into contracts between any two people of the same sex. Although either reason is enough to oppose the amendment, it is the second reason that has lead many organizations to oppose the potential change to our constitution.
Tom Davis, however, stated that he will be voting in favor of the amendment, even though he has admitted that he is unsure sure how far the repercussions of the amendment would reach.
In stating emphatically at the meeting that he plans to vote for the amendment, Davis was compelled to add that he could not say if the amendment is GÇ£overreaching or not.GÇ¥ He added, GÇ£Will it interfere with (non-marriageGÇöed.) contracts? I hope not.GÇ¥So basically, Davis is claiming that he doesnGÇÖt think the amendment is worded correctly, he doesnGÇÖt know what will happen if the amendment is passed, and he doesnGÇÖt think it is important enough to put on his campaign literature.GÇ£CanGÇÖt say?GÇ¥ GÇ£Hope not?GÇ¥ ThatGÇÖs a heck of a basis for such a solid stand on the amendment. Later, Davis qualified his stand further by saying that he doesnGÇÖt make an issue of the matter on any of his campaign literature and that heGÇÖd personally prefer different language.
The most obvious answer would probably be that he has a strongly held belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Although I disagree with that belief, there are many respectable members of society who would agree. Many of the people who wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman hold that belief based upon their religion. Tom Davis, however, claims that religion is not the basis for his objection to members of the same-sex being married. HereGÇÖs how Davis defended himself to Nicholaus F. Benton.
I pressed him on why he supported the amendment. GÇ£I just feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman,GÇ¥ he replied.In reaction to DavisGÇÖs comments, Benton mentioned to him that just because something has been practiced for in a certain way in the past, doesnGÇÖt mean that itGÇÖs correct.GÇ£But why?,GÇ¥ I asked. GÇ£If itGÇÖs because you have firm religious belief based on what the Bible says, or something like that, then thatGÇÖs one thingGǪGÇ¥
GÇ£No, that has nothing to do with it,GÇ¥ Davis came back. GÇ£ItGÇÖs just that itGÇÖs been that way for thousands of years.GÇ¥
When all Davis could then do was restate his personal preference for male-female marriage, I asked him again, GÇ£But why? ItGÇÖs simply a matter of equality under the law.GÇ¥ He then grumbled, GÇ£Maybe itGÇÖs just because IGÇÖm old fashioned.GÇ¥Now, that answer worries me. Davis is the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, which means he responsible for overseeing the government. The CommitteeGÇÖs Website, in fact, makes a big deal out of that.
The CommitteeGÇÖs immediate predecessor, the Committee on Government Operations, was established in 1952. The name change was intended to communicate to the outside world the primary function of the committee: to study GÇ£the operations of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.GÇ¥ It is the CommitteeGÇÖs government-wide oversight jurisdiction that sets it apart from other House committees.If Davis is willing to vote for an amendment even though he disagrees with the wording and doesnGÇÖt know what its consequences are, however, how can the voters trust that he is truly the best man to oversee the Government? Furthermore, how do we know that he won't simply say that the Republicans don't need to change their corrupt ways since they've been in power for over a decade? The answer is very simple. I donGÇÖt think we can.
Tom is always touting his experience, if someone like him can't fully understand the implications, how can we. I call on all Virginians to vote against this bill.
You also have this...
This week, Davis apparently didn’t know when he walked in to address a meeting of the Greater Falls Church, Virginia, Chamber of Commerce that the organization’s board of directors had previously taken an official stand against the amendment on grounds both of general social fairness and because it could negatively impact small businesses, in particular, that involve partnerships.
seems that his staff is dropping the ball on informing "the boss" what is going on.
Error of omission in marriage opinion
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 23, 2006Last week, Attorney General Bob McDonnell released an official opinion saying that the gay marriage amendment wouldn't "affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements" & etc.
The analysis offers McDonnell's assurance that the amendment on the November ballot won't strip rights away from the unmarried.
Such opinions would have more credibility except for similar opinions he expressed on the impact of the Affirmation of Marriage Act, a piece of anti-homosexual legislation passed two years ago. As a candidate, McDonnell dismissed concerns that the law might be used to deny certain rights to homosexual couples, or have other unintended consequences.
In one case, at least, and with the encouragement of the law's author, the Affirmation of Marriage Act has done precisely that. A Virginia woman, Lisa Miller-Jenkins, used the new law to upend a divorce decree and visitation agreement granted in Vermont, where she and Janet Miller-Jenkins were united and where they had been raising their child.
That divorce decree has been upheld by Vermont's highest court. While everyone awaits a decision from a Virginia appeals court, the field is being cleared for a fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That sounds like an unintended consequence, one that has already knotted the courts for two years, one that shows no signs of ending easily or soon, or in the best interests of the child.
McDonnell can ignore the potential for unintended consequences in a state constitutional amendment, but that doesn't mean other states will, or that the federal courts will share his sanguine view.
The Miller-Jenkins fight is proof of that. It pits one state's courts against another's, and promises to eventually ensnare Virginia and Vermont in a case that may be determined on federal law and the applicability of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. And that's just for starters.
Back in Virginia, supporters encourage people to vote for the amendment by claiming that it'll have no unintended consequences, that all it does is define marriage as one man, one woman and one union. To do so, of course, they have to ignore the broad and imprecise language of the amendment. Unfortunately, McDonnell has, too.
Supporters claim the amendment will prevent activist judges from overturning laws already on the books, laws like the Affirmation of Marriage Act. It's hard to argue that's a good thing. The implications of that law are already so unclear that it hardly seems wise to muddle them further with a constitutional amendment.
It's also sad that Virginians elected as Attorney General someone who went to a crappy law school like Regent. Let's compare, for example, how many people pass the bar from Regent as compared to local schools.http://www.ilrg.com/...
American 85%
George Mason 80%
GW 87%
UVA 91%
Georgetown 92%
Regent 61%
Indeed, if you look at the pass ratings, there are only a handful of law schools with a rate that low.
Shitty opinion from a shitty AG who went to a shitty law school.