Why Bishop Glenn Should Re-Think His Endorsement

October 8, 2006

Bishop Gerald O. Glenn
New Deliverance Evangelistic Church
1701 Turner Road
Richmond, VA 23225

Re: The Senate Campaign
  The Proposed Marshall/Newman Amendment

Dear Bishop Glenn:

  This regards your qualified endorsement of Senator AllenGÇÖs campaign and your support of the proposed Marshall/Newman constitutional amendment.  Having looked at your web site I have concluded that you are a fair-minded man who will at least consider the issues I raise instead of rejecting them out of hand.

  First, as to the qualified endorsement, I was pleased that you have conditioned your approval of the SenatorGÇÖs candidacy on a pledge to cease running attack ads based on an article Mr. Webb wrote 27 years ago.  You may be under the impression that Mr. Webb has been attacking the Senator for his statements years ago; however, this is not the case.  Mr. WebbGÇÖs ads to this point have consisted of one which quotes President Reagan praising his military service, one which refutes the Naval Academy attack ad, and one questioning the SenatorGÇÖs support for the Iraq war.  In fact, Mr. Webb was specifically asked by Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room on CNN a few days ago whether he thinks Senator Allen is a racist.  He refused to address the issue and asked instead to talk about the issues in the campaign. 

  Contrast this to Senator AllenGÇÖs statements last week that in spite of his two minute commercial advocating a return to the issues he will continue running the Naval Academy attack ads because they go to Mr. WebbGÇÖs character and attitudes toward women.  His most recent ad, with Ms. Janice Buxbaum, debuted AFTER the two minute commercial, and contains flatly false statements to the effect that she was misquoted in Mr. WebbGÇÖs article even though she is not even named in the article.

  This is grossly unfair, as Senator Allen is surely aware that Mr. Webb apologized many times for the tone of the article and that he as Navy Secretary tripled the number of jobs available to women in the Navy and established regulations against sexual harassment.  Allow me to quote from Mr. WebbGÇÖs blog:

  The first female graduate of the naval academy to make the rank of admiral, Rear Admiral Michelle J. Howard, credited James Webb with helping the careers of women by opening up logistical ships to women. She was the first African-American woman to skipper a Navy ship. [Earl Kelly, GÇ£First female grad to make admiral reflects on career,GÇ¥ Capital-Gazette 5/27/06]

Mr. Webb has not impugned Senator AllenGÇÖs character, yet has spent his entire campaign fending off attempted character assassination instead of being allowed to talk about the issues.  Surely if Senator Allen were serious about returning to the issues he would not be digging for even more women to revisit the same old complaint about Mr. Webb, yet his campaign remains squarely in the mud.

  Second, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the Marshall/Newman Amendment. I understand and respect the fact that you have deeply held religious convictions concerning the sanctity of marriage and that it is only to be between a man and a women.  However, this amendment is not necessary and is indeed so poorly written that it will seriously affect the rights of all unmarried couples. 

  There are at present one federal statute and three Virginia statutes banning recognition of same sex unions.  Virginia Code -º20-12.1 states:

  GÇ£in 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act ... which recognized the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for all aspects of federal law ... The General Assembly finds that the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that GÇÿA husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the lawGÇÖ ... The General Assembly hereby concludes that the Commonwealth of Virginia is under no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize a marriage, civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement purporting to bestow any of the privileges or obligations of marriage under the laws of another state or territory of the United States unless such marriage conforms to the laws of the Commonwealth.GÇ¥ 

  Virginia Code -º20-45.2 prohibits recognition of same sex marriages in Virginia and Virginia Code -º20-45.3 prohibits recognition of same sex unions in Virginia.  Given all these statutes just why is it necessary to amend our constitution with a vague and overbroad amendment, the interpretation of which may result in serious unintended consequences for heterosexual couples and others?  Here is the full text of the amendment:

  Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:

  "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 (emphasis added). 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." 

  I have heard and read many assertions by supporters of the amendment that it will not affect heterosexual relationships.  It is an established principle that when seeking to know the law one first reads the plain language of the law.  This amendment applies to ALL unmarried relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual.  Only where there is ambiguity do lawyers and judges seek out the legislative intent, and in such situations there is always room for dispute and much litigation.  For instance, just what are the GÇ£design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriageGÇ¥?  If this amendment passes it will be fertile ground for endless litigation on its meaning and effect for years to come at a cost of millions of dollars in state and local funds.

  I am not alone in this assessment.  Hundreds of lawyers throughout the state are on record opposing the amendment.  Included in their number are former Attorneys General Stephen D. Rosenthal and Anthony F. Troy and former Republican candidate for Attorney General Wyatt B. Durette.  Governor Kaine, many businesses, newspapers, and city and county governments have stated their opposition to this amendment. 

  Please do some research and come to your own conclusions.  Just remember that a vote against the amendment is not a vote in favor of same sex unions.  It is merely a vote against a poorly written and harmful change to our constitution which seeks to take rights away from people.  One should never be casual about changing the constitution, which is the foundation from which all of our legal rights flow.

  Thank you for taking the time out to read this letter and consider its contents. 

Sincerely,
Carla F. Ward

Comments