First, do not be trapped into turning your debate into a referendum on gay marriage.  Whatever your feelings on the subject this is a polarizing point and will not be well-received by some who may otherwise be receptive to your position.

Second, a constititional amendment is not necessary to achieve the stated goal of the amendment, which has been painted by its supporters as banning same sex marriage.  It's real goal is much broader, but I'll get to that.  You will be attacked based on the recent NJ Supreme Court ruling.  Very important:  NJ does not have a statute banning same sex unions.  Its statutory scheme is silent on the issue.  This is not the same as Virginia, which has had a statute recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman on the books for almost 30 years.  In fact, to quote from a letter I wrote to Bishop Glenn of Richmond a few weeks ago:

There are three Virginia statutes banning recognition of same sex unions.  Virginia Code §20-12.1 states:

“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 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.” 

Virginia Code §20-45.2 prohibits recognition of same sex marriages in Virginia and Virginia Code §20-45.3 prohibits recognition of same sex unions in Virginia.

Are you getting the sense of an overriding theme here?  I heard one opponent describe voting for the amendment as running into the morgue to fire a few more bullets into the corpse.

Third, you will be told that the amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from forcing gay marriage down our throats.  Ask exactly how many Virginia judges in thirty years have extended the rights of marriage to gay couples.  Press hard on this.  Marriage in Virginia is purely a creature of statute.  It requires the issuance of a marriage license and the performance of a marriage ceremony by someone, either a civil or religious celebrant, authorized through the local circuit court to perform such weddings.  Civil celebrants are usually attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the chief judge of the circuit court.  They can be dismissed at any time.  Religious celebrants must satisfy qualifications imposed on them by the court and are not automatically entitled to perform recognized Virginia weddings.  What the proponents are really saying is that Virginia judges are such wild and crazy guys they will deliberately violate the law to validate same sex unions.  Where did these judges come from?  Virginia's not known for nutty, law-breaking judges.  Upon what do they base the assumption? 

Fourth, if this were just about same sex unions the amendment would have consisted of the first paragraph and nothing more.  The hidden agenda behind the amendment is to force shack-up couples into marrying.  Read the second paragraph.  Ask the Family Foundation guy just why that paragraph is there.  It's important to press him on the fact that this amendment is non-sexual orientation specific and  is really about making it so uncomfortable to be in an unmarried relationship that couples will be forced to marry.

Fifth, do not let your opponent claim that there will be no ill effects on heterosexual couples.  Read the amendment.  What does "relationships of unmarried individuals that intend to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage" mean?  How do you determine intent?  What are the "design, qualities, significance, and effects of marriage"?  Ask him to define each word and then ask him where the definition came from.  Then ask how he knows that his definitions are the ones which apply.

What does it mean that the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions cannot create for unmarried individuals a legal "status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."?  The amendment's proponents claim that things like insurance benefits will not be affected because they are available in non-marital relationships and for one's children, etc.  This is a tautology.  Those benefits are available to people who live together primarily because it is a special family-type relationship akin to marriage and the companies or government entities providing the insurance recognize that.  If they are faced with a statute saying they cannot recognize such relationships, then won't people currently covered lose their benefits?

More to the point, this phrase would seem to invalidate all protections afforded by domestic violence legislation.  Your opponent will argue that domestic violence laws apply to household members, so therefore will not be affected by the amendment.  a) this presumes that there's only one way to define household member and the proponent claims to know it.  But in fact the definition itself will be in dispute in light of the amendment.  b) Domestic violence laws recognize a special relationship between the couples who are prosecuted under their purview.  When between lovers or ex-lovers that relationship is akin to marriage.  The law does not apply to mere roommates.  There has to be a bond higher than mere sharing of space.  c) educate yourself on Virginia's peculiar judicial system.  Virginia has courts of record, such as the circuit courts, and courts not of record, such as the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts and the General District Courts.  All matters deemed to be between people in a household relationship (such as lovers and former lovers), and in family relationships, fall within the original jurisdiction of the JDR courts. General district courts cannot hear cases between such individuals.  However, this amendment would appear to ban recognition of such relationships, which raises a jurisdictional argument. As an attorney I would be inclined to file a motion to dismiss in a domestic violence case on grounds that recognizing the parties' relationship is unconstitutional, and arguing that the JDR court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the parties.  If the courts are constitutionally forbidden to recognize such relationships, how can they enforce the laws attendant to them? 

Ohio has a similarly worded amendment and there are between 45 and 60 cases going on in its court system now with conflicting holdings out of the lower courts which have been appealed to the Courts of Appeal there.  The amendment actually require judges to step in and interpret laws where once the issue was clear.  In other words, the "activist judge" bogeyman proponents fear would be the final arbiter of the issues. 

All of this litigation will cost the state millions of dollars.

One last issue.  Virginia has no common law marriage, but has recognized other states' common law marriages. It appears that this amendment would ban such recognition.  However, if Virginia fails to recognize out of state common law marriages, doesn't that mean Virginia has failed to extend full faith and credit to the laws of another state?  I would anticipate someday seeing a case based on this amendment's incapatibility with the U.S. Constitution, specifically in areas affecting full faith and credit and equal protection.

Hope this helps. 

...I hope it is OK for me to forward it verbatim to several friends who are working to defeat this vile piece of 'legislation'.

I have very much enjoyed reading your contributions on RK since you've joined, You have really added a great deal to our discourse and I appreciate it.

My kids would tell you that my motto is "Everyone's Entitled to My Opinion".  I have spent many hours discussing this issue with colleagues and friends and reading posts on numerous websites, etc.  I have been practicing criminal, family, and domestic relations law for 20 years now and hope that makes me qualified to talk about the practical effects of this amendment.  I also find it mean-spirited and discriminatory, but from a practical standpoint the opposition has to appeal even to homophobes and religious right-wingers.

and a thousand thanks. I have all evening to digest and prepare for this.
Listening to the original show, they attempt to present this as a nonpartisan issue with bipartisan support. I think I know how to shot that one down; one has only to listen to George Allen's two latest radio spots to know better.
That's one way I could undercut his "defense of marriage" argument but it's kind of a risky tactic....it's maybe just ading to the polarization effect.

Anyway, here are two prior Sunday morning shows dealing with the issue.
These are large files, about 26 meg each.

link to download Mudcat Saunders

link to download Bad Guys