Richmond Times-Dispatch Says NO

By: GinterParked
Published On: 10/29/2006 9:23:07 AM

ItGÇÖs no surprise.  In a 900-word full-column editorial, the Richmond Times-Dispatch says the Marshall/Newman Amendment - Ballot Question #1 - is unnecessary, poorly written and dangerous.

GÇ£On this amendment, as written, we incline against.GÇ¥
The Times-Dispatch begins its discussion by crediting the serious concerns held by hundreds of thousands of Virginians who will Vote NO.

GÇ£The anti side views the seemingly simple symbolic gesture of a constitutional amendment as correspondingly inflicting a deep and needless wound.GÇ¥

After lengthy consideration, including consultation with GÇ£some of VirginiaGÇÖs most distinguished legal minds on both sides of the questionGÇ¥, the writer concludes that concern for the potential consequences of  the amendment outweigh any potential benefit.  Their concerns mirror the concerns of thoughtful Virginians who will vote NO.

GÇ£If adopted, would the amendment enable the most mischievous judges to find in the amendmentGÇÖs second and third sentences whatever meanings they might choose? In seeking to make it more difficult for judges to invalidate VirginiaGÇÖs laws regarding marriage GÇö laws not under current onslaught GÇö would the amendment actually make it more difficult for the legislature to correct a wacky judiciaryGÇÖs crazy spins on the amendmentGÇÖs language?GÇ¥

The Richmond Times-Dispatch concludes by stating that Jefferson and Madison - Virginia icons of limited government - would likely opposes this fundamentally undemocratic amendment.  The issues addressed in the amendment are ones which should be considered by the General Assembly, and not written in the constitution.

GÇ£Legislatures were designed to be the most powerful branch. Because they are closest to the people, they also are the most reflective of citizen opinion, and the most responsive to it.GÇ¥

Voters - and editorial writers - who read the amendment understand that the language of this amendment is unnecessary, dangerous and an affront to VirginiaGÇÖs tradition of limited government.  Take the advice of the Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Vote NO on NOvember 7.

The full text of the editorial is here.

Comments



Links (GinterParked - 10/29/2006 9:24:59 AM)
The RTD piece is at:

http://timesdispatch...



Link to Bob Gibson (Gordie - 10/29/2006 9:48:19 AM)
Bob Gibson of the Daily Progress in C-Ville has another great article laying out the common sense agaist this amendment. We will no longer be "Virginia is for Lovers".

http://www.dailyprog...=



Goodbye (Gordie - 10/29/2006 9:51:00 AM)
So Long to the business in VA Beach, Williamsburg and even little Nelson County, the cities who rely on tourism for servival.
Just remember in '07 who wrote this piece of trash legislation. Throw those bums out too.


Absolutely. "Sideshow Bob" Marshall must go. (Lowell - 10/29/2006 11:23:29 AM)
I hear Bruce Roemmelt is planning to run again; this time something tells me he's going to have better results.


this is a powerful piece! (teacherken - 10/29/2006 11:07:51 AM)
someone who has posting rights at dailykos and who has not yet used his/her diary ought to do something about Virginia papers opposing the amendment.  I mention it in my diary about the endorsements, but it is not as prominently featured there.

It might just be possible that the Amendment will be defeated - when the RTD opposes it that means one of the main conservative voices in the Commonwealth has now legitimized rejecting the amendment.



Virginian-Pilot Says Vote NO! (elevandoski - 10/29/2006 10:45:36 AM)
Here's the link that I'll provide via the VB Dems blog as a reminder that the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee has voted in resolution to oppose this amendment.  http://vbdems.blogsp...

Tons of Democratic committees throughout Virginia and the DPVA as well are resolved in opposition to it.  It's important to let voters know this as they head to the polls to vote Republicans out of office.