Posted on 05/09/2006 12:04:17 PM PDT by DBeers
The batting average of conservatives who have been pushing state marriage amendments isn't bad - try 19 for 19 and counting.
But a progressive coalition thinks that it has a shot at defeating the 20th proposed state-constitutional amendment - which will be on the ballot in Virginia in November.
"There is a very real chance that we might be able to defeat this," said Joshua Israel, the president of Virginia Partisans Gay and Lesbian Democratic Club, which is involved in the Commonwealth Coalition effort to defeat the amendment that would define marriage in Virginia as being a legal bond between one man and one woman.
"The average Virginian is not in favor of same-sex marriage. But the latest poll on this showed that 59 percent of Virginians support civil unions. And when people see the full text of this amendment - it's long, it's confusing, it's very open-ended and vague - and when they hear about some of the things that this may do, I think people, even though they may not be for same-sex marriage, are going to see that this kind of constitutional amendment goes too far," Israel told The Augusta Free Press.
That tactic - raising question not so much with the substance of the amendment, but with the way the amendment has been written - is a new approach for those on the left who have been struggling to find a way to reverse their political fortunes vis-à-vis the marriage-amendment movement.
"From the political-strategy perspective, I think what they've done is really smart - and that is, it would be anywhere from unthinkable to impossible for anyone to consider this amendment going down on the merits of the gay-marriage argument," said Quentin Kidd, a political-science professor at Christopher Newport University.
"Virginia is a very conservative state, a very traditional state - and I don't think that argument would get anywhere, and they probably wouldn't be able to make much traction on it," Kidd told the AFP. "What they've done is really broadened the scope of the argument - and they've drawn into their coalition a lot of people that might or might not be really concerned about gay marriage. If they have any chance at all of succeeding, this is the way that they're going to accomplish it - by broadening their coalition."
The coalition includes gay-rights groups like the Virginia Partisans and Equality Virginia and groups that work outside of that spectrum like the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance - whose focus is on the impact that the marriage amendment would have on unmarried domestic-violence victims.
The way the amendment is written, said Stacy Ruble, the domestic-violence advocacy coordinator at the Alliance, would effectively nullify protections afforded to people in unmarried couples against domestic-violence victimization. A similarly worded amendment passed in Ohio in 2004 has had that kind of effect in the Buckeye State - where court decisions upholding an interpretation of the marriage amendment there that erases those protections from the books have led to changes in how domestic-violence cases are treated on the front lines.
"The cases can still be tried as assault-and-battery cases, and while that might not seem like much of a distinction, it really is," Ruble told the AFP.
Manassas Republican Del. Bob Marshall, the author of the Virginia marriage amendment, said the Commonwealth Coalition campaign is trying to "sow confusion" by painting the amendment as doing something other than focusing on defining marriage - "and it could work."
"They're going to have a lot of money to sow confusion," Marshall said. "They're especially going to try hard because Virginia is geographically connected to the nation's capital - so they're going to be able to get more money for their political efforts here if they can show that they can come close to beating us."
Marshall said the amendment as written will not have an impact on domestic-violence statutes or business arrangements or other "ordinary interactions."
"You and I can start a business today - and we're two guys - and this is not going to affect that," Marshall told the AFP. "The suggestion that this amendment affects the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution is almost too ludicrous to mention."
Equality Virginia executive director Dyana Mason countered that the amendment would "certainly prohibit things like domestic partnerships and civil unions - in addition to casting doubt on all of the arrangements and all of the rights that gay and lesbian couples and other unmarried couples may have."
"Even in best of times, estate plans are challenged by outside parties - family members, for example. What this amendment would do is make it more tempting for an outside family member - that long, lost cousin - to come in and challenge an estate plan or will to see if the state will recognize that relationship and let that estate plan or will stand," Mason told the AFP.
Victoria Cobb, the executive director of The Family Foundation, which is working on behalf of the passage of the marriage amendment, views the Commonwealth Coalition as a worthy adversary.
"There's no question that those that oppose marriage are well-organized and well-funded - and so citizens who support marriage cannot sit back and assume that the amendment will be successful with no work involved," Cobb said.
Cobb said it will be crucial for supporters of the amendment to counter what she termed the "misinformation campaign" of the coalition and its allies.
"What we are seeing here is that those who want to redefine marriage simply cannot talk about marriage - because it's difficult to convince people that a belief that marriage as it always has been, between one man and one woman, is somehow bigoted and hateful. After all the debate over the language of the amendment is over, the real issue here is how we will define marriage for future generations," Cobb told the AFP.
Dean Welty, the executive director of the Harrisonburg-based Valley Family Forum, sounded a similar message.
"It is a tragedy that there are people in our society who don't understand and appreciate the importance of marriage - and yet they have raised their voices against this amendment, and for that reason it is critically important that people who share our concern for marriage and the family understand the importance of this vote and mobilize to support this amendment," Welty said.
"The importance of the amendment is to avoid a situation that we have seen in Massachusetts - where a judge can dictate to the legislature to legalize these same-sex unions as a marriage. That is the importance of the amendment - to protect marriages in Virginia from suffering that same kind of outcome," Welty told the AFP.
That argument might hold water if Virginia actually had activist judges on the bench, to hear Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, the Commonwealth Coalition's director and campaign manager, tell it.
"People who try to sell the myth of the activist judge in Virginia can't do it with a straight face - because they know that our Supreme Court justices serve 12 years before they have to face the legislature, our circuit-court judges have to serve eight years before they have to face the legislature, and our trial-court judges serve six years before they have to face the General Assembly. And the General Assembly - particularly the Republican majority in the General Assembly - has shown that they're quite willing to yank somebody off the bench that they don't agree with," Gastanaga said.
"We just don't have activist judges in Virginia - and anybody who wants to suggest otherwise, that somehow some Virginia judge is going to do something wacky, can't do so with a straight face. So far Virginia judges who have addressed these issues have done the following - told a woman that they would not allow her to keep custody of her own child in a fight with her mother because she's in a lesbian relationship, told a woman who shopped for jurisdiction because she decided that she wanted to have a better decision than she got in another court that that was OK because this is a lesbian relationship. We haven't had any evidence so far that activist judges are going to do anything but be activists in the other direction," Gastanaga said.
"Those are the main arguments that people on the other side are making - that you need to put this in the Constitution to protect Virginia from activist judges, and you need to put this in the Constitution because it's God's plan. Those are not compelling arguments in Virginia," Gastanaga told the AFP.
The voters will actually decide the fate of those arguments later this year.
"It's a long, steep climb - and it's not likely that they're going to succeed. But there's always that asterisk," Kidd said.
"The Commonwealth Coalition is taking a slightly different approach to arguing against this initiative - focusing on the way it's written and arguing to voters that this amendment could potentially hurt all relationships that people have that are short of marriage, including perfectly legitimate relationships, like two elderly people who live together because they take care of each other," Kidd said. "That kind of strategy hasn't been afforded groups in other states - and that may actually make it a little more likely that they could succeed in Virginia. In the end, I think it's going to be difficult to do.
"They responded to what opponents of gay marriage have put together - and they've done that politically in a very smart way. That said, I'm not sure that that is still going to be enough for them to be able to succeed in defeating it," Kidd said.
Short Answer: NO.
The batting average of conservatives who have been pushing state marriage amendments isn't bad - try 19 for 19 and counting.
The activists have brought problems on themselves. By trying to force gay marriage through the courts, they have generated more ill will than existed before.
And since these activists love going to court so much, they will be in court the day after election day, if it passes, to try to find some technical flaw with it. Or file more lawsuits based on these other pieces of it that deal with contracts and not just marriage. We'll see. Up to 7 states will vote on marriage in November 2006. See if all pass, or if public opinion has changed.
That tactic - raising question not so much with the substance of the amendment, but with the way the amendment has been written - is a new approach for those on the left who have been struggling to find a way to reverse their political fortunes vis-à-vis the marriage-amendment movement.
The only way the left have any hope of reversing their political fortunes is by dumping the absurd from their political agenda -- Something they will not do as they are the political party of the self destructive voters and as such a self destructive coalition of the absurd and politically irrelevant...
Richmond ping....
November ballot for marriage amendment.
Will do.
The scare tactics by the homosexual groups were tried in Ohio and the marriage amendment passed overwhelmingly anyway. I don't believe Virginians will be fooled.
The pro-traditional marriage side will go 50 for 50.
Have the vote!!!
Here in MA we can't even get a vote. All the sodomites come to MA like it's Vegas!
Two main questions I have :
1. If gay marriage is such a good social policy, why aren't gays working more to convince the rest of us that it's a good social policy, which would lead to :
2. If we were convinced it was a good social policy, then state after state would be voting to allow gay marriage, rather than against it, right?
Which leads then to :
3. Since the question of marriage is now out there, why are gays against being a democratic republic and voting on the subject?
If we could only rid ourselves of the pesky Northern Virginia counties, it'd be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we've had too many displaced Yankees (no offense intended towards Conservative Yankees, of course!) move into these counties for the vote to be even remotely predictable at this point...
BTTT.
Is Kaine going to attempt to campaign against the amendment?
If he does, it would blow his image as a devout Catholic.
"why are gays against being a democratic republic and voting on the subject? "
The crowd here in Massachusetts have a new angle. They think they've found a loophole in the Constitution that says we cannot have a vote on an issue if it goes against a ruling by the state Supreme Court. And since the MA SC voted that Ho-Ho-Homosexual "Marriage" is legal here .....
Interesting choice of words for this topic, LOL
I'm eagerly awaiting the tipping point - when a majority of states pass such amendments. I'm not very optimistic on this issue, but when that day arrives, a month-long party will be called for.
Still is a male, a grotesquely mutilated male.
Governor Kaine has already had the opportunity to be on both sides of this issue.
Running for office, he was for it. ~Now~ he's against it.
It's going to be a loooooonnnnngggg four years...
those picvs are some eye openers huh? the stuff nightmares are made of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.