Posted on 04/11/2006 6:53:02 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
RICHMOND, Virginia, April 11, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Governor Timothy M. Kaine of Virginia refused to sign a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, and said he will vote against the bill when it comes before Virginians in November.
Although Gov. Kaine said he opposed same-sex marriage, he said the proposed bill could have consequences for all unmarried couples, heterosexual as well as homosexual, the Washington Post reported today.
The Virginia state constitution already identifies marriage as between a man and a woman, but supporters of the amendment say the law needs to be clarified to ensure Virginia is not compelled to recognize civil unions or gay couples “married” out of state.
Kaine said the wording in the amendment could be interpreted to include unmarried heterosexual couples, where it reads the Virginia Constitution should not recognize “another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
In a statement, Kaine said he was concerned about “the broad wording of the proposed constitutional amendment,” saying that it threatens “the constitutional rights of individuals to enter into private contracts, and also…the discretion of employers to extend certain benefits such as health care coverage, to unmarried couples.”
“For those reasons, I will vote against the marriage amendment in November, and I urge other Virginians to vote against it as well.”
He also said that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman.
At least six states will ask citizens to vote on constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage this fall, and more are debating the issue.
All the pandering to queers tends to indicate these pols have no system of priority or dedication to American culture and heritage. They all suck.
The Democratic party in Virginia has been taken over lock, stock and barrel by the fascist movement.
But did the eyebrow sign it?
Kaine said the wording in the amendment could be interpreted to include unmarried heterosexual couples, where it reads the Virginia Constitution should not recognize “another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”
ROTFLMAO -so he is afraid that judges might liberally interpret the wording! LOL Might as well disband the Legislature and just concede the Excecutive branch while at at -sounds like the dummycrat plan on terror --surrender!
So much for checks and balances with this guy!
He is right in the fact that sometimes there are other ramifications. I don't like pandering to gays either and don't think one little reason should be enough to oppose it, but sometimes there are a few things that get slipped in.
Yeah right. Sounds like all those who say they are "personally" opposed to abortion, but...
Tough wording. Ick!
I personally do not think the government should pay benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples either. If a private company want to do so that is their business. This amendment would not stop them from doing so just the state. He is lying.
Huh?
Oh, man, that is still a gut-splitter...
"Yeah right. Sounds like all those who say they are "personally" opposed to abortion, but..."
Oh so Kaine is a "But Monkey" ehhh ... in more ways than one I figure.
I personally do not think the government should pay benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples either. If a private company want to do so that is their business. This amendment would not stop them from doing so just the state. He is lying.
Neither do I. Though there may be a situation where someone is indeed supporting someone else. My uncle raised two boys that were not related to him.
I'm more talking among other lines like adoption. In some of these, it seems I've heard proposed that no single people should be allowed to adopt. I, along with many, believe that the best situation for a child is a two-parent, nuclear family. HOWEVER, I am one that has not been able to have children for many years. At the current time, we are not able to adopt. It is still some time in the future. However, I still do have that strong desire to raise a child. If I should find myself single, I would still like to have that opportunity. I realize that it is probably a broad "what if" statement to most people and probably insignificant to those with children. But it is very real to me.
Ah, the old "being-doing" straddle.
"I am personally opposed to (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.) but I will not vote against it."
In other words: "I AM an opponent, but I DO not oppose. Now vote for me."
The adoption system in this country is severely broken, with both queues of children awaiting adoption and queues of prospective parents wanting to adopt. Married couples should be given priority in adoption, but even placement with a stable unmarried person may be better for a child than being bounced around forever.
That's ~exactly~ how he describes himself.
"Bought and paid for". Some contractor gave him an 18,000.00 vacation, after he won and he took it.
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.