Wendy Repass said she loves her job at the University as a College Web project manager, but fears for the protection of her civil rights.
"It's a sad and scary situation," Repass said.
Repass, a homosexual and member of U.Va. Pride, the University staff gay rights organization, recently began to ponder situations where her individual rights may not be equal to those of others in a post-July 1, 2004 Virginia.
An amendment to Virginia's "Affirmation of Marriage Act," originally approved in 1997 to ban gay marriage, was pressed into law July 1 by a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the House of Delegates and Senate, and it is already sending shivers down the spines of some Virginians.
While proponents argue the updated law will completely protect the sanctity and privileges of a legal union between man and woman, opponents, such as Equality Virginia, the state's largest gay rights advocacy group, deride the freshly updated act as the "worst anti-gay law in America."
Raising the stakes
Broadly drafted to prevent any sort of legal civil unions between Virginia's same-sex couples, the law is also designed to annul any marriages or marriage-related contracts entered into by same sex-couples outside of the state if the couple chooses to dwell in Virginia permanently.
Going further than the original 1997 law banning same-sex marriages introduced by Del. Joe Johnson, R-Bristol, the amended law explicitly bans civil unions between same-sex couples at a time when other states, such as Vermont, are allowing alternatives to traditional marriage for same-sex couples.
Borrowing words from his likely ideological antithesis, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, said the updated law is necessary to protect the institution of marriage in Virginia.
"Dean said that civil union is marriage by another name," Marshall, the amendment sponsor, said. "I [sponsored] it based on where the homosexual leadership in this country is going with their litigation strategy. They certainly want to find some legalization of homosexual practices."
Marshall said he doesn't buy the fears of homosexuals who worry the amendment will prevent them from living normal lives.
"They're very gullible if they believe some of these people protesting the changes," he said. "A homosexual can vote, they can enter a contract, they can leave his or her money the same way as any other Virginian."
Virginia Equality Executive Director Dyana Mason disagreed.
The updated law reads that any "partnership, contract or another arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state of jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia."
Mason said she fears hospital and insurance employees, among others, will interpret this wording so broadly that authority for medical directives and children raised in a same-sex couple may be transferred to blood relatives over life partners in a situation where medical or business officials fear violating the law.
"What this law does it that it just gives a judge or someone the complete freedom to say this law puts this contract on a lesser playing field than other interests," Mason said. "The Federal Constitution protects your right to private contract. I don't know of any other state in the country that has gone so far to strip that very right."
According to Mason, prior to this amendment to the 1997 act, same-sex couples could enter into legally binding contracts such as mutual wills traditionally drafted between married couples. Now, however, Mason said that action, as with many others, could be questionable for non-married partners.
Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner had vetoed the portion of the new law relating to private contracts, but legislators overturned his veto. The Governor has repeatedly voiced concerns, like Mason, that this portion of the law may be unconstitutional.
"The [Republican] majority in the General Assembly has taken Virginia further than any other state in restricting individual rights," Warner said in a prepared statement that was read publicly at numerous statewide rallies protesting the law on June 30. "The majority rejected our reasonable amendments to bring House Bill 751 into compliance with the U.S. Constitution."
Benefits battle
Repass said U.Va. Pride has yet to discuss with administrators the possible ramifications of the new law on the University's potential to provide domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, which it currently does not.
University spokesperson Carol Wood said administrators will continue to follow legal advice from the Virginia Attorney General's Office on those matters.
"The University operates within the constraints of federal and state law, as interpreted by Virginia's attorney general," Wood said. "By law, the attorney general is the attorney for the University and its governing board, and currently Virginia law and the attorney general's interpretation of it do not permit domestic partner benefits."
The Office of Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore did not return a call seeking comment.
Mason said he worries that University governing boards across the state might use the updated law as a sort of scapegoat to fight less aggressively for domestic partner benefits.
"I think it's going to be a harder obstacle for those who are looking to add these benefits," she said. "When it comes in the face of an apprehensive Board of Visitors or administration, it will give them just another excuse to say, 'no we can't do this.'"
Mason added that several companies in the private sector have publicly said the updated law won't affect previous decisions making domestic partner benefits available.
Marshall said he was not necessarily against domestic partner benefits.
"If a business wants to grant health insurance, that's not necessarily bad," he said.
Marshall also suggested, though, that homosexuals might not be as overtly needy as their rhetoric claims.
"When I read the literature from homosexual rights groups they all tell me they've got higher incomes, they eat out more," he said.
Ideological fervor
Politics Prof. Larry J. Sabato said Virginians should not be surprised to find this law on Virginia's books.
"A fairly sizable portion of the House Republican caucus could be described as socially and culturally conservative," Sabato said. "Some of them are fundamentalist Protestants, and others, like Marshall, are conservative Roman Catholics."
Considering Virginia's traditionally conservative leanings, Del. Mitch Van Yahres, D-Charlottesville, said the bill was probably a plus for those supporting it, but that his constituency is more liberal on social matters.
"In Charlottesville, it's understood by my constituency that it's not a wise move for the state to delve into the lives of people in a civil marriage," Van Yahres said.
Marshall said he did not want his bill made law "based on feelings."
Mason said that a quick glance at the resolution accompanying the bill Marshall originally proposed in January 2004 suggests otherwise.
"This present relationship recognizes the equality of male and female person, and antedates recorded history and the writings of revered religions," a portion of the original bill describing heterosexual marriage reads.
Marshall is not shy in his criticism of same-sex couples.
"Once you say it's not just one man and woman -- anything goes," he said. "Starting with the bisexuals who have to have one of each so they can be committed to one person of each sex."
Repass said the law simply makes her worry about raising a family in Virginia.
"It's one of the first times I got just really afraid about raising a family -- whether or not they would be protected here in Virginia."
Marshall explained he is not concerned the law will cause anxious Virginians like Repass to leave the Commonwealth for more tolerant surroundings.
"Let's pretend all the homosexuals left -- then who would be in Virginia to push their agenda?" he said. "It's an attempt to attain the status of victimhood without the reality of it."
Reality for homosexuals may be difficult for older Virginians to understand, Sabato said.
"Younger Virginians would disagree with this law," he said. "A lot of older Virginians would agree with it. Though they probably support it -- at least the idea of it -- the reality may be too harsh for them."
"They haven't seen the reality," he added. "They don't live the reality."
News Editor Riley McDonald contributed to this report.
Read More
Two measles cases confirmed in Charlottesville this spring
By Nicolas Biernacki | 2 hours agoVirginia’s first case was confirmed in April, with the patient being a child under the age of 5 and from the Northern part of the state.
Summer construction on Grounds disrupts traffic, foot pathways
By Ford McCracken | 9 hours agoOne of the two largest disruptions to traffic is at the three-way intersection of McCormick Road, Rugby Road and University Avenue.
What is U.Va.’s Faculty Senate?
By Adeline Miller | 4 days agoThe Senate is able to represent the faculty perspective to legislative bodies through positions such as the faculty representative to the Board of Visitors.
