EDMUND Burke once commented, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. " Instead of worrying about the pressing issues of the state, the Virginia General Assembly wiled away the hours of session talking about the all- important marriage amendment referendum being put on the ballot in the fall. Many conservatives in Virginia will probably check off "yes" on the ballot, thinking that they are saving marriage from the malicious onslaught of gay people trying to undermine and overthrow the institution of marriage. But the amendment will not affect marriage in Virginia. The amendment's only realistic potential is to limit not only gay people's civil rights, but -- God forbid! -- upstanding straight people's, too. Lest Virginians make the innocent assumption that defining marriage is harmless, this amendment needs to be exposed for its unconstitutionality, needlessness and wanton prejudice.
In Virginia, marriage has already been defined as a relationship only between a man and a woman for the past 30 years. This crystallizes the utter foolishness of the amendment on the surface level, before even approaching the real issues. The General Assembly simply should not waste taxpayer money writing up amendments about what marriage is and what it is not.
In any case, let's entertain the marriage amendment for the moment because the politicians and media certainly will for the next several months. The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman, with the added corollary that the "Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage." This obviously is a thinly disguised attack on gay couples, but at the same time, it poses a threat to any Virginian who wishes to enter into a contractual relationship with someone else.
Democrats surely want to claw their eyes out after reading this amendment, but Libertarians and Republicans should oppose this amendment, too. From the Libertarian perspective, the government does not need to create more laws that restrict private decisions which pose no threat to anyone, especially if laws already exist governing relationship recognition, as is the case in Virginia.
Business-friendly Republicans should oppose this amendment because the state will then be able to choose who corporations will be able to provide health care and other benefits to. Virginia business may not be able to attract the best candidates for a job if they cannot offer competitive benefits for their employees' partners, regardless of sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the marriage amendment disgraces one of the core beliefs that Virginians have upheld since the dawn of the nation: the separation of church and state. More than likely most legislators supporting this amendment do so on religious grounds. But they are denying the church its moral authority in defining what marriage is according to their particular beliefs. The amendment would thus further limit the church in Virginia and give more power to the state. Members of the General Assembly should stop hiding in their pews and leave religious issues to the churches, synagogues and mosques.
Even Gov. Tim Kaine, who openly states he believes marriage should be a union limited to one man and one woman, denounces the amendment on the grounds that it goes too far. In a statement to The Washington Post, Kaine commented that he urged Virginians to reject the proposed amendment on the ballot in November because 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."
Regardless of its economic ramifications, this amendment simply illustrates the Virginian neurotic complex about homosexuality. The Commonwealth should not join the nefarious ranks of other states that stem the tide of civil progress with their hidebound, irrational fear of gay people. The state government should only be concerned about ensuring civil equality, and this amendment undeniably violates people's rights -- and not only gay people's rights.
On Nov. 14, 2006, Virginians have the opportunity to catch their legislature in a bigoted ruse by voting "no" on the marriage amendment referendum. Or they can look like fools willfully limiting their own rights.
Marta Cook's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mcook@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
