As Virginia voters decide who to support in the contentious Senate race between Democratic hopeful Jim Webb and incumbent George Allen, they will also have the option of voting to support or strike down a number of amendments, the most controversial of which is the Marshall-Newman Amendment.
The Marshall-Newman Amendment, known to some as the "gay marriage amendment," has provoked heated debate among Virginia citizens and elected government officials, including Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine and Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell. McDonnell released an opinion he penned supporting the amendment Friday. Hours later, Kaine held a press conference in which he encouraged Virginians to vote down the amendment.
With 48 days left in the campaign season, debate continues among University students and faculty members over whether or not this amendment robs same-sex, and even heterosexual, couples of the rights they currently enjoy.
The Amendment
When voters visit the polls Nov. 7, the full text of the Marshall-Newman amendment will appear on the ballot. The amendment reads as follows:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This 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."
While the language in the first part of the amendment constitutionalizes the Marriage Affirmation Act of 2004, which banned gay marriage and civil unions in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the language in the second part of the text is what is particularly troublesome to some voters who fear the amendment will also negatively impact unmarried heterosexual couples. Specifically, such couples could lose the right to enter contracts, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.
"The governor has concerns about unintended negative consequences for unmarried individuals and their right to contract with one another," said Kaine spokesperson Delacey Skinner, adding that the second and third lines of the amendment call this issue into question.
According to Skinner, Kaine's position on the Marshall-Newman Amendment is not an indication that he has changed his stance on the issue of gay marriage.
"The governor is still opposed to gay marriage and would support an amendment to the state constitution that merely stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the first line of this amendment does," she said. "This amendment includes two additional lines that go further -- those are the lines that are cause for concern."
Kaine publicly declared his opposition to the amendment only hours after Attorney General Bob McDonnell released his opinion in support of the amendment. McDonnell maintains that passage of the amendment will not affect rights of unmarried people concerning contracts, wills, insurance policies and other rights opponents fear are in question.
McDonnell spokesperson J. Tucker Martin said the attorney general penned the opinion at the request of members of the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates. Martin added that the opinion represents eight months of exhaustive and diligent research.
"McDonnell came to the formal legal opinion he did after researching it for eight months, along with best legal minds in the Commonwealth of Virginia," he said.
According to McDonnell, the experiences of other states that have adopted similar amendments prove that this amendment will not be problematic; rather, it will simply reinforce the Marriage Affirmation Act.
"There are 20 other states in America that have bans on gay marriage, 12 of which have nearly the exact same identical language as our [proposed] constitutional language, none of which have run into the legal challenges that opponents of the gay marriage ban are fretting," Martin said. "This constitutional amendment merely elevates to constitutional protection what is already in Virginia's statute."
Opponents of the amendment also said they are concerned about its effect on domestic abuse protection laws. Specifically, they fear that only married people will be protected by domestic violence legislation.
The amendment "will not jeopardize any rights whatsoever between one man and one woman," Martin said. "If [McDonnell] had any fear that this would jeopardize domestic violence laws, there's no way he would support it."
The Debate Hits Home
Professors, students and guests discussed the amendment at a forum held Monday night at the University Law School. Among the speakers was Dyana Mason, a field organizer of the Commonwealth Coalition. The Coalition's main goal is to increase opposition to the amendment in an effort to defeat it come Nov. 7.
According to Mason, passage of the Marriage Affirmation Act barring gay unions in 2004 reflected the sentiment of a very different time.
"2006 is a very different time from 2004," she said. "We have an unpopular president right now and a pretty unpopular Republican party. This issue is being used to divide voters and mobilize the far right, and the social conservative movement is becoming less powerful as a motivational tool."
According to Mason, research conducted by the coalition provides promising news for opponents of the amendment.
"Polls show that this issue is trending in our direction," she said. "We [initially] found that 56 percent of Virginia voters would support voting for [the] amendment. However, when we read all three sentences [of the amendment], support fell to 45 percent, with 40 percent saying no. We're in a statistical dead heat, closer than a lot of folks want to believe in this state."
Law Prof.Michael Klarman agreed that times are changing and said that the amendment is simply an effort to bar future legislation concerning rights of gay couples.
"This is an effort to control the future -- no Virginia court today or tomorrow is likely to strike down bans on same-sex marriage," he said, citing the New York supreme court's "rejection" of opposition to same-sex marriage. "In the future, it's not hard tojm believe the Court would strike down opposition on same-sex marriage -- public opinion is changing."
Klarman's colleague at the Law School, Prof. Kim Forde-Mazrui, drew parallels between gay marriage and the social issue of interracial marriage.
"It struck me how similar arguments were that people made," he said.
Forde-Mazrui also described how constitutionalizing a definition of marriage can be problematic.
"Definitions change over time, and this begs the question, why can't we change the definition, as Massachusetts, Canada and Spain have?" he asked. "What is it about preserving a definition that is that important? In this case, we're not just defining marriage -- we're talking about rights that go well beyond marriage."
Students Speak Out
Student leaders at the University defend an array of positions on the issue.
Meredith Ramsey, fourth-year College student and president of the Network of Enlightened Women, said she supports McDonnell in his support of the amendment because it protects the sanctity of marriage.
"It will protect traditional marriage from the whims of activist judges, and the amendment is very clear in defining marriage," she said.
Ramsey added that the second part of the amendment is significant because it "clarifies privileges associated with traditional marriage," adding that the amendment "is not going to really threaten heterosexual couples at all. You don't need to be in a relationship to buy a house together."
University Democrats President Katie Cristol countered that the amendment violates basic rights of unmarried people. Cristol said she supports Kaine's position.
"I think that Governor Kaine is right in line with the majority of Americans and the majority of Virginians," she said. "You don't need to support the idea of gay marriage to be against absurdly over-reaching, discriminatory and damaging bill."
Cristol added that most people seem to misunderstand the amendment.
"My suspicion is that people just aren't fully aware of the consequences of the amendment," she said. "I think they don't realize how far-reaching this will be, which is dangerous. We're going to penalize anyone who in any way wants to become legally involved with anyone else."
Queer Student Union president Blake Wilding said the gay community "is not happy" about the amendment.
"The amendment is targeted against us although it does have much further implications," Wilding said.
He added that in the upcoming weeks, the QSU plans heavier activism against the Marshall-Newman Amendment. He said, for example, the QSU will soon begin sponsoring Tuesday night forums highlighting different aspects of the amendment.
Wilding added that the QSU and other University groups will also be doing voter registration.
"We're forced as a community to take [this issue] on this semester leading up to the election because it is really the biggest issue for Virginians and our community," Wilding said.
The Senate Race
The Marshall-Newman Amendment has emerged as an important issue in the midterm election.
Webb, an opponent of the amendment, sides with the governor, according to spokesperson Kristian Denny-Todd.
Webb "feels like it goes above and beyond; it's not fair, the bottom line is that it's not fair," she said.
While the issue has not surfaced in the three debates Webb and Allen have engaged in so far, Denny-Todd said that she expects the issue to remain an important one.
"We definitely expect it to be a big issue, it's the hallmark of Republicans," she said. "They take these issues and use them as divisive issues to turn out voters."
Allen spokesperson Bill Bozin could not be reached for comment.
According to Politics Prof. Larry Sabato, it is possible that the issue may cause more conservatives to come out to the polls, thus putting Allen at an advantage.
"In other states, gay marriage amendments have tended to increase the proportion of the rural and conservative vote, and that's helped Republican candidates," he said. "Does it have to be the same way in Virginia as it has been elsewhere? No, but the probability is that it will be."
Sabato said because the amendment appears further down the ballot, after candidates for seats in the Senate and House of Representatives, Virginians might not necessarily vote along party lines.
"There will be quite a few who vote for Webb who vote for the constitutional amendment," he said. "It's not as clean and neat a process as people imagine."
Despite this, Sabato predicted that the amendment will pass.
Read More
HRL changes staff housing assignment process
By Lidia Zur Muhlen | YesterdayAll residence advisors and senior residents serving in the 25-26 year for HRL used an individual, online choice platform through the University’s housing portal, which is also used for upperclassmen housing selections.
Four years of construction — how has Grounds changed?
By Grace Little | YesterdayArriving on Grounds in 2021, the University’s graduating class of 2025 saw a smaller collection of buildings than the one they are now preparing to leave.
U.Va. loses over $60 million in federal research cuts
By Bertie Azqueta | 4 days agoThe impacted grants include three from the NIH, seven from the NEH, one from the United States Agency for International Development and four from the State Department.
