You know, with all the discussion of the Marshall/Newman amendment over the last several months, it’s remarkable that anyone still needs to point out that the language of the amendment, Ballot Question #1, is substantially different from that of the existing statute, the “Affirmation of Marriage Act,” formerly known as HB 751.
And yet, apologists for the amendment are still repeating the lie that there is no difference, as if they have never read and compared the two. Greg at Daily Whackjob lays them out, side by side, so everyone can go have a nice, long look. I’m not a fan of redundant posting, but this seems to be a difficult concept that warrents repetition. Therefore, here is yet another opportunity to take a nice, long look.
The “Affirmation of Marriage Act,” which was added to the existing statute:
§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.
A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.
(1975, c. 644; 1997, cc. 354, 365.)
§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
(2004, c. 983.)
Ballot Question #1, the Marshall/Newman so-called “marriage amendment”:
Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:
“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.”?
They are not the same. They are very different. “Persons of the same sex” does not have the same meaning as “unmarried individuals.” “Union” does not have the same meaning as “status.” The “Affirmation of Marriage Act” may be awful, but Ballot Question #1 is also impenetrable and unpredictable.
It goes far beyond the existing statute in three ways. First, there are approximately 130,000 couples consisting of “unmarried individuals” in Virginia. The vast majority of those, 89%, are straight couples. These straight couples are obviously not affected by the existing statute, while they obviously would be affected by the amendment.
Secondly, a “union,” as in “civil union,” is a specific kind of legal contract with a defined aggregation of rights and obligations. A “legal status” is…what, exactly? Nobody knows. The term has no meaning in Virginia law. The general definiiton of legal status is “a bundle of rights and obligations.” Being a party to a contract, any contract, is technically a “legal status.” It should be obvious that this undefined term, especially when combined with other subjective, expansive language, like “intends to approximate,” and the use of the word “or” rather than “and,” would not only be vulnerable to, but would require personal interpretation by a judge.
Finally, regulatory language about a controversial issue of the day does not belong in any constitution. Constitutions should express fundamental rights and principles, not one side of a social issues argument. Unlike the statute, the amendment would foreclose on the right of future voters to disagree with that opinion through representative government. (That, of course, is why it’s so “urgent.”)
It may very well be that what people mean to say when they repeat this lie is that the intent behind the two is the same. We will have to return to that later.
Reading comprehension
You know, with all the discussion of the Marshall/Newman amendment over the last several months, it’s remarkable that anyone still needs to point out that the language of the amendment, Ballot Question #1, is substantially different from that of the existing statute, the “Affirmation of Marriage Act,” formerly known as HB 751.
And yet, apologists for the amendment are still repeating the lie that there is no difference, as if they have never read and compared the two. Greg at Daily Whackjob lays them out, side by side, so everyone can go have a nice, long look. I’m not a fan of redundant posting, but this seems to be a difficult concept that warrents repetition. Therefore, here is yet another opportunity to take a nice, long look.
The “Affirmation of Marriage Act,” which was added to the existing statute:
Ballot Question #1, the Marshall/Newman so-called “marriage amendment”:
They are not the same. They are very different. “Persons of the same sex” does not have the same meaning as “unmarried individuals.” “Union” does not have the same meaning as “status.” The “Affirmation of Marriage Act” may be awful, but Ballot Question #1 is also impenetrable and unpredictable.
It goes far beyond the existing statute in three ways. First, there are approximately 130,000 couples consisting of “unmarried individuals” in Virginia. The vast majority of those, 89%, are straight couples. These straight couples are obviously not affected by the existing statute, while they obviously would be affected by the amendment.
Secondly, a “union,” as in “civil union,” is a specific kind of legal contract with a defined aggregation of rights and obligations. A “legal status” is…what, exactly? Nobody knows. The term has no meaning in Virginia law. The general definiiton of legal status is “a bundle of rights and obligations.” Being a party to a contract, any contract, is technically a “legal status.” It should be obvious that this undefined term, especially when combined with other subjective, expansive language, like “intends to approximate,” and the use of the word “or” rather than “and,” would not only be vulnerable to, but would require personal interpretation by a judge.
Finally, regulatory language about a controversial issue of the day does not belong in any constitution. Constitutions should express fundamental rights and principles, not one side of a social issues argument. Unlike the statute, the amendment would foreclose on the right of future voters to disagree with that opinion through representative government. (That, of course, is why it’s so “urgent.”)
It may very well be that what people mean to say when they repeat this lie is that the intent behind the two is the same. We will have to return to that later.