Mr. Marshall and the Gay Agenda

Posted on October 31, 2006 by David

Thank you, Mr. Marshall, for openly admitting that your amendment is not really about marriage, but in fact is intended to discourage GLBT people from living lives of honesty and integrity. It’s actually very clever. It also ultimately will fail.

Delegate Bob Marshall, chief patron of Ballot Question #1, seems to think he is doing the campaign for his amendment some good by participating in debates about it. This belief is erroneous in so many ways, but one statement he has been making recently merits some special attention. The talking points of the pro-amendment campaign are supposed to be limited to a soothing drone about “protecting marriage from activist judges,” but Marshall has trouble staying on message. He can’t seem to stop himself from making admissions about why he finds it so urgent to write his prejudices into our Bill of Rights. As he admits to Leesburg Today, his objective has little to do with marriage.

While many pro-amendment advocates argue that the amendment works to protect the sanctity of marriage, Marshall took a different tack.

“It stops the gay agenda,” he said. “This is a springboard. If they get this, they are getting other things.”

Given that same sex couples in Virginia have no legal right to recognition of our partnerships now, and we have no protection from employment and housing discrimination now, what could Marshall possibly mean by “this”? Are we “getting” something by defeating this amendment? If the amendment “doesn’t change anything,” and “doesn’t take away any rights,” as we keep hearing, then what could the gay community be “getting” if it doesn’t pass? This sounds like something that needs to be explored.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

My “So-Called” Family

Posted on October 31, 2006 by David

Guest blog by Paula Prettyman, President, Equality Fairfax.

I attended the amendment debate Friday night and witnessed Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation snidely refer to a lesbian couple with children as a “so-called family.” The immediate and overwhelmingly displeased audience response to that comment distracted from the rest of her statement about that particular couple, but it was clear to me in that instant that this amendment campaign really is about more than marriage.

The cynical activist in me believes she did it to dehumanize an entire group of people, including my family. But the kind woman my mother and father believe they raised suspects she and the people she speaks for really don’t know any better. I spent much of this weekend wondering if I have done what I can to make it clear to my parents, sister, cousins, aunts and uncles, co-workers, neighbors, etc. that I absolutely consider Kelly family.

Do they know that I wake up beside her every morning and fall comfortably into another mundane cycle of chores, work, bill paying and errands; then thank God every night that I found her and that she makes my mundane life exciting and fulfilling? Do all the people in my life know that I feel more like myself now than I ever have and that I believe it’s because I am sharing my life with someone I love more than I ever knew was possible? Do they know how much I trust her and that I want her to speak for me if I am unable to speak for myself? Do they know I intend to spend the rest of my life with her and that at the end, I want her to accompany my body from the hospital to the funeral home, that I want her to sit nearby, that I want the others in my life to acknowledge that she was my partner/spouse/best friend/wife and take care of her when I cannot? I’ve silently counted on most of the people in my life seeing us together and knowing these things instinctively, but I’m not sure if I have done all I can to make it clear to them that I consider her my family.

If Victoria Cobb and the Family Foundation are able to turn out more votes than the Commonwealth Coalition, Equality Virginia, Equality Fairfax and the dozens of other Equality groups across Virginia, they will consider the result a mandate to continue to demean our families. The only way they will stop is if we say “enough” and turn out more votes against this amendment.

Polling shows we can win. In the last week of this campaign, please reach out to every Virginian you know, tell them about your family, explain to them that the amendment will keep your family from having the legal recognition and security you need. Explain to them that this amendment is discriminatory and that discrimination shouldn’t be written into the Virginia Bill of Rights. Ask them to do all they can to take a stand and keep government out of our private lives. Ask them specifically to support ALL families. Ask them to Vote NO on November 7th.

Thank you for doing what you can, for all of our families.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Putting a Face to Family Values

Posted on October 30, 2006 by David

An open letter to Virginia’s voters

On November 7, Virginia Voters will be given an opportunity to write discrimination into the Commonwealth’s Constitution, through the so-called “Marriage Amendment.” How we have come to the point in our society that we feel it is appropriate to allow the masses to vote to deny rights to a group of citizens is beyond my understanding and flies in the face of democracy. For that reason, I am compelled to tell you about my family and how this denial of our rights affects us in the most practical of terms.

This is my family. The photo was taken when Sue and I were married in Massachusetts on August 5, 2004. We have two children ““ our daughter Alexis who is 11 and Garrett who is 2. I tell my story in an effort to put a face – to put a family – on the discrimination that may be adopted into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia if you vote yes.

To give you a little background, let me say that I had never had an interest in having a “false” marriage, i.e. my marriage in Massachusetts provides me no legal protections, nor does it offer me or my family the opportunity to have the same rights as my fellow Americans. However, when my mother matter-of-factly informed me that she expected to take Garrett if I were to die, I thought we should do anything that we could to show the world that we are a family.

Like most American mothers, I want only to protect my family and protect my children. I am the primary wage-earner in our family, while Sue is the primary care-taker. She works as a school bus driver so that she can have the same schedule as our children. I work as a Vice President of a $70 million company that provides employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

If I were to die tomorrow, Sue would not be entitled to the Social Security benefits afforded married couples who are raising children and my family would potentially be out on the street ““ that is if Sue is lucky enough to be able to keep our children together. If I am on business travel and our son is hurt and has to go to the hospital, I have to hope that we find sympathetic healthcare professionals who will recognize our legal papers and let Sue make medical decisions. This only scratches the surface ““ there are countless other issues that keep me awake at night worrying ““ whether it is healthcare for my family, discrimination against my kids, equal legal rights for Sue and myself ““ the list is endless.

I won’t turn this letter into pages and pages of the ways that my family is given fewer rights than other American families. However, please understand that the decision you make on November 7 on Ballot 1 will have far reaching impact tomorrow. It was only 45 years ago that our elected officials felt it was appropriate to segregate blacks and whites. That black people should ride at the back of the bus and that we needed separate water fountains for white and black citizens. We now look at those days with shame and disgust. I suggest that in another 40 years, we will look back on this blatant discrimination against American citizens with the same amount of shame and disgust. One heterosexual man that I met commented that we are only creating a huge mess that our children will have to work to correct in another 20 years when we finally look back and realize how bigoted and wrong this action was.

I am appalled, ashamed and deeply saddened that while American soldiers continue to die every day in the name of worldwide democracy and freedom, that we as a country so easily use the most profound symbol of democracy ““ our Constitution ““ to so blatantly deny rights to a group of American citizens.

At the end of the day – I am a human being just like you, I am an American citizen who pays taxes just like you and most of all, I am a parent trying to make the world a better place for my kids. When you pass laws or amendments like this, you send a message that it is ok to treat me and my family as second class citizens. When you do this, kids like Matthew Sheppard get the life beat out of them and they get hung up to die on a fence in Wyoming. When you do this, we live in fear that people will take our children away from us. When you do this, you tell people it is ok to bully and make fun of our kids.

If Ballot 1 passes, my kids could lose their health insurance and if one us dies, our family can be torn apart because none of our legal documents will be recognized.

Read it all – Vote NO on Ballot 1.

Sincerely,

Lisa Ward

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Doing the right thing

Posted on October 29, 2006 by David

This is why I love this community. A diligent ally has uploaded video clips of some of the great floor speeches against the Marshall/Newman amendment – now you don’t have to have been camped out in Richmond to see this debacle for what it was. Did you know that, over a two year process, our elected representatives only spent a total of about 1 hour, 45 minutes discussing the actual language that will be on the ballot November 7th? Careful “bipartisan consideration” indeed. Is it any wonder that some who were bullied into voting for this obscenity are now speaking out against it?

Lest we forget, we do have principled, courageous legislators who will stand up for genuine moral values and for our constitution.

Delegate Brian Moran says the House rushed into adopting this flawed language, which will have adverse unintended consequences for heterosexual couples.

Delegate Vivian Watts explains some of the possible consequences and offers language (“Savings Clause”) that would protect the ordinary rights of unmarried people. This language, of course, was rejected.

Delegate Mark Sickles asks: What Virginia activist judges?

Delegate Viola Baskerville says that religions are free to define marriage, and that we should not enshrine discrimination in the VA constitution.

Delegate Adam Ebbin (2005 session) says amendment supporters are on the wrong side of history.

Delegate Adam Ebbin (2006 session) speaks out again on the injustice of the amendment.

Freshman Delegate David Englin gives a passionate speech opposing this mean-spirited attack on the GLBT community and unmarried couples.

The entire playlist in order

Thanks, Ray.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Loudoun domestic violence professionals speak out

Posted on October 27, 2006 by David

From Loudoun Abused Women’s Shelter/Loudoun Citizens for Social Justice:

LAWS/LCSJ Board Speaks Out About Amendment 1

Your voice is needed!
Don’t strip protections from domestic violence victims.

To All Concerned Community Members:

This November you will be asked to vote on an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia which, if passed, will expose thousands of women in the Commonwealth to abuse by eliminating many of their legal protections. This amendment will appear as ballot question #1.

In the past, Virginia’s lawmakers have recognized that domestic violence occurs in relationships where people are not married and created laws to provide safety for victims and their children, regardless of marital status. Currently under Virginia law, unmarried domestic violence victims who have lived with abusers in the past year, who have children with the abusers, or are divorced from the abuser, are provided with the same legal protections as married domestic violence victims.

If the Virginia Constitution is amended as proposed, these laws will be challenged, and the protections they provide could disappear for unmarried Virginians. These protections include access to civil protective orders, which provide protections such as:

* Safety from further abuse for the victim and family members

* Limited contact with the abuser

* Access to temporary housing or family home

* Temporary custody of children

* Temporary child support

* Use of the family car

* Counseling for the abuser

* Warrentless arrest for violation of a protective order

Current laws in the Commonwealth already prohibit the actions that this amendment purports to ban (§ 20-45.2 and § 20-45.3). Therefore, the amendment accomplishes nothing in terms of improving our quality of life in the Commonwealth; yet threatens to eliminate protection for many women and children in our community. The Board of Directors of the Loudoun Abused Women’s Shelter (LAWS) urges you to join with us in making sure that the voters in our community are aware that their vote in favor of this amendment will endanger many families, as similar actions have done in other states. This amendment effort must be defeated. Please urge your family and friends to become familiar with this amendment and consider the serious consequences for victims if it should pass.

The Board of Directors

Loudoun Citizens for Social Justice

The Loudoun Abused Women’s Shelter

Get more information and resources about the proposed amendment from the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance.

Posted in Advocacy, Press releases | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Loudoun domestic violence professionals speak out

An unneeded, pernicious loser of an amendment

Posted on October 27, 2006 by David

A Dangerous Amendment
Washington Post
October 27, 2006

EVEN IF YOU oppose same-sex marriage and think its prohibition should be enshrined in state laws and constitutions, there are ample compelling reasons to oppose Virginia’s Ballot Question No. 1 on Nov. 7. The amendment, intended to forbid a practice that Virginia already forbids, is vague and fraught with potential for unintended harm to gays and straights alike. Its adoption would herald a season of chaos in the state’s courts.

If the proposed amendment simply defined marriage as between a man and a woman, we would still disagree, but at least it would represent no major change from the status quo, since Virginia law has outlawed same-sex marriage for 30 years. But the amendment as written is far broader and murkier.

…

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and scores of legal scholars and lawyers in Virginia have warned of the judicial mayhem that might result from this amendment. They are not being alarmist: A similar constitutional amendment in Ohio has been fought over in state courts for months and remains in limbo. Virginia voters can avoid such a mess by rejecting this unneeded, pernicious measure.

More»

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

We can’t say we didn’t know

Posted on October 26, 2006 by David

Ohio Hints at Legal Tangle That Could Befall Va.
Washington Post
October 26, 2006
By Chris Jenkins

At a press conference yesterday, professionals who work with victims of domestic violence in Virginia cited lessons from Ohio in warning about the broad language of Ballot Question #1. Because of constitutional challenges brought by defense attorneys, there are now dozens of Ohio domestic violence cases in legal limbo because the people involved are unmarried. The number of victims affected in the ten counties where their protection under the law has been suspended is unknown.

“We do not believe that there is a reason to take any risk that unmarried domestic violence victims will be denied these essential protections,” Stacy Ruble, a coordinator for the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, said at a news conference in Richmond. “My concern is the victims that are going to get caught during any court challenges, and frankly I’m not willing to take that risk.”

As for Bob McDonnell’s apologia, “Virginia’s existing law does not confer a legal right unique to marriage . . . that might be invalidated by the marriage amendment,” it’s at best dubious. What the amendment prohibits is recognition of a legal status that “intends to approximate” one or more aspects of marriage. Nowhere does its language require that those aspects be “unique to marriage.” McDonnell has fabricated this standard out of thin air and a desperate desire to advocate for the amendment he co-patroned.

As discussed at Vivian Paige and Blogging the Amendment, defense attorneys will have an ethical obligation to use constitutional challenge in defending their unmarried clients regardless of what Bob McDonnell thinks. It’s not a choice, it’s their job.

“It’s going to be a problem [for Virginia] because someone is going to raise it and someone will look at what Ohio has done and defense lawyers across the country will have no choice but to raise that challenge,” said Alexandria Ruden, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. She said such laws have been suspended in 10 counties in Ohio as the legal wrangling continues.

This means that, while the lawyers sort it out, victims will be without the protections they are supposed to have and that are only available to them through the family and domestic courts. For all I know, Bob McDonnell is right. Maybe every Virginia judge who hears such a challenge will be an “activist judge,” and will not interpret the amendment as written but rather as Mr. McDonnell wishes that it had been written, but that seems highly unlikely. Maybe the outcome will eventually be as he claims, but it will be many years before we know.

In the meantime, victims of domestic violence will be in legal limbo, and someone may die because of it. Unlike voters in Ohio, we do not have the excuse that we didn’t know.

Posted in Advocacy, Commentary | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on We can’t say we didn’t know