Update 2: Kenton has video.
Update: Watch the Fox 5 News coverage here.
State Senator Linda “Toddy” Puller (center) also urges Virginians at George Mason’s Gunston Hall to reject the Marshall-Newman amendment, and says “don’t mess with the Constitution.”
Delegate David Englin urges voters to support “traditional Virginia values” of protecting individual rights by voting NO
Delegate David Poisson urges Virginia voters to reject the Marshall-Newman Amendment to Virginia’s historic Declaration of Rights.
Delegate Kris Amundson reminds voters to “read the whole thing” before voting on the Marshall-Newman amendment
Photo credits: Stephen G. Cook
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2006
Contact:
Linda Monk
Chair, We the People PAC
703-360-4462
linda@lindamonk.com
Doug Reimel
Treasurer, We the People PAC
703-447-0438
dougreimel@cox.net
LEGISLATORS DEFEND VIRGINIA BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST PROPOSED AMENDMENT
On Sunday, September 17, the anniversary of George Mason’s refusal to sign the U.S. Constitution without a bill of rights, federal and state legislators rallied voters to defend the Virginia Declaration of Rights that Mason wrote in 1776 against a proposed amendment on the ballot this fall. The rally took place in the picnic area of Mason’s historic home, Gunston Hall, at 3:30 p.m.
Recreating a constitutional convention, the legislators urged voters to defeat the proposed Marshall-Newman Amendment that, under the guise of prohibiting same-sex marriage, would deprive unmarried Virginians, gay and straight, of their right to contract and to own property. Such contracts could include joint property ownership, medical power of attorney, and child support.
Speakers included U.S. Representative Jim Moran (D-VA), Virginia Senator Linda “Toddy” Puller, and Delegates Kris Amundson, David Englin, Dave Marsden, David Poisson and Mark Sickles. Also participating was congressional candidate Andrew Hurst. Other speakers included everyday Virginians, gay and straight, directly affected by the amendment.
The rally was sponsored by We the People PAC, founded to educate Virginians about their constitutional heritage and defeat the Marshall-Newman amendment.
U.S. Senatorial candidate James Webb also issued a statement opposing the amendment: “I believe that the government’s influence ends at our front door, absent a compelling reason to come inside. That is why I am opposing the Marshall-Newman amendment and I support the ‘We the People’ PAC in their efforts to defeat this initiative. I do not believe the amendment is an appropriate use of the Commonwealth’s Constitution.”
If approved, the amendment would be the first time ever that Virginia took away rights instead of protecting them in the state’s landmark Declaration of Rights.
On June 12, 1776, Virginia approved a constitution for the state, newly independent from Great Britain, which began with a Declaration of Rights.
Virginia was the first government””in human history””to adopt a written declaration of rights as part of a written constitution. Although England adopted a Bill of Rights in 1689, it was an ordinary statute and not part of a written constitution.
“Virginians invented the constitutional tradition of protecting rights,” said Linda R. Monk, chair of We the People PAC and author of “The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution”
Many of the former American colonies followed Virginia’s example and included a bill of rights in their new constitutions. In addition, the Virginia Declaration of Rights was used as a model for the U.S. Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791.
“The proposed Marshall-Newman amendment affects the property rights of all Virginians–married or single, gay or straight,” said Monk. “It is so poorly written that it is an embarrassment to Virginia’s proud constitutional tradition.”
“Because of this tradition,” Monk added, “Virginia has a higher standard, and a higher responsibility, when changing its cherished Declaration of Rights.”
And those were just the ones told during the program by Marshall/Newman apologist Bob FitzSimmonds.
Is abuse a “family value”?
This is very good exposure of the impact of Marshall/Newman on domestic violence law enforcement. In the context of the domestic violence professionals and elected officials cited, it’s painfully obvious that the pro-amendment ideologue interviewed for this article doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. Ouch.
Helpfully, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman makes this clarification: “The violence in a situation where the couple is not considered married is still considered an assault, just not a domestic assault.” [Emphasis mine.] Plowman is referring here to same sex couples, who are not eligible for any of the provisions available through the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, such as mandatory arrest for the perpetrator, protective orders, and collaborative safety planning. Currently, unmarried heterosexual couples who live or have lived in a domestic, marriage-like relationship are “considered married” for the purposes of this law. That classification is a “legal status.”
Some commenters on this blog have asserted that women who “want the benefits of marriage” (presumably referring to protection from abusive husbands) should just “get married.” The logic of that argument is honestly so off the wall that it hasn’t seemed worth debating. I admit that it hadn’t occurred to me that a woman who divorced her abuser would also be divorcing her right to protection under our domestic violence law. I think it’s safe to assume that those who so carefully crafted the amendment language are also ideologically opposed to divorce.
There is a fresh outrage every day with this idiotic amendment.