An unneeded, pernicious loser of an amendment

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»