Jan 30, 2004  |  By: ADRIAN BRUNE  | COMMENTS     

RICHMOND, Va. — Newly sworn-in, gay Virginia legislator Adam Ebbin knew he would face uphill battles over gay rights issues when he took office two weeks ago. He endured — and lost — his first on Jan. 16, when, despite his impassioned pleas, the House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The measure passed 77-18 only three days after President Bush hinted at his support for a constitutional amendment dealing with the issue of gay marriage during his State of the Union address. The Federal Marriage Amendment supported by the Virginia House would define marriage as between one man and one woman; versions have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate.

Va. Res. 187 implores Congress to not only constitutionally affirm marriage as a heterosexual union, but to also bar civil unions and domestic partnerships.

“I’m an optimist and not a pessimist, so I was encouraged by the increase in the number of delegates who voted against this resolution; it’s my understanding only eight voted against Virginia’s DOMA bill,” said Ebbin (D-Alexandria), referring to the Defense of Marriage Act passed in ____ that limits issuance of Virginia marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.

“Many other legislators told me afterward that they don’t want to vote on social issues, but that they couldn’t survive in their representative areas if they voted against this sort of thing,” Ebbin said.

With the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in mind, Del. Robert F. McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach), said he introduced the measure as a means of deflecting court challenges brought by advocates seeking to legalize gay marriage. A federal constitutional amendment would override any state-based effort to officially recognize gay relationships.

“We don’t want to be left in the lurch where the measure we passed overwhelmingly several years ago is stricken down by the high court of this country and then we have no policy in Virginia,” McDonnell told the delegates on Friday in a concise, but trenchant debate. “The only way to remedy that is to pass a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect these long-standing policies in Virginia.”

Josh Israel, the president of Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club, called McDonnell’s arguments concerning the threat to Virginia’s Defense of Marriage Act and its prohibition of civil unions unfounded. Not a single proponent of gay marriage has stepped forward to challenge Virginia’s DOMA bill, he said.

“Virginia is not one of those states to have activist judges doing much of anything pertaining to LGBT concerns,” Israel said. “This is just a Republican attempt to demagogue our community.”

The Virginia House of Delegates is not alone in advocating for the FMA. Six other states — Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan — have recently launched efforts to enact their own declarations in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. None have passed a legislative body.

VA. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 187 [excerpted] Memorializing the Congress of the United States to propose a constitutional amendment to protect the fundamental institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. ————— WHEREAS, marriage is a unique cornerstone of the family, which is the foundation of human society; and WHEREAS, history has shown marriage between a man and a woman to be the best context for the reproduction of the human race and for raising children to be responsible adults; and WHEREAS, a federal constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the institution of marriage and resolve the controversy created by these recent decisions by returning the issue to its proper forum in the state legislatures; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Congress of the United States be urged to propose a constitutional amendment to protect the fundamental institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, be it RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Congress of the United States be urged to initiate an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide: “Marriage in the United States, whether entered into within or outside of the United States, shall consist only of the legal union of one man and one woman. The uniting of persons of the same or opposite-sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar relationship as a substitution for such marriage ... COMMENTS email       password Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions © 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy