Less
than
a
month
after
the
enactment
of
the
Marriage
Affirmation
Act,
a
Virginia
law
that
prohibits
recognition
of
civil
unions
or
other
marriage-like
contracts
between
same-sex
partners,
the
ACLU
of
Virginia
has
announced
it
will
file
a
lawsuit
challenging
the
measure.
But
lawyers
for
the
civil
liberties
group
this
week
declined
to
reveal
any
details
related
to
the
suit,
including
the
court
in
which
it
will
be
filed.
Some
couples
have
already
volunteered
to
participate
in
the
suit,
but
representatives
from
the
ACLU
and
allied
groups
are
still
combing
the
state
for
prospective
plaintiffs
in
a
quest
to
put
the
act’s
constitutionality
to
the
test,
officials
said.
“The
more
information
we
have,
the
better,”
said
Kent
Willis,
the
executive
director
of
the
ACLU
of
Virginia.
“Once
we
have
a
clear
picture
of
who
is
being
directly
affected
by
the
law,
we
will
be
able
to
make
decisions
about
our
actual
approach.
“We
probably
can’t
do
this
preemptively,
that’s
the
problem.
We
don’t
have
to
wait
until
someone
voids
a
contract,
but
we
should
wait
until
some
third
party,
like
a
doctor,
refuses
to
implement
a
contract
because
of
this
law.”
Opponents
assert
the
Marriage
Affirmation
Act
could
be
used
to
void
an
array
of
contracts
same-sex
couples
currently
use
to
protect
their
rights,
including
medical
care
directives,
wills,
child
care
arrangements
and
joint
ownership
of
property
—
all
of
which
are
legal
arrangements
the
ACLU
says
fall
under
the
rights
provided
by
the
U.S.
Constitution.
The
Virginia
House
of
Delegates
passed
the
measure
by
a
veto-proof
two-thirds
majority
last
spring,
and
it
became
law
July
1
without
a
signature
from
Gov.
Mark
Warner.
The
governor,
a
Democrat,
favored
the
measure’s
ban
on
recognition
of
civil
unions
but
opposed
the
extra
restriction
on
contracts.
Officials
at
Equality
Virginia,
a
statewide
gay
rights
group
and
party
to
the
ACLU’s
legal
action,
informed
the
governor’s
office
of
the
planned
lawsuit
last
week
and
the
possibility,
though
remote
at
this
point,
of
Warner
being
named
as
a
defendant
for
his
role
as
the
state’s
chief
executive.
Virginia
Attorney
General
Jerry
Kilgore
said
in
a
statement
he
is
prepared
to
defend
the
law,
asserting
that
it
“provides
a
needed
safeguard
for
the
institution
of
marriage
while
not
depriving
any
individual
rights
currently
available
to
all
citizens.”
Kilgore
also
disputed
an
allegation
from
the
advocacy
groups
that
the
language
of
the
law
could
nullify
contracts
between
heterosexual
couples
or
business
partners.
“The
purpose
of
this
legislation
is
not
to
prohibit
business
partnership
agreements,
medical
directives,
joint
bank
accounts,
or
any
other
rights
or
privileges
not
exclusive
to
the
institution
of
marriage,”
he
said.
As
it
stands,
the
ACLU
dispute
could
take
on
a
variety
of
formats
and
work
its
way
through
the
courts
in
several
separate
proceedings,
depending
on
the
number
of
state
or
private
agencies
already
enforcing
the
law,
according
to
Joseph
Price,
an
attorney
and
Equality
Virginia
board
member
advising
on
the
complaint.
Price
said
the
gay
rights
groups,
which
include
the
New
York-based
Lambda
Legal
Defense
&
Education
Fund,
have
identified
two
couples
they
say
face
legal
harm
from
both
a
state
and
a
private
entity.
But
Lambda
and
the
ACLU
must
first
confirm
that
the
two
entities
will
enforce
the
law
before
moving
forward,
he
noted.
Neither
Price
nor
the
ACLU
would
provide
details
about
the
couples’
circumstances
and
would
only
comment
on
general
possibilities
when
asked
about
strategies
for
filing
the
lawsuit.
They
said
the
suit
could
target
one
particular
state
agency
and
include
several
couples;
it
could
be
a
multi-pronged
strategy,
simultaneously
blanketing
the
courts
with
a
series
of
lawsuits
against
several
institutions;
or
it
could
be
filed
in
federal
court
or
a
Richmond
circuit
court
depending
on
location
and
the
efficacy
of
applicable
laws.
“If
the
University
of
Virginia,
for
example,
now
said
it
would
not
provide
graduate
housing
for
same-sex
couples
because
this
new
law
doesn’t
require
it,
we
wouldn’t
sue
the
state
Department
of
Education.
We
would
directly
sue
the
university
and
President
John
J.
Casteen,”
Price
said.
“The
law
took
effect
July
1,
and
on
July
12,
I
can
sit
here
and
tell
you
this
type
of
broad
implication
from
the
law
is
already
being
felt.”
The
organizations
at
one
time
considered
asking
for
a
declaratory
judgment,
in
which
a
judge
would
provide
an
interpretative
ruling
on
the
law
without
an
official
complaint,
but
decided
against
it,
thinking
the
strategy
less
authoritative,
Price
said.
“One
of
the
two
cases
we
have
before
us
is
very
clear.
The
other
[is]
somewhat
vague,
but
we
will
have
some
sort
of
definitive
answer
soon,
possibly
even
by
the
end
of
the
week,”
Price
said.
Dyana
Mason,
Equality
Virginia’s
executive
director,
said
a
recent
statewide
day
of
protest
elicited
a
groundswell
of
support
and
reaffirmed
many
Virginians’
dedication
to
overturning
the
law.
More
than
3,000
people
turned
out
in
demonstrations
across
the
state
and
the
group’s
Richmond
office
received
numerous
phone
calls
offering
assistance
from
couples
afterward,
Mason
said.
“More
than
3,000
people
are
building
around
the
idea
of
pursing
a
legal
challenge,”
Mason
said.
“People
are
compelled
and
mobilized
in
a
way
they
have
never
been
before,
even
if
it
may
not
be
in
their
own
best
interest.”
Mason
said
Equality
Virginia
plans
to
embark
on
a
grassroots
educational
campaign
throughout
the
summer,
and
then
start
to
pressure
state
legislators
to
begin
chipping
away
at
the
anti-gay
law
in
the
fall,
when
they
begin
to
devise
their
agenda
for
the
2005
session.
But
the
affirmation
act’s
author,
Del.
Robert
Marshall
(R-Manassas)
contends
his
bill
will
withstand
any
challenge,
in
the
courts
or
the
Virginia
statehouse.
“Homosexuals
do
not
need
a
special-status
institution
parallel
to
marriage
like
civil
unions
or
domestic
partnerships
to
...
