 |
 |
|
|
| Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) says he will sign a bill authorizing a referendum on limiting marriage in the state to a man and a woman. Voters should see the ballot question in November. (AP file photo) | |
|
By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG
Jan 19 2006, 8:05 AM |
|  | 
Virginia's marriage amendment moved one step closer to the November ballot on Jan. 17, when the Senate Committee on Privileges & Elections gave the measure its blessing. The Virginia House voted 76 to 20 in favor of the gay marriage ban.
-IMG-Before Virginia voters have their say, the full Senate must decide the fate of the bill. Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine is expected to sign the bill calling for a referendum vote, according to his spokesperson, Delacey Skinner.
Kaine supports the amendment and opposes civil unions but, she added, the governor wants to discuss measures "to make sure people can still be able to contract with each other."
Josh Israel, president of the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club, which endorsed Kaine, said he hopes the newly installed governor will at least work to make the ballot language more reflective of the amendment's wide scope. "We would certainly hope that the governor will consider using his power to make sure the language and process is fair," Israel said. "It's not the governor endorsing this effort when he says he will send it to the ballot. It's just the governor doing his job."
The Senate committee approved ballot language that is more descriptive than the House version of the extraordinary scope of the amendment, which goes much further than other state constitutional bans, which have only limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Even still, the Senate doesn't accurately spell out the amendment's consequences, said Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia. The Senate's ballot language says the amendment prohibits anything that "approximates marriage," the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.
Efforts in the state House to limit the scope of the amendment were defeated.
One proposal by Del. Kristen J. Amundson (D-District 44) would have eliminated all language except for: "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." Amundson's amendment garnered only 35 votes.
Another amendment offered by Del. Vivian Watts (D-District 39) proposed a clarification that the amendment would not change "any other right, benefit, obligation or legal status pertaining to persons not married." Watts' effort was rejected by a vote of 36-60.
trong>'Scare tactics'
Del. Adam Ebbin (D-District 49), who is gay, questioned the true meaning of the amendment's language.
"No recognition of legal status for any unmarried relationships that 'intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage,'" Ebbin told the House. "It is unclear what that sentence means, yet we are about to slap it onto the ballot."
Before the vote, 19 delegates who either opposed the amendment or wanted to limit the language met for discussions. Ebbin said he was encouraged that delegates from conservative districts, like David Poisson (D-District 32) and Chuck Caputo (D-District 67), voted against the amendment.
Amendment supporters insist the proposal is limited to marriage and nothing more.
"It's unfortunate that those that oppose the marriage amendment are using issues like domestic violence as scare tactics," said Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation in Virginia.
But gay rights and domestic violence activists point to other states' interpretations of marriage amendments, as well as the promises of amendment supporters before the referendum.
"What we're expecting is that for all these people that said 'the sky is falling' to reverse their position," Phil Burress, spokesperson for the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, told the Columbus Dispatch after voters approved that state's marriage amendment in 2004. "This is not going to affect the elderly. It's not going to affect private contracts. What it's going to do is stop marriage by a different name."
But the consequences in Ohio have in fact gone beyond marriage. State courts have issued contradictory rulings on whether the anti-gay constitutional amendment strips unmarried couples of domestic violence protections. Domestic violence laws in Ohio and Virginia protect victims who are not married.
Stacy Ruble of the Virginia Sexual & Domestic Violence Action Alliance said some Ohio domestic violence activists, often on the advice of prosecutors and courts, don't even bring unmarried victims to court anymore.
"I can see it happening here," she said. "It could be those people are turned away. They wouldn't have protections."
Legislators are sympathetic to her group's arguments, but fear that voting against the amendment will be seen as an endorsement of gay marriage, Ruble said.
Gay and lesbian couples already have difficulty finding courts that will provide protective orders in domestic violence cases, she said. If the amendment is approved in November, the few jurisdictions and judges that do offer protections will likely stop, she predicted. Ruble declined to name the jurisdictions because she feared they could be targeted.
Anti-marriage constitutional amendments have been used to challenge custody agreements, domestic violence laws and health benefits for public employees in several states.
Carrie Evans of the Human Rights Campaign said Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act of 2004, which prohibits partnership contracts between same-sex couples, could be used to invalidate custody agreements or advance medical directives.
It is doubtful that Virginia's constitutional amendment would affect those types of contracts, she said. However, there are many protections left vulnerable to the amendment, like domestic violence laws and health benefits for public employees, she added.
"If it was just about marriage then cut off the language after the first sentence," she said. ____________________________________________________________________ Text of proposed Virginia constitutional amendment:
trong>"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." INFO:
Equality Virginia
421 E. Franklin St., Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23219
804-643-4816
www.equalityvirginia.org
Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg can be reached at eweill-greenberg@washblade.com.
|
