Return to story

Protecting marriage makes legal sense, and helps our kids Irreconcilable differences R

November 5, 2006 12:50 am

ICHMOND--The national movement to amend state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage has come to Virginia--giving citizens of the commonwealth an opportunity to vote on the matter this week.

In just over two years, voters in 16 states have passed similar amendments by overwhelming numbers--bringing the total number of states defining marriage in their constitutions to 20. No marriage amendment has failed when voted on by the people.

On Nov. 7, Virginians will have the opportunity to amend the constitution of Virginia to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By amending the constitution, Virginians will simply be protecting what is already current law in Virginia from the actions of activist judges.

Examples of activist courts continue to reinforce the need for this amendment--the most recent being the New Jersey State Supreme Court's forced creation of same-sex unions. Other examples include the court-forced legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and the court-forced creation of "civil unions" in Vermont.

Together these actions have created an urgent need for Virginia to join 20 other states that have voted to protect the institution of marriage by amending their state constitutions.

Unfortunately, for the past several months, Virginians have been introduced to the deceptive campaign tactic of amendment opponents, like the ACLU, who claim "unintended consequences" should the amendment be supported by a majority of Virginians.

Clearly, the approach taken by opponents to the amendment has nothing to do with any valid legal arguments. It is simple deception.

Of course, opponents have little else to go on. The vast majority of Virginians oppose a redefinition of marriage. People understand that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for a reason--it is best for men, women, children, and society. A plethora of social science studies proves that children are better off in every way in a stable, traditional home with a married mother and father.

No compassionate society intentionally creates homes without both a mom and a dad, and that is exactly what same-sex marriage would do.

Because of this, opponents to the amendment in Virginia have a problem. They know they can't talk about the real issue--how we will define marriage--because they know they can't win. People simply do not want marriage redefined.

Instead, those who wish to redefine marriage in Virginia are trying to frighten Virginians into believing that the proposed amendment will somehow remove protections from domestic violence, or void contracts between any two persons, or limit wills and hospital visitation rights. These reckless arguments, however, have been consistently dismissed in the courts--several Ohio appellate courts, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and a Michigan Circuit Court to name just a few.

In Virginia, these scare tactics have been dismissed by nearly 80 percent of the General Assembly who voted in favor of this amendment--and whose explanation, issued by the State Board of Elections, likewise rejects opponents' arguments. In addition, these red herrings have been rejected by Attorney General Bob McDonnell. In fact, McDonnell's opponent for the attorney general's office in the last election, Democrat state Sen. Creigh Deeds, voted in favor of this amendment as a legislator at least five times!

Same-sex marriage advocates are simply showing their disdain for the facts, and the law, and instead are resorting to irresponsible scare tactics.

The real question that Virginians are being asked on Nov. 7 is how we will define marriage for future generations. If not simply the union of one man and one woman, what combinations of relationships should be allowed to legally marry? Which should not? Should bisexual groups be allowed to marry? Should polygamy remain illegal?

What is the standard for deciding who should be allowed to marry? Where exactly do we draw the line?

For those who don't believe that polygamy is a serious concern, there is a court case currently before the 10th Circuit Court in Utah challenging that state's ban on polygamy. Those seeking that change are basing their argument on the same Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that same-sex marriage advocates use to make their own case.

They make an excellent point. The Lawrence decision states that everyone has a right to their own sexuality--so why shouldn't that argument apply to a polygamist? What gives same-sex marriage advocates the right to "discriminate" against polygamists?

Or what about a bisexual who loves two people? On what basis should our laws "discriminate" against them and deny them "marriage equality"?

If you don't believe that's a real issue, consider that BRAVO Network recently ran a documentary called "Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family," that trumpets the union of two men (one bisexual and one homosexual) and one woman (heterosexual). On what basis should we deny that "family" marriage?

Let's be clear: The state marriage amendment that you will vote on this Tuesday does not in any way change Virginia's current law! Virginia already bans same-sex marriage and civil unions. But our law is at the mercy of state courts until it is protected by a constitutional amendment.

Believing that marriage should only be the union of one man and one woman isn't hateful. It isn't bigoted. It isn't discriminatory. It is common sense--common sense based on thousands of years of human history.

And, common sense shared by the vast majority of Virginians.

Voting yes on this amendment will not affect anyone's rights. It will simply protect current Virginia law, while sending a clear message that Virginia believes traditional marriage is best for children and society.