Don't Trust Judges To Define the Word
Sunday, October 22, 2006
How do you define marriage?
The national movement to amend state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage has come to Virginia, giving residents of the commonwealth an opportunity to answer that question on Nov. 7.
In a little more than two years, voters in 16 states have passed similar constitutional amendments by overwhelming numbers, bringing to 20 the number of states defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. No marriage amendment has failed when voted on by the people.
Marriage between one man and one woman as a lifelong partnership has been recognized as the bedrock of the family throughout human history.
A plethora of social science studies show 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.
By amending the state Bill of Rights, Virginians will simply be protecting what is already law in Virginia from the actions of activist judges. Too many times the will of the people, expressed by the legislature, has been undermined by the courts. Marriage is simply too important to leave to the hope that Virginia's judges won't follow the lead of their counterparts in Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, Virginians are being subjected to the deceptive campaign tactics of opponents who claim that "unintended consequences" will follow should the amendment be supported by a majority of voters.
These scare tactics, however, have been dismissed by the 75 percent of General Assembly members who voted in favor of this amendment; by the State Board of Elections, whose own explanation rejects opponents' arguments; and by Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R). In fact, McDonnell's opponent for the attorney general's office in the 2005 election, state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath), voted in favor of this amendment as a legislator.
The question that Virginians will be asked on Election Day is: How we will define marriage for future generations?
Opponents of the amendment owe Virginians an answer to that question.
If marriage is not simply the union of one man and one woman, what combinations of relationships should be allowed to legally marry? Which should not?
How would opponents of the amendment say no to forms of marriage that they oppose?
What is the standard for deciding who should be allowed to marry?
Let's be clear -- the state marriage amendment that you will vote on next month 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 state constitutional amendment.
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.
-- Victoria Cobb
Richmond
The writer is executive director of the Family Foundation of Virginia.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.