Council Passes Anti-Amendment 1 Resolution

City Council unanimously passed a resolution opposing Amendment 1 this evening. That’s the so-called “gay marriage” amendment that voters will be asked to consider on tomorrow’s ballot. Every councilor spoke against the amendment, with their reasons for opposition ranging from fairness to the over-broad language of the bill. Councilor Kevin Lynch asked that it be opposed because it would harm the legal status of his relationship with his long-time girlfriend — the amendment’s over-broad language would affect unmarried couples gay and straight alike.

11 Responses to “Council Passes Anti-Amendment 1 Resolution”


  • ” Councilor Kevin Lynch asked that it be opposed because it would harm the legal status of his relationship with his long-time girlfriend — ”

    Now that`s taking the global view. Technically his relationship has no legal status to be harmed. Of course passage may offer him some legal problems.

    I`m not taking sides here – merely commenting.

  • Did anybody bring up the fact that it’s an amendment being added to the Bill of Rights that limits rights?

    I thought the whole idea of a Bill of Rights was to give rights, not take them away.

    Whether you support the idea of the amendment or not, it does not belong in the Bill of Rights.

  • Chief Taliaferro made that point, as did Dave Norris who gets snaps for noticing that the language is also designed to limit what municipal governments can and can not do.

    Virginia is one of only two states left in the US still using Dillon’s Rule — it’s not like our local government needs any more restrictions. We’ve got more than enough limitations on our powers as it is.

  • Paper or plastic?
    Where I voted, in Nelson County, we had a choice of a paper ballot or voting electronically. Nobody I heard wanted electronic, duh. The paper was an 8.5 x 11 scan sheet, with complete information (no letters cut off!) and easy to mark. The bubbles were well separated.

  • “Technically his relationship has no legal status to be harmed. ”

    The relationship may not have legal status, but contracts signed based upon their relationship, do. The legal staus of those contracts (joint ownership of real property, medical directives, wills, etc.), are placed directly in jeopardy by the second paragraph of the amendment. He has a right to be concerned. The second paragraph doesn’t seek just to address the relationships existing between unmarried persons; it well overreaches into the legal right of unmarried persons to enter into contracts and brings into question the presumption of validity for those contracts. Those contracts would be the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage” to which the amendment refers.

  • ThatGrrl Says:”but contracts signed based upon their relationship, do.”

    I think I alluded to that.

    My post, centered more upon a councilor`s self interest displayed in his opposition rather than an in-depth statement (such as yours) which would have been appropiate for a councilor to make, a fact which I referenced in my mildly sarcastic “global view” remark.

    All in all if, he had made your post his statement, I would have had no comment.

  • Heh…I can hardly wait for the Lambda League and ACLU to start representing challenges the legal agreements of heterosexual couples and other non-married, non-homosexuals. This is a good time to get into Wills & Estates – lots of new legal notions to explore in Virgina Law. I’m personally very glad I waited to have my will reworked until after the election.

    The SBE site shows a margin of about 500k people – I’m betting that means the Amendment is good for about twenty years. I very much doubt that Falwell and Robertson’s agenda will remain popular once it’s enacted in the law and it’s implications are felt.

    On another note: How are so-called Conservative Christians going to get out the vote now?

  • I very much doubt that Falwell and Robertson’s agenda will remain popular once it’s enacted in the law and it’s implications are felt.

    Therein lies my biggest issue with any such amendment — the eejits who propose them don’t seem to give a nanosecond of thought to the implications. They can state with moral certitude that it was never their intent to discriminate against heterosexual couples and extended family situations, but their intent never rules the practice of law.

    What rules in law are the case decisions based upon the code & constitution as written. Now that this has been written in, it is mandatory that any practicing litigator use it to his/her advantage when representing a client in court.

    Estates & wills are one area effected by this. Personally, I’m awaiting the first major insurance coverage case, because insurance lawyers can be vicious with the letter of the law when making a case for non-coverage. Are your mother-in-law’s effects covered by your house insurance in case of fire or robbery? Is your adult step-child covered by your auto insurance if s/he returns to the nest? And then there are the always dramatic areas of medical directives, malpractice and wrongful death — Does a biological father have standing to sue if he and the mother were not married and the hospital loses both mother and child on the delivery table? Can a long-term partner or best friend be barred from enforcing a living will even if s/he is named as the agent? You can bet a hospital’s carrier will be able to put up a heckuva challenge in court now.

  • Cville had the highest percentage of opposition to the amendment, even above Northern Virginia – 77%

  • Did you see that 90-10 vote for it? Buchanan county. For a lot of people it’s a church issue. Or that’s any easy excuse for making it a gov’t issue, which this amendment did.

  • A good post from TLPatten! To me, it is amazing how disconnected – and proud of it! – American legislature is from the Real-World.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog