Democrats officially against gay marriage amendment

[The Brethren]

Some current news from VA involving the Democratic party and the Gay Marriage Amendment:


'Monday, February 9, 2009

The party's governing body adopted a resolution to oppose the amendment with little debate or discussion at a weekend leadership meeting.

By Pamela J. Podger
981-3131

The state Democratic Party's governing body, at a weekend session in Charlottesville, unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed gay marriage amendment to Virginia's constitution.

The upshot, participants say, is sending a clear message to the 125 local committees in Virginia to mobilize the party machinery and manpower to help defeat the measure in the Nov. 7 election.

But Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation of Virginia, which hopes to help win passage of the proposed amendment, said she wasn't worried about any possible aftermath of the Democratic resolution.

"I think voters typically follow their own views, versus a statement by a political party," she said. "I think it is sad because there are so many Democrats across Virginia who support the proposed amendment. I don't think the vote is representative of many of the rank-and-file members within the party."

The resolution that passed Saturday with little debate or discussion at a quarterly session of the party's central committee, encourages party faithful to continue with their educational efforts.

"At minimum, the mere passage of the resolution certainly gives local party people some guidance," said Sam Garrison, a committee representative from Roanoke. "It is implicitly a suggestion that says, 'OK Democrats, let's go out and form our own action plan.' "

He said there is sufficient time to shape voters' sentiments since the campaigns on both sides are still in their infancies.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said he supports marriage between one man and one woman. "His concern with the proposed constitutional amendment is that it goes further and could infringe on individuals' rights to contract with one another," Delacey Skinner said.

Veteran election analyst Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said he expects "big spending campaigns" on both sides of the issue. Asked if the resolution was significant, he said, "It reflects the fact that gays and lesbians are an important constituency group for the state and national Democratic Party. With the gay marriage amendment, you dance with the one that brung you."'

More: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-71457

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[The Brethren]

13. Thank you xchrom.

[mitchtv]

2. Kaine is useless

I won't respond to any request for money from him, thanks President Obama

[bluedawg12]

3. Kaine is not able, no money for bigots.

[The Brethren]

14. I'm glad you won't be donating any money

to him. No matter who the candidate is, it's the same old rule of thumb -- money talks.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. I am a bit stunned

Ok, it really does not surprise me that the Democratic Party would mobilize against bigotry. I would be very surprised if this motivated the party to actually mobilize for equality. Sadly, opposition to ballot measures like this tend not to get followed up with support for ballot measures or legislation that support my fundamental human rights.

[The Brethren]

32. I'm surprised to see how relatively

quiet our party is about repealing the current anti gay marriage laws still on the books in different states. Maybe they have been and I just haven't heard about it. However, my state for ex. passed one such law (that is it defines marriage as being only between 1 man and 1 woman) and nothing is being done about it by our local dems. In fact, my local (make that former) Democratic Senator voted in favor of it.

Some straight dems have told me I'm suppose to be "loyal" to our party and not complain. Why shouldn't I complain? I see loyalty as a 2-way street. And when I wrote my former Senator about it, neither he, nor his staff -- or whoever actually handles his replies ever bothered to respond. But he did keep sending me his legislative email updates to show the "good" work he was doing. Btw, Obama has appointed this jerk to his cabinet.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Gov Kaine is not my chairman

I am insulted to get requests for money with his anti-equality name on them, and doubley pissed when I get messages from the President that have Kaine slipped in on Obama's name. Kaine opposes even civil unions,and that means he is the opposition, just like the rest of the right wingers.

Additionally, Kaine is a wet blanket communications wise, dull as dishwater and a drag on the message. A dull, droning religionist who villifies minorities.
Between Kaine and DuBois, it seems this Party is going religious, and they do not understand how many people do not like that, including relgious people.

[The Brethren]

15. I'm not sure where Obama and our party is going

, including with gay rights, but it sure isn't the direction I thought it would be.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

6. Since an ammendment needs 2/3 majority is it possible they are waiting for more support

I WANT an ammendment yesterday. I just wonder whether the party is waiting until there is more national support for our rights. A failed ammendment might do nothing more than galvenize the opposition.

[TheWraith]

11. This is an old article from 2006, and the amendment was AGAINST gay marriage.

The article is really badly written, and doesn't make that clear. The VA Dems were opposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Unfortunately, it passed anyway.

[The Brethren]

16. I wasn't aware this was an older article.

It appeared to be current on The Roanoke Times when I read it. I'll double check with them by email on it's original date. If this is an older article, my apologies for the mistake. Thank you for bringing it up.

[TheWraith]

24. No worries, just trying to clear things up. Everybody makes a mistake now and then. nt

[Maven]

7. I cannot BELIEVE there were some here who wanted Kaine for VP

Fucking bigot.

The DNC gets not one dollar from me.

[The Brethren]

31. Some on DU have described

Obama as a "centralist" who's playing a checker board style of appointees trying to appease the GOP. Maybe that's it. But I still can't believe he chose Kaine.

[pepperbear]

8. guys, I am super ignorant here....didn't this already pass in 2006? n/t

[TheWraith]

10. Yeah, it did. Old article. nt

[TheWraith]

9. Um, this article is from June 28th 2006.

It's also badly written, since it doesn't make clear that the amendment being opposed was to ban gay marriage.

[Maven]

12. I think it's valid as a reminder of the person we're now stuck with as DNC Chairman.

Someone who opposes the civil rights of millions of Americans.

[The Brethren]

17. Yes, the more I know about Kaine the more

I clearly don't trust him. I don't understand why Obama even picked him.

[bluedawg12]

22. He hasn't changed his position since 2006 and that hated ammendment

ruined lives.

If you note: it is the exact same scenario foretold, about the hypothetical gay person visiting Va. with a PAO, from California, and now Va. doesn't have to honor is, in case of an accident. Just the same as the Jackson Memorial Hospital law suite about the gay woman whose kids and partner could not come and visit.


This story is still true today and an example of institutionalized bigotry and Kaine still denys same sex marriage rights in 2009!

"The far-reaching nature of the Marshall-Newman Amendment intended to reinforce its "Marriage Affirmation Act has attracted criticism. Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:

Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there." wikipedia

[bluedawg12]

19. Actually it's excellent as historical background, as that is exactly what Kaine's rep

said last month when he was nominated to head the party.

Kaine, tried to use his position against this ammendent as some sort of white wash for his anti-same sex marriage political position.

Here is what Kaine said in 2006:

"A spokeswoman for Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said he supports marriage between one man and one woman. "His concern with the proposed constitutional amendment is that it goes further and could infringe on individuals' rights to contract with one another," Delacey Skinner said."

The fact is he was not against it because he is in anyway for CU's nor same sex marriage rights in 2009, either. He was against it because it would have made it impossilbe for unmarried different sex umarried couples to contract either.

The ammendment did pass in 2006 and we had a very honest account of this ammendent and it's implications
from a fellow DU'er who moved out of Va. for just this reason.

The up shot, now, in Va. neither same sex, nor different sex couples can enter into any legal agreement "that approximates marriage."

I can see where the type set is confusing on the internet banner, as the current date appears in bold font and the article date does not.

However, that does not take away from the lesson learned. In fact, it reinforces the opinion shared by many about Kaine, that he did not oppose this miserable ammendment for gays rights at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment

>>Marshall-Newman Amendment
The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage". <1> The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006<2>.

Background
Virginia's amendment is alone in preventing the state from recognizing private contracts; South Carolina's amendment explicitly disavows such an aim.<3> Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives.<4><5>

The text of the amendment states:

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.

Criticism

The far-reaching nature of the Marshall-Newman Amendment intended to reinforce its "Marriage Affirmation Act has attracted criticism. Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:

Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there.<6>

While experts are divided on the exact impetus for the amendment, political commentators have suggested that it was placed on the ballot following confidential polling indicating that incumbent senator George Allen might not be successful in his bid to win re-election. Concern about Allen's electability was reflected in his attempt to run a populist campaign. Republican strategists may have hoped that the Marshall-Newman Amendment would turn out the socially conservative voter to not only pass a ban on gay marriage, but also re-elect Allen. Although the Marshall-Newman Amendment did pass, Allen's campaign self-destructed, following the so-called macaca episode.<<

I will also note that the wikipedia "Criticism" section has been severly pared down, as I recall,when I read this about six weeks ago, there were more critical quotes from jurists.

[The Brethren]

28. Thank you bluedawg for the wiki information.

Very interesting read.....

"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." (private contracts) This arrogant and extreme piece of garbage written into law, albeit as bigoted as it is, also brings up a perplexing dilemma for those like Kaine...and to me, a poetic form or irony.

Kaine's homophobic colors showed through in 2006 and still today. However, his vote on the Virginia Marriage Amendment, and his reasoning, also show that when push comes to shove, a bigot like Kaine will be against this kind of amendment because it can then affect unmarried straight couple;, which I'm sure he didn't want to deal with politically. Unfort. "57%" of the Virginias voters at that time where willing to interfere with non-married straight couples rights as well in order to support this amendment.

Kind of makes me wonder if other states followed VA's very restrictive and bigoted lead (as a state constitutional precedence, even over riding those they may already have on the books), how many bigoted straight politicians and their constituents would fight it or agree with it. And if more state amendments were worded very much like the Marshall-Newman Amendment, thus affecting all private contracts between non-married couples as well as gay couples, I'm curious if it would end up creating more outrage by straight voters as time went on then it's supporters had anticipated. Just wondering....

And thanks for understanding about the type set, I could've kicked myself when I realized the mistake. LOL

[bluedawg12]

21. Um..this article was not written by the OP

so the editorial concern goes to the Roanoke paper, whose fonts are confusing and at first glance it appears to be from February 2009. Also, The Virgnia ammendment in 2006 is now infamous. I venture the locals knew exactly what it was in reference to in 2006.
............

www.roanoke.com Tuesday, February 10, 2009 62°F
Welcome:
Breaking News Updated: 8:38 PM


Upcoming Events02/11Red Bud Chapter of the Smocking Arts Guild of America02/11Gospel Singingmore events >> roanoke.com | newrivervalley.com | News | Sports | Entertainment | Community | Video | Business | Opinion | Blogs | Pets | Celebrations | Obituaries Classified Wednesday, June 28, 2006E-mail story Print storyShare storyRSS feeds

Democrats officially against gay marriage amendment
The party's governing body adopted a resolution to oppose the amendment with little debate or discussion at a weekend leadership meeting.
....................

There is a lot to be learned from this thread.

First, the clever language from the Roanke paper: gay marriage ammendment.

That was an anti-gay marriage ammendment.

The dems opposed the anti-gay marriage ammendment because it would have affected single straight couples from entering into contracts.

Not because Va. dems were for same sex marriage.

Also, I note the wiki article has been cut out quite a bit, especially about limiting any unmarrieds from contracting, since I read it about six weeks ago.

Sometimes we can make lemons out of lemmonade. The date thing was a minor mistake, the big story was and is, Kaine hasn't changed his views.

...........

The Va. ammendment passed and shamefully and that is worth noting. Also, Kaine trying to take credit for opposing it, yes, because of "contracts" between unmarrieds of any variety.

........
>>The far-reaching nature of the Marshall-Newman Amendment intended to reinforce its "Marriage Affirmation Act has attracted criticism. Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:

Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there.<< - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment

[TheWraith]

23. I didn't say it was written by the OP.

I said it was a badly written article.

[The Brethren]

18. My mistake. As noted by another poster,

The Wraith, this is an older article. I had mistakenly not seen the orig. date posted on the right, but had instead gone by the current date listed by The Roanoke Times. I'm also not from VA and assumed this info. was current. So my apologies for causing any of you guys confusion.

[bluedawg12]

20. No need for apology, please read my reply # 19 above this is very relevant today.

it's also still true today, no money for bigots.

We knew this about Kaine from 2009, as his rep reinforced his anti same sex marriage position when he was nominated party chair last month.

This is the historical context that he has been side stepping. He did not vote against this because of gays, he voted because he was concerned that str8, unmarried couples, could not do POA's, joint checking accounts, wills and other contracts.

[The Brethren]

27. side stepping is a clever, old fashion politcal

game. That seems to usually work until they get caught at it. Which makes me wonder if Obama just happened to really not take a close look at Kaine before he appointed him, or if he knew but included him nonetheless. Since I consider Obama a very smart person, despite what I think of him right now, I'll go with the latter.

[LostinVA]

26. Trust me, it IS current

Kaine was -- and still is -- anti GLBT everything.

[The Brethren]

29. I hope Kaine screws up so badly

that even Obama wants to kick him out of his position.

[sui generis]

25. well Virginia, I wouldn't vote "my personal views" to outlaw being a lesbian

even though I don't want to be a lesbian. I'm already queer - but just for dudes.

Why SHOULD people be allowed to vote their own views on the rights of other people? It is irrelevant.

Or about as relevant as GLBT people voting for a heterosexual marriage amendment . . . :shrug:

[The Brethren]

30. Are you sure you don't want to be a lesbian?

LOL After a few minor surgical procedures I know some terrific single lesbians I could hook you up with. :-)

a "heterosexual marriage amendment". Now that would rattle a lot of cages!!