“The irony in Virginia is that conservatives fearful of an out-of-control judiciary are in fact inviting the judiciary to get involved in micro-managing family law.” (David Boaz, “Marriage measure is an amendment too far”, Examiner.com, Oct. 30). For more of the many, many reasons to vote no, see Sept. 20, 2006, May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc., etc.
Update: David Frum gloats — and quite prematurely, it would seem.
3 Comments
The judiciary has already invited itself to do so. REPEATEDLY.
I’m not saying that the amendment in question is a well-worded or should be passed, but it’s fairly disingenious to say that the judiciary won’t gt involved if w just leave well enough alone…. THEY aree the ones who INSTIGATED this problem!
(That said, I think the best amendment is a simple one: “Nothing in this Constitution means or can be construed to mean that same sex couples either have the right to marry or the right to a marital arrangement by a different name.” Simple, and leaves the question to the legislature, where it belonged to begin with.)
Deoxy, I’d agree, but although I’m not familiar with the proposed VA amendment, I haven’t seen any that were that simple, or that left the question to the legislature. Every one I’ve seen was written to tie the hands of future legislatures when the political balance shifts.
Of course, so was the 1st Amendment, but I see a fundamental difference between protecting the rights of a minority against a majority, and an attempt to permanently place an extra burden on a minority even if a majority of the people later approve of lifting it. (This is assuming the state in question isn’t one of those where the distinction between constitutional and legislative law has been blurred by hundreds of trivial amendments. The worst cases I’ve seen are states with an easy process for amendment by initiative but no way to get a direct vote of the people without proposing an amendment.)
Boaz in the Examiner column is unpersuasive. I personally don’t like the idea of making constitutions into the equivalent of alley walls for the spray-paint tags of partisan causes (I’m generally against abortion but I don’t favor a federal constitutional amendment for the same reason). And I’d agree that the proposed amendment is just another chance for pols to posture.
But the language of the amendment doesn’t mention private parties, only government. Boaz seems to suggest that private parties would be affected, and I don’t see that. None of the scenarios seem likely – I find it hard to believe that a domestic assault wouldn’t be prosecuted because of this amendment. I also doubt that Arnold & Porter, a decidedly liberal/pro-Democrat firm, really undertook such an unbiased and lawyerly analysis (and who, exactly, solicited this “analysis?”)
I think that if we’re seeking to curb litigation, gay marriage is the wrong way to go. In fact, the whole project to me seems to open the door to a flood of litigation that will erode both private freedoms and traditional values.