Anti-Marriage Amendment Delegates' Legislation Defeated

| | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Family Foundation:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Victoria Cobb, President
Friday, January 19, 2007

Information Alert: Marriage Amendment Repeal Defeated

Voters are famous for having short memories, but opponents of the marriage amendment are taking that old cliche to extreme. Fortunately, legislators tend to remember what happened in the last election.

Today the House Priveleges and Elections Committee scored another victory for the protection of marriage in the Commonwealth and killed two bills that were efforts to undo the marriage amendment you helped pass last November.

HJ 678, patroned by Del. Adam Ebbin (D-49, Arlington), would have allegedly answered opponents to the marriage amendments' concerns over "unintended consequences." The bill would have added a line to the amendment. Without discussion this bill was rejected.

HJ 721, patroned by Del. David Englin, (D-45, Alexandria), was a bill that would repeal the just recently passed marriage amendment that went into effect January 1, 2007. In the debate Del. Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas), stated the bill was not needed as the voters of Virginia have overwhelmingly resolved the issue.

Fifty-seven percent of Virginians rejected the claims of marriage amendment opponents and voted to protect the definition of marriage. Frankly, to bring these bills up just weeks after the vote is an insult to the 1.3 million Virginians that voted for the amendment.

We are thankful to the members of the P & E committee who quickly dismissed these bills.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-Marriage Amendment Delegates' Legislation Defeated.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/863

13 Comments

10thdistrictrepublican said:

That's good news!

hrconservative said:

Great news!

The voters have spoken. Why waste the assembly's time even introducing this stuff??

Sophrosyne said:

I agree, an arrogant waste of time. They had their shot to make their case for why marriage should not be protected and all they did was spin "unintended consequences" deception that was soundly rejected despite their overwhelming financial advantage.

I am most curious to see if these anti-Marriage Amendment folks will now support other efforts to protect marriage such as the divorce reform legislation being proposed... after all these are the same folks who claimed divorce was the "real" threat throughout the Marriage Amendment campaign and said we should be addressing that.

Robin said:

Except that the divorce "reform" will set women back about 50 years. I've read a considerable amount of it and all it harder to get out of bad situations. It does not make people improve of take stock of themselves.

If you really want to improve marriage, you should establish classes in High School. There should be a waiting period and counseling classed before hand. Most people have no idea what they are getting into.

Robin said:

That should read "

Except that the divorce "reform" will set women back about 50 years. I've read a considerable amount of it and all it does is make it harder to get out of bad situations. It does not make people improve of take stock or themselves.

If you really want to improve marriage, you should establish classes in High School. There should be a waiting period and counseling classes before hand. Most people have no idea what they are getting into."

That will teach me to multi-task while blogging!
;-)

Sophrosyne said:

Robin--

I couldn't agree more that we should have more mandatory education prior to getting a marriage license as well as some form of waiting period. That said, I also think we should make it a little less difficult to dissolve what is meant to be a life-long commitment. Are you opposed to any measure that would prohibit one party of a marriage from walking out unilaterally on their family? After all that is what the pending legislation is about. It includes provisions for abuse, etc and will only apply to non-abusive relationships with children where on individual wants to unilaterally abandon the rest of their family. Is this "right" worth protecting?

NotNotJayHughes said:

Sophosyne:

This bill by Del. Marshall is simply absurd. I understood your concerns over judicial activism and marriage driving your support of the Marriage amendment even though I believed them unfounded.

Now, we're just getting silly.

It is already long established law in the Commonwealth that parents must support their children when a marriage ends. There is absolutely no need to re-legislate something that is already on the books.

What's going to end up happening is that people will just stop getting married in favor of "live-in" relationships. How will you deal with that? Criminalize common-law relationships?

Can't you see that by getting government even more involved in the marriage industry that you're just going to make things worse?

Government can't guarantee perfection. Some marriages will end. It's unfortunate but it happens. Some marriages will end for reasons that offend/sadden/frustrate you like boring sex, infidelity, desire to join a religious commune and the list can go on forever. Some people just can't live together. There may not be abuse (physical, psychological, etc.) but there's definitely arguing and tension. No child needs to live in that environment. Sometimes its better for the kids that Mom & Dad live apart than go on fighting night after night after night.

Sophosyne, we've obviously worked together in the past because you know my birthday is in March. I think I might know who you are. I hate to have to disagree with a fellow Republican but I have to put my foot down and say enough of something is enough. We need to leave alone the marriage laws already on the books and get back to solving our Commonwealth's most pressing challenge and that is transportation.

Jack said:

It's already illegal: VA Code § 18.2-345.

Robin said:

Jack, A Code § 18.2-345, I'd love to see them enforce that one! LOL

Sophosyne,I believe that people should work on their marriages to their best extent. But you can't (and I think, shouldn't) legalize people's intent. You can lead a horse to water... It only leaves people miserable. It is especially disagreeable when it comes to emotional abuse which I don't see coverage for. No, we need to start in the beginning and train people for that responsibility.

NotNotJayHughes, I never thought as a moderate Dem I'd find myself agreeing with a Republican but there you go! :-)

NotNotJayHughes said:

Robin:

What’s happened here is what I predicted all along. The “Marriage Amendment” was never about preserving morality nor marriage…it was about power. There never was a politician nor political activist who wanted to preserve “morality” if there were, they’d all be in seminary.

Politicians and political activists are all about the aggrandizement of power. I told my friends and neighbors that this crowd wouldn’t be satisfied with sticking it to gay people. Once they finished with gay people, they’d turn their sights on straight people. And, true to form, here we are …..no longer micro-managing the personal lives of gay people, but now wanting to micro-manage the personal lives of heterosexuals.

Power corrupts, folks……power corrupts…even those with the most sincere, Christian of intentions.

Anonymous said:

"couples abused by marriage counselors"

Betty Black said:

So how much support does the KKK actually give this site?

jacob said:

Betty,
they keep offering us money, but we don't want it. we get too much money from big oil to deny the existence of global warming to bother with it. However, if you want to offer some money, we'll take it.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM