Poisson Is Out of Touch With VA

| | Comments (60) | TrackBacks (0)

David E. Poisson was one of 20 out of 100 delegates in the VA house to vote against the Virginia Marriage Amendment that eventually became law and was put to a referendum vote in the past election. This means even most Democrats in the Virginia house voted in the defense of traditional marriage. Poisson is a minority in his own party. The summary of the bill is as follows:

Constitutional amendment (voter referendum); marriage. Provides for a referendum at the November 2006 election on approval of a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. The proposed amendment provides that "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." The proposed amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

The amendment language was nearly identical to a law which passed the VA house and senate previously. However as a law this language (as a bill) was vulnerable to attack from a single activist judge.

An amendment to the Virginia constitution would be safe from judicial fiat. It was this safeguard that provoked the effort to stop the marriage amendment by Poisson and others. This effort was typified by scare tactics involving the supposed loss of rights which has been shown up to now to be spurious:

Earlier this week, The Ohio state Supreme Court dismissed arguments that Ohio's marriage amendment undermined that state's domestic violence laws (State v. Carswell). I'm sure you vividly remember that opponents of Virginia's marriage amendment attempted to scare Virginians into voting against the amendment by pointing to the controversy in Ohio last fall.

The referendum passed overwhelmingly in the last election despite tremendous opposition from local and national homosexual advocates, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine, and the VA Democratic Party leadership. This is not a position Virginians support and as such leaves David Poisson in opposition to his constituency.

The real motivation for the amendment was that Virginians did not want their marriage laws to be decided by the courts as happened in Massachusetts. Poisson's vote and his public statements strongly opposing the Marriage Amendment show his preference for having a judge decide this matter rather than allowing the people to choose. This is a position decidedly out of the mainstream; the electorate does not want Judges making law.

Mr. Poisson's position supporting a redefinition of marriage places him well outside the mainstream of Northern Virginia - although he has tried to position himself as a "moderate." This moderate position is at odds with his voting record in general.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Poisson Is Out of Touch With VA.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1328


T-Bone Hound said:

This wierd idea from some that Democrats vote in lock step may be something that VA Republicans demand, but certainly not something true among the Democrats I associate with here in Virginia. We have many differences. There are a variety of points of view among Democrats in Virginia. Why would any credible blogger suggest that, because an elected official is of one particular party, he or she must be in lock step with everyone else in the same political party? Is that how VA Republicans operate? If so, how limiting. No wonder they are on their way to becoming a minority party again.

T-Bone, I am not sure that is the point. I think the point is that Mr. Poisson is far out of step with his constituents. The majority of voters in his district disagreed with his vote on the marriage amendment.

TerryM said:

Still using the anti-gay amendment as a political scare tactic I see. Pathetic.

Don't you have anything else Joe? Funny you trot that out on the same day Sen Craig drops his pants...

Betty Black said:

It is time to move on. Can't you guys find something else to be outraged by? The Iraq War is a good place to start. Bush and Cheney's abuse of power is a reason to be appalled. Darfur? Right up there. Giving your child the right to be wed to the person he or she loves should not even be on the list.

Jack said:

So long as you keep trying to force us to accept perversity, we'll keep being outraged by it.

insiderichmond said:

Nobody's trying to force you into anything. Logically, it's the other way around. Besides the point that this is only one issue important only to those radicals that just can't seem to stop thinking about gays, Poisson is an experienced legislator with an excellent record for the issues important to Loudoun. Why don't you focus on something that matters instead?

Ah, but Jacob is doing exactly that - focusing on the "excellent" record. I sense some fear coming from you all.

Tom said:

Jack stay out other peoples bedrooms; they’re are many more straight people doing all kinds of unusual sexual acts in the privacy of there own homes, if it’s sex you’re focusing on, go after them.

Where do you get this information, Tom?

Jack said:

I don't care about what people do in their bedrooms, Tom. I do care that they are trying to recognize their perversity as something normal, and to reward it like marriage.

jacob said:

"This wierd idea from some that Democrats vote in lock step may be something that VA Republicans demand"
Where do you get that? I clearly stated his was a minority position in his own party. That mean he is out of step other democrats. Which means he is REALLY out of step with his constituency. Your input is welcome, can we stick to the atical at hand. If you want to argue over something else, I can open a new thread.

jacob said:

"stay out other peoples bedrooms"
You have turned the issue on its head. What someone does in their bedroom is their busiess. A marriage contract is a PUBLIC statement of what is going on in the bedroom. There are traditions that are older than the state at work here. Also, the original purpose of marriage was to procreate children. Can you explain how does this happen in a gay marriage? Marriage is a religous rite. The state never should have got in on the act.

jacob said:

"Still using the anti-gay amendment as a political scare tactic I see."
No you don't see. The point is not to be scared of anything. The point is David Poisson does not represent the people who voted for him. He places the interests of a small and loud intolerant minority over the majority of people he is supposed to represent.

fed up said:

inside rich
poisson is a one term rookie. who r u kidding? He has a disgraceful voting record while he has been down there. Serving as little Dick Durbin water boy is not the kind of experience Virginia needs. what are you inside of?

Dave said:

Ok, so beat Poisson up because he's got guts. Do you expect all elected representatives to just blindly vote for what a majority of their constituents believe? Not much value-add there.

Representatives should be protecting minorities, not exploiting them. Preventing tyranny of the majority, which the legislature is obviously failing to do.

Bedrooms don't have a lot to do with it. Bottom line is that Gays are paying more in taxes and getting less benefits than heterosexuals, and now it's constitutionally required! That's what "marriage" means in secular terms. Bad amendment pushed by people afraid of folks not like them.

insiderichmond said:

He's a one term rookie in the House, yes, you are right. "Water boy"? Not so much. He was chief consultant to Terry Sanford too. Exactly what disgraceful voting record you're talking about, I'm not sure I can know. Maybe you're thinking of his predecessor. Or maybe you don't care about business, education, or transportation. If your judgement of an official is based solely on this one issue, you need to seriously evaluate your priorities.

zimzo said:

Maybe you should just change the name of this blog to "Gays and Immigrants Are Gonna Gitchyou," Joe. It's a lot catchier than Novatownhall and more accurate.

It has possibilities, but I was thinking "Everybody Hates Zimzo" captures the mood better.

jacob said:

Joe & Zimzo,
I am INSPIRED! I will wirte a missive tonight callec "Why Everybody Hates Zimzo!!". Yes, it is crystal clear now. Why did I not see it before. zimzo, the town deputy of liberty, justice and truth.

JuniorBug said:

So, I see NTH has decided to go with the gay theme already started by the push-poll conducted by the Lynn Chapman campaign.

Jack said:

Just as an aside, Sen. Craig should resign.

jacob said:

Push poll? Nice try. The problem with that is I am looking at Poisson's VOTING RECORD. The push poll was put out by a Democrat operative as a smear against Chapman and inferred that Poisson himself is in the closet. Which is rank gay bashing. As such it is not beneath Democrat opperative to do. Like I said. Nice try. Better luck next time.

jacob said:

Inside richmond,
I have looked at the rest of Poissons voting record. I notice that he votes the wrong way on a lot of issues such a immigration and other items.

So spare me the Poisson Campaign sloganeering.
"you don't care about business, education, or transportation."
That is right off of Poissons campaign literature. Get real, are you trying to imply that Poisson is the only guy who does care, and chapman does not? If so you are ridiculous.

zimzo said:

Although I am flattered that you would consider naming your blog after me, Joe, I don't think "Everyone Hates Zimzo" is accurate. Hate is an awfully strong word and I don't think everyone here hates me. In fact, I think the only people here that have enough of an unhealthy obsession with me to hate me are you and Jacob. I don't think even Jack hates me. And I certainly don't hate anyone here. You two would do well to remember the words of Nixon on what hate does to you, which I have quoted before. Wise man that Nixon.

Jack said:

Yes I do!

Jacob said:

You flatter yourself. Hate comes in degrees. I hate acne; I hate pedophiles. You are in the acne range. As a Christian I feel remorse for my anger towards you when you are busy being your obtuse self. Please forgive me for that.

I like it when you visit to discuss things. When you are just throwing insults around, acting like an idiot, you are back in he acne category. Sorry.

Obsession requires thinking about you when you are not there. Trust me, when I do not see your comments, I am thinking about other things. As for your Nixonian tidbits of wisdom, I agree.

David said:

Jacob says:

"A marriage contract is a PUBLIC statement of what is going on in the bedroom."

Really? Now, that's a very interesting definition of marriage. Kind of prurient, in fact. At least y'all are consistent.

It looks a lot like someone has a burning itch to do something about the fact that Poisson has the support of the business community and moderate Republicans - all because of that voting record you keep talking about.

Hmmm. What to do, what to do....I know!! Drag out that smelly old amendment (you know, the one that the business community also thought was stupid beyond belief).

You guys won the referendum, remember? So the question naturally arises: Why the need to keep it alive?

I actually meant hate in the good sense, as in "I'd be hatin' life if I won the lottery..."

That's how we talk, Zimzo, don't you remember?

Tom said:

It amazes me that the people here are so against gay marriage, what are they afraid of?

I think some of them are closeted, that's why they keep talking about it - sort of like their new fallen Senator Craig. LOL – I love it, simply love it!

RWN said:

Tom - Fear has nothing to do with it, it's about maintaining an institution thousands of years old intended to be between one man and one woman.

Jacob said:

Wow, shake a tree hard enough and you get some strange nuts falling out of the branches. I found a puritanical gay guy. That is rare!!

David, if you look at the marriage ceremonies of most cultures the fertility rite aspects of the marriage ceremony are a little more obvious. But these aspect are there in ours. You just need to know what to look for. Marriage was about procreation; that involves sex. Which is fostered in the honeymoon aspect of getting hitched.

Prurient David? My, I did not realize how fragile you are in this matter. We all know what goes on behind closed doors. Get real.

You continue to flog a dead horse, and overstate your case as usual.

Almost 1,000,000 Virginia voters agreed with David Poisson and just over 1,300,000 disagreed with him. Voting no doesn't put him out of the mainstream, any more than the 1,025,000 voters who elected Tim Kaine are out of the mainstream or the 912,327 voters who voted for Kilgore are out of the mainstream.

Majority ruled in both cases, but neither election was won by margins that permit a rational person to characterize anyone who voted for the loser Kilgore as out of the mainstream or anyone who voted against the marriage amendment as out of the mainstream.

The mainstream is not a narrow ribbon on the far right side of the center. It cuts a broader swath than your increasingly shrill and unconvincing rhetoric would suggest.

The tide is turning on this issue. Continuing to bash folks who disagreed with you on the marriage amendment ultimately will cost you and your partisan friends more politically in the long run than it will win you.

Time to look forward and focus on issues that will truly affect the future course of Virginia like education, transportation, access to quality health care, and affordable housing.

G Stone said:

Mr Poisson having honed his intellect at the knee of Big Dick Durbin leaves him out of touch with most of the rational world.

He is and will forever be just another Wonky social engineer. With just a bit more of our money, he is only inches and a few more government programs away from nirvana.

Just another leftward leaning politican wondering why his static solutions never seem to work in a dynamic world.

David said:

The irony of Greg Stone's comment at 11:22 is simply priceless. The "static solutions" to which this crowd is clinging are from the same old bash-the-gays playbook that they seem to think will keep working, not having noticed that the rest of the world has moved on.

There is no issue of which I'm aware on which public opinion has shifted so rapidly. Claire has nailed these folks perfectly. They are stuck in a fantasy world where dead horses win elections.

Jack said:

I'm afraid I don't understand, David. To what "static solutions" are you referring?

How do you see that "public opinion has shifted so rapidly" with the passage of so many Marriage Amendments in so many states?

jacob said:

that is very interesting because I just read on this verry blog site a week or two ago that gays did not exist back then and being gay is just man evolving which is why we can the toss the Bible into the bonfire.

I will try go read the article written by the historian. I am real interested to see how a Catholic priest 600 years ago would be allowed to marry an openly gay couple.

Considering that at the time both canon and civil statute covered such actions, I would be surprised to see how being openly gay throughout most of europe would not be a risky act. In the 1400's people were getting burned at the stake for not agreeing with the rosary and reading the works of john wycliffe

jacob said:

take a go re-read what GS wrote. The static solution he speaks of are the static economic models used by his side of the political divide. The real irony is 'david can't read'.

David said:

Silly Jacob. I'm referring to the topic of this post, of course.

Regarding your prurient definition of marriage, your statement reveals that you speculate about what married people do in bed. I don't believe you're in a position to know these things about other couples, nor is it any of your business.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "puritan," however I am a proponent of traditional values in that I believe that encouraging stable, monogamous partnerships is generally good for society, whereas encouraging people to enter into pretend marriages while simultaneously maintaining sordid double lives seeking intimacy in public restrooms, is not.

I trust there is no disagreement there.

jacob said:

David, david, david,
When you are in a hole, stop digging. Your reference was to what GS wrote as you so clearly state with
"The irony of Greg Stone's comment at 11:22 is ..." we all are fallable. You were busy making a point. Get over it.

As my apparant specualtion, try again. I don't speculate. I know people also breath everywhere, eat at the table (usually), and use the restroom. One does not need to dwell on any of the above. It is like the sun rising in the east. Its the way God made the world.

the scarecrow said:

PLEASE NOTE; The Family Values viewed here are from the same people who supported Mark Foley, David Vitter and Senator Craig.

Can you really take what they say seriously anymore?

jacob said:

It is a fact that Senator Craig ran as a Republican. He probably did run on "Family Values'. The ideals of these values set the bar real high. Failing to live up to a set of ideals is no cause for shame.

Those on the other side of the debate have set the bar on the floor, or burried it. That is a cause for shame. There is nothing to strive for other than your next score.

Please not when a guy like Craig messes up we run him out of town. If I recall your Jeffersons (congressman and president) are the toast of their party. As are a few of you other lawbreakers in office. One Jefferson was found with his hand ion the $90,000 cookie jar and the other was found with his hand in ... well, you know.

Dave said:

The additional irony with Craig (and Jacob) is that the party that doesn't run on "family" values seems to have a much easier time meeting and exceeding the "bar" than the other party.

Please don't just give examples of one person here or there, look since 1994 at how many "values" congressmen (and presidents) have lied, cheated, stolen, killed, and had extra-marital sex.

Why do their only values seem to be around abortion and folks-not-like-them? All other rules don't really apply?

the scarecrow said:

At least they didn’t JUDGE people and put laws in place against those who are gay; that's the pure hypocrisy of each and every one of these guys. It makes me laugh hysterically that the same knife they used on people is being used against them. I LOVE IT!

Alick said:

Dave, because they feel it’s a way to "justify" their hatred towards people that are not like them.

David said:

Jacob says:

"A marriage contract is a PUBLIC statement of what is going on in the bedroom."

Alick said:

David, don't pay attention to half of what Jack / Jacob (same person) says. They don't have an open mind and will say (or make up) anything to try and get their point across. Unfortunately, only the smart ones pick up on that.

Jacob said:

We have gone over this. Jack and I are not the same guy. You never did answer the last question from our last conversation. Too bad, it was just getting interesting.

Jack said:

Actually, Alick, I'm pretty sure David knows that Jacob and I are different people. David and I have had far more conversations on this matter than you might imagine. Just go to his blog and read old posts for a while.

the scarecrow said:

You can understand why Senator Craig and others are so against gay marriage; they’re having so much fun being gay and single, marriage would just screw everything up!

Jack said:

And perhaps they recognize sin, even when they themselves fall into it.

the scarecrow said:

Only when they get caught do they fall back on religion. The funny thing is, the religious people believe them. LOL!!!!

Did you hear, Michael Vick found Jesus too? WOW, all you have to do is commit a crime and you find Jesus.

Tom said:

The only sin he committed here was not being true to who he really is, a gay male.

ACTivist said:

Interesting thread. Sorry I was away. I applaud Poison for being who he is, even if it is in the minority (and especially of his OWN party). At least we know his values, priciples and mindset. I wish most, if not all candidates (Republican and Democrat) would be this honest to their beliefs. It would make picking a qualified candidate of your own liking much easier.

It seems that we have been choosing our candidates for things like, say promises made, change of pace (or just change for its own sake), SINGLE issue campaign (...I'm againest the war in Iraq, etc)or even looks (sorry for those voters). We need to be more informed as to what they are all about. Will we be fooled? Probably so since we tend to vote on FAITH in one's word. I do want to know the skeletons in the closet and if it is againest my beliefs and along someone elses, well, that's the way it is. And that is okay. Majority rules. Let's hope the majority picks by the information available.

As far as the important things like education (free to all people regardless of immigration status-the taxpayer pays), transportation (we will be taxed more in our area for congestion caused by.....) or "affordable housing" (did I miss something with all the defaulted loans, for-closures and DEPRECIATED housing assessments?) I think other issues with getting our ducks in a row is of more concern. Let's get back to supporting the laws already on the books and enforcing them before we go to adding more or changing the ones we have. And making sure our counties and state operate efficiently and as dictated by the majority of their constituents.

ACTivist said:

I don't hate zippo as my wife tells me we are all God's children. And zippo is a child. Some children you just have to ignore when they are on a tirade or just throwing a tantrum. It is part of psycology. Don't give in and done condone bad behavior.

Linda L said:

As we evolve, people are starting to learn that that discrimination towards same-sex couples is wrong. What are also wrong are these people who want to pushing THEIR religious believes on to others. This land was founded by people who fled religious prosecution, remember that.

TYPE O said:

sorry, some of the "are's" should be is, don't know how that happend

Jack said:

Right and wrong must have some basis, Linda. What's yours?

Linda L said:

You Jack, your old fashion way of thinking is wrong, stop living in the past and use what God gave you. And please, don't give me some lame answer, ok?

Jack said:

How can I give you a lame answer, when you did not ask a question?

What God gave us was His Law, and free will to either obey or disobey that Law.

Now, answer the question, Linda: What is your basis for determining right from wrong?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here