Against passage of HJ 41 (Constitutional Amendment; Marriage)

January 13, 2005

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker.

I had greatly looked forward to this session since last spring. I was eager to return and use my brief experience here in this body to address the issues that concern my constituents and the citizens across this great Commonwealth. Transportation, education, healthcare, protecting our environment, keeping our economy strong and helping businesses grow and prosper.

But here we are. Our first day of debate---and we are starting off by rushing through a flawed constitutional amendment. We are rushing today. Rushing to become the first to ever amend the Virginia Bill of Rights to take us backwards. This resolution seeks to write citizens out of our most sacred document.

Mr. Speaker, I would sadly warn the new members that the great discussions and debates on the issues that affect 98% of our constituents’ daily lives are often pushed aside for the issues that would divide Virginians, and target those without power. Why don’t we spend 98% of our time on the 98% of issues that matter to our constituents?

In our first three hundred and ninety years, Virginians didn’t talk about gays much at all. I am gay— but I don’t talk about it all the time. But since I got here, it seems like we talk about gays and lesbians again and again and again.

What’s next then? Will we deal with transportation? I am afraid not. Next will be bills to limit single parenthood. Then will be bills targeting immigrants.

It is appropriate that today is a gray and foggy day. On my way here, this morning, I thought of how foggy this amendment really is.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be honest about what this bill is about and what this bill this not about.

This House has taken many actions to make gay and lesbian Virginians strangers to the laws of this Commonwealth. This amendment will also make unmarried straight couples strangers to our laws.

We are about to actively write discrimination into our State Constitution.

I can not stand by while this body uses gays and lesbians as scapegoats for what has happened to the institution of marriage.

I agree with the gentlelady from Campbell that the institution of marriage is threatened. But how can we blame committed gay and lesbian couples for that?

How many members of this body are divorced? How many have children that are divorced? Grandchildren? Parents? Brothers? Sisters? What do gays and lesbians have to do with any of those divorces? How many children are now raised by single parents? Can we really blame gays and lesbians for the fact that so many households are now headed by a single parent? How many of those marriages were celebrated or consecrated in a church or synagogue? Can we really blame gays and lesbians for those who have broken their vows?

How do I explain our action today to John in Loudoun County, who was denied the right to visit his partner in the hospital? What do I tell Cedric, a college professor in Fredericksburg, and his partner? What should tell John in Vienna, about how the clients he jointly sells homes to will be affected? What should I tell Rob in Danville, who lost his partner to cancer about how this will affect durable medical powers of attorney?

The institution of marriage is broken—broken by heterosexuals.

What are we defending marriage from? Are we defending it from the high heterosexual divorce rate by saying that we will never grant civil unions? Are we defending marriage from the criminal offense of heterosexual adultery? No, we are not. Ostensibly we are here to thoughtfully give our careful consideration to amending the Constitution of this Commonwealth. But that’s not what’s really going on today. This is all about politics.

Mr. Speaker, I am under no illusion. I fully realize that this amendment will pass this House and likely be on the ballot. I also have no doubt that the proponents of this measure are on the wrong side of history.

After you accepted the Speakership, you said that there is not a Jefferson among us. Today, I think of my favorite quote from Mr. Jefferson. It is etched in stone in the Jefferson Memorial to stand for all eternity. Jefferson said,

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

This amendment would in the words of Jefferson, “require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I would ask the members of this House if they want the words of this amendment etched into granite for all time. How will they explain to future generations?

No civil Unions. EVER.

No recognition of legal status for ANY unmarried relationships that “intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” No recognition EVER.

It is unclear what that sentence means, yet we are about to slap it onto the ballot for the voters without careful and thoughtful consideration of its implications.

I have faith that the future offers a more enlightened and just Virginia. Younger Virginians have no prejudice – no bias – no fear of those who are different. They recognize that there is no threat to the institution of marriage from loving, committed gay and lesbian couples who will one day enjoy equality under the law.

# # #