Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Marriage Amendment Leads by 18%

By Greg L | 30 July 2006 | Virginia Politics, 50th HOD District | 5 Comments

Not Larry Sabato has a short story on a Mason-Dixon poll which shows the marriage amendment is favored by Virginians 56-38%. This seems to be consistent with what I have been hearing, although I believe the margin is even more favorable in Manassas, Manassas Park and Prince William County.

I understand that the Jeanette Rishell campaign may have polled on this question as part of their efforts, and most likely have learned how unpopular her stand on supporting gay “marriage” will be with 50th District voters. What I can’t fathom is why Jeanette Rishell would agree to speak at an anti-marriage amendment rally next weekend. With the press likely present to report on the event, and who will inevitably provide good coverage, this can’t be a smart election strategy.

At least she’s remaining consistent with her earlier statements.

UPDATE: More information on the poll is here

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Anonymous said on 31 Jul 2006 at 5:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    What do you guys know about the impact on heterosexual couple who live together outside of marriage?

  2. admin said on 1 Aug 2006 at 1:21 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t see any impact, other than they can’t have a legally recognized “civil union” or “domestic partnership”. I haven’t seen too many normal couples clamoring for those though.

  3. David said on 1 Aug 2006 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    As the amendment states, the Commonwealth will be prohibited from “recognizing” a legal status which is “intended” to “approximate” the set of rights, obligations, etc, that attach to marriage. The supporters of the amendment have been unable to define a list of such rights, or how one would determine the “intent” of two people in entering into a series of particular contracts with each other. You can drive a truck through the amendment language. It’s a conservative’s nightmare.

  4. Greg L said on 1 Aug 2006 at 3:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    David, my reading of the amendment is “no gay ‘marriage’”, no “civil unions” and no “domestic partnerships”, all which are designed to approximate marriage. If you sign a contract with another person, or execute a power of attorney or other legal instrument, the amendment clearly wouldn’t apply as the purpose of those arrangements clearly is not “marriage”.

    No one is going to throw out hundreds of years of common law with this. You’re foisting a red herring here.

  5. David said on 2 Aug 2006 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, regardless of the intent of the legislators, which is another discussion, there is no means of determining at what point an aggregation of private contracts would begin to “approximate” marriage, in other words, align with the rights that would be granted by a domestic partnership.

    That leaves a huge opening for interested third parties to challenge contracts on the basis of an assumed “intent” to approximate marriage. It’s obvious to me that a couple who cobbles together a set of contracts like that is trying to approximate marriage, and I think that Virginia judges have already indicated that they will see it that way, too.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3375