I wanted to get the Hatrackian opinion on this article, because it lays out some pretty scary examples of where this amendment might invalidate or cause confusion on existing laws.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's a badly-worded amendment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Couldn't make it through the slant.
EDIT: Here's an argument against the Amendment that is a bit more palatable.
Link Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Scott, leaving the slant aside, do their statements hold water?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry-- the slant was steep enough, I fell off the article.
Wilkinson's editorial, however, has some really good points that I'm still considering.
EDIT:
For example:
quote:State constitutional bans on same-sex marriages vary considerably in their wording, particularly with respect to civil unions. But most would repose in judges the authority to interpret such ambiguous terms as "domestic union," "similar to marriage," "rights, obligations, privileges and immunities of marriage," "incidents of marriage" and so forth. Thus the irony: Those who wish to curb activist judges are vesting judges with unprecedented interpretative authority whose constitutional nature makes it all but impervious to legislative change.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Real judges in Virginia will be asked, in the coming years, to give real legal force to the ambiguous terms of Ballot Question 1: terms like "legal status" and "unmarried individuals" and "rights, obligations, privileges and immunities of marriage." And while state Attorney General Bob McDonnell has generously offered his advisory opinion that the "amendment will not modify the application and enforcement of Virginia's domestic-violence laws," or "prevent prosecution of an individual cohabiting in a same-sex or other unmarried relationship for assault and battery," the fact is that state Attorney General Bob McDonnell doesn't get the last word on these matters. Judges do.
Scott, the articles do share quite a bit of the same information.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But not the same tone or slant, which is the failing of the Slate article.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the articles do share quite a bit of the same information.
Precisely. But one I found respectful and persuasive, while the other was derogatory and ineffective.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:But not the same tone or slant, which is the failing of the Slate article.
I didn't truly see it as a failing, merely an unusually biased view on certain points. Part of the reason I posted the link was because of the bias, and it was nice to have another VA resident comment on it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<-- VA resident Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Part of the reason I posted the link was because of the bias
That's interesting-- why is the bias so important?
quote:it was nice to have another VA resident comment on it.
2 other residents, so far.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Why discount it because of the bias? It's an editorial, it's not supposed to be impartial, as long as the facts it uses to support its argument are accurate. While I might agree that its vehement tone might be construed as a failing (in that it would reduce the likelihood that a reader who disagrees might change his or her mind), I fail to see how the "slant" itself is one. The article isn't claiming any impartiality about the issue- it's presenting the author's opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd like some real, unbiased information. The author clearly doesn't like the amendment at all, so his pronouncement that it's a bad idea for reasons other than the obvious idealogical one is deeply suspect. He's pushing an agenda, which means his assessment can't be trusted.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The article's bias manifests itself by being derogatory. That's why I discounted it (or rather, that's why I followed the link in the article to better written, more persuasive arguments).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Real, unbiased information often comes from biased sources. For instance, Fox News might be extremely biased, but you can still find accurate, informative facts and figures within Fox News reports.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wilkinson is a very conservative judge, although I don't know his stance on gay marriage.
The stated goal of the amendment is to ensure that legal marriage will not be changed to include same sex couples in Virginia and that there will be no judicially imposed requirement that civil unions be extended to same sex couples. This could have been done very simply by stating the principle that the state constitution is silent on the issue of same sex marriage - i.e., neither requiring them nor prohibiting them. Something like "No provision of this constitution requires that marriage be defined so as to require the state to recognize, license, or otherwise grant the status of marriage to same sex couple nor to extend the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to such couples by another institution or civil union."
I believe this will be the stated goal of most who vote yes on the amendment. I'm more suspicious of some of the drafters.
The more extreme interpretations seem to violate the federal equal protection clause to me - i.e., the ones that ban private contracts duplicating some aspect of marriage. Assuming I'm right, then courts should interpret the amendment such that it does not prohibit such private contracts.
But I agree with Wilkinson. When your stated goal is to stop judicial activism, broad language as in this amendment is not the way to achieve that goal.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Scott, Slate is not so typically biased in their articles, and the fact that this one was so obviously biased made me feel like I should ask for some opinions on it.
Kat, sorry I left you of the VA pool (but you are new here, so I should get a pass )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Real, unbiased information often comes from biased sources. For instance, Fox News might be extremely biased, but you can still find accurate, informative facts and figures within Fox News reports.
But the more interpretive the "information" is, the more likely the bias is to affect the delivery.
If Fox news says, "2 soldiers died in Iraq yesterday," I'll probably believe them. If Fox news says, "The insurgency has been rendered ineffectual," I'll not credit that without another source.
The analysis of this amendment is highly interpretive. Therefore, suspicion based on bias is well-warranted.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Slate is not so typically biased in their articles, and the fact that this one was so obviously biased made me feel like I should ask for some opinions on it.
That's interesting as well. I've always found Slate to be pretty biased.
:shrug:
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm a VA resident who is voting against the amendment based on my belief that this issue has no place in our constitution or government at all.
That said, I do disagree with gay marriage. I think it has no place in the church.
As far as the legal benefits of marriage, though, I think we should take them all away for both types of couples. There is no reason why a same-sex couple shouldn't get the oppurtunities and benefits that an opposite-sex couple gets. If neither couples got benefits from marriage, then perhaps there would be no reason for gay couples to want to marry.
Posted by jasonepowell (Member # 1600) on :
I'm also a VA resident - I didn't really have a problem with the Slate article, honestly. It's a ludicrous measure, and using the most forceful terms possible to try and convey a sense of urgency is a good idea. I mean, it's a serious mistake, should people vote for it as it stands. The real problem I see is that it's not solving any problems - only making new ones. What's the point in that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:using the most forceful terms possible to try and convey a sense of urgency is a good idea.
The article was ineffective for me, someone who could conceivably vote for the amendment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was also ineffective for me, because I don't believe that an view with credibility needs to resort to derogatory attacks.
The slant signified to me that either 1) the writer was lazy, or 2) the view espoused by the writer is not strong enough to stand on its own without resorting to insulting the opposing viewpoint.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which do you believe was the case, Katie?
Posted by jasonepowell (Member # 1600) on :
Ok - let me rephrase. It's an acceptable idea. Maybe not persuasive to you, but maybe it would be to people who aren't already familiar with the issue, or disinclined to be motivated unless spoken to in those terms? You know, the Fox News crowd. :-)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe. I kind of doubt the Fox News crowd is reading Slate, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the writer was lazy and/or incompetent. From other information I gathered, there are certainly concerns about the unintended consequences such an amendment would have - that would have made a good article.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I guess the Virginia voters have made their decision yes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I made my decision! But apparently the other Virginia voters don't really listen to me that much...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The good news is that it's still possible for courts to interpret this in such a way as to avoid the more onerous effects described as possibilities in the various articles.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)