AS ANYONE who knows George Allen's mishaps can tell you, Virginia does not have a reputation for tolerance, or legislative prowess for that matter. In 1975, the Virginia legislature banned same-sex marriage, and subsequently in 1994 it expanded Virginia law to exclude recognition of same-sex civil unions as well. On Nov. 7, Virginian voters will decide whether or not to make Virginia's constitution restrictthe definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and senselessly limit the rights of unmarried couples.
The Marshall-Newman marriage amendment itself is an idiotic proposal, legislating both segregation and a new era of "separate but equal" amendments in Virginia's most valuable document. Most of the arguments against the amendment were made by NAACP chairman and history professor Julian Bond on Tuesday in an hour long seminar entitled "Virginia is for Lovers?" He offered several example of the amendment's illogical nature: The marriage amendment needlessly discriminates against a minority community, behaviors of children raised by gay fathers are not significantly different than other children according to the American Psychological Association, etc. Most Virginians' fears on the issue still come from a general unease towards the gay community -- many people still feel that homosexuality is both a choice and unnatural (according to science, it's not). Unfortunately, the Virginia legislature refers to the same fears it had with the Black community decades ago.
But Bond pointed out one argument that dominates all of the others -- amendments to the constitution -- federal, state or otherwise -- must be designed to expand basic human rights, not diminish them. The Virginia constitution is not a plaything that should be amended in election years primarily to advance a political party. Everyone, both pro- and anti-gay marriage, must vote against this amendment limiting Virginians' constitutional rights.
The United States Bill of Rights is a perfect example of how a constitution should be amended. Nearly all of the amendments expand the rights of American citizens, from repealing slavery to providing for a freedom of speech. The only time the American legislature and people passed an amendment restricting rights, the 18th amendment enacted in 1919 to deny citizens the right to purchase alcohol, it was repealed 16 years later and remembered as a foolish and unnecessary constitutional restriction. If the Marshall-Newman amendment passes on Nov. 7, Virginia will face the same ridicule that the U.S. government faced when prohibition was passed. Eventually, even Virginia will increase its tolerance of homosexuality and repeal the Marshall-Newman amendment in the not-too-distant future. But repealing this amendment would not come without another dark mark on its already checkered civil rights past.
Bond mentioned that until a Supreme Court ruling in 1967, Virginia prohibited interracial marriages and charged people who married different races a penalty between one and five years. However, even those idiotic laws were just that: laws. There was little conflict then on whether to consider amending the constitution to ban certain types of marriage because they were already on the books. It is bad enough that such intolerant laws infamously passed through Virginia legislature -- however, the state legislature understood when to stop mixing Virginians' rights with restrictions. Imagine what Virginia's record would be today had Virginians signed interracial marriage restrictions into a document that, by its very nature, should oppose such types of discrimination and grant freedoms.
Additionally, a Virginia constitutional amendment that defines marriage would erode the difference between the state's legislation and constitution. If both restrictions and rights are allowed as amendments, why not create referendums on all laws? What would be the need for a legislative body if Virginians can etch whatever restrictions they want in the constitution instead of the law? Eventually, Virginia's government would be as inefficient as California's, with propositions replacing debate in the state legislature, resulting in a lack of funds and an inability to enforce its laws. Even worse, there would no longer be any document to protect Virginia's freedoms -- only restrictions would remain.
Virginia can no longer retain its image of intolerance and bigotry. Recently, Allen's "macaca" incident hurt Virginia's reputation as a progressive state. It's bad enough that Virginia has laws needlessly restricting same-sex marriage. But if Virginia voters amend the constitution to deny other Virginians the same freedoms that most citizens enjoy, our Commonwealth will have a reputation of being more foolish than Allen's off-color comments, even.
Adam Silverberg's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
