Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close
The Washington Times Online Edition

Defending marriage in Virginia

Virginia took a major step toward defending the institution of marriage this week when the state Senate overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Having already sailed through the House of Delegates earlier this month, the amendment will now go before Virginians in a November referendum. With polls showing 63 percent of the public supporting the amendment, it will likely pass, even as opponents shift into high scaremongering gear.

Gov. Tim Kaine should be congratulated for his support of the amendment, although we don’t share his concerns about language that would supposedly result in “consequences far beyond marriage.” Some critics assert the amendment will somehow relegate homosexuals to second-class citizenship. This is a scare tactic.

What the amendment states is that the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions would not recognize homosexual “marriage,” civil unions or any other contractual relationship as deserving of benefits, which is entirely appropriate. A marriage amendment which made such allowances wouldn’t be much more than an empty symbolic statement.

Moreover, amending a constitution should only be done in extreme circumstances and should not be undertaken lightly. It seems that many Democrats in the General Assembly, along with Mr. Kaine, want to appear to be defenders of traditional marriage, but without having to do any of the heavy lifting. This is irresponsible. Either you are for a real marriage amendment — and everything that entails — or you should withdraw your support. We urge proponents of the amendment as is to resist all attempts to water down its meaning.

Whether voters reject or ratify the amendment, the effort has been a huge victory for the democratic process — and a dressing-down for activist judges who might otherwise undermine the legal system. The debate in Virginia has made clear that the institution of marriage is too large and consequential to be decided by a single judge. The people and their elected officials should have the ultimate say in deciding an issue that lies at the foundation of our society.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • Delegate Robert G. Marshall holds a book as he reads to the House during debate on a bill defining life at the moment of conception during the House session at the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Monday, Feb. 13, 2012.  (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

    Virginia House vote states life starts at conception

    By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times

  • A bomb specialist examines debris Tuesday in Bangkok where two explosions rocked a neighborhood. An Iranian man injured by a grenade he was carrying also was linked to a blast that ripped part of a roof off a house. (Associated Press)

    U.S. concerned about spike in Iran-Israel ‘shadow war’

    By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times

  • Mabus

    Naming of Navy ships returns to tradition

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

  • In Case You Missed It
    Happening Now

          Independent voices from the TWT Communities

          Alley-Oops

          Immerse yourselves in the genius insights of a high school sports freak and statistical wizard who knows it all. Or at least thinks he does.

          Medicine and Politics in America

          Health care reform, organized medicine, physician practice management, and patient care--a real time look at the challenges facing doctors and patients in America today.