The Washington Post reports today about the battle over an amendment to the Virginia Constitution which would both define marriage as being between one man and one woman only and limit the rights of unmarried couples. It is the second part of the amendment which is gaining attention and the opposition of elected leaders like Gov. Tim Kaine. It reads:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."Now, several of the amendments backers say that voters should simply ignore this section. They assure people that it is meaningless and that all the amendment does is to protect the "Commonwealth" from gay activists who want to use their right as American citizens to turn to their courts to have their rights protected.
However, the article points out cases in Ohio where some courts have ruled that domestic violence statutes no longer protect unmarried partners because of a similar constitutional amendment. The article does not mention efforts in Michigan where anti-gay activists have gone to court to prohibit the University of Michigan from providing insurance benefits to unmarried couples after they promised that Michigan's amendment could never be used for such efforts. The Virginia crowd will do the same if this amendment passes.
Why am I talking about this in a Maryland politics blog? Because the same forces are at work in Maryland trying to enact a similar ban in our constitution. This past session many Republican legislators cosponsored an amendment publicly backed by our Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich. It failed this year but they will be back to push it in 2007. The text reads in part:
A civil union or relationship between parties of the same sex, by whatever name or title, that confers the benefit of marriage is not valid in this state and is against the public policy of this state.Unlike in Virginia, the anti-gay people in Maryland did not even bother to hide behind unmarried couples and instead went right for their intended targets. This is not about protecting marriage but about constitutionally disabling a group of fellow citizens.
In addition, the language is so broad that it could have many unintended consequences. For example, a mother would be prohibited from granting a daughter power of attorney since they are both of the same sex. I am not just spreading fear. Our Attorney General's Office agreed with my concerns.
