Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

How do the ‘No’ Voters Define Marriage

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Family Foundation sent a letter to the No Voters to ask for their definition of marriage. Something I blogged about. If marriage isn’t one man and one woman then say what you want and be honest to the voters. Here is the letter:

September 25, 2006

Dear Claire:

Very soon, Virginians will have to decide on whether to support the marriage amendment at the ballot box. When Virginians cast their ballot on November 7, they deserve to have all the information they need to make an informed decision. As the primary spokesperson and decision maker for Equality Virginia’s ballot committee, The Commonwealth Coalition, I believe that you have a duty to all Virginians to honestly state your organization’s position on the issue of how marriage should be defined in Virginia. Virginians deserve to know how you, the Commonwealth Coalition and Equality Virginia, want marriage to be defined. In addition, they deserve to know the answers to the following questions:

  1. What combinations of relationships should be allowed to legally marry? Which should not? Should bisexual groups be allowed to marry? Should polygamy remain illegal?
  2. How would you say no to forms of marriage that you oppose?
  3. What is the standard for deciding who should be allowed to marry?
  4. What plans do your organizations have to bring about changes to marriage laws in the future?

A recent publication stated that, “LGBT organizations have developed a strategic plan to win marriage equality. A 15-year strategy has been agreed to by all the major [gay rights] organizational players. Funding is in place, and new tactics are being developed and tested in this year’s biggest clashes with anti-gay groups.”

Clearly, the goal of organizations such as Equality Virginia and its ballot committee, The Commonwealth Coalition, is to redefine marriage. Virginians deserve to know exactly what you want that definition to be.

It is time that you, as opponents of the marriage amendment, are honest with the people of Virginia and explain to them exactly where you stand on the issue that Virginians will be deciding on November 7th. I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
Victoria E. Cobb
va4marriage.org

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

32 responses to “How do the ‘No’ Voters Define Marriage”

  1. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    Wow: a push poll mailer, being presented as some sort of effort at honesty and journalism, blogged about by a guy who has this to say about gay families:

    http://www.americancivilization.net/index.php?itemid=65#c
    James Atticus Bowden wrote:
    “True, homosexual(s?) have faux families they procure.”

    You can almost hear the disgust and hatred dripping off that sentence.

    What is the “recent publication” exactly? What groups? What conspiracy?

    And all of it, of course, dodging the question over whether this admendment will really just prevent gay marriage, or whether it will be used to attack already existing benefits and legal arrangements that gay families need to be able to function even as second-class families in Virginia. As it has been in many of the states in which such ambiguous language has been placed in the amendments.

    Oh, sorry: the “faux” families that they “procure,” probably for some perverted agenda to warp children or something.

  2. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Iontient: You can answer the message, or in the Liberal way, attack the messenger.

    So, what is the answer on marriage goals?

  3. jamie Avatar
    jamie

    James,

    It’s simple. Two people (not 3, not 5, not 17) who love one another and agree to share each other’s lives should be able to marry.

    Not for conveinence, not for benefits, and not because they’ve had a couple of shots of George Dickel. And most definitely not because one of them is “going down the long valley road”.

    Your premise that marriage is the state-sanctioned means of furthering society and the human race is ridiculous at the most basic level. People don’t need marriage to have children, or to further society or to do any of the other things that you are advocating as the reasons why marriage should be only between a male and a female.

    And what’s with the whole polygamy thing? Nobody has ever said it should be between more than two people (well, not rational people). No loophole would be opened. Is it just an easily made point that is offensive to most everybody? Is that why you’re using it as a “comparison”?

    Marriage is for people who love one another and want to share a life. And it’s not for you to define that. And it’s most definitely not for the state, or anyone other than the people who are entering into that relationship.

    Marriage is much more than a piece of paper stamped by the County Clerk. And the sooner people like you realize that the sooner this ridiculous exercise will be over.

  4. Vivian J. Paige Avatar
    Vivian J. Paige

    I just love how this letter is showing up everywhere when, in fact, it was released to the media before the Commonwealth Coalition received it! In any event, here is the official CC response:

    September 25, 2006

    By Facsimile and Mail

    Ms. Victoria E. Cobb

    Campaign Manager

    virginia4marriage.org

    P.O. Box 921

    Richmond, VA 23218

    Dear Ms. Cobb:

    Thank you for your letter dated today, which I received from a member of the media.

    As you know, Virginia law very clearly defines marriage and bans gay marriage and has for more than 30 years.

    The real question here is why you and your organization would support a Constitutional Amendment that would substantially change Virginia law to write discrimination into Virginia’s bill of rights and negatively impact every unmarried Virginian by limiting their rights to make contracts regarding property, guardianship of children and even medical decisions.

    That is the question to which Virginia voters deserve an answer.

    Very truly yours,

    Claire Guthrie Gastañaga

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    jamie,

    obviously its phsically possible to have children outside of the family setting, but whats your rational for saying that the family is not needed? Marriage is about more then the two people in it. Its a promise to themselves, (God if they choose to acknowledge him) and the community at large. Marriage is not just about the selfish desires of any couple.

  6. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    “You can answer the message, or in the Liberal way, attack the messenger.”

    Quoting your own words is an “attack” on you?

    What “message” am I answering exactly? You’re just quoting a dumb political mailers spin on things, making bacon’s rebellion Virgina’s best source for in-depth discussion of transportation issues… and JAB’s ranting about gay conspiracies. Now THAT’s an unnatural marriage.

    What is the argument of the mailer? It jumps from an unsourced article alleging a gay conspiracy to the implication that those who oppose the amendment are just tools of this conspiracy. In other words: there’s simply no substance to be refuted. Paige’s response, on the other hand, is a sound and reasonable statement of concrete issues. What do you have to say about that? Nothing but ranting about liberals.

  7. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jamie: “Your premise that marriage is the state-sanctioned means of furthering society and the human race is ridiculous at the most basic level.” and “And it’s most definitely not for the state”. You need to read some history and law.

    Vivian: You still haven’t answered the question. Define marriage for Virginia.

    Iontient: Quoting me instead of answering the blog question and adding “You can almost hear the disgust and hatred dripping off that sentence” might be seen as your focusing on the messenger, not the message.

    You, too, still havn’t answered the question.

    Only Jamie answered the question.

  8. GinterParked Avatar
    GinterParked

    James: Those of us opposing the amendment simply aren’t required to accede to your side’s transparent attempt to shape the debate on terms you feel are favorable. When you pull the sort of stunt Victoria pulled yesterday, you deserve only the sort of response offered by Claire.

    That being said, the simple, politically accurate answer to your question is this: My opinion about what marriage “ought to be” is entirely irrelevant. This amendment is not about marriage, which after all has been defined in Virginia law for over thirty years to include only opposite-sex couples. There is absolutely no chance that the General Assembly will change that law, whatever my opinion may be.

    Nor is there any likelihood that Virginia courts will change the longstanding, unchallenged definition of marriage in Virginia. Perversely, the passage of this amendment presents the only foreseeable circumstance where an appellate court will consider the constitutional validity of a specific Virginia marriage definition. It will certainly be interesting to see what the federal courts do with this amendment, should it pass.

    Your attempts to obfuscate are unfortunate. If in fact all you’re concerned about is marriage, the solution is simple. Urge the defeat of this amendment, then lobby for the introduction of a single-sentence amendment. I will oppose you then, too, in large part because the constitution is the wrong place to address this issue. At least, though, you’ll be able to burnish your self-proclaimed and rapidly diminishing reputation for intellectual honesty.

  9. jamie Avatar
    jamie

    Anonymous – I’m not saying family is not needed. I’m saying it’s a fact when you look at the fabric of today’s society that large quantities of children are reared in households where marriage is never an issue.

    James – You can have it one of two ways. You can write laws that adhere to the societal standards of Our Founding Fathers and 7,000 year old Jewish tribesmen or you can write laws that accurately reflect on today’s societal structure and its shortcomings and try to improve our condition as a whole.

    I choose the latter. You don’t seem to. Simply because Thomas Jefferson believed it so doesn’t mean that it should be adhered to today without regard to its consequences.

    Look at today’s problems. And if you think the problem that deserves your most attention is gay people getting married then you live in a truly sheltered world.

    Use your considerable brainpower and help fight HOMELESSNESS, or HUNGER, or POVERTY, or IGNORANCE. There is no need to beat up on gay people legislatively. They won’t hurt you or me or anyone else. They just want to live their lives like I do.

  10. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Ginterparked: You won’t be honest with your political agenda for marriage, because you know it is a loser with the voters. That being the case, you should still be honest and forthright about how you want marriage defined.

  11. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    James, the fact is, you cannot deny that a person who would say those words isn’t bigotted. I’m not attacking the messenger in order to avoid the arguments, I’m pointing out WHAT THE MESSAGE REALLY IS. If you really believe, as YOU said, that gay families are detestible fabrications, then its no wonder you have no fears at all about taking away what few legal protections they do have, and framing the debate as being about marriage.

    As I pointed out, your mailer contains no coherent arguments. It’s two unsourced conspiracy theories. The opponents of the amendment have presented a clear response to the question of what their motivations are: justice. People’s opinions on gay marriage that oppose this amendment range all over the map. Some, like Tim Kaine, oppose gay marriage but favor not trying to specially take away legal rights from gay families. Some do support gay marriage, but are well aware that it will never happen in Virginia in the near future.

    You treat that latter opinion as if it were a vile revelation that should discount anything they have to say about the amendment. But that’s as idiotic as claiming that because someone supports animal rights that we should all support legalizing animal abuse just to spite them. Your hatred is so bizarre, paranoid and over the top that you are willing to trample all over sane arguments to try and “root out” the “real” conspiracy.

  12. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    Just to make the point more clear: we’re voting on a specific amendment with specific language. We aren’t voting on some shadowly LGBT plot that culminates 15 years from now.

    Is this bill the sort we want to become part of the constitution or not? What are you responses to the problems raised? All anyone has seen from you are attempts to change the subject and pretend that without this bill, we will have legalized gay marriage… which is absurd. That’s not what the argument is about in the here and now.

    I know you consider gay people to be “fuax” people, and thus deserving of little consideration, but at least for the sake of political debate itself, a little honesty, please.

  13. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Iontiont: “you cannot deny that a person who would say those words isn’t bigotted.” “detestible fabrications” “know you consider gay people to be “fuax” people, and thus deserving of little consideration” “Your hatred is so bizarre, paranoid and over the top that you are willing to trample all over sane arguments to try and “root out” the “real” conspiracy”.

    Your words speak from the overflow of your heart. Your words are yours, not mine.

    The ‘some’ who oppose the Marriage Amendment and support Homosexual Marriage should say so in public.

  14. jamie Avatar
    jamie

    James –

    I’ve seen the “faux people” comment on your website and/or in the discussions we’ve had before.

    This person flew off the handle, but your rhetoric is exactly how they describe it.

    Besides, you never answered my question from weeks ago, when I asked you what the rational political gain was for this particular piece of legislation. Have you come up with a response yet?

  15. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jamie: I tried and failed to explain a ‘rational political gain’ to you.

    The classical definition of politics is Lasswell’s ‘who gets what’. To which I would add ‘when and where’.

    The rationale for a rational political gain is to protect Marriage and the family from judicial activism.

    Sorry, you didn’t follow how homosexual marriage has ‘faux’ family.

    A homosexual ‘family’ is false from the start because the ‘parents’ can not have the children. They have to procure the children because the homosexual sex of the parents can never produce children. The distinction between that and an infertile couple adopting a child is that, ceteris paribus, the infertile parents – when it is a man and a woman – could have children if they weren’t infertile. Fertile homosexuals can never produce children with each other. It’s biology that makes one family false from the start.

    The second aspect of being false is that no man can be as good a mother as a woman and no woman can be as good a father as a man. The distinction between a family with a man pretending to be a mother or woman pretending to me a father and the single parents of death and divorce – is that the single parent can be a super mother or father but when they marry again, if they do, the children will have a mother and father again – real ones, not fake ones.

    That’s my rhetoric based on facts.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why can’t Claire simply say, “We don’t believe that polygamy should be legal? We don’t believe a bisexual(a group Equality Virginia claims to support) should be allowed to marry two people even if they love both of them.”

    Simply statement. Why not say it?

    And for those who don’t believe “anyone believes polygamy should be legal,” read this story (www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650193578,00.html). Note that they are relying on the Lawrence decision, the same decision that same-sex marriage advocates base their argument on.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anyone know why Creigh Deeds, McDonnell’s opponenent isn’t campaigning against the amendment? Could it be because he voted in favor of THIS language at least 5 times?

    Then again, he could be like Kaine and just deny that he supported the amendment at one time. That seems to work for Democrats.

  18. jamie Avatar
    jamie

    James –

    OK, I understand your point now. It was lost in the rhetoric during our last exchange.

    The difference lies in what you consider a family. I make no pretense to pretend to know what a person could or could not do in a given situation.

    If your logic was the norm, my wife wouldn’t be allowed to do a lot of things because of a genetic inability to do simple math (or turn off the light when she leaves a room).

    I think marriage, in the eyes of the state, is to regulate benefits (only in the view of the state – not a religious view or the view I share with my wife) only. It’s not to provide a means to further humanity. So, in my opinion, your primary reason for marriage is moot. There are enough children born to single parents or no parents that I think society has much larger ills than worrying about whether a couple can fertilize an egg with a sperm cell. It’s just ridiculous that this is such a contentious issue.

    What is that, anyway? Why this issue, when there are so many much larger ills that your particular flavor of Christian should be fighting? Hunger, disease, war, and their friends?

    Why the gays? And why now?

  19. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jamie: Your last two paragraphs are interesting.

    My particular flavor of Christian? What is that? I speak for myself. Period. My worldview is based on my understanding of Christianity as the truth, but that is purely my personal perspective.

    I am concerned about many ills. Hunger, disease, war, and friends (when ill) are important and have a place in what I do with my time and resources.

    The issue about homosexual marriage is a reaction to judicial activism. Perhaps you didn’t hear, but three judges n Massachusetts – just three (with two dissenting) – ruled marriage between one man and one woman only as unconstitutional. In an appalling arrogant use of power (more remarkable that they can get away with it – over spineless legislators and executives), three judges ordered the legislature to rewrite the law.

    Despite the assurances of DOMA – the U.S. Constitution’s clause on laws being observed across state lines – might be the Constitutional fig leaf for Federal or State judges to declare our 2004 law and DOMA unconstitutional.

    The homosexuals began this with lawsuits. The homosexuals are pursuing it with their goal of homsexual marriage.

    A Constitutional Amendment makes it harder for a state judge to declare the 2004 law unconstitutional.

    You can think whatever you like about the state and marriage. Until you read more, you don’t know, you just think or feel.

    When you destroy a foundational institution of a culture and the civilization and nation built on it, that tends to be contentious.

  20. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    “Your words speak from the overflow of your heart. Your words are yours, not mine.”

    I quoted your words, and simply used synonyms for what you said. You really want to aruge that “fabrication” isn’t a fair way to describe you calling gay families “faux” ones that they “procure” (another word dripping with clinical disdain)? I think anyone can see how silly that is. You’ve only proven my point with your further discussion of your views: you view gay people and gay families are inferior, and constantly imply that their families aren’t even sincere but are part of some ploy. There is simply no evidence that the genitals of the parents determine how good of parents they can be.

    The people who support gay marriage and don’t HAVE been open. Some do, some don’t. Almost no one supports polygamy or the rest: that’s just more scare tactics. But none of that is what this bill is about. All you are trying to do is whip up hatred for gay people and fearmongering about gay marriage in order to justify attacking the legal system so that gay families with face special hurdles in things like inhereitance, medical decisions, and so forth.

  21. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Iontiont: “simply used synonyms for what you said” means they are your words, not mine.

    Polygamy, for believing Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons is a reality when you destroy our 400 year old standard in Virginia. If you allow polygamy for multicultural reasons – and on what basis could they be denied when you throw out Viginia’s traditional standards – then you have to allow polygamy, polyandry and group marriage, etc. You have no moral-ethical-legal basis to say NO.

    Are polygamist’s families inferior to the ‘family’ of a homosexual couple? Or, is any and every definition of a family co-equal?

  22. jamie Avatar
    jamie

    James-

    tisk. tisk.

    Being condescending is no way to prove your point or show your intelligence.

    “Your particular flavor of Christian” is just that. Your particular thoughts on Christ and the ensuing belief structure based on His teachings.

    You have no facts to back up your beliefs, just like I don’t. If you have a study in your hands saying homosexuals are child molesters (you do, you’ve used it before) I can show you a study that there is absolutely no corrolation between being reared in a gay household and not.

    You say you are proudly bearing the 400 year-old standard of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I contend that you are a homophobe who is trying to cling to the values he was raised with instead of accepting the current reality and are trying to inscribe discrimination into our laws for the first time since the Civil Rights movement.

    You say gays can’t be and more importantly shouldn’t be parents. I instruct you to ask them and their children about the love they have for one another and their children- borne, adopted or found on the side of the road.

    You say homosexuality is wrong, and that you can prove it with the Bible. I say that Christ didn’t discriminate, and that Leviticus isn’t a valid rule of law (moral or otherwise)to quote when you don’t adhere to all of it, and that your interpretation that “it can be broken down into 3 parts and you can use the part that picks on gays” is quite simply – The Stuff Of Man and not in keeping with spirit of Our Savior.

    Luckily, your generation is retiring and mine is preparing to take the reigns and steer.

  23. David Avatar
    David

    Yes, luckily.

    James doesn’t want to acknowledge that the redefinition of marriage that so frightens him has already occurred. We discuss the issue here and here. You decide who is describing reality, and who is constructing a reality that conforms to an ideological wish list.

  24. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    “Iontiont: “simply used synonyms for what you said” means they are your words, not mine.”

    As weak defenses go, that’s the about weakest. I quoted what you said. There isn’t any real question in anyone’s minds that the only way one could say something like that is if they disdain gay families and likely gay people period. Your writings make the hatred clear.

    I know you have a big chip on shoulder about false accusations of bigotry and so forth. But you, a real life bigot, are just not a good poster boy for that movement.

  25. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    David and Iontiont: Please continue to criticize me. It is illimunating to our readers. Especially, the name calling. Thanks.

    So, again, under what moral-ethical-legal system is polygamist, incestuous, group marriage, etc. inferior to a homosexual marriage? And, if it isn’t inferior, then why shouldn’t it be included in the new definition of marriage.

  26. CG2 Avatar
    CG2

    The proponents of the amendment have yet to answer the question voters ask every day:

    why do proponents of the amendment want to write discrimination into Virginia’s bill of rights and negatively impact every unmarried Virginian by limiting their rights to make contracts regarding property, guardianship of children and even medical decisions?

    That’s the debate in which we are now engaged, because that’s the question posed by Ballot Question #1. That’s the question voters deserve to have answered before they vote on November 7th.

    Ms. Cobb and her allies refuse to answer that question because they can’t articulate a compelling argument for the amendment as written.

    When a proposal is an ambiguous government regulation that intrudes the government further into our private lives, takes away individual rights, and makes an unnecessary radical change in current Virginia law, voters are left with one common sense response.

    J. Harvie Wilkinson said it best:
    “leave constitutions alone.”

    Vote NO.

    Full disclosure: I am the campaign manager for The Commonwealth Coalition. See my profile for more info.

  27. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    CG2: The answer to your question is to reject the premise of your question, then explain more.

    It isn’t discrimination. Marriage isn’t a right. Marriage is regulated now – and always has been in every culture everywhere.

    Contracts won’t be restricted. Same scare words in 04 proved to be false.

    The bill says the legislating bodies – cities, counties, and Commonwealth – can’t make up marriage or the legal precedents homosexuals want to justify marriage.

    This Constitutional concrete to protect marriage against activist judges. If all judges were like Wilkinsons, then it wouldn’t be a Constitutional issue. But, judicial tyranny makes it so.

    Full disclosure. I am not paid a penny to lobby for anything.

  28. David Avatar
    David

    The “legal precedents”? Very illuminating. That’s a term that doesn’t appear in the amendment. I take it that you refer to the enforcement of the various contracts that unmarried people sometimes execute in order to “approximate” some of those rights, benefits, obligations, qualities OR effects of marriage we keep going on about.

    I know, it’s inconvenient for us to keep talking about the amendment instead of this other stuff you would rather talk about, but please explain.

  29. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    David: Youtake wrongly. A legal precedent would be – say if Arlington, my home town, wanted to recognize ‘civil unions’.

    So, what is the answer about polygamy, polyandry, group marriage being equal to or inferior to homosexual marriage of only 2 homosexuals?

  30. lontlont Avatar
    lontlont

    “So, what is the answer about polygamy, polyandry, group marriage being equal to or inferior to homosexual marriage of only 2 homosexuals?”

    Because marriage is structurally between two people, not 3 or more. Homosexuality doesn’t change anything about that structure, functionally or legally, in any substantive way you’ve been able to point to. Polygamy does. It’s just a dumb argument.

    “Full disclosure. I am not paid a penny to lobby for anything.”

    Oh, so you’ll smear gay families and call them “fake” for free? What a bargain!

    “David and Iontiont: Please continue to criticize me. It is illimunating to our readers. Especially, the name calling. Thanks.”

    Quoting your own words and pointing out what the mean isn’t the same thing as “name calling.” Tell me, does Jim share your belief that gay families are “faux” things that they “procure”? Would he describe people’s families that way? Jim?

  31. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Iontient: “Because marriage is structurally between two people, not 3 or more.” Says who? Not for Muslims. Not for fundamentalist Mormons. Not for some indigenous tribes.

    “you, a real life bigot” + “you are a homophobe” = name-calling

    Actually, marriage is between a man and a woman, not two people, because a man and a woman make children and , thus, a family, while ‘two people’ if they are the same gender don’t – can’t -ever. Marriage has always been between men and women in different numbers in different cultures, but never between men and men and women and women.

  32. David Avatar
    David

    A legal precedent would be – say if Arlington, my home town, wanted to recognize ‘civil unions’.

    Wrong again. If that were the case, the term “legal union” would have been used, not “legal status.”

    You’ve already argued in favor of the term “status,” stating that the language is intentionally broad because of a desire to stop the “precedent” of recognizing rights that could lead to the recognition of a formal aggregation of those rights, i.e., some sort of “union.”

    You accused me of name-calling. I have done no such thing. I linked to your own words and asked readers to decide for themselves who was more accurately describing reality. I think you are using language in a very sloppy way to describe that as name-calling.

    Given your continuing use of the term “faux” to describe other people’s families, I must now ask readers to decide for themselves who is using abusive language.

Leave a Reply

Read More