?

Log in

No account? Create an account
C'mon Virginia... - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life [Pete and Pam's pages (photos and some commentary)] [Pam's journal] [Our company] [My Flickr Photos] [Arisia]
October 25th, 2006
09:46 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
C'mon Virginia...
If New Jersey can get it right, the very least we can do is keep from getting it more wrong!

Please, fellow Virginians...even if you don't care one little bit about the candidates this year, even if you are busy, please find a way to get to your polling place or get your absentee ballot in and Vote NO on #1.

The latest poll reported in the Washington Post shows this question favored among "likely voters" 53 to 43, Statewide.  That's a huge gap for us to close in a short time.  We can't count on the Virginia or U.S. Supreme Courts to fix this if it gets passed.  We the people are the last line of defense.  The only way to close a 10 point gap with this little time to spare is if the right "unlikely" voters get motivated to show up.

If you are a Virginian, please vote.  If you know a Virginian, please ask for their support on this.

Current Mood: worriedworried
Tags:

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:hammercock
Date:October 26th, 2006 02:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
If New Jersey can get it right, the very least we can do is keep from getting it more wrong!

I wouldn't bet on it. Let's just say that if I wanted to live in a state that cared about queer folks as human beings, I wouldn't choose Virginia. You're expecting much more from a state that nearly elected Ollie North to the Senate and did elect George Allen than is reasonable.

Nevertheless, I hope beyond hope to be proven wrong.
[User Picture]
From:dcseain
Date:October 26th, 2006 04:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've already voted NO on that hateful law that impinges on everyone's right to enter into a legal contract of their free will and choosing. I do fear that Virginia, as with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Docket Number: 395, that VA will end up being a major test case for this issue as well. :|

having read the full opinion for Loving, it turns out it was decided on a technicality. VA's antimiscegenation was unconstitutional becasue it only prevented whites from marrying others. Had the law been that all marriages had ot be between people of the same race, rather than allowing any combo except white+not-white, things likely would be quite different, at leasth through our early childhood.
[User Picture]
From:admiral_jc
Date:October 26th, 2006 05:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yuck... that is an awful super-DOMA... my only hope is that it won't survive constitutional challenge because by trying to strike down contracts it sets a horrible precedent and most likely violates the Commerce Clause. Just imagine what happens if say New Mexico were to state that it didn't want to recognize contracts written in Texas.

There is also the hope that the federal court will see a super-DOMA as overreaching. For instance, this opens up the door to states deciding they don't want to recognize any marriages or contracts written in other states. For instance, what about some state like SC deciding it didn't want to recognize weekend marriages performed in Las Vegas.... or marriages where taxes and filling fees weren't paid in the home state? Dreadful precedent and that is why I think super-DOMAs are going to fail constitutional muster.
From:sew_200e
Date:October 27th, 2006 03:37 am (UTC)

not the whole story

(Link)
Northern Virginians are strongly againsts the measure and we can defeate the so-called marriage amendment. Vote NO on #1
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:October 27th, 2006 12:17 pm (UTC)

Re: not the whole story

(Link)
I know...but what good does it do to defeat it in Northern Virginia if it wins in the state. Virginia is a Dillon Rule state...localities cannot pre-empt state law without the legislature's permission...
Pete, Pam and Quinn's pages Powered by LiveJournal.com