« Who has a future in Virginia? |
| Great Stuff »
Does anyone think it has any chance of failing? What do you think the margin will be?
I say it passes 70-30.
March 30, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200d834b8787e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gay Marriage Amendment on ballot this fall:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
not gretchen bulova |
March 30, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Um... Ben? What are you trying to say about those two? Bob doesn't look like Chad's type anyhow. ;)
Virginia Pundette |
March 30, 2006 at 10:18 PM
Ben, if it doesn't pass, what say you and me run off to Mass and get married? Just for kicks. Can you imagine what the kids would look like?
Greg Bouchillon |
March 30, 2006 at 10:26 PM
Yeah, for a second I was REALLY confused, Ben. But I eventually remembered that the guy on the left was McDonnell, the guy who bought an election away from Creigh Deeds. Then I remembered that our Attorney General was a homophobe, so both of these men were straight.
Sorry, it's just that I REALLY don't like Bob McDonnell. AT ALL. His head is so far up Pat Robertson's ass I can't see where Bob ends and Pat Begins.
March 30, 2006 at 10:29 PM
Your prediction feels pretty accurate, Ben. More or less.
March 30, 2006 at 10:30 PM
It will not be 70-30. Just this past week, a virtually similar constitutional amendment was ruled by an Ohio appeals court to eliminate protections against domestic abuse for unmarried heterosexual couples. Reliable polls show the majority of Virginians actually favor civil unions (this amendment would preclude the legislature from ever even considering that idea). The more Virginians learn about how badly this amendment is written (even Bob Marshall said publicly it was written so badly even he had to flip a coin to decide whether to vote for it), I think they will be turned off by it. I'm not saying it won't pass, but it will not get 70%.
March 30, 2006 at 10:36 PM
The amendment is so poorly constructed that it ought to scare the daylights out of conservatives who understand their professed political philosophy. I have absolutely no problem with legislation that defines marriage in a way that limits the term to male/female unions. but the drafters went off a cliff-edge when they loaded the thing up with anti-equivalency content and put it in our Bill of Rights, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a statutory context. It is clearly targetted against non-marriage type arrangements, including a number of benign accommodations between older couples of whatever sex or sexual orientation. Whether there are any pols with sufficient fortitude to explain this and to protect Virginia's bill of Rights against this kind of childish contamination remains to be seen. But your 70/30 projection is not irrational. It will be interesting to see how this affects NoVa Congressional races and the Senate race.
NOVA Scout |
March 30, 2006 at 11:26 PM
I want to believe that Virginia is not so narrow-minded as to go down another path of discrimination. Somebody needs to take the lead on this thing and make it a MSM issue - starting NOW.
Vivian J. Paige |
March 30, 2006 at 11:43 PM
If the bill prohibits civil unions..I will vote against it.
I say it passed 62-38
Too Conservative |
March 30, 2006 at 11:58 PM
You know, I still think it is way too early to tell.....You really got to wait until after the primaries when the real candidates square off and the BIG money starts to engage, I predict you will see some leveling of the playing field on this as the general public gets educated on the "hidden" implications and consequences.... the amendment is so badly written and contains so much convoluted BS that it will be seriously attacked by every special interest group that is affected. But don’t forget, The NATIONAL organizations for gay rights and even some of the more moderate religious organizations that at least support civil unions and personal rights will be pushing too…. As was said by several others, if they had kept it to defining marriage as one male plus one female and left all the other stuff out, it would be a landslide…. But there are some serious power players lining up TV time and a barrage of mailings to shoot this amendment down.
March 31, 2006 at 01:24 AM
V for Vendetta!
Bill Kuster |
March 31, 2006 at 02:07 AM
NOVA Scout hit on my fears exactly. I think a plain language amendment could have done the job and not only is all the other stuff confusing it looks like the drafters went overboard. I doubt the states where the gay marraige ban was passed made their amendments this complicated.
George Templeton |
March 31, 2006 at 02:08 AM
This thing takes Virginia in a direction not even Republicans want to go: overt hatred of homosexuals to the exclusion of rights for all unmarried couples.
Virginia Hates Gays, that's all this thing says. Welcome to the new jim crow
We have to change the state motto: Virginia is for Haters
Tribbet defeats Truman |
March 31, 2006 at 06:22 AM
"virtually similar constitutional amendment was ruled by an Ohio appeals court"
Heh - well...Conservatives probably won't look to an appeals court ruling to figure out how to vote.
Virginia Centrist |
March 31, 2006 at 07:21 AM
"We have to change the state motto: Virginia is for Haters"
There actually was a website set up after the passage of HB751 with that name. I see the site is no longer functioning but the logo is still up http://virginiaisforhaters.com/
Vivian J. Paige |
March 31, 2006 at 08:31 AM
I'm between NGB and NLS... passage by 65-70% seems about right.
A Voter |
March 31, 2006 at 10:33 AM
If the anti-amendment folks get their message out effectively, I'm thinking 60%. And that's a stretch...
Virginia Centrist |
March 31, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Missouri passed a similar amendment in 2004 even though they had DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that made the amendment unnecessary. It passed about 70-30 with the only locality that it failed in being the city of St. Louis. I'm gonna guess that it passes in VA 72-28 and the only places where it fails are Arlington and Alexandria. The language in the amendments is designed to confuse people, so that all they can get out of it is that it defines marriage as between a man and woman.
March 31, 2006 at 11:34 AM
can you imagine the homosexuals trying to kill this amendment. Going around Virginia, going to attended events like high school football? They would so distracted everytime a young guy walked by they would stop and stare at them looking for a "signal" then hand out a couple flyers before seeing another man.... so on and so on.
March 31, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Do you all really think that little of the voters?
The consensus seems to be that 1) People will vote for it to the extent that they don’t understand what it says, and 2) People will be too stupid or lazy to understand what it says, resulting in a landslide passage.
March 31, 2006 at 01:10 PM
slay, add Charlottesville to that list.
not gretchen bulova |
March 31, 2006 at 03:18 PM
Don't tell anon 11:41am that's he's wrong. Let him think, like Dick Black did, like Brad Marrs did, like Chris Craddock did, that LGBT Virginians are unfocused and are only concerned about flirting. We can break reality to him after election day.
March 31, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Oh, I thought that was a parody of morons, that even included the authentic detail of overlooking lesbians. Darn.
March 31, 2006 at 07:27 PM
This is an educational issue, because 59% of Virginians favor civil unions or marriage.
If people understand that fully, this fails 52-48%. If not, it passes 59-41%.
NGB, what are YOU doing to make sure people understand that?
Doug in Mount Vernon |
March 31, 2006 at 09:04 PM
I agree with Doug. The challenge will be educating people.
April 01, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Never over-estimate the intelligence of the average Virginia voter...It will pass in the high 60's.
Not Impressed |
April 03, 2006 at 06:11 PM
Thin Describe,he provided contact concentrate lawyer to present store enterprise keep right begin successful positive media region investigate his no-one drop leg authority ever extent planning behind doctor conclusion letter weapon theory insist ball winter increase recognition his atmosphere real establishment communication result notice meal row bed common wing growth trade cross responsibility his fact contribution join act sex build practice sister major ensure decision item lie rule empty alone education decade occasion up special prove under difficult itself upper cover someone arrangement twice representative video
January 06, 2010 at 10:52 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address