The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage".[1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006.[2]
Text
The text of the amendment states:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. 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.
Results
The constitutional amendment was approved by the Virginia General Assembly and put on the November 2006 election ballot for approval by voters.
| Amendment 1 |
| Choice |
Votes |
Percentage |
 Yes |
1,328,537 |
57.06% |
| No |
999,687 |
42.94% |
Criticism
The far-reaching nature of the Marshall-Newman Amendment intended to reinforce its Marriage Affirmation Act has attracted criticism. Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:
Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there.[3]
Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued a 2006 opinion stating that the amendment does not change the legal status of documents such as contracts, wills, or advance health care directives between unmarried people.[4]
While experts are divided on the exact impetus for the amendment, political commentators have suggested that it was placed on the ballot following confidential polling indicating that incumbent senator George Allen might not be successful in his bid to win re-election. Republican strategists may have hoped that the Marshall-Newman Amendment would turn out the socially conservative voter to not only pass a ban on gay marriage, but also re-elect Allen. Although the Marshall-Newman Amendment did pass, Allen's campaign self-destructed, following the so-called Macaca controversy.
See also
References
- ↑ "Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Article I, Section 15-A" (PDF). Virginia State Board of Elections. November 2006. Retrieved December 30, 2006.
- ↑ "Official Results, 2006 election". Virginia State Board of Elections. Retrieved December 30, 2006.
- ↑ Rauch, Jonathan (June 13, 2004). "Virginia's New Jim Crow". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 13, 2007.
- ↑ McDonnell, Robert (September 14, 2006). "Opinion number 06-003" (PDF). Attorney General of Virginia. Retrieved February 25, 2012. "It is my opinion that passage of the marriage amendment will not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements, or group accident and sickness insurance policies, or alter any other rights that do not "approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage", or create "the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.""
U.S. same-sex unions ballot measures |
|---|
| | 1990s | |
|---|
| | 2000s |
- California Proposition 22 (2000, Ban)
- Nebraska Initiative 416 (2000, Ban)
- Nevada Question 2 (2002, Ban)
- Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004, Ban)
- Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004, Ban)
- Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004, Ban)
- Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004, Ban)
- Michigan Proposal 04-2 (2004, Ban)
- Mississippi Amendment 1 (2004, Ban)
- Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2004, Ban)
- Montana Initiative 96 (2004, Ban)
- North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004, Ban)
- Ohio Issue 1 (2004, Ban)
- Oklahoma Question 711 (2004, Ban)
- Oregon Ballot Measure 36 (2004, Ban)
- Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004, Ban)
- Kansas Amendment 1 (2005)
- Texas Proposition 2 (2005, Ban)
- Alabama Amendment 774 (2006)
- Arizona Proposition 107 (2006, Constitutional ban defeated)
- Colorado Amendment 43 (2006, Ban)
- Idaho Amendment 2 (2006)
- South Carolina Amendment 1 (2006, Ban)
- South Dakota Amendment C (2006)
- Tennessee Amendment 1 (2006, Ban)
- Marshall-Newman Amendment (Virginia) (2006, Ban)
- Wisconsin Referendum 1 (2006, Ban)
- Arizona Proposition 102 (2008, Ban)
- California Proposition 8 (2008, Ban)
- Florida Amendment 2 (2008, Ban)
- Maine Question 1 (2009, Legalizing legislation defeated)
|
|---|
| | 2010s | |
|---|
| |
|
|
|---|
| | | | Same-sex marriage legalized: |
|
|---|
| | Same-sex marriage recognized but not performed: | |
|---|
| | Civil union or domestic partnership legal: | |
|---|
| | Same-sex marriage prohibited by statute: | |
|---|
| Same-sex marriage prohibited
by constitutional amendment: | |
|---|
| Same-sex marriage and civil unions prohibited
by constitutional amendment: | |
|---|
| All types of same-sex unions prohibited
by constitutional amendment: | |
|---|
| Recognition of same-sex unions undefined
by statute or constitutional amendment:
| |
|---|
|
Notes
♦ Marriages entered into in Utah between December 20, 2013 and January 6, 2014 due to the ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert are recognised for federal purposes but not by the state itself, except for the purpose of joint tax filings, as they follow Federal status. |
|
