“Not comfortable.”
The Democrats have chosen Tim Kaine, the newly elected Democratic governor of Virgina, to rebut President Bush’s State of the Union address. Presumably, selecting a Marine who’s tough enough to tell his Swift Boaters where to shove it would demonstrate the Democrats are weak on national security; Kaine, after all, unlike a solid majority of America, supports the war in Iraq.
Tim Kaine is also against same-sex marriage. He’s even against civil unions. Unlike a majority of America.
Virginia’s House of Delegates just passed House Joint Resolution No. 41 by a margin of 73 to 22. House Joint Resolution No. 41 proposes to amend Article I of the commonwealth’s constitution, its Bill of Rights, by adding Section 15-A. Section 15-A would read as follows:
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That 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.
Governor Kaine has stated he’s “not comfortable” with the breadth of this amendment’s language. He’ll sign it, should Virginia’s Senate approve likewise, turning it over to a commonwealth-wide referendum on whether it should be pasted into the constitution. But he won’t be comfortable when he does it.
One should, perhaps, ask him—and the commonwealth’s Senate—how comfortable they are with the idea that this amendment could strip unmarried couples throughout the state of basic domestic violence protections. Ohio’s similar amendment has been causing confusion on just that score.
One should, perhaps, ask him—and the strutting 73 members of the House who ignored their colleague’s stirring denunciation—how comfortable they are with the idea that this amendment will strip property from people like Sam Beaumont because of a legal technicality.
One should ask him, and the commonwealth’s voters, how comfortable they are with the idea that this amendment will ensure that people like Laurel Hester will never see justice in Virginia.
Look: I have some appreciation of the political realities. Tim Kaine isn’t in a comfortable place right now. His legislature’s in the hands of power-mad, scapegoat-hungry radicals. Shooting down a resolution that passed with a 73 – 22 margin is suicidally stupid for a rookie governor who just barely won a hard-fought campaign, and Democrats everywhere owe him for a breath of hope this past November. And there’s many a slip yet betwixt this poisonous cup and lip: the Senate could be compelled by vociferous national outrage to reject its cameral compadre’s bigotry. If it ends up as a referendum, that vociferous national outrage, along with some very public boycotts, might could motivate enough decent human beings (and shame enough bigots) to shoot it down before it’s scribbled permanently in the margins. Kaine could even step in to water it down to a less horribly divisive and discriminatory measure, though what a weak thing that would be to call victory. —So, yes: there’s no reason to believe his refusal to sign would do any good, and enough to believe it would actively harm, to allow as how one might sympathize with how not comfortable he is.
Doesn’t mean we have to be comfortable with him speaking for us this year. Doesn’t mean we have to be comfortable with the folks that think we should.
Commenting is closed for this article.
