The Marshall Plan… on Marriage
Virginia and Washington, D.C.may be separated by a state border, but there’s very little separating them on marriage policy. Unfortunately for the Commonwealth, the President’s legacy of lawlessness seems to be bleeding into state politics, where new Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, fresh off a razor-slim victory, seems intent on making a bad first impression. With less than 1,000 votes separating Herring from his Republican opponent, the new attorney general hardly has a mandate. Still, that hasn’t stopped Herring from seizing control – not just of the state’s top law enforcement post, but of Virginians’ will on marriage.
Virginia and Washington, D.C.may be separated by a state border, but there’s very little separating them on marriage policy. Unfortunately for the Commonwealth, the President’s legacy of lawlessness seems to be bleeding into state politics, where new Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, fresh off a razor-slim victory, seems intent on making a bad first impression. With less than 1,000 votes separating Herring from his Republican opponent, the new attorney general hardly has a mandate. Still, that hasn’t stopped Herring from seizing control – not just of the state’s top law enforcement post, but of Virginians’ will on marriage.
Days after announcing his refusal to carry out his most basic duty – upholding the state constitution’s marriage amendment – Herring is facing more than criticism. Thanks to Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (Rep.), he may also be staring down some weighty repercussions. This week, Del. Marshall, a good friend to FRC, filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar over Herring’s refusal to enforce the will of 57% of the people. “Herring has put all of us in the position of Dred Scott, who had no right to counsel in federal court. An attorney general has a duty to support those laws that are constitutional, and an attorney general has just as strong an obligation and duty to defend laws that he has concluded are unconstitutional…”
Making matters worse, Herring’s recklessness may be wreaking havoc on far more than Virginia. New reports suggest that as many as eight state attorneys general are considering similar moves, which would plunge the country into a legal chaos where leaders are bound, not by laws, but liberalism. If there is a silver lining, Virginians looking for a clear contrast to their current administration may have found one in U.S. Senate candidates Ed Gillespie. The former RNC Chair left little doubt where he stands on the issue in his race with sitting Senator Mark Warner (D). “This is the first time I’ll be advocating Ed Gillespie’s policies, the things that I believe in…”
Like marriage. “My faith teaches me to love people for who they are,” he said unapologetically. “I am Catholic. I oppose government sanctioning same-sex marriage and agree with state Sen. Mark Obenshain that the current Democratic state attorney general is wrong in saying he will not move to uphold the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Marriage is between one man and one woman. People who don’t share my views on marriage – that doesn’t make them anti-Catholic or bigots. And people who share my view, that doesn’t make them anti-gay either.”
Language Barrier Threatens Indiana Bill
After 10 years of debating, the Indiana legislature finally looked like it was ready to put the issue of marriage where it belongs: in the hands of the people. With just two votes standing in the way of a voter referendum, the Hoosiers were stunned to see their representatives cave – and quickly. Under Indiana law, the same language must pass two, separately elected legislatures to be put on the ballot.
Monday, with FRC Action, AFA, and Indiana Family Institute on hand, the House of Representatives voted 52-43 (with 23 Republicans joining 29 Democrats) to remove the second sentence from the marriage amendment. That not only waters down the amendment, but it would re-set the clock and prevent voters from seeing the issue on the ballot until 2016. If the state House passes the bill tonight (as it’s expected to do), the fate of the entire referendum hangs on the Senate. Only it can restore the language that would allow Hoosiers to vote this November on an amendment that would protect the definition of marriage from activist judges. House Speaker Brian Bosma, who initially rescued the bill from certain death in committee, tried to ease people’s concerns, saying, “We haven’t walked away from this issue at any point… I’m just pleased to see democracy at work in a positive way on behalf of the people ofIndiana.”
Like the state, we hope democracy gets to work in the form of a final referendum. As I mentioned Monday, FRC Action Executive Director Joshua Duggar and FRC’s marriage policy expert Peter Sprigg traveled to Indianapolis to emphasize the importance – not just to Indiana, but to the nation – of approving the amendment unchanged. Hoosier voters must now exercise their liberty and tell their Senators to do just that.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
