Statement of Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling on the Marriage Protection Amendment
Randy MarcusWednesday, October 25, 2006
804-786-2078 or 804-814-7117 (cell)
804-786-2078 or 804-814-7117 (cell)
We are here today to reiterate our strong support for the Marriage Protection Amendment that will be on the election ballot on November 7th and to encourage the people of Virginia to vote "Yes" on this important amendment and join us in affirming that marriage will remain between one man and one woman in Virginia.
This common sense amendment will simply give constitutional protection to the statutory laws banning same sex marriage and same sex unions that have been in place in Virginia for years. Without this amendment these laws could be struck down at any moment by an activist judge who thinks it is OK for a man to marry and man and a woman to marry a woman. That has happened in other states, and it could happen in Virginia.
Most Virginians agree that marriage is a sacred and important social institution - an institution that was intended to be enjoyed by one man and one woman. They do not want the definition of marriage to be changed, and on November 7th they have an opportunity to stand up and support traditional marriage in Virginia.
The Marriage Protection Amendment has been on the election ballot in 20 other states and it has passed by wide margins in each of these states. It will be on the ballot in 8 additional states this year, including Virginia. We do not want Virginia to be the first state in the nation to turn its back on traditional marriage.
It has been interesting to watch the debate on this issue as it has unfolded in recent weeks. On one side, supporters of this amendment have been clear and consistent in their message - marriage matters, and marriage should remain between one man and one woman.
However, the other side has refused to debate the critical issues in this election.
How should marriage be defined?
Should marriage remain between one man and one woman, or is it OK for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman?
Do we really want Virginia to be the first state in the nation to reject the Marriage Protection Amendment?
Instead, they have engaged in a campaign of fear and deception. Instead of debating the critical issues in this election they have chosen to talk about the so called unintended consequences of this amendment.
Let me be clear about this - there will be no unintended consequences from the passage of this amendment.
The opponents of this amendment say that it will prevent two people of the same sex from buying a home or other real property together, executing advance medical directives, enforcing domestic violence laws, disposing of property to each other in a will, etc. None of this is true.
As you know, Attorney General McDonnell has issued a well thought out and detailed 13 page opinion stating that the Marriage Protection Amendment will have no unintended consequences.
In addition, the intent of the General Assembly is clear. Earlier this year the General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a statement explaining the Marriage Protection Amendment, and this statement makes clear that all of the rights that I mentioned earlier will continue to be in force even if the Marriage Protection Amendment is approved.
And the arguments that the opponents make against the Marriage Protection Amendment in Virginia are the very same arguments that they have raised in numerous other states. In none of those states has the passage of this amendment impacted other legal rights that are available to people of the same sex.
Some of Virginia''s political leaders, who now espouse the mantra of the opponents, have not always felt that way.
Yesterday, Governor Kaine held a press conference to reiterate his opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment. He told us that his opposition is based on concerns about the unintended consequences the amendment may have. While Governor Kaine is certainly entitled to his opinion, he has not always felt that way.
When he ran for Governor in 2005, Tim Kaine told the people of Virginia that he opposed same sex marriage, and he specifically promised that he would support the very language that is in this amendment today. Nothing has changed since then and now - nothing but the Governor''s position.
Candidate Kaine was right in 2005, and Governor Kaine is wrong in 2006.
The facts are clear - the Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary to give constitutional protection to Virginia''s statutory laws banning same sex marriage and same sex unions. The Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary to protect traditional marriage in Virginia from possible judicial assault.
And contrary to the statements of the opponents, the Marriage Protection Amendment will have no unintended consequences and it will not adversely impact the other rights of people of the same sex that they currently enjoy.
I encourage the people of Virginia to join us in supporting traditional marriage in Virginia by voting yes on the Marriage Protection Amendment on November 7th.
For additional information contact Randy Marcus at 804-786-2078 or 804-814-7117 (cell) or firstname.lastname@example.org.