George,

I believe Lloyd Snook’s defense of Creigh Deeds’ vote on the gay marriage amendment is misguided. The Democratic party used to be the majority party in Virginia and in the United States. It became the majority party in large measure because it was the champion of the rights of oppressed minorities – workers in the 1930’s, Blacks in the 1960’s, women in the 70’s and 80’s. This coalition of minorities, built over the years, has been the bedrock of the Democratic party. We Democrats lose our electoral strength when we take these traditional constituencies for granted, and when we fail to support newly emerging minorities -- such as gays -- who are struggling to obtain basic rights. What gay person (and anyone who understands and sympathizes with their plight) will want to be a Democrat in Virginia now that Lloyd, Creigh and other Democratic party leaders have chosen to abandon them? How many potential life-long Democrats have been lost?

Lloyd calls the amendment “symbolic” and says that “it simply reflects the current state of the law in Virginia” – thus “it does not turn the clock back”. Constitutional amendments are writ in stone; laws are writ in sand – they can be changed rather quickly. The amendment reads:

“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 effect of marriage.”

The second sentence in the proposed amendment is designed to prevent gay couples from receiving vital legal protections in job benefits, probate, visiting rights at hospitals and other areas that people in committed, long-term relationships should be afforded. This second sentence in the proposed Virginia amendment will make gays second class citizens permanently. How can this be called “symbolic”?

Majorities of voters in most public opinion polls agree that civil unions are OK. Creigh Deeds could have voted against the amendment on the grounds that it contained this second sentence which prevents civil unions and other legal rights. The calculus of how many votes Creigh would have won or lost by voting against the amendment cannot be determined, but I think he would have been better off if he had done the right thing. As it stands now, he has lost a lot of support among Democrats and potential Democrats (as I pointed out above). And he has severely damaged his reputation as a political leader with principles and convictions. He has lost all this on the assumption that a significant number of voters would vote against him because of this one issue. Those voters who will be basing their vote on this one issue are most likely to be Republicans who would not have voted for him anyway.

David RePass (electronic mail, February 12, 2005)