Rep Bob Marchall is a person of faith, I will not judge his claim to faith as I too am a sinner and a saint. However, I found his comments during this segment very hypocritical. He invoked the name of Jesus during his rant about defending the traditional definition of marriage. Not only did I find his tone venomous, I have to point out to Del Marshall his party, the VA republican party, has refused to expand Medicare in VA, leaving at least 190,840 people, many families, without health insurance. That is defending marriage and families? The VA republican party has also cut the other social safety net programs too many Virginia families depend on, and that to many can't get because of lack of funding. This is defending marriage and families? Please, Del Marshall, if you are going to invoke your faith and the teachings of Jesus Christ into your political life then do it across the board and not just for the political benefit you seek from your party. Matthew 25 contains Christ's instructions for how to treat the least among us, you should check it out while the VA General Assembly is in session.
Future Of Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban
Guest Host:
Jennifer Golbeck
Virginia's new
attorney general, Mark Herring, says the state's voter-enacted ban on
gay marriage is unconstitutional and he wants to see the courts overturn
it. In 2006, Virginia voters amended the state constitution to bar gay
marriage, but now Herring's office is joining two same-sex couples in a
lawsuit asking a federal court to strike it down. The move is a sharp
reversal of the state's legal position on gay marriage under his
predecessor, Ken Cuccinelli. We get the latest.
Guests
Mark Herring
Attorney General-Elect, Virginia (D)
Adam Ebbin
Member, Virginia Senate (D-30th District)
Robert Marshall
Virginia State Delegate (R- 13th District, Manassass)
Future Of Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban
Reversing Course On Gay Marriage In Virginia
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring joined The Kojo Nnamdi Show on Jan. 23 to explain his decision to challenge the commonwealth's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.MS. JENNIFER GOLBECK
12:06:39
From
WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo
Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. I'm Jen
Golbeck from the University of Maryland sitting in for Kojo. Later in
the hour, coming soon to a neighborhood near you, what's behind D.C.'s
Movie Theater Boom? But, first, Attorney General Mark Herring reverses
course on gay marriage in Virginia. In 2006, Virginia became one of
dozens of states around the country to adopt a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage.
MS. JENNIFER GOLBECK
12:07:18
In
the years since, Virginia's neighbors in Maryland and D.C. have both
approved gay marriage by a popular vote. And even the Supreme Court has
weighed in, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act last year. Now,
Virginia's newly elected democratic attorney general is rethinking
Virginia's long-held stance and announcing that he won't defend the
state's ban any longer. He joins us to discuss.
MS. JENNIFER GOLBECK
12:07:40
We'll
talk with Mark Herring, Virginia's newly elected democratic attorney
general; Adam Ebbin, a Virginia State democratic senator representing
Virginia's 30th District; and Bob Marshall, a Virginia State republican
delegate representing Virginia's 13th District. He's the author of
Virginia's 2006 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
But, first, we'll talk with Mark Herring. It's good to have you with
us.
MR. MARK HERRING
12:08:06
Well, thank you, Jen, for inviting me. Delighted to be back on the show.
GOLBECK
12:08:09
Virginia's had a constitutional ban in place for eight years. Why do you think that ban is unconstitutional now?
HERRING
12:08:17
Well,
I think based on Supreme Court precedent and other cases, that
Virginia's law violates the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution. And, you know, maybe we could take a minute and just kind
of set the stage for the individuals involved in the case. First of
all, the case is down in Norfolk. It's in federal court. It's Bostic
vs. Rainey. Timothy Bostic and Tony London live in Norfolk. They've
been together as a loving and committed same-sex couple for 25 years.
And the other plaintiffs in the case life in Richmond, Carol Schall and
Mary Townley.
HERRING
12:09:00
They've
been together for three decades. Their marriage was formalized in 2008
in California. And they have a 15-year-old daughter. The case -- at
the time I was sworn in, just two weeks ago -- had been fully briefed on
cross motions for summary judgment. And oral arguments were scheduled
for January 30. So we needed to move quickly to do a thorough analysis
of the law to see whether we believed the law was constitutional. And
our conclusion was it was not.
HERRING
12:09:33
And,
consistent with my duties as an attorney general to uphold the laws and
support the constitution not only of Virginia, but also the United
States Constitution -- the United State Constitution is the supreme law
of the land -- and if I've concluded, after that thorough independent
review, that the law is unconstitutional, I felt compelled to change the
state's legal position in court.
GOLBECK
12:09:56
You
raise an interesting point by bringing up this lawsuit that is at the
heart of the issue, because you're not just refusing to defend
Virginia's position. You're actually joining in on the lawsuit on the
side to have the federal court strike down Virginia's ban.
HERRING
12:10:11
That's
right. And I think that is a significant step that the attorney
general is coming in, not just refusing to defend the law, but actually
arguing in favor of the plaintiffs in this case. You know, Virginia and
-- Virginian's, I think, have a lot to be proud of. We're known as
sort of the cradle of democracy, with Madison and Jefferson and Monroe
and others. And we've got a lot to be proud of in Virginia. But there
have been some times where Virginia has really been on the wrong side of
history and the wrong side of the law in some key landmark Supreme
Court Cases.
HERRING
12:10:52
Brown
vs. Board of Education, in 1954; Prince Edward County was one of the
defendants, and we were arguing against that and on the wrong side of
it. The Loving decision, Loving vs. Virginia, where the Supreme Court
upheld the right of an interracial couple to marry. Virginia argued
against that. The case allowing female cadets to enter Virginia
Military Institute, Virginia argued against that.
HERRING
12:11:23
And,
you know, I think it is time that, if an attorney general -- if I have
concluded that a state law violates the federal Constitution, that the
state's attorney present the state's legal position and come out on the
right side of history and the right side of the law.
GOLBECK
12:11:42
You
brought up Loving vs. Virginia, which as you mentioned is when the
Supreme Court struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage in
1967. How do you see the legal issues for same-sex marriage when
compared with a case like Loving vs. Virginia on interracial marriage.
HERRING
12:11:59
Well,
they're really, I think, two strands of cases in the Supreme Court that
touch on the issue. One strand is a long line of the United States
Supreme Court cases calling the right to marry a fundamental right that
is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And that was cited also and reaffirmed in Loving vs. Virginia. Then
there are also more recent cases. You mentioned in the opening where
the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
HERRING
12:12:36
And
in that, Justice Kennedy pointed out that laws that treat same-sex
couples as second-class citizens are unconstitutional. And in that
case, Justice Scalia actually said that that -- that the Court's
rationale is going to set up the case for striking down gay marriage
bans that states have instituted.
HERRING
12:13:03
So
when you take those recent developments about discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation together with the long line of cases
recognizing the fundamental right to marry, it follows that the Supreme
Court, if presented with the same facts that we have here in the case
now pending in federal court in Norfolk, that it would strike down
Virginia's ban.
GOLBECK
12:13:27
You won the attorney general's seat on a razor-thin margin. Is this a bold move on your part?
HERRING
12:13:33
Well,
you know, I'll leave it for the pundits to characterize it like that.
But I'm really mainly focused on doing the right thing, making sure that
I'm fulfilling the duties and responsibilities as attorney general, and
getting it right on the law and focused on Virginia. Obviously this is
an issue that ultimately is going to have to be resolved by the courts,
and I think the United States Supreme Court. Whether it's going to be
this case or whether it's going to be one of the other cases coming from
Utah, Oklahoma, or several cases, it's too soon to tell.
HERRING
12:14:11
But
what my focus is on right now is doing the right thing, making sure
Virginia's on the right side of history and the right side of the law.
GOLBECK
12:14:19
Voters
in Virginia approved the state's constitutional ban on same-sex
marriage by a solid margin, with 57 percent in support. Do you think
public opinion has shifted in the time since then? And, if not, do you
worry that you're going against the will of the voters?
HERRING
12:14:34
Well,
that's certainly one aspect that I weighed very carefully. And
everyone should know, this is not a decision that was done or should be
done lightly. It's done with a lot of careful thought, analysis and
deliberation. But, ultimately, even if it's something that is a part of
the state constitution or ratified by voters, it can't violate the 14th
Amendment, it can't violate the United States Constitution.
HERRING
12:15:03
Now,
last year, while it didn't reach the ultimate issue, the United States
Supreme Court, at the same time it decided the Windsor case, decided
another one on DOMA. It also decided another case and sent back a case
that effectively nullified California's marriage ban. And that, too,
was something that had been approved by California voters and a part of
the state constitution of California. And what that shows is that state
laws and state constitutions cannot violate the United States
Constitution. And as attorney general, I've got a responsibility to
follow the law.
HERRING
12:15:41
And the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
GOLBECK
12:15:44
Mark Herring, Virginia's newly elected democratic attorney general. Thanks very much for joining us today.
HERRING
12:15:50
Thanks for having me and look forward to coming back.
GOLBECK
12:15:52
Thank
you. You, too, can join us in the conversation. Do you agree with
Mark Herring's decision not to defend Virginia's ban on gay marriage?
Do you think public opinion on gay marriage in Virginia has changed
since voters approved the ban in 2006? You can get in touch with us by
calling 1-800-433-8850, or sending us an email to kojo@WAMU.org. Or
send us a tweet to @kojoshow. Joining us now is Adam Ebbin, Virginia
State Democratic Senator, representing Virginia's 30th District. Thanks
for joining us.
MR. ADAM EBBIN
12:16:24
Thanks for having me, Jennifer.
GOLBECK
12:16:26
You've
served in the Virginia general assembly for ten years. In 2011, you
were the first openly gay senator to be elected to Virginia's State
Legislature. What's your reaction to the attorney general's
announcement.
EBBIN
12:16:37
It's
a great day for Virginia. It's wonderful to see Virginia waking up
from history. And I'm excited that he was willing to do the right
thing, in spite of potential political criticism.
GOLBECK
12:16:51
You
introduced a bill in the Virginia State Senate that would repeal the
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It'll be the first time
that the senate will hear the same-sex marriage bill. Why did you think
the time was right to bring this issue to the Virginia Senate?
EBBIN
12:17:05
Well,
unfortunately, the committee has elected to defer it for a year. But I
believe it's the right time because of what the Supreme Court has done
and because the voters of Virginia have changed their mind. Polls have
shown -- several polls have shown that more than half of Virginians
support marriage equality. And I've seen too many gay couples leave the
State of Virginia to move elsewhere, where they can have their
relationships with full legal rights and responsibilities that they
deserve.
GOLBECK
12:17:38
You
raise an interesting point with public opinion. As we mentioned to
Attorney General Herring, a majority of Virginia voters approved the ban
in 2006. Do you think that, eight years later, people in Virginia
would vote any differently?
EBBIN
12:17:51
I
do. I mean, I've felt it change. I've seen it change. But, more
importantly than anecdotes from me are the polls that show that a
majority of Virginians oppose the ban on marriage equality. There was a
Washington Post poll, I believe it was last year. And every day, more
and more Virginians realize that it doesn't hurt their marriages to have
others who have clear rights in raising their children and in
fulfilling their obligations as a spouse.
GOLBECK
12:18:26
Herring
won the election by a very small margin. If his republican opponent
had won instead, do you think then that these challenges to Virginia's
same-sex marriage ban would have played out differently?
EBBIN
12:18:37
Absolutely.
It matters who's elected. And I think that Attorney General Herring
is willing to put the Constitution ahead of ideology. I think that we
saw that his opponent in the election would have carried on the
tradition of Ken Cuccinelli.
GOLBECK
12:18:56
Herring
is clearly not going to have the last word on the constitutionality of
same-sex marriage in Virginia. How do you think this issue is going to
develop?
EBBIN
12:19:05
Well,
I think ultimately the courts will agree with Attorney General
Herring's analysis. What's going to happen is that on January 30, oral
arguments begin in the case in -- out of Norfolk in U.S. District
Federal Court. And that'll be the first -- the first chance to have the
courts weigh in on the Virginia marriage amendment. And then I assume
whatever happens will be appealed to the appellate division, and so
forth, until it possibly reaches the Supreme Court.
GOLBECK
12:19:40
As
that's going forward in one track, you're still pursuing your own bill.
Can you describe the process for overturning a constitutional ban
legislatively?
EBBIN
12:19:50
It
is very slow in Virginia, as it is in many other states. First, the
amendment would have to be voted to change the existing amendment in
either this year or next year. And then it couldn't -- then it would
have to pass again in the following year. So it wouldn't be until 2016
that it could appear on the ballot, at soonest, with legislative action.
GOLBECK
12:20:22
What kind of support do you think you'll have for this bill going forward?
EBBIN
12:20:26
Well,
when it gets a true hearing next year, I think we have a chance of
passing it. I've spoken to people in both parties who recognize the
need to get rid of Virginia's marriage amendment. The only question is
whether people of both parties are willing to take the political risk in
voting for what they know is right.
GOLBECK
12:20:49
So
the constitutional amendment in Virginia that bans gay marriage still
stands now, despite the fact that the attorney general is joining the
lawsuit to have the federal court strike it down. What does this mean
-- his taking this position, what does that mean for gay couples in
Virginia right now?
EBBIN
12:21:07
Well,
right now it means that we're on track to possibly overturn the
amendment through the courts. Until the courts rule, we're not sure
what it means. It just means that he did the right thing, followed his
oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and followed in the Virginia
tradition as the birthplace of civil liberties.
GOLBECK
12:21:36
What
do you see as what will happen if a gay couple wants to get married
now? Is this ban going to stay in place and be enforced as it works its
way through the courts or is it something like we saw in Utah recently
where we had couples getting married briefly?
EBBIN
12:21:54
No.
The ban still stands. In Utah you have -- I believe you have the
courts authorize same gender marriage. So for now gay people in
Virginia still will not have their relationships recognized until the
court rules otherwise.
GOLBECK
12:22:14
So
if you don't mind, we're going to take a caller now. We have Nichole
in Washington. Nichole, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.
NICHOLE
12:22:20
Hi
there. Just a quick question and a slight comment. I'm an African
American woman. I'm married to a white guy. We were married in
Virginia. And my overall question is, why does the will of the people
matter when we're talking about a civil right? The will of the people
back during Jim Crow era said that blacks and whites could not marry.
And then the Supreme Court struck that down. I don't understand why gay
marriage is any different than why does the will of the electorate in
Virginia really matter when we're talking about civil rights?
GOLBECK
12:22:54
Adam Ebbin, can you comment?
EBBIN
12:22:56
Sure.
I think you raise a good point in that civil rights and civil
liberties should not be up for vote. The votes -- the rights of the
minorities should not be at the whim of the majority. And as you noted,
it wasn't until 1967 that Virginia even allowed interracial marriage.
And that was only because of U.S. Supreme Court. We segregated our
schools until 1954. And after that engaged in massive resistance
against integration and didn't allow women into BMI until the courts
ruled in 1996.
GOLBECK
12:23:36
Adam
Ebbin, thanks very much for joining us. Adam Ebbin is a Virginia State
Democratic Senator representing Virginia's 30th District. We
appreciate having you.
EBBIN
12:23:44
Thank you. Bye-bye.
GOLBECK
12:23:46
We
were also hoping to talk to Bob Marshall, Virginia State Republican
delegate who authored the 2006 constitutional amendment, but
unfortunately he's caught up in a committee hearing in Richmond. So
hopefully we'll get a chance to talk to him tomorrow on the politics
hour. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment