South of the James

With Election Day just a week away, the showdown over the Marshall-Newman amendment will come to a fitting conclusion, ending the latest installment in the so-called Culture Wars. As I’ve been against this amendment from the outset, there is not much that I can objectively add to the debate in the blogosphere. My friend Vivian Paige has been an eloquent and persistent spokesperson against this amendment, as have a number of other bloggers who have come  at it from various sides. The Commonwealth Coalition has vigorously pursued every possible angle as to why this amendment will put real people’s livelihoods put at risk, carrying the messages throughout Virginia. I echo their thoughts and opinions.

Any intellectually honest person can see that this amendment stands to generate plenty of collateral damage due to the “pro-marriage” lobby’s sloppily-worded bid to enshrine discrimination in the constitution. Even die-hard conservatives like the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial board have come down against this thing. For any remaining undecided voters, particularly those who were taken aback after reading the full breadth of the amendment’s language, I ask that you think long and hard about the effects of this amendment. If you so choose, you have the power to stop it from becoming the law of the land. At the very least, consider all the sides, look at every possibility, search your heart and soul, and then vote as your conscience dictates.

 

On November 7, I will be voting “No” to this amendment because it is the right, decent, and fair thing to do. I hope that my fellow Virginians will join me on the right side of history and do likewise.

Things are coming down to the wire for candidates across the country. Closer to home, the race to fill the remaining term of the Midlothian seat on the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is entering the backstretch. The race was made even more interesting with the news that Metro Richmond’s daily newspaper – the venerable Richmond Times-Dispatch – chose to endorse Democrat Dan Gecker over his Republican opponent, Don Sowder for the seat. Touting Gecker’s “perspective and intellect,” the editorial page of the noted conservative outlet defied its historic practice. The editorial writers explained this rare choice to support a Democrat over a Republican in a competitive election saying,

“Ed Barber’s disgrace created a vacancy in the Midlothian seat on the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors. In July, Terri Cofer Beirne was appointed to an interim term lasting until the special magisterial election that coincides with the November 7 general election. The campaign has attracted two capable candidates — Republican Don Sowder and Democrat Dan Gecker. Although both would serve with diligence, Gecker receives our nod.

A veteran of the Planning Commission and numerous community organizations and boards, Gecker asks questions that go several steps beyond the obvious and the clichéd. For instance, Gecker understands that proffers and similar policies affect not only housing costs but development patterns. He also knows that while economic-development projects often generate growth and new revenues, they have the potential merely to redirect existing dollars. When the latter occurs, the benefits of a specific project may not be so generous as advertised. A flourishing new commercial center can contribute to decline elsewhere.

We would not always agree with Gecker’s votes, but believe Chesterfield’s Board would benefit from his perspective and intellect.

Republican Encourages Voters to Support Gecker  
In addition to support by the venerable conservative paper, the Gecker campaign has picked up quite a few supporters who would normally vote Republican. Voters in that district seem to be looking past purely partisan labels in search of a candidate whom they feel will do the best job as supervisor. As the Sowder campaign has defaulted to endorsements from GOP officials and platitudes and remains short on governance specifics, Gecker has gone in the opposite direction, giving citizens a clear sense of the types of policy approaches he would explore once on the Board of Supervisors.

This approach has drawn Republican-leaning voters to support Gecker’s campaign. One such voter, a small business owner and mother of three named Stephanie Anderson, is setting aside her normal partisan preferences this time around. Anderson has quite a bit to say about why she is going with Gecker over Sowder.

“As a resident of Bon Air for 25 years, homeowner, small-business owner, and mother of three children who attend Chesterfield County Public Schools, I am deeply concerned about the direction of the Midlothian District. My voting history is typically Republican, but at this local level, I am more concerned about the issues that directly affect me and my family.  

I am concerned about the future of the Cloverleaf Mall area, which desperately needs to be revitalized. I am concerned about the area around Chesterfield Towne Center. It needs to be protected from decline. I am concerned about our existing schools. Many are showing their age and need to be renovated. I am concerned about the trend of unbridled growth in the western part of the district. 

Mr. Sowder seems like a nice man with a lot of friends and supporters who are Republican officials. However, their endorsements worry me. As we all know, a leader must do what’s best for the future of the community. I fear that Mr. Sowder will be influenced by rich developers and his friends in county government to continue the pattern of irresponsible leadership that is just not working for us. 

Dan Gecker believes in planning over politics. As the Midlothian Planning Commissioner, he makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors but is not able to set policy. If elected to be our supervisor, he will be in the position to make the changes we need to improve Midlothian. Dan is a successful businessman who founded and manages a multi-million dollar company. He knows how to solve problems and get things done. And most important of all, he understands the issues of the Midlothian District thoroughly. Dan is ready to hit the ground running. Mr. Sowder’s work experience and background pale in comparison. The last thing we need at this critical juncture is a supervisor with a steep learning curve. 

I support Dan Gecker for Midlothian Supervisor because I have never known a candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is so qualified for the job. I urge everyone in the Midlothian District to find out more about Dan by visiting his Web site (www.gecker2006.org). Once you know the facts, you will feel as confident about your vote as I do.”  

Even though this is a special election, it holds significant symbolic and substantive value for both Midlothian and Chesterfield County at-large. The outcome could be a harbinger of things to come in 2007, when the entire Board of Supervisors is up for election. How this election plays out will affect both the policymaking and political environment of the county for the next year and beyond. The status quo appeals to fewer and fewer people and the drumbeats of change are growing louder. This time around, the choices could not be more divergent – a policy leader (Gecker) versus a placeholder (Sowder).

For those Midlothian residents who want Chesterfield to remain a “First Choice” community, Dan Gecker should be their first choice for sound planning and growth management as opposed to special interest-driven, agenda-laden politics. With Election Day just around the corner, support from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and Republican voters like Stephanie Anderson is a clear indication of Gecker’s superiority as a candidate. On November 7, Midlothian residents will have one definitive mechanism for sending a message to the powers-that-be and their fellow county residents that business as usual just won’t cut it any more – they can vote for Dan Gecker.

For years, Chesterfield has been a GOP-dominated province, with Republicans controlling much of the county’s government with Democratic participation at the margins. However, demographic shifts and emerging political trends could provide the window necessary to loosen the Republican stranglehold on government and politics in Virginia’s 4th largest locality in coming years. Amidst the hotly-contested 2006 election, several leading members of the county’s Democratic Committee saw a number of their letters published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, another indication that Democrats are alive and kicking south of the River. Writing about the on-going scandal involving disgraced Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley, on October 14,long-time activist Majorie M. Clark, chair of the 7^th District Democratic Committee was quoted as saying,

“As concern mounts over Congressman Mark Foley’s inappropriate contacts with pages, the voters and families in Virginia’s 7th District ask, ‘What did Congressman Eric Cantor know and when did he know it?’ As chief deputy whip for Republicans in the House, Cantor must surely have had significant contact with the other deputies, including Foley. And he must have had some knowledge of their activities. If in 1995, male pages in the House of Representatives were warned to steer clear of Foley, it is especially unconscionable that several years later a chief deputy, with a page serving from his own district, would have been blind to this situation.

This is a lose-lose issue: either our congressman knew about Foley’s inappropriate actions and did nothing, or he was so unaware of a close colleague and co-deputy as to have been negligent in his position of leadership. Apparently honorable men can be tainted by the culture of corruption now pervasive in the Republican Party — one smudge at a time. In the 7th District, we have had enough. It is time for Cantor to go and for challenger Jim Nachman to be elected to represent us in Congress.”

On October 18, 2006, Debby Burroughs, 1^stVice Chair of CCDC and an active Webb campaign volunteer, provided a retort to Allen campaign ads that attacked Jim Webb’s stances on women’s issues, saying,

“I hope the women of Virginia realize how they are being used as political pawns by George Allen as he struggles to find some reason voters should re-elect him. In a two minute infomercial, Allen vowed to return the campaign to the issues and get away from the revelations and claims about his racist comments and actions over the past 25 years. Yet two days later, he aired another dark and foreboding ad featuring a woman who claims she was hurt by comments Jim Webb made 30 years ago.

It’s revealing that she cannot back up any of her claims, and was never even mentioned in the article Webb wrote. Reporters who wrote about this latest ad debunked it after doing a little research. Allen has nothing else to run on — no issues, no solutions, and no significant bills or actions during his term representing Virginia. Allen is hoping women will take his ads at face value and not question them. It is an insult to me and to women all over this state that he thinks we are so stupid.”

Finally, on October 21, Louise Mann, CCDC’s spirited secretary, took on Sen. Allen’s fast-and-loose plays on Jim Webb’s stance on federal tax policy asserting that,

“In the televised debate between our two main Senate candidates, George Allen insisted that Jim Webb wants to raise taxes on all Virginians. Webb very clearly stated that he has no thoughts of raising taxes and in particular would like additional tax cuts aimed at middle class families. The truth about Webb’s tax plan is exactly the opposite of Allen’s claim.

Allen has asked us to believe him when he tells us he would not make racist remarks and that he made up a word that really exists, yet he continues to tell us falsehoods about his opponent. If he wants us to trust his word, then he should tell us the truth about his own plans for our future and not push lies. The truth is, Webb’s tax cuts would be aimed at the struggling middle class — the people who inspired Webb to be in this race.”

The rise of Democratic voices in Chesterfield comes against the backdrop of a very competitive and interesting political season. Democrats are vigorously supporting Dan Gecker’s bid to serve out the remaining term for the Midlothian District supervisor seat, are helping Jim Nachman’s grassroots campaign to unseat Eric Cantor, and are working hard to send Sen. Allen into new employment come January. Additionally, county Republicans seem somewhat divided after months of internal jockeying for committee positions and past/future electoral nominations. Additionally, there appears to be an emerging divide among the GOP-dominated Board of Supervisors and their Republican brethren in the county’s General Assembly delegation over issues like transportation and taxation. Add to that the emergence of independent-minded citizen’s organizations willing to challenge the status quo, and the future could look a bit bluer for Chesterfield Republicans on several fronts.

Whether a perfect storm is on the horizon that will bring a sea change in Chesterfield government & politics remains to be seen. Regardless of whether this translates into greater Democratic victories or not, the dilution in GOP strength may bring a bit of purple rain to town. For Democrats, that should be just fine…for now. 

Jumping aboard the bullet-fast Virginia blog train, Phyllis Randall offers up her entry, called A Moderate Voice. With a tagline as “The place where people from all political affiliations can discuss, learn, and laugh,” Randall describes her ideology by saying that, “Conservatives call me liberal, liberals call me conservative; depending on the issue, either characterization could be correct,”  

A political consultant and activist who resides in Loudoun County, Phyllis is a Christian from a military family and pro-military moderate-to-conservative Democrat. A graduate of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, she asserts that, “I did not choose politics it chose me; it is the passion God has placed in my heart. For me, being actively involved in our political system is not merely my choice, it is my responsibility.” 

Appealing to that vast silent center that comprises the swing vote come election time, Phyllis believes that “the majority of Americans believe as I do; that usually no one party or one politician is all good or all bad. However, often rational, moderate voices are crowed out, while the vocal minority sets policy and creates legislation. This blog is my effort to let moderate voices rise to the top; and to discuss, educate and enjoy.” Her blog is not limited to Virginia local and state affairs, as her initial posts have touched on Barack Obama, the Iraq War, the Darfur crisis, and the on-going tension between evangelical Christians and the GOP. 

Having met Phyllis at a recent Sorensen event, I definitely can attest to her graciousness, thoughtfulness and energy. In joining the fray, she also becomes the Commonwealth’s third discernable African-American blogger covering Virginia politics and the first from the northern part of Virginia. This is definitely a plus for both Vivian Paige and me as we try to encourage (and hopefully inspire) more and more black Virginians to set up shop in the blogosphere.  

Let’s all give Phyllis and her Moderate Voice a warm welcome!  

By Conaway B. Haskins III

This was originally published by Bacon’s Rebellion on October 23, 2006.

As the 2006 political season comes to a head, journalists are becoming more hostile to bloggers who invade their space.

---

 

The on-again, off-again, love-hate relationship between Virginia’s mainstream media and the Commonwealth’s political blogosphere continues to heat up as Election Day approaches.

 

Prior to this election, the traditional press seemed to regard blogs as quirky by-products of cynical rock-throwers or over-eager grassroots activists. Once the Webb campaign won the Democratic primary, traditional journalists became more fascinated with bloggers. They ran feature stories in their papers and provided access for some bloggers to ply their trade in op-ed pages. A number of notable journalists from larger news outlets participated in the Charlottesville and Martinsville blogging confabs.

 

Now, in the post-macaca world, traditional journalists have turned on the blogosphere, using their ink to step up attacks on what they see as irresponsible purveyors of the citizen media.

 

Two recent incidents illustrate this newer phenomenon. The editorial pages of two of the Commonwealth’s venerable newspapers – the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Virginian-Pilot – berated bloggers essentially for contributing to the overall decline in civility in Virginia’s political discourse.

 

In a Sunday edition a few weeks back, the Times-Dispatch editorial page lashed out at bloggers – and those who enable them – for cheapening the 2006 election season. Apparently, the good folks whose op-ed pages provided a forum for Massive Resistance in the 1950’s and 1960’s, antagonized Richmond’s growing black political leadership, and gave intellectual cover to the Republican realignment in the 1980’s and 1990’s, have come to the conclusion that bloggers and blog aficionados upset the preferred gentility of the Senate race. It was as if the Times-Dispatch’s interpretation of what the real “issues” should be were the only appropriate subjects for discussion. The Times-Dispatch editorialists, despite joining the fray with their own blogs, even felt it necessary to tell bloggers to “grow up.”

 

Around a month later, the Virginian-Pilot, the Times- Dispatch’s competitor in the race for second place behind the Washington Post’s Virginia bureaus, went after the Bearing Drift blog for posts about Phil Kellam, the Democratic candidate in the 2nd congressional district. In that case, the Pilot singled out the blog for its “dubious facts and wild opinions.” In this instance, the Pilot employed a cleverer device than its Richmond rival – revealing some of its own checkered past and controversies as illustrations of what not to write – to deliver a paternalistic spanking to Jim Hoeft & Co. The Pilot equated blogging and bloggers with the early days of American yellow journalism, expressing sentiments in print that Virginia bloggers have known for quite some time. The Tidewater daily’s editorial dripped with condescension, indicating that bloggers are still “learning” their lessons. It should be noted that the editorial writer in question later joined the Bearing Drift crew for a podcast, graciously taking his lumps from aggrieved bloggers.

 

Dumping the ills of the brutal 2006 political season in the lap of blog writers is convenient cover for the emerging reality of public life in Virginia. Unencumbered by the quaint rules of journalistic ethics, bloggers as participant- observers in the political process have trumped the MSM as sources for intriguing news stories and interesting opinions. Those who lambaste the dirt-digging of bloggers should be asking why all of these allegations and, in some cases, facts have just now come to light. None of the men and woman who have been run through the blog wringers is new to public life. They have all served in electoral or appointed positions subject to public and media scrutiny. In some instances, the incidents in question – alleged racism and sexism, unique ethnic heritage, assault charges, questionable financial disclosures, etc. – were open secrets and part of the public record. At the very least, the issues would have been discernible with some gumshoe sleuthing by traditional journalists.

 

Furthermore, the charges against bloggers seem trumped up given that the MSM has seen fit to investigate so-called character issues in the past. During the last few decades, notable public figures have been subjected to media inquiries about massages, drug usage, helicopter rides, wire-taps, and sexual harassment to name a few. Despite the irrelevance of these issues to the day-to-day governance of the Commonwealth, the journalism crowd still covered these matters. Yet, when bloggers probed character issues this campaign season, they somehow violated standards of decency that exist in the ether of Virginia’s democracy.

 

However noble their intentions in covering the eyes and ears of the virginal citizenry, the traditional press never saw fit to bring much of this information into the marketplace of ideas until the tin-foil wearing peasants with digital pitchforks showed up to crash the gates the of Virginia’s genteel, but not-so-gentle, political castles, loudly shouting what political insiders have whispered for years.

 

As bloggers challenge MSM opinion-makers and pundits, newspapers like the Times-Dispatch and Pilot face the prospect of watching technologically savvy and well-educated citizens provide analysis and commentary rivaling or even exceeding the abilities of their conventional journalists. In contemporary Virginia, ivory-tower media types are no longer the sole source of emerging political thought or leaks; bloggers have joined the hit parade with a vengeance, posing a unique threat to the very livelihoods of MSM opinion mavens. The breaking of the MSM monopoly could well precipitate a long-term shift in the state’s public affairs media business similar to the transformation that “reality” programming has sparked in the realm of television sitcoms and dramas.

 

With pesky bloggers nipping at the heels of the big boys, it should surprise no one that the newspapers would fight back. The irony is that their attacks are aimed at a dedicated segment of their readership: Bloggers are leading consumers of journalism work product.

 

Still, Virginia’s citizen media need not worry much about their bigger siblings in the house of political communications. Although the pointed words do sting, as long as the Mainstream Media does not throw actual sticks and stones, bloggers will not feel much hurt. Well, not too much.

By Stella Y. Edwards

Secretary, Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield

Executive Committee, Virginia PTA

I found the Chesterfield Candidates Forum very informative and well received by those in attendance. Each of the five candidates was present, seemingly well-informed, prepared to engage citizens, and quite neighborly. It may be unprecedented to have such a large number of citizens willing to step up to the plate and campaign for the honor of serving their community in an elected leadership position. Because of the Candidates Forum, the citizens of the Dale District are in a better position to elect the best person to represent them on the county school board.

Those citizens who were torn between attending the Chesterfield Candidates Forum and attending a meeting to reveal the plans for building a new Meadowdale Library, were placed at a terrible disadvantage and missed a fundamental opportunity to take part in the process of making democracy work in their district, and ultimately, in the county. Coordinators for that library-focused meeting might have asked:

How often do we have a special election? How often does any local government have five citizens running for one position? Might we attempt to co-locate the meetings as to provide the best opportunity for all the Dale District residents?

A recommendation made by one citizen via email to Board of Supervisors Vice Chairman Kelly Miller (R-Dale) received no response. These are just a sampling of questions that should not have been ignored if the current leaders of the Dale District were primarily interested in having well-informed citizens as we prepare for the November 7 election, as well as, providing a question and answer session on the new library.

I am grateful for the work of the Chesterfield Candidates Forum and its community organization co-sponsors – Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield, Chesterfield County Council of PTAs/PSAs, Meadowbrook Community Council and the Chesterfield Chamber of Commence. Democracy only works when citizens are informed engaged and committed as team members in leading the community. Chesterfield County residents now have the power to meet the challenge of beginning the process of creating the best local government in the country, beginning on November 7, 2006 and completing the process on November 2007. To schedule Forums for 2007, email us at chesterfieldcandidatesforum@comcast.net

It’s no secret that I supported Jim Webb during his Democratic primary campaign against Harris Miller. I was fully aware that his stances on affirmative action, as well as, the heated rhetoric of his writings would cause major problems among orthodox Democrats as he headed into the June contest. The primary results demonstrated this. Given the effectiveness of the Miller campaign in exploiting this issue, the Allen campaign had to take that ball and run with it, otherwise they’d have failed Politics 101.

Having recently re-joined the Democratic Party, I am well aware of the perception that the Party takes African Americans for granted. I hear it in churches, barbershops, via e-mails, and at family gatherings. Although no one can quite put their finger on it, something is amiss and that perception shapes people’s outlooks. Amidst the cacophony, the actual facts are sometimes cast aside, especially as people jockey for position and attention.

Historically, the powers-that-be in the Virginia Democratic Party were not always open to black political advancement. The history of the Byrd Organization is well-documented, and its remnants stuck with the Party into the 1980’s and early 1990’s. But anyone who thinks of the Democratic Party as static has been asleep for quite some time. In the 21^st-century Democratic Party of Virginia, former Gov. Mark Warner remains very popular among African-Americans, Gov. Tim Kaine’s reputation in the black community exceeds Warner’s, and blacks play a number of critical roles from the grassroots to the top echelons of leadership.

Currently, blacks make up around 30% of the Democratic Caucuses in both the Virginia House of Delegates (12 of 40) and Virginia Senate (5 of 17). Should Democrats take over either chamber, it can be expected that a number of committee and subcommittee chairmanships would go to African Americans. When Virginia’s Democratic Congressional delegation convenes, one of the three (33%) representatives is African-American. These proportions are mostly in line with the black proportion of the Democratic Party vote, and they exceed the overall black percentage of Virginia’s total population (18%).

While things may not be peachy keen with Democrats and African-Americans in certain communities, from a statistical standpoint, Democrats have done a decent job in bringing African-Americans to the table of power in the Party. By no means does is this meant to imply that everything is just swell, and while things can surely be even better, to act as of blacks are second-class citizens in the Democratic Party is just plain dishonest…especially when compared to the Republicans.

Virginia’s Republican Party truly has a spotty record of actually producing black officeholders or leaders of prominence at the state level. Currently, there are no black Republicans in the General Assembly – it’s been awhile since Paul Harris and Winsome Sears roamed Capitol Square – or in the Congressional delegation. Republicans have not recently nominated African-Americans for notable political positions in Virginia, despite the presence of a handful of black Republican elected officials at the municipal level.

The decision by a number of black political, civic, religious, and media leaders to endorse Sen. Allen is not surprising because black Virginians tend to support the GOP in stronger numbers than blacks nationally. Still, one has to wonder what the result will be in terms of blacks rising to power within the Republican Party and reaching elected office under the GOP label. While, the overall growth in the attraction of blacks to the ideas and issues of the Republican Party and the increasing courtship of those African-American voters by the GOP are real phenomena that Democrats cannot ignore, intellectual honesty demands asking what blacks have gained from any of this.

Just to re-cap: One party gets 85% of the black vote and blacks are 30% of its elected officials. The other party gets 15% (some say 20%) of the black vote, and blacks are 0% of its notable elected officials. That’s fuzzy math if I ever saw it.

I firmly believe that the diversification of black political affiliation is good for African Americans and the overall racial dynamics of Virginia and American politics in the long run, even as it causes difficulties for my Party. On the other hand, the Republican Party of Virginia has very little to show for all of its talk. So, while I welcome the competition for the political attention of African Americans, I challenge the Republican Party to go beyond their racially-uplifting rhetoric and produce real results.

After being invited to debate by Dan Gecker’s campaign, and even with the Chesterfield Observer calling for one on several occasions, the campaign of Republican candidate Don Sowder is openly refusing to debate. Whereas as Gecker stated, “Tell me where and when and I’ll show up,” in last week’s Observer, Sowder stated, “I’m not interested in a debate.” He explained his reluctance by noting, “I have two or three functions every night, and I’m choosing the best way to get my message out. Dan is well-known throughout the community, and I have to choose my way of communicating.”

At least he was honest.

Thus far, the Sowder campaign’s theme seems to be, “I like business, but I have no new ideas. Henrico has nice malls, and my opponent is more qualified. But, I’m a Republican, so vote for me!”

In looking at his campaign website and reading his statements to the local media, Sowder seems to rely on soundbites and endorsements from GOP heavies, not shedding much daylight on the kinds of policies he’d advance once in office. Dan Gecker has chosen a more policy-based strategy, taking stands on key issues and showcasing bipartisan community endorsements.

Could the two men’s contrasting approaches give insight into how each would spend his respective year in office shaping the future of Midlothian and Chesterfield County?

In the absence of a debate, voters can see the two men at an early-morning joint meeting of the Chesterfield Business Council and Western Chesterfield Business Alliance on Tuesday, October 17. Unfortunately, as the questions were compiled and sent to the candidates beforehand, and there will be no audience participation.

In the end, Midlothian seems to have a clear choice between a placeholder (Sowder) or a policy leader (Gecker).

By Viola Osborne Baskerville, Conaway Haskins, J. M. “Jackie” Jackson, “Mac” Pence and Allison Weinstein

Members of the Citizens Advisory Council, The Commonwealth Coalition

www.voteNOva.org

What do Libertarians, Green Party members, limited government Republicans, Democrats, the League of Women Voters of Virginia, business owners and executives, Equality Virginia and faith communities from across Virginia have in common?

They are, like us, all members of The Commonwealth Coalition, a diverse group of individuals, businesses, and civic, community and religious organizations that have joined together to oppose the Marshall/Newman amendment to the Virginia bill of rights that will be Ballot Question #1 on November 7, 2006. You can find a complete list of The Coalition’s member organizations on its website www.voteNOva.org. As the Virginian Pilot said, we are “hardly a wild-eyed bunch.”

There are three key reasons driving The Coalition’s opposition to Ballot Question #1 and our personal decisions to vote NO on November 7^th.

First, the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment goes too far. The proposed amendment bans all “legal recognition” of relationships between “unmarried individuals” (gay and straight) making agreements between unmarried couples for end of life and medical decisions, guardianship of children and ownership and transfer of property unenforceable.

Second, the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment writes discrimination into our Virginia constitution. The Virginia bill of rights was written by George Mason to protect the inalienable rights of individuals against the government. This amendment would take rights away from all “unmarried individuals.”

Third, the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment unnecessarily intrudes the government into our homes and private lives. Virginia law very clearly defines marriage and has prohibited same-sex marriage for more than 30 years. This proposed amendment makes a radical change in Virginia law by banning all legal recognition of unmarried relationships, gay or straight, young or old.

Some lawyers (including Virginia’s current Attorney General) will tell you that these concerns are not valid; other lawyers (including a non-partisan group or more than 150 lawyers including two former Virginia Attorneys General and a former Republican candidate for Attorney General and Governor) will tell you that the amendment has significant and serious consequences for all unmarried Virginians.

Only one thing’s for sure when you have dueling legal opinions — we’ll be opening a Pandora’s Box of lawsuits by adding this ill-considered proposal with its far-reaching, and largely unpredictable, consequences to our constitution.

Voters need to know before they vote why they are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that carries such unpredictable legal risks, substantially changes Virginia law by writing discrimination into Virginia’s bill of rights and negatively impacts every unmarried Virginian by limiting their rights to make contracts regarding property, guardianship of children and even medical decisions.

Since those advocating for the amendment don’t have an answer to that question, we urge voters to simply follow their common sense and the advice of conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson to “leave constitutions alone.” Join us in voting NO on Ballot Question #1 on November 7^th.

The Home Building Association of Richmond has joined the vibrant Virginia blogosphere with their entry, Growth is Good. For an industry whose name is often prefaced by derivatives of the word “greed,” the title is full of sassy irony. At any rate, this blog promises to be both a marketplace of ideas for public policy and a marketplace of information for potential clients of HBAR members. So far, there aren’t a ton of business and industry blogs in the Commonwealth, and it will be very interesting to watch this group operate.

Some early posts include such subjects as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), trends in housing starts, and housing affordability. With vigorous chief lobbyist Tyler Craddock at the helm, HBAR is sure to stir things up a little bit on the public policy front. I’ve had the distinct pleasure of speaking in favor of a local planning decision in Chesterfield that this group opposed, and many of us have haggled with individual HBAR members over the price of granite countertops, tiled showers, and breakfast nooks. Developers drive a hard bargain, but they typically do so while smiling. They play the political game as well as anyone, and wannabe operatives should take notes.

If we’re lucky, we may even see a little Growth is Good v. Bacon’s Rebellion action going on in the battle over human settlement patterns. At the very least, bloggers will be to see one of the Commonwealth’s most politically and financially muscular industries in action.

Let’s give them are hearty welcome!