Marshall-Newman Amendment

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships
Marriage
Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden
Performed in some jurisdictions
Mexico: Mexico City United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, Coquille, Suquamish
Recognized, not performed
Aruba (Netherlands only) Curaçao (Netherlands only) Israel Mexico: all states (Mexico City only) Sint Maarten (Netherlands only) United States: CA (conditional), MD
Civil unions and registered partnerships
Andorra Austria Brazil Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Finland France - New Caledonia - Wallis and Futuna Germany Greenland Hungary Ireland Isle of Man Liechtenstein Luxembourg New Zealand Slovenia Switzerland United Kingdom Uruguay
Performed in some jurisdictions
Australia: ACT, NSW, TAS, VIC Mexico: COA United States: CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, ME, NJ, NV, OR, RI, WA, WI
Unregistered cohabitation
Australia Croatia Israel
Recognized in some jurisdictions
United States: MD
See also
Same-sex marriage Same-sex marriage legislation Timeline of same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe Marriage privatization Civil union Domestic partnership Listings by country
LGBT portal
v · d · e

The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage". ^[1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006^[2].

The text of the amendment states:

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 effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Criticism

The far-reaching nature of the Marshall-Newman Amendment intended to reinforce its Marriage Affirmation Act has attracted criticism. Writing in The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch argued that:

Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there.^[3]

The Virginia Attorney General has issued an opinion stating that the amendment does not change the legal status of documents such as contracts, wills, or Advanced Medical Directives between unmarried people.^[4]

While experts are divided on the exact impetus for the amendment, political commentators have suggested that it was placed on the ballot following confidential polling indicating that incumbent senator George Allen might not be successful in his bid to win re-election. Republican strategists may have hoped that the Marshall-Newman Amendment would turn out the socially conservative voter to not only pass a ban on gay marriage, but also re-elect Allen. Although the Marshall-Newman Amendment did pass, Allen's campaign self-destructed, following the so-called macaca controversy.

References

1. ^ Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Article I, Section 15-A, from "November 2006 Proposed Amendments", Virginia State Board of Elections. Accessed 30 December 2006.
2. ^ Official Results, 2006 election, Virginia State Board of Elections. Accessed 30 December 2006.
3. ^ "Virginia's New Jim Crow". Rauch, Jonathan. The Washington Post. Sunday, June 13, 2004. Accessed 13 January 2007.
4. ^ Op. Atty. Gen., Opinion No. 06-003 (Sept. 14, 2006), 2006 WL 4286442