What Would Jefferson Say About the Marriage Amendment?
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION
IS AN AFFRONT TO VIRGINIA AND ITS HISTORY
An amendment to the Virginia Constitution has been proposed (and passed by the General Assembly last session) which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman but more significantly bar the Commonwealth, local governments, private enterprises and even religious institutions from recognizing or sanctioning a relationship between two persons of the same gender. The proponents of this amendment and similar measures which have already been enacted into law do not hide or deny that fact that these measures are founded in and based on their religious beliefs. This forthrightness is to be applauded and underscores that such actions and the resultant disparate treatment of citizens’ personal, business and religious relationships would not be tolerated under law in any other circumstance. The animus, bigotry and discrimination explicit in the published arguments of many supporters are hidden behind the mantle of religion. It is also of concern that many elected officials who voted for the amendment in the last General Assembly session were unaware of the breadth of its reach and interference with business and personal freedoms, contrary to conservative principles.
It is especially alarming that this religious based amendment effort is being undertaken in Virginia which, under the sponsorship of two of its founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (primary author of the U. S. Constitution), adopted in 1786 the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which remains today largely intact as part of the Virginia Constitution (Article I, Section 16). That seminal document became the basis for the amendment to the U. S. Constitution (the First Amendment as it happened) which established freedom of religion for the entire country. Specifically, the Statute stated “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” That 1786 General Assembly ended the Statute with the words “we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.” With those words, Jefferson and Madison argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state and vice versa. Critically, the Statute guaranteed freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. Further, in addition to infringing on the natural rights of mankind as asserted by the 1786 General Assembly, the proposed amendment will seriously change the meaning of and diminish the protections of Article I, Sections 11 and 16 of the current Virginia Constitution. No interpretation of the proposed amendment can save it from altering hundreds of years of Virginia policy and history as well as desecrating the memories of some of the Commonwealth’s most honored and respected statesmen.
There is much rhetoric about the ideas espoused in the amendment emanating from the “conservative” wing of the Republican Party. While the proponents of the amendment try to define themselves as conservative in the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan, they clearly do not understand (or choose conveniently to ignore) the philosophy of these fathers of the modern Republican Party and, most importantly, the meaning of conservative. Call these zealots what you will but certainly not conservative.
Where are the real conservatives who truly believe in individual freedom and less government? Why has there not been an outcry from the conservative media and Republican elected officials that those espousing this amendment are advocating using government power to impose their moral and religious beliefs on others much like the liberals of the sixties did with their Great Society programs?
Where are the Virginians who honor our tradition, history and place in the birth of the nation who will fight the proponents of this amendment, which on its face forces certain religious beliefs of a vocal minority on the populace as a whole and on other religious institutions which do not hold the same beliefs? Not even the most zealous proponents of same gender marriage argue that their position should be forced upon religious organizations but, to the contrary, argue that civil or government rights and privileges should be accorded without discrimination. Religion can discriminate ---government should not.
Such an amendment as the Assembly has before it again this year has no place in the Virginia Constitution (or, as many true conservatives have pointed out, in the U.S. Constitution) and its enactment would place a severe limitation on the liberty so many colonists sought when they fled the religious persecution of Europe to find freedom in what is now the United States of America. Have we forgotten the plights of the Pilgrims, the Puritans and the Huguenots, among others, who were persecuted because their religious beliefs were not those of the majority? Are we to stand by while Virginia moves toward modern day religious persecution of some of its citizens? Are we to require discrimination against one class of citizens who do not share the religious philosophy of another class of citizens? We can hope that instead the Commonwealth will take its rightful place, as it did in colonial times, as a leader of the nation and reject this amendment. Yes, Virginia, it is time once again to honor the pledge made when the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom was enacted and to stand up for the natural rights of mankind and to reject these current attempts to repeal or narrow those rights.
Eugene M. Lawson, Jr.
Mr. Lawson is a native of Richmond and an attorney and small business owner living in McLean. He has been active in Republican politics since 1964 when he worked on the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater and the congressional campaign of Dick Obenshain. He can be reached at
The Only Question That Matters:Do People Choose Their Sexual Orientation?
Noted author Chandler Burr has written a new white paper for the Liberty Education Fourm. Burr's white paper clearly demonstrates that we already know the answer to this question--people don't choose their sexual orientation. This has important political implications and it's a powerfull tool for achieving equality.
Barry Goldwater, speaking in 1981: "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that, if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, or D . . . .I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate."
Membership
Join Virginia Log Cabin and help us build a broader party!
