Augusta Free Press (H/T Ballot Access News):
Former Fifth District Congressman Virgil Goode blasted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “the father of homosexual marriages” in a statement released to the news media on the eve of Romney’s visit to Liberty University this weekend.
Goode, now running for president on the Constitution Party ticket, referred to Romney’s move as Massachusetts governor to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of a state-court ruling.
“Gov. Romney did not stand fast in favor of traditional marriage,” said Goode, who lost his Fifth District seat in 2008 to Democrat Tom Perriello.
Goode said he has been a “consistent supporter of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”
“At this point in our country’s history, we need a president who will stand firmly behind traditional marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am suspicious that Gov. Romney, if elected president, could waffle again,” Goode said.
The stakes, to Goode: “If homosexual marriages become normal across the country, the impact on states like Virginia, which prohibit gay marriage, will be huge. State taxpayers will have to pay for the expanded health insurance costs and State retirement costs. At the federal level, the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund and the Department of Defense will be significant when homosexual partners are granted the same monetary benefits that heterosexual married couples have under current Social Security law and provisions covering military spouses,” he said.
By way of contrast, Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson has criticized Obama and Romney as being insufficiently supportive of equal marriage rights for Gays and Lesbians, while likely Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein welcomes Obama’s new position on marriage equality.
Per wikipedia Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924”, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
Agreed on PA and VA. IL and CA are possible but less of a sure thing.
I expect Goode to be on the ballot in VA (largest vote-getting state by percentage, I predict), PA (second largest), IL and CA. But, we’ll see.
So, a prior court could have likewise said “appellants are not being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of their race; rather, they are being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of the recognized definition of that relationship as one that may be entered into only by two persons who are members of the same race”.
Likewise a prior court could have said “while X expanded the traditional scope of the fundamental right to marry by granting marriage partners the right to choose each other rather than be chosen by their parents, that decision was anchored to the concept of marriage as a union of persons of the same race”
here is no evidence, from legislative history or otherwise, that DOMA purpose is to discriminate against men or women as a class.
No, it’s to discriminate against gays and lesbians as a class. The analogy to Loving is IMO entirely appropriate.
From the wikipedia article cited in article above
In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that “the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender”.[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]
Loving vs Virginia does not apply and is not appropriate as a basis to argue for Gay marriage. The Maryland Supreme Court in the “gay marriage” case (Conway, et al. Deane, et al.) rejected the argument that analogy to Loving was appropriate. The court ruled, . . . This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there . . . was in substance anti-black legislation. We find the analogy to Loving inapposite. . . . There is no evidence, from legislative history or otherwise, that DOMA purpose is to discriminate against men or women as a class. . . . There is no analogous sexual classification involved in the instant case because appellants are not being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of their sex; rather, they are being denied entry into the marriage relationship because of the recognized definition of that relationship as one that may be entered into only by two persons who are members of the opposite sex.
Later on the court adds . . . The basis for the Supreme Court’s decision as to the interracial couples due process challenge was that marriage is one of the basic rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . while Loving expanded the traditional scope of the fundamental right to marry by granting interracial couples unrestricted access to state-sanctioned marriage institution, that decision was anchored to the concept of marriage as a union involving persons of the opposite sex.
Should gays have the right to marry. Sure, but do not use Loving as a basis to argue for it.
CA will only happen if they get the AIP line. TX will not happen unless there is a quick infusion of major cash; same for GA, TX, NC, IN and OK.
I agree the Goode is wise to carve himself a niche here, and I am happy that is a much different one than Johnson’s. I suspect the same will hold true of several other issues that both campaigns will emphasize heavily.
IL has a chance if there is no challenge. They can and gave gotten on with far less signatures than the statutory minimum, which is possible in IL if there is no signature challenge.
Wise move on Goode’s part. There is a large “niche” of voters that he can go after and it’s time to go after them.
Shame for his campaign if he doesn’t make the VA ballot. BA isn’t friendly to the CP which is in much better shape than most TPs, but when you have no chance @ TX, IL, and possibly CA you are up against it before you start ! Goode will have trouble topping Baldwin’s ’08 numbers because of Ballot Access troubles.
Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related
Why Vote Libertarian? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s18y0xkrXQ&feature=related
2012 Libertarian Presidential Promo – http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uabCi9OskqE&feature=endscreen
Virgil, stop trying to convince me to vote for Mitt Romney. 😉