|
Gov.
Timothy M. Kaine has broken yet another campaign
pledge. Just days ago, he announced that he opposes
the proposed constitutional amendment establishing
the union between one man and one woman as the only
legitimate form of marriage in Virginia. Previously,
he had reneged on his promise not to raise taxes for
transportation without a constitutional amendment in
place that would assure that funds dedicated to
transportation would not be diverted to other
programs. He back-pedaled on his promise to support
legislation to give localities authority to deny
rezoning requests if adequate infrastructure were
not already in place to support new development.
In
a recent letter, Kaine said that he intended to vote
against the “marriage amendment” ballot measure
in November and urged Virginia voters to follow his
lead. In doing so, he contradicted unambiguous
statements of support for the ballot measure that he
made during his 2005 campaign. He now says he is
concerned about the language of the marriage
amendment.
Responding
to a candidate questionnaire from the Virginia
Catholic Conference last year, Kaine unequivocally
expressed his support for the inclusion in the
Virginia Constitution of the very language that
voters will see on this November’s referendum
ballot and language that he only recently found to
be troublesome. He also stated his support for the
ballot measure on marriage amendment in his response
to the candidate questionnaire from The Family
Foundation, adding: “I have long supported
Virginia law that declares marriage to be between a
man and a woman, and I support a Constitutional
amendment.”
Kaine’s
campaign website echoed that position. On it he
stated: “I believe that marriage is between a man
and a woman and that marriage is a uniquely valuable
institution that must be preserved.”
His
change in position became known when he refused to
sign legislation putting the proposed marriage
amendment on the ballot. In a statement issued at
the time, he said: “I am concerned that the broad
wording of the proposed constitutional amendment
goes much further than that, threatening the
constitutional rights of individuals to enter into
private contracts, and also threatening the
discretion of employers to extend certain benefits,
such as health care coverage, to unmarried
couples.”
If
indeed this is Kaine’s concern, he is too good a
lawyer not to have been concerned long before the
2005 gubernatorial campaign. An amendment to the
Virginia Constitution can be put to a voter
referendum only if it is enacted with precisely the
same language at two sessions of the General
Assembly with an intervening election of Delegates.
The
two questionnaires specifically referenced the
actual language of the proposed constitutional
amendment. That language had been the subject of
debate at the 2005 session during which the very
issues Kaine now raises were thoroughly explored
while he was presiding over the State Senate.
The
same opposition based on the prospect of intended
consequences was heard when the General Assembly
enacted legislation in 2004 prohibiting civil unions
between persons of the same sex. It is noteworthy
that Kaine, the experienced civil rights lawyer, has
never suggested language that would cure the
problems he now raises.
When
confronted with Kaine’s statements of support for
the ballot measure in 2005 candidate questionnaires,
his spokesman said the question “was designed to
play gotcha.” But it was Kaine, not the two
organizations posing questions to candidates, who
played games. And now Kaine has been caught for a
third time either lying to the voters or callously
ignoring his campaign pledges.
–
April 17, 2006
|
