Two issues intertwine next Tuesday
By Jerry Fuhrman
I don't want to take away from the rip-roaring, nail-biting campaign battle taking place between 9th District Congressman Rick Boucher and his opponent, Bill Somebody, or from the exciting contest going on in Roanoke where Bob Goodlatte is in a squeaker of a race against Practically Unopposed, but there are really only two issues of consequence worth serious consideration when we go to the polls next Tuesday, local property tax exemptions for redevelopment and rehabilitation not withstanding.
These two issues, as time goes by and as we learn more about one of the candidates, have inched closer and closer in implication to one another.
The first has to do with the marriage amendment. It's particularly disgracing that we have to state constitutionally the obvious to all those potential jurists out there of an activist persuasion who make a mockery of our laws and traditions:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
But deal with it we must. Liberals, who denounce conservatives for pushing social issues on a restless populace supposedly clamoring for governmental action on a host of economic and foreign policy issues, have pushed us into this.
The other ballot measure involves the race for U.S. Senate. In that contest, contender James Webb is trying to unseat Sen. George Allen. Now we all know Allen. At least we thought we did until we learned several months ago that he somehow had acquired a unique grasp of an obscure tribal language spoken only by a little-known nomadic tribe in Saharan North Africa so he could fling (almost) with impunity racial slurs at doofuses lurking in the crowds that turned out to hear him speak.
But we knew very little until recent days about his opponent, James Webb. He's anti-war; we've gotten that message over and over again. And we learned that he was a decorated Vietnam War hero. Unlike John Kerry, it appears he even earned his medals. Oh, and he was in the Reagan cabinet, before he cut and ran after less than a year. Beyond that, we knew very little.
Lately though, we did learn this: Webb opposes the marriage amendment. That's significant, but then Democrats (if you blinked you missed Webb switching parties) are generally opposed to the idea that "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage ... "
Then last week we learned something else about Webb. He's apparently written a number of novels in which he depicts in lurid (i.e., fierce and savage) detail the most disgusting and morally reprehensible sex acts being performed on children that I've ever read. The kind of language that will never appear, out of a sense of decency, on the pages of this newspaper. The sort of graphic, sexually deviant material that, if accompanied by photographs, would have landed Webb in prison and gotten you, if you owned a copy of one of his books, accused of possession of child pornography
A few days later, there was more shocking news (news to some newspaper editorial staffs anyway; this was predicted by a certain columnist months ago): The New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a ruling that overturned 200 years of precedent. Four activist judges -- four -- decreed that the state legislature there had just six months to write new laws either recognizing gay marriage or creating "civil unions" for gay couples.
New Jersey, it turns out, has no marriage amendment, so a small handful of jurists were able to force their liberal views on a powerless citizenry. The shockwaves still reverberate from Maine to California.
So, we go to the polls next week to decide two issues that are effectively intertwined. We have a candidate of exceedingly low moral character, one who opposes the marriage amendment, running for one of the highest offices in the land. And we have an amendment to our constitution available to us that prevents men and women of low moral character from tampering with the foundation of our most cherished laws. Ever.
Think it over. Vote.