By Chris Tucker '08
News Editor

On November 7 of this year, Virginia voters will decide whether an amendment should be added to the state constitution that will define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, which, if passed, would effectively guarantee that same-sex marriage would never be allowed in the Commonwealth.

Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Manassas), co-sponsor of the proposed Marshall-Newman Amendment, and Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, debated the issue October 5 in Caplin Pavilion. The event was sponsored by the Virginia Law School Chapter of the American Constitution Society and the UVA Chapter of the ACLU.

The debate, conducted in a modified Lincoln-Douglas format, was moderated by Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor and writer for the online magazine Slate. Lithwick began the debate by reading the proposed amendment aloud. Marshall and Wolfson were then each given seven minutes to present their arguments for and against the amendment.

Delegate Marshall began the debate by discussing the definition of marriage, how the term is not adequately defined, and how his legislation would remedy the current situation. He went on to discuss the social ramifications of same-sex marriage and how they affect the society of the commonwealth.

Wolfson spoke next and illustrated his argument by discussing the thousands of same-sex couples currently residing in the commonwealth of Virginia. He explained that in most cases they are living similarly to heterosexual couples, but without the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

After the opening statements, the debaters were given the opportunity to give rebuttals and cross-examine each other. Much of this section of the debate was dominated by discussions over possible ramifications of the November 7 vote.

Wolfson argued that marriage licenses are not a limited commodity, and therefore allowing same-sex partners to marry will not negatively affect heterosexual couples. He said people will go on living their lives and same-sex couples will be benefited without injuring anyone else.

Marshall countered by arguing that if same-sex marriage were to be allowed it would open the door for other alternative lifestyle individuals to seek marriage rights, alluding to polygamists who have begun to use arguments similar to those currently being used by same-sex couples.

The debate concluded with a question-and-answer session, during which the issue of civil unions was first brought into the discussion.

Marshall’s opinion on the topic was already clear, as the text of his amendment precludes the possibility of any such arrangement. Wolfson explained that he would rather have civil unions than the situation as it is now, but that he thought they would be inadequate to fully benefit same-sex couples.

Though there were rumors of planned protests and disruptions, the only incident during the controversial debate was a silent protest by two students who stood and turned their backs during Delegate Marshall’s opening statements. Wolfson, the obvious favorite of the crowd in attendance, did not suffer any disruptions while speaking.