Family And Life Votes

2006 Marriage Amendment Summary On January 13, 2006, the House of Delegates voted for the second time on a constitutional amendment to define traditional marriage (HJ41). This process included 3 separate votes. My voting record shows my support for limiting the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman (I voted for the first and second proposals below), without unnecessary interference with private contractual rights (I voted against the third proposal below). 

The first proposal would have removed all language in the amendment except the first clause, defining marriage as only a union between one man and one woman. This was defeated. Delegate Valentine voted, yes. The amendment would have read: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.” Defeated (35Y/62N). Valentine voted Yes.



The second proposal would have left all language in the amendment intact, and added a third clause, “Any other right, benefit, obligation, or legal status pertaining to persons not married is otherwise not altered or abridged by this section.” This was defeated. Delegate Valentine voted, yes. The amendment would have read: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. Any other right, benefit, obligation, or legal status pertaining to persons not married is otherwise not altered or abridged by this section.” Defeated (36Y/60N). Valentine voted Yes.



The final proposal left all language in the amendment without change from the version passed in 2005. This was approved. Delegate Valentine voted, no. The amendment read as follows: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” Approved (73Y/22N). Valentine voted No.