Cato's David Boaz complains that the press is describing Virginia's Ballot Question 1, a constitutional amendment, as a "ban on gay marriage," when 1) gay marriage is already banned (by statute) in Virginia and 2) the initiative's language is so broad that it could be read to prohibit any employer policy, statutory right, or contractual arrangement that gives unmarried couples (gay or straight) "the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Nick Gillespie noted the potentially sweeping effects of the amendment last month. SurveyUSA numbers from mid-September indicated that supporters of the amendment outnumbered opponents by more than 2 to 1 among likely voters.
Partisans who abandon constitutional principles because they prove inconvenient are in for a rude surprise when the other team wins.
The president could form a sizable splinter party if he's serious, but GOP defectors would have major ballot-access issues. Might they take over a smaller party instead?
Their letter to Congress warns about inevitable abuses against religious and racial minorities.
Even as the district struggles to vaccinate seniors, it will soon allow half the city to get in line.