Supervisors asked to deliver ultimatum to attorney general

Resolution asks Herring to defend sanctity of marriage or vacate his office

Update Feb. 3

Supervisors decline to threaten attorney general over same-sex marriage decision.

At the request of Jackson district supervisor Ron Frazier, the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors will consider a resolution at their monthly meeting Monday afternoon (Feb. 3) asking that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring step down in lieu of his recent decision finding the “natural marriage” amendment to Virginia’s constitution to be indefensible.

The resolution the supervisors will consider reads, in part, that “natural marriage has since time immemorial been a tradition and custom of the People of Virginia, and is the basic building block of society, pre-dating the establishment,” and urges Herring to “fulfill his duties to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia or vacate the office.”

“In an unprecedented act . . . [Herring] announced that he has determined that an amendment enshrining natural marriage within the Constitution of Virginia — as it has forever been defined in the history of Western Civilization, Great Britain and the United States of America — is now somehow unconstitutional,” the resolution also directs County Administrator John McCarthy “to file an ethics complaint with the Virginia State Bar for the ongoing breach of his duty.”

15 Comments

  1. Aren’t there any regulations within the county to immediately release Ron Frazier from his duties as a member of the Board of Supervisors? Irrespective of anyone’s position on same-sex marriage I find it unconscionable that he be allowed to get away with this obviously partisan witch hunt. It would be a sad day indeed to believe that the good people of Rappahannock would want this misguided, ill-informed individual to continue to be their voice in county matters. If allowed to continue, if you give him this levity now, what is your assurance that the next battle he decides to pursue does not discriminate against you?

    Of course, if it’s the direct responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to enforce morality, if it’s their right to directly challenge legally elected state officials then I will humbly stand down. Otherwise my plea to you is to take action before the precedent is set, before he makes the place I love the laughing stock of the state and the nation.

  2. This is not the function of the BOS to make decries that go beyond the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the BOS without the request of a higher level of our government to request their action on such a topic. The BOS has far better things to be concerning themselves with that whether or not two people of the same sex should allowed to be married. IF there are no more pressing matters to the BOS to be addressing then maybe we don’t need the BOS in the first place or at least their assembly might be reduced to a couple times a year to address budgets and the like.
    I agree with Wendy, What are you afraid of? What aspect of a gay couple directly threatens your life and your pursuit of happiness that you feel that they should not be permitted to pursue their happiness. Are you afraid of people of color, are you afraid of people that come from the countries directly south of the US, are you afraid of people that do not practice the same religion as you do or hold the same political views?
    Do you avoid business that are owned or run by gay people? Do you refuse to do business with a gay person, or be served or waited on by a gay person? If you do or would than I think you will be living in a very small and limited world as gay people live and work around you and next you every day, but you may not know it because it is not as thought they were a badge, or have anything that clearly identifies them as gay. How many politicians in this country are openly gay, and how many have yet to come out? Gay people in every aspect of our society. To start restricting their ability to be marred is to start down a slippery slope. What other restrictions should be imposed on them? Do they have to wear something on their clothes to identify themselves to others as Jews did in Nazi Germany? I know that is an extreme example, but this very subject is extreme in how it is suggesting limiting the freedoms of one group of people.
    A sheriff’s deputy taught me many years ago something that I always keep in mind when these types of arguments come up. They said when investigating a crime listen carefully to the person that is speaking the most and pointing a finger at someone else. Its so often the person that is pointing the finger and trying to direct blame away from themselves that has to be closely examined. In how many instances related to this topic have we seen have we seen the one pointing fingers at others, only turn out to be the subject of they very issue they are trying to object to.
    I have had and continue to have friends in my life that are gay and they are wonderful people and I continue to call them friends. I have even been approached on an occasion or two, but politely rejected the advance and nothing more was said. So I am not threatened or revolted or fearful of gay people, gay marriage, or other aspects of a gay lifestyle. And I encourage others to have the same attitude.
    To the Rappahannock BOS I encourage you to vote down this nonsense, AND for future reference make it clear to the members of the current board and to others that may serve in the future that the BOS is not a platform for these types of issues and that pursuit of any such referendums proposed by a member of the BOS in the future will not be heard or considered, and that the BOS shall focus their efforts and concerns on the residents of the county over which the board presides.

  3. This resolution may be the most unproductive and inane thing I have ever seen in this county. We pride ourselves on not having party affiliations (at the Supervisor and Commissioner level) and in working together to solve issues, contrary to the way it is done in Richmond and Washington. If the Supervisors approve this resolution, in one quick step all of our past history of being above politics is thrown out the window. Don’t do it.
    Remember when Virginia went to the Supreme Court to keep intact its laws forbidding blacks and whites to marry? For 46 years, we’ve been derided for that decision. I support upholding tradition in Virginia, but not when the tradition is to be an idiot.

  4. Bill marshall wrote: “Will brothers be able to marry to use the medical benefits for a kidney transplant?”

    I know at least a dozen brother-sister pairs that married for this exact reason.

    *eyeroll*

    Hey Bill… grow up.

  5. Some of you who are opposed to gay marriage seem to have missed the fact that gay marriage has been legal for quite some time in several states. None of the crazy scenarios you imagine have happened in those states and they wont happen Virginia. However, Mr. Marshall is correct. Women in Virginia should be able to go topless!

  6. Well, well, well, once again a segment of the Virginia State body politic is showing the same degree of sense as your average knuckle dragging, slope headed, preadolescent chimpanzee.

    Actually, no, I’m sorry. I take that back, that would be doing a grave disservice to the chimpanzee. Good to know that all is well with the world, Stay the course mateys,
    might be foul weather ahead.

  7. What happened to “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

    If all men are created equal I conclude that all women are too AND equal to men. But this means that we are all entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Are our Board of Supervisors now saying that Thomas Jefferson’s words are wrong? That our Constitution is wrong? That the State of Virginia can tell it’s citizens they are not entitled to these rights?
    More close to home in the Virginia Declaration of Rights it says:
    “A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

    Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”….
    “Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

    Note the phrase “not by force or violence.” Is the County now trying to force the State to do something that is against its own Declaration of Rights? Sounds like that is EXACTLY what the Board of Supervisors is trying to do!

    Saying that some people should be denied these rights because of their personal choices feels like trying to force their individual religious and moral beliefs on all the citizens of this fair State. This is flat out wrong in my opinion.

    Invariably I find that fear is what drives people to these types of actions so I ask “what are you afraid of”? Homosexuality has been here since time began in about the same percentage of the population now as then. Fortunately more now free safe enough to let it be known. Persecuting them by denying them their rights to happiness will not change who they are or how the feel. It’s time we afforded equal rights to all our citizens and accept our differences rather than condemn them for who they are.

  8. Not an issue for voters, its a civil right “Marriage equality”. Everyone should have the right to marry who they love. So if a minority,,, ie gay people want to marry, how is it correct to have the majority ie “none gay” people vote on there basic right for this group of people. Its called our rights and separation of church and state.

  9. “Will two men get married to avoid having to testify each other when they rob a bank or commit a murder?”

    Opposite sex bank robbers and murderers do this all the time.

  10. If the state can make a law that forbids women from going topless down main street but allowing men to do so then the precedent is there for them to discriminate for the common good tossing the equal protection argument out the window. This is an issue for the voters and not the courts and that is Why the state should fight this. If the courts rule in favor of gay marriage then a grandfather worth 20 million can marry his grandson for the tax benefits and no one can cry foul. incest laws don’t apply because there is no chance of a crooked offspring and we are no longer allowed to be offended by the morals and values of others.

    I am not against gay marriage but I am against the courts usurping community values and setting precedents to be used by others to abuse the system? Will brothers be able to marry to use the medical benefits for a kidney transplant? Will two men get married to avoid having to testify each other when they rob a bank or commit a murder?

    You can make fun of the imagined scenarios but the basic premise is important. If society is ready for gay marriage then get the votes. If not then find like minded people and move to where people think like you. I am sure that is the advice you will give someone if the court strikes the ban down.. you will surely tell them to go find a close minded state to practice their supposed bigotry.

    Get the votes and leave the courts out of community values issues.

  11. Hey Dimensio,

    I wish I’d said that.
    Impeccable logic. You have given this the
    gravitas that it deserves…

  12. Governor McAuliffe is risking great harm to a number of people in Virginia through his refusal to defend the state’s prohibition upon same-sex marriage.

    If same-sex marriage recognition is forced in the state of Virginia, numerous religious and political organizations that predicted that same-sex marriage will cause substantial damage to society will be greatly harmed when absolutely no damage results. The failure of same-sex marriage to produce any ill effect may well irreparably harm the reputation of these organizations. If Governor McAuliffe fails to stop same-sex marriage, then he will be partly responsible for the great harm that will result from the lack of any harm resulting from same-sex marriage.

  13. It seems to me that this is simply not the business of the County Supervisors, in any way, shape or form. For the most part, our County business has traditionally been conducted in a non-partisan manner. To me, this is one of the great blessings of life in Rappahannock. This issue is so obviously a GOP stalking horse that is borders on comedy.
    Our national Congress is gridlocked by this same sort of partisan posturing. Spare us this nonsense. Anyway,until “gay marriage” were to be legalized in the Old Dominion the question is moot,isn’t it? My friend Ron Frazier is wasting the county’s time, carrying water for a national party….

    Ben Jones

Comments are closed.