WAR ON GAY PROPERTY RIGHTS ... Virginia's same-sex ballot initiative may drive turnout in the crucial Allen-Webb Senate race. If passed, its implications may far exceed those advertised.

David Boaz, of the libertarian CATO Institute, has been publicizing an Arnold & Porter analysis (PDF) that found the amendment could throw a wrench in the courts' ability to enforce a wide spectrum of laws -- on domestic violence, visitation rights, powers of attorney, and custody rights -- where gay or straight unmarried couples are concerned.

Here's how:

The text of the amendment pertains not only to marriage but to recognition of any "legal status" between unmarried couples:

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.

According to the law firm Arnold & Porter, some laws (domestic violence laws, for instance) implicitly hinge upon such recognition:

“Legal status” is an extremely broad term, which has been defined as any combination of rights, duties, liabilities or other legal relations. Consequently, by its terms, the Amendment could prohibit the courts from “recognizing” or giving legal effect to legal arrangements that provide to unmarried people rights, obligations or protections akin to those available through marriage.

By nixing recognition of nonmarried household members, the amendment could:

Invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under Virginia’s domestic violence laws [and] prevent the courts from enforcing: private agreements between unmarried couples; child custody and visitation rights; and end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and advance medical directives, executed by unmarried couples.

This isn't just par for the course:

This exceedingly broad and untested language is the most expansive such proposal ever to have been put before the voters of any state.

Approval of the Amendment could cause significant disruption to settled legal rights, duties and protections in the Commonwealth, allow those seeking to escape their legal obligations elsewhere to clog our courts, and insert the courts into the private affairs of Virginians.

On the other hand, Virginia's attorney general has said the initiative would not have such far-ranging effects. I'm no lawyer, but neither is Arnold & Porter a fly-by-night firm. As Boaz told me, "When smart lawyers disagree, that's a good argument against passing a law."

That's also not a bad line for the Webb GOTV team.