Dot Roberson and James Chisom, like some unwed couples, initially viewed Virginia's proposed constitutional amendment on marriage as something that concerns only homosexuals.

"I didn't figure it would make a difference to me," Roberson said. "It is scary to think it could open a door to a lawsuit ... or a shotgun wedding."

Legal experts are sharply divided on possible "unintended consequences" the measure could have on all unmarried couples -- gay and straight. Yet many agree that more of these issues could land in the courts if the amendment is passed Nov. 7.

"It is almost a lawyer's annuity bill -- this proposed amendment seems to be an invitation for courts to step in," said A.E. Dick Howard, a University of Virginia law professor who is often regarded as the father of Virginia's modern constitution. "There are so many areas that this amendment might sweep up -- contract law, wills, medical directives, domestic violence -- there is quite a list. Ultimately, it is for a judge and the lawyers to tell us what it means."

The debate has thrown into sharp relief the need for action by partners in all unmarried relationships. Some are considering drafting wills, powers of attorney and other legal documents. Others say they might leave Virginia if the measure passes.

As the campaign ratchets up in the final month, opponents want to tap into the public uncertainty among heterosexual couples to help defeat the measure, while proponents hope to quiet those concerns.

Supporters say the measure is vital to codify Virginia's definition of marriage into the constitution and to protect against "activist judges." But critics say it is discriminatory and redundant, given the 1997 ban on same-sex marriage. Critics also say it would jeopardize many legal and domestic violence protections.

The referendum, which requires a majority vote for passage, would ban same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. It also would block Virginia governments from recognizing relationships that mimic marriage, or that "approximate the designs, qualities, significance or effects of marriage."

Sen. Steve Newman, R-Lynchburg, one of the authors of the measure, downplayed the legal tussle as several dozen supporters gathered at an ice cream social Sept. 24 in Roanoke County's Walrond Park, eating sundaes as light rain fell. He urged all "real Virginians" to pass the measure.

"They are making a campaign statement, not a legal argument," Newman said. "The 'unintended consequences' argument has been used in every state with a similar amendment. And in every state they've been found without merit."

Others aren't so convinced.

They anticipate problems if an unmarried couple split up -- possibly making custody arrangements unenforceable. Some worry that a relative will have more rights in inheritance or medical decisions if an unmarried partner suddenly dies or becomes incapacitated.

"I've read the proposed language and commentary on it and it gives me huge pause," said Valerie Hardcastle, 42, associate dean at Virginia Tech's College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. She and Jim Benton, 39, who is in the home-remodeling business, have been together for about six years.

"Legally, I don't know how this would pan out. I have children from a previous marriage. While my partner is not their legal stepfather, I do see him as being fully engaged in their lives," Hardcastle said. "If something happened to me, I wouldn't want that piece of stability taken away from my children."

Tim Jackson, 39, and Taryn Chase, 31, both work at Radford University. The couple, who've lived together for about one year, have similar worries over custody and health insurance.

"Tim has a child from his previous marriage. I'm now emotionally involved in that child's life," Chase said. "And it is difficult to believe, if Tim dies, that legally I would not have rights to that child."

If the measure passes, Chase said, "It would make us consider moving to another state where those rights are a given because getting married isn't something we want to do at this time."

Jackson said the couple probably will sit down soon and draw up some legally binding documents as a result of the issues highlighted by the proposed amendment.

"People need to take control of their lives and realize this amendment is more than a gay issue. If they are cohabitating, it could affect their own lives as well," he said. "If one or the other of us were to leave Radford [University], it would be a tremendous burden without those benefits.

"You would hate to think you would have to get married just to get health benefits, but it is in the realm of feasibility."

Dueling interpretations

Others say the worries are overblown and unwarranted.

Patricia Phillips is the Virginia director of Concerned Women for America, which has about 9,000 state members. Volunteers have been to area fairs and events, handing out stickers, yard signs and registering voters.

"Owning a house is not a benefit of marriage, nor is a business partnership," Phillips said. "So, if people look into it, they will find there isn't a lot of substance to those arguments."

Virginia's Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued a legal opinion on Sept. 14 at the behest of five state lawmakers who sought clarification. He said his support of the amendment didn't color his legal analysis.

In his 13-page opinion, McDonnell said he found "no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians."

Proponents also point to the nonpartisan Board of Elections description of the measure that says other contracts will remain intact. But UVa's Howard and others say that language may have "persuasive value," but doesn't bind a judge.

The Washington law firm of Arnold and Porter -- which issued a 70-page legal analysis for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure -- concluded that it could clog the courts, insert government in the private affairs of Virginians and cause "significant disruption to settled legal rights."

An alliance of about 130 lawyers has signed a petition stating its agreement with the legal analysis that the amendment goes beyond Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. If passed, they said the measure could undermine the rights of all unmarried couples to enter into contracts, enforce wills and child custody agreements or receive the protection of domestic violence laws.

"This will be the attorney's full-employment bill," said Steve Cochran, chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee.

Yet Chris Freund, a spokesman for Va4marriage, a group working for the amendment's passage, said those concerns are unwarranted.

"Virginians need to be reminded that these same groups warned of unintended consequences when the Marriage Affirmation Act passed in 2004. They even promised to file lawsuits," he said. "We're still waiting for the first lawsuit that would even challenge this law because of the 'unintended consequences.' "

Dan Ortiz, a University of Virginia law professor, said the amendment's broad language does not address whether powers of attorney will remain valid. Should it pass, he predicts it won't be long before legal agreements between unmarried couples are challenged. For instance, a relative could try invalidating a power of attorney in court, saying it duplicates the rights of marriage, which are banned under the amendment.

"You can't predict ahead of time how the courts are going to interpret," Ortiz said. "It's very unclear. It all depends on judicial interpretation."

Worried couples

There are slightly more than 126,000 unmarried couples living together in Virginia, including same and opposite-sex couples, according to the 2000 census.

Virginia is one of seven states where it is a misdemeanor for unmarried people to live together, according to the Alternatives to Marriage Project, based in Brooklyn, N.Y. Experts in Richmond said the Virginia law is rarely enforced.

Medical and dental care, health and life insurance, "family" memberships and other rights that married couples are entitled to when they say "I do" require a stack of legal paperwork for unwed partners.

Dale Weddle, 53, is a hospice nurse and has been in a 20-year relationship with his male partner in Roanoke County. While they haven't had any problems at area hospitals, he said the amendment may snarl access for unmarried couples in a life-threatening situation.

"When you go into the hospital, they first ask if you're family, kin or blood or legally married," Weddle said. "If you say 'I'm the partner' and this amendment is passed, you may be blocked."

For others, like 47-year-old Mo Aulick of Roanoke, an experience with a former partner prompted her and current girlfriend Cathy Fisher to talk about their wishes for the future -- from being each other's beneficiaries to the conditions under which they would go into nursing homes.

Aulick and Fisher have been together a year, sharing an apartment with three cats. They plan to create living wills that include the other, as well as a power of attorney and advance medical directives.

In 1999, Aulick's former partner was diagnosed with liver cancer. During the year between the diagnosis and the funeral, Aulick quit her job to become the caregiver.

Her partner was afraid of dying and had not made decisions about her health or other life details. And because there was no power of attorney, and because she was not family, Aulick had no authority to make decisions for her partner.

Doctors shared information only with her partner's relatives. The family, Aulick said, did not pass information to her. She had no idea how to look for warning signs, or what to do in an emergency.

The family "had a say in things where a lot of times, I didn't," Aulick said. "It definitely won't happen with me and Cathy."

Couples like Dot Roberson, 67, and James Chisom, 44, initially had not given much thought to the unintended consequences of the amendment.

After living together 16 years, Roberson has a vested interest in her boyfriend's business. Each is included in the other's will. They own a home, along with 68 acres in Eagle Rock. They did everything legally, seeking a power of attorney and advance medical directives.

And should the amendment pass, Roberson does not want arrangements made by her and Chisom to change.

That's why she plans to give the proposed constitutional amendment a good read.

"I definitely will examine what the possible consequences will be," she said.

pamela.podger@roanoke.com 981-3131

erinn.hutkin@roanoke.com 981-3138