Virginia is for Nazi Lovers

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:53 pm

((x-posted at BCI... Sorry))

From a recent news report on PlanetOut.com:

In at least six separate demonstrations on Wednesday, protestors railed against Virginia's "Marriage Affirmation Act," which not only bans civil unions but prohibits same-sex couples from creating legal contracts with each other.

On Thursday, July 1, House Bill 751 became law. The measure is an amendment to the 1997 Affirmation of Marriage Act that already prohibits marriages for same-sex couples. The new law also prohibits civil unions, domestic partnerships and all contracts "or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage."

In April both branches of the state Legislature passed versions of H.B. 751 with a two-thirds vote. Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner, who opposed the bill, made recommendations to remove the language surrounding contract rights, arguing it was too far-reaching and probably unconstitutional. Those amendments were sent back to the House for ratification, where they were rejected by a vote of 65-35.

Rallies and demonstrations took place in Roanoke, Charlottesville, Fairfax, Fredericksburg and Norfolk. In the state capital of Richmond, hundreds of people listened as Virginia Secretary of Commerce Michael Schewel read a statement on Wednesday from Warner, who was on vacation.

"It is unfortunate that House Bill 751 becomes the law in Virginia tomorrow," Warner said in his letter. "This law raises serious constitutional issues, and it places Virginia outside the mainstream of other states when it comes to respecting individual liberty. While the majority of the Legislature may have supported House Bill 751, this law does not reflect the attitudes of most of our people."

According to the Associated Press, Equality Virginia Executive Director Dyana Mason also spoke at the Richmond rally. "[The law] clearly states that gay and lesbian people in this state should not feel welcome," said Mason. "It seeks to strip the only tool that gay and lesbian couples have to protect their families."

Equality Virginia, the state's largest advocacy group, along with the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, say they are considering legal challenges to the law.

"I see a whole lot of potential plaintiffs" in the crowd, Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU, told The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

This pissed me off badly enough that I made a tee-shirt.

Virginia obviously isn't for all lovers.

I'm sorry for what some may see as only an advertisment, but I don't think it's a good idea for us to let this sort of thing go unanswered anywhere, lest legislators in our own area think "Well, it seemed to go ok there... Maybe we should do it here, too." I also made a bumpersticker of it, and postcards... I think mailing the postcards to the Governor, legislators, supreme court and particularly tourism intensive businesses would be a grand idea.

If you're interested, you can get 'em at http://www.cafeshops.com/honorarts

Feel free to pass this around...

LiSrt · Post by **LiSrt** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:24 pm

*sigh*, wouldn't it be much simpler if there weren't any laws whatsoever that even mentioned marriage?, why does the state have to be involved in something like that?

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:41 pm

LiSrt wrote:*sigh*, wouldn't it be much simpler if there weren't any laws whatsoever that even mentioned marriage?, why does the state have to be involved in something like that?

This is where it gets really frickin' complicated:

Setting aside and entire continent full of religious/moral/cultural arguments (because virtually all of them boil down to "You shouldn't do that because I'm uncomfortable with the thought of people doing that."), there are a few economic arguments for why at least some recordkeeping would be necessary.

One big one: Insurance.

(Disclaimer: I'm mostly pulling this out of my ass. It might be completely different than reality, but to the best of my current knowledge, there is at least some semblance to reality.)

From one standpoint, the idea of the insurance company covering person B, without getting paid, because they are covering person A, who is getting paid, is a poor decision. Why cover two people when you could only cover one and make the other pay too? (Specifically, I'm referring to employer owned health insurance; AFAIK the rate is the same per employee, whether that employee is married or not. To have otherwise would invite discrimanatory conditions.) So insurance companies cover spouses... But what is the definition of a spouse? That's where the government comes in. If each insurance company decided for itself what the qualifications of spousehood were, there'd be chaos. They need an "independant" third party to define it; hence, the government's role.

Unfortunately, these insurance companies aren't overly enamored with same sex marriages either, because they can potentially cost them more. I haven't seen any hard numbers, but I'm willing to bet that there's a sizable difference between cost of male coverage and cost of female coverage (in claims paid), to the company. So they base their projections of pairings of one each. Have a pairing of two of the same, and you could have a larger amounts of potential claims. (This brings up the matter of, if they are uneven, one may be larger, but the other is smaller. I don't know if the companies have considered this or not.)

If a company would be willing to step up to the plate and allow same-sex couples the same insurance coverage as opposite-sex couples, I think it'd help matters greatly. Getting one to do so is an excercise left to the reader. Feel free to rebut, especially if you have links to stuff that says otherwise.

That leaves that continent over there to deal with... ::points to religious/cultural arguments::

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:43 pm

While I agree with you in principal, there have to be laws that relate to marriage because of things like estate management, inheritance, emergency medical care and power of attourney, child custody, and all of the other things that fall into the category of "family law"...

Personally, I think the govt should only recognize domestic contracts - partnerships and collectives - and regulate (lightly) who qualifies for those contractual relationships (I don't wanna see anyone marrying eleven year olds, for instance). As far as "marriage" and "married", that should be a purely secular matter.

So you could have people who were married by thier church but for whatever reason chose not to be domestic partners legally, and you could have people who were legally a 'couple' but chose not to be "married".

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:17 pm

I certainly agree with that in principle; I've thought of the same myself...

The only potential problem is there is some validity to the argument that the government has an interest in promoting male-female partnerships on the grounds that it has (as far as all the current statistics that I've ever heard of, and I acknowledge that they are biased in this respect) a higher tendency to produce LFTPs (Little Future Tax Payers). (Personally, this is also about the only argument that the government might make that would garner any respect from me, and I have yet to hear it made. But as I've stated before (or am stating now, as the case may be), I do sometimes have a tendency to look at things in cold hard economic terms. Cold hard directed, even biased, but cold and hard none the less.

)

We just have to find a way to iron that wrinkle out and there we go.

H-Kat · Post by **H-Kat** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:23 pm

Fuckers. If two women, or two men, love each other enough that they want to miserable with each other for the rest of their lives, they should have the right, period. No room for discussion.

Buncha pigs.

-Kitty

Captain Tylor · Post by **Captain Tylor** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:44 pm

Bath County, VA [AP] - Scientists in Virginia have found a new source of energy today after heavy vibrations were noticed above the graves of several of the founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson's grave seems particularly fruitful since he has the highest spin rate of all the excavated bodies.

A representative for the Bush administration said: "We cannot confirm or deny there may be possible links to Al-Queda and Saddam Hussain, so we are continuing to pursue drilling in sensitive ecological areas for oil."

A spokeswoman for the Thomas Jefferson estate said she was moving from Virginia since it had fallen so far from her ancestor's dream.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:07 am

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks this whole mess is one of the most backwards ass, ignorant arguements that people could have with their government.

There is much more going on in the world that the Federal Government should be concerned about these days. Yet, assinine laws like this are being supported as if they have any merit what-so-ever. If this whole thing were anything more than an attempt to distract people, garner votes, or pay back a favor to the insurance lobby, I'd be very very suprised.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:29 am

edit: (combined below)

MrNiceGuy^_^ · Post by **MrNiceGuy^_^** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:33 am

Speaking of weird laws governing marriage a law just passed here that defines common-,law marriages as couples who have been living together as a couple for three years (1 if there is a child resulting ifrom the relationships) and after that point if they decide to split up they are each entitled to 50% of the assets earned while part of the relationship.....

So....if you live with some one for three years, then it doesn't work out, you can sue for alimony, a share of the estate , etc., etc..

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:37 am

In most places that support common law marriage, it's longer than that... I think it's seven most places I've been... And, the fine print usually reads "living together as a married couple" or some such, so that if one member of the couple constantly told people "Oh, we're not married, we just live together." it might have some bearing.

Common law marriage is the oldest and historically most universal kind, though.

By the way... (Warning: cheap plug for cheaper political activism: I'd really like to see the Governor of VA get a thousand of these postcards...

)

*grins* Three versions of the tee shirt are up now... I particularly like the one with the fine print. It reads:

Virginia is for Lovers*

*Certain restrictions apply. Only 80% of all Lovers will qualify. Those born with a

MrNiceGuy^_^ · Post by **MrNiceGuy^_^** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:41 am

Yeah, we've always had common law on the books here, but the second part is a recent addition, the entitlement to 50%

Wraithguard starcaller · Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:11 am

on the subject of homosexual marrige

First let me say im Bisexual, so dont think im just a bigot fag-hater, or something.

Now then, Marrige is first and foremost a religious ceramony. No religion in america supports homosexuality, so it stands to reason that no marriges would either.

Secondly, there isnt a law anywhere that says anyone has to care if you want to marry someone of the same sex.

America is a country created by WHite, slaveowner, straight(mostly) Men. Given these conditions, i would say that they did pretty well.

I think the only Real solution is to remove the laws supporting marrige entirely, because the leagle rammifications for homosexual marrige is just too damn complicated.

Create a law wherein any 2 human beings my be leagly considered One human being, or joind as in marrige, etc.

so taht you could get the leagle benifits without having to go with "man and woman, and woman and woman, and man and man"

because that opens for polygamy, which is indecent in any family setting.

i know homosexual couples who can be good parents... i dont knwo any swingers who can though.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:21 am

Out of curiosity, please explain your reasoning behind this statement:

wraithguard starcaller wrote:because that opens for polygamy, which is indecent in any family setting.

I've heard both sides said but neither seem to support their assertions much. Please do not take this post to be an expression of my position on the issue; it is not meant to be. I just would like to hear your reasoning. Others have expressed a different opinion; feel free to explain your reasoning as well.

It's always good to get these things out on the discussion table.

CottonStar · Post by **CottonStar** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:37 am

wraithguard starcaller wrote:because that opens for polygamy, which is indecent in any family setting.

Oh please. It's not like monogamous marriages don't fuck families up enough.

RantinAn · Post by **RantinAn** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:02 am

Gald my travel plans dont include virginia.. sneeking Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer throuhg airport security is a bitch.

Steel Roses · Post by **Steel Roses** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:26 am

on the subject of a family with more than 2 parents, i actually know a polygamous couple [if such a word can be used to discribe them, considering there are 3 of them] who have adopted a child at the age of 6 months.... they have been together for a loooong time before this adoption, and now the kid is 8 and they are still together, and i swear this is one of the better adjusted kids i've ever met.

not stating that its a better situation, but its not a sure fire failure
[edited typo 3 parents to 2 parents]

Wraithguard starcaller · Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:06 am

the reason that homosexual marraige opens for polygamy is that with the Current wording of the law, if a man and woman are married, and homosexual marraige is allowed, the woman could marry a woman also, and then you would have 3 people under that union, and so on....

which is why i said you would have to scrap the ENtire thing as yet and start over.

which no one wants to do, because it would Never satisfy everyone, so they are just afraid to fiddle with it

and im not saying it would be impossible for a polygamus group of individuals to properly raise a kid, im just saying i've never met any that could.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:24 am

Steel Roses wrote:on the subject of a family with more than 3 parents, i actually know a polygamous couple [if such a word can be used to discribe them, considering there are 3 of them] who have adopted a child at the age of 6 months.... they have been together for a loooong time before this adoption, and now the kid is 8 and they are still together, and i swear this is one of the better adjusted kids i've ever met.

not stating that its a better situation, but its not a sure fire failure

I'd wager a guess that that's either not in the US, or the third parent came in after the adoption; I can't thinkg of any adoption agency even considering letting them adopt, given the... unusualness of their family setup. No American adoption agency anyway. But remember, these are the same ones that won't even consider same-sex couples either. Perhaps a foreign one would, though.

wraithguard starcaller wrote:the reason that homosexual marraige opens for polygamy is that with the Current wording of the law, if a man and woman are married, and homosexual marraige is allowed, the woman could marry a woman also, and then you would have 3 people under that union, and so on....

I'm sure polygamy laws would kick in if anyone tried this... That is to say, I'm sure prosecutors would kick them in. Interpretation, don'tcha know. They'd argue the original authors didn't consider the possibility of same-sex marriage and that the spirit of the law would stop a married person from marrying another person, even if the letter doesn't.

H-Kat · Post by **H-Kat** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:50 am

wraithguard starcaller wrote:the reason that homosexual marraige opens for polygamy is that with the Current wording of the law, if a man and woman are married, and homosexual marraige is allowed, the woman could marry a woman also, and then you would have 3 people under that union, and so on....

I wish people'd cosider what the hell they're actually saying before they said it.

You don't think that rewording the process is exactly what's involved? Go read a book.

Whoever this guy is wrote:and im not saying it would be impossible for a polygamus group of individuals to properly raise a kid, im just saying i've never met any that could.

So, basically, you're saying you don't think they could, you just don't have the conviction to come out and say it.

No one likes a passive agressive.

-Kitty

Comic Genesis Forums

Virginia is for Nazi Lovers

Virginia is for Nazi Lovers

In other news