11-11-2006, 04:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2006, 04:39 AM by Chaerophon.)
I can respect a constituency's right to define marriage as the term has traditionally been used. However, this...
...I find problematic. Why the need for pre-emptive action? NO arrangement is valid? I really don't understand the harm - let the poor bastards have a tax break and power of attorney. There aren't any "institutions" being corrupted here, nor is it going to have any effect on "conventional" ideas of sexuality. Their way of life is already protected under the constitution, so admitting this right wouldn't be "groundbreaking" by any means. It has already been determined that homosexuals have a right to exist. Gay people are going to live together, and they're going to do "naughty things" regardless of whether their union is recognized by the state. In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry. I can't think of any justifiable reason (both morally and in terms of jurisprudence) to deny them civil unions of some sort. Religion is NOT an issue - in acknowledging their sexual rights the state and supreme court have already as much as acknowledged their right to civil union. At least, this seems to me to be the logical extension of their freedom of sexual orientation, and rights to non-discrimination.
Quote:C: "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable." Code of Virginia § 20-45.3, enacted 2004
...I find problematic. Why the need for pre-emptive action? NO arrangement is valid? I really don't understand the harm - let the poor bastards have a tax break and power of attorney. There aren't any "institutions" being corrupted here, nor is it going to have any effect on "conventional" ideas of sexuality. Their way of life is already protected under the constitution, so admitting this right wouldn't be "groundbreaking" by any means. It has already been determined that homosexuals have a right to exist. Gay people are going to live together, and they're going to do "naughty things" regardless of whether their union is recognized by the state. In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry. I can't think of any justifiable reason (both morally and in terms of jurisprudence) to deny them civil unions of some sort. Religion is NOT an issue - in acknowledging their sexual rights the state and supreme court have already as much as acknowledged their right to civil union. At least, this seems to me to be the logical extension of their freedom of sexual orientation, and rights to non-discrimination.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II