For those who haven't heard yet...

[marcmagus]

In this post, penknife informed the LJ community of Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act.

The bill, whose full text can be read here, prohibits any same sex civil union or contract which "[purports] to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage".

Further commentary by Equality Virginia suggests that this could invalidate Powers of Attorney, custody arrangement, health insurance benefits, and wills involving same sex partnerships.

Comments

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

Makes me ashamed to be a Virginian. *sigh*

O.M.G.

[gaerfindel.livejournal.com]

::stunned silence::

::more stunned silence::

I...I...I've never read such a despicable piece of shit in all my life.

[debkitty.livejournal.com]

As memory serves, Thomas Jefferson hailed from Virginia. Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence which reads, in part:

"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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It would seem to me that certain of us are being denied Happiness. Even if the phrase "all men are created" is read literally and excludes women, certain men among us are being denied their right to Happiness.

What an odd turn of affairs that the state which first affirmed man's right to pursue happiness now seeks to deny it.

[oldsilenus.livejournal.com]

Well, Virginia was a slave state, and Jefferson was a slave owner. It doesn't seem like that much of a turn of affairs to me.

And of course there was going to be backlash once the idea of gay marriage hit the mainstream. It'll be one of the big civil rights fights of the coming decade or two. But most likely it will turn out well and right, at least on paper and in law, because that's what tends to happen in this country.

[marcmagus]

"It would seem to me that certain of us are being denied Happiness.. . . certain men among us are being denied their right to Happiness."

As you so carefully quoted above, the unalienable rights of men include the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. I seem to recall that various friends of mine who've studied U.S. history in greater depth than I have informed me that "pursuit of happiness" is generally considered to roughly equate to "property".

But even if we take the phrase literally, is entering into a "civil union" contract of necessity a part of one's pursuit of happiness? Even if it is, it's obvious that there are conditions in which it's ok for a state to pass a law limiting one's pursuit of happiness (if you choose to pursue happiness by killing other people, for instance...)

I agree with you, though. Other commentary I've read suggests that this legislation is intended to disempower homosexuals, forcing them to choose between an inferior life in the state of Virginia and a departure from the state. If homosexuals leave the state, anti-homosexual legislation will be easier to pass, further worsening this situation. Perhaps the government of Virginia is losing the consent of the governed, and moving in a direction where its people will need to alter, or even abolish, it.

[marcmagus]

I'm sort of interested in what constitutes a "civil union, partership contract [etc.] purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage".

Does this only refer to such contracts which explicitly purport to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? If so, any such contract which bestowed all the identical privileges and obligations, but never referred to marriage, would still be enforceable under this legislation, and it's easily circumvented.

If it refers to any contract which bestows any of the privileges or obligations which are a part of those accompanying marriage, they're in for a big mess, because marriage bestows a lot of privileges and obligations which are routinely bestowed by other contracts, many of which are a part of same sex partnerships. This would just be a total mess, and per force lead to selective enforcement until the whole thing has to get thrown out.

If it refers to any contract which bestows any of the privileges or obligations which are exclusive to marriage, it's unenforceable. As soon as a contract is entered into which bestows any of these privileges or obligations, said privilege or obligation is no longer exclusive to marriage. The only way I see to avoid this paradox is to retreat to the position of my previous paragraph.