Virginia is For Lovers...

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/7/2006 6:10:23 AM

...unless, of course, those lovers happen to be homosexuals OR heterosexuals engaging in "crimes against nature" (e.g., oral or anal sex).  True, this law is rarely enforced. But still, why is it on the books at all?  Maybe we should ask our fine Attorney General, who says "not that I can recall" when asked if he had ever violated "crimes against nature."  Ee gads.

As if all that isn't bad enough for the state that claims to be "for lovers," now we have an article in the Washington Post talking about gays fleeing Virginia because "Virginia is becoming not gay-friendly" and how some gays no longer feel welcome here because of the hate...er, marriage amendment on the ballot this November.  Wonderful.

By the way, what does this constitutional amendment accomplish, given that "gay marriage" already is illegal in Virginia?  Not a lot, except to tarnish George Mason's Declaration of Rights, to scare productive and hardworking citizens out of Virginia, to potentially threaten legal contracts for both gay AND straight couples residing in the Commonwealth, and to harm the image of Virginia as a state that tolerates and even welcomes diversity.  Is this a good thing for our state's economy, scaring off talented and creative people who might want to come live and work here?  Yeah, that was a rhetorical question. 

By the way, in the U.S. Senate race, we have one candidate, Jim Webb, who opposes the hate...er, "marriage" amemndment.  Then we have another candidate - that would be George Allen - who claims to be a "common sense Jeffersonian conservative" yet supports the amendment.  Note to George Allen: you might not be aware of this, but Thomas Jefferson considered George Mason - whose Virginia Declaration of Rights this crazy amendment will mar - to be "the wisest man of his generation."  Let's just say that you, sir, are no George Mason.

By the way, Senator Allen, since you're so bored you also might not be aware that the first section of George Mason's Declaration reads:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Also, Senator Allen, please note that the hate...er, "marriage" amendment which you support interferes with the rights of those "equally free and independent men" to "pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."  And please note that it also could interfere with certain citizens "acquiring and possessing property."  So how on earth could a "common sense Jeffersonian conservative" like yourself support such a thing?  Perhaps a few people might ask you these questions if they catch you on your "listening tour."  You ARE listening to ALL Virginians, aren't you Senator Allen?


Comments



If anyone thinks this ammendment is a good thing, and as far as they want it to go... (Doug Garnett-Deakin - 8/7/2006 7:18:08 AM)
The logic behind the people who want this ammendment and the FMA- let's please not forget the FMA - is that a marriage is solely for the production of children. When they argue the legality of marriage, this always comes up in argument, because you should not be able to argue that it is based on the bible (let's talk about Sharia law in the USA, please...)

So, the natural extension in thinking are the following laws:

1) Any couple where the woman is past menopause should not be allowed to marry (sorry mom, I know you are happy, but...)
2) Any barren couple may not marry (until science catches up with them and they can undergo IVF, unless that is outlawed in other legislation)
3) Any couple that does not commit to a contract that they will try to have children may not marry
4) Contraceptives, all of them, will be available through prescription after a couple has had children
5) Contraceptives are just banned completely

I could go on all day. You are so right Lowell to link this back to heterosexual relations too, because this ammendment AND the FMA is aimed at regulating everyone's morality (see Dan Savage's writings on the subject). Meanwhile I have friends and relatives in tremendously stable, long lasting homosexual relationships, raising children and contributing greatly to a stable and loving society (even if it won't give back).

I worry about morality, having two children in schools, but I will tell you the thing that worries me about them is what wild, drunken heterosexuals do at spring break, mardi gras, etc. not a gay pride rally or gay couples committing to each other a life time of love.



VA is for equality (hereinva - 8/7/2006 9:18:46 AM)
This years annual VA Constitution Day..(September 16 ? 17 ?) would provide the perfect forum to highlight all of the irony and hypocracy of the proposed "We hope you don't read the second paragraph" Amendment. Seems that all of that rubberstamping has made Mr. A a very bored senator.

 



That is the best name yet.. (Equality Loudoun - 8/7/2006 9:38:59 AM)
"We hope you don't read the second paragraph" Amendment.

Can we have another vote?



So many names, so little space (Eric - 8/7/2006 9:59:17 AM)
We had a lot of great names suggested.  Too bad there isn't enough space to use 'em all. 

The name Lowell (along with a number of other people) favors, the "Hate Amendment", is a nice replacement because it is so short and to the point.  If we use it enough maybe we can just start calling it by that name - I *hate* the fact that the marriage is seen anywhere near this atrocity.



My Heart Is With Gays (PM - 8/7/2006 9:40:20 AM)
I've seen the personal suffering of those who have had to hide.

But maybe some Republicans will wake up to this economic fact:  more and more corporations are giving employment benefits that cover partners.  At some point, businesses will not relocate to VA, or will leave here, if the social hostility is too great.  Watch what'll happen if the Hate Amendment is used to invalidate a partner benefit.



That is another important issue (Doug Garnett-Deakin - 8/7/2006 10:02:02 AM)
I had interviewed a woman who has a life partner and was surprised to learn that in Virginia even as a "progressive" employer if you want to provide family coverage as you would a heterosexual couple you cannot. If I were in a homosexual relationship with a family (or just partner) I would head to California or Mass. in a second to get away from that sort of discrimination.


On the topic of the AG and law (Eric - 8/7/2006 9:54:42 AM)
I noticed that McDonnell is in the process of a wasteful review of 24,000 pages of state regulations and how they affect business.  Seems that Virginia has slipped to third place in the "business friendly" rankings.

Now I wonder if he'd consider removing including other useless regulations, like those crimes against nature he can't recall anything about.

Or better yet, how about not adding more to the mess with this amendment, whose content is already covered by law?

Nice try, Bob.



I wondered the same thing (Bubby - 8/7/2006 11:12:16 AM)
But even though the Supreme Court has invalidated the statutes, Bob McDonnell will not be removing the useless regulations because the man in the middle of this photo won't allow it.  Pat Robertson is Bob's Boss.  Yo Bob! He don't look like no jewish carpenter to me!



COMMENT HIDDEN (I.Publius - 8/7/2006 3:32:18 PM)


Small (seveneasypeaces - 8/7/2006 3:45:29 PM)
It's called a brain drain and we will be less for it.


I Publius (Mark - 8/7/2006 3:55:52 PM)
Aren't you due for some more of your excellent predictions?

Like the knee-slapper that the FSAC in Martinsville will be here "...for years to come." That was a good one. You GoOPers really know what you are talking about.

How does it feel to live in hate all the time? Do you love your fellow man? Did you read what Jesus said?

I am getting sick and tired of seeing your screed of hate all over the place. Lucky for you I support freedom of speech, unlike your GOP brethren.

Oh, nevermind? Nevermind you and all the haters.



COMMENT HIDDEN (I.Publius - 8/7/2006 4:13:26 PM)


Your statements are statements of hate, and it is very clear (Doug Garnett-Deakin - 8/7/2006 4:25:17 PM)
Your exact language can be found in history applied to other groups. Your exact argument can as well. I know it would take much more than a blog to get you to understand, but I have family in committed 20+ year homosexual relationships- stable, home owning, tax paying, doing important work for Virginia hospitals (yes, beautiful lesbians can be wonderful nurses and doctors and have probably helped you more than you know over your life). For the birth of my daughter, I have a lovely committed doctor who just so happens to be a proud lesbian and committed family person herself. Also, to be stupid about it (because I hate hear stuff like this myself), I could bet she and my family have been in Virginia far longer than yours and would just as soon stay and drive bigots like yourself back where you belong, just as we did 40 years ago with Loving vs. Virginia.

You say its not hate, but you could put African American or Jewish into your argument and you would be the same person, it would just be 1961.



You sound like Ann Coulter (RayH - 8/7/2006 7:08:49 PM)


What? (Waldo Jaquith - 8/16/2006 2:15:14 AM)
"Deletes and edits [your] posts?"  I have done no such thing.  If you read what you have written and are ashamed by it, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

I once thought you were rational, but merely an ass.  It's become increasingly clear that you are both irrational and an ass.  That's an unfortunate combination.

-Waldo Jaquith



hello stupid! (Bubby - 8/7/2006 5:55:38 PM)
Really. What makes Doug's interviewee a "lawbreaker"?