Please Say "I Don't"

[acroyear]

Please Say 'I Don't' - washingtonpost.com:

Virginia voters will go to the polls this week to decide whether to amend the state constitution not only to ban same-sex marriage, but also to refuse to recognize any legal arrangement between "unmarried individuals" -- gay or straight -- that confers marriage-like benefits. The ballot initiative is shocking, not only in its bigotry against all unmarried couples, but in its attempt to transform a constitution -- a document meant to lay out our highest freedoms and aspirations -- into a vicious cudgel to separate "us" from "them."

The voters of Virginia have already made their feelings about same-sex marriage clear: State statutes prohibit civil unions and marriages between same-sex couples. Virginia law also nullifies civil unions solemnized in any other state. So, having blocked every last road that would recognize a same-sex marriage, civil union, out-of-state or Canadian gay marriage in Virginia, the state's cynical legislators have gone one step further: They propose doing away with adoption laws, custody arrangements, medical directives and domestic violence statutes used by heterosexuals and gays to protect their children and property.

Why the terrific urgency to gild the state's anti-gay-marriage lily? The measure's supporters advance a single argument: It's an insurance policy against "activist judges" who might someday strike down the many state laws banning same- sex marriage. Last week, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling announced that the "amendment is necessary to protect traditional marriage from possible judicial assault." Judicial assault from whom? The hemp-wearing, incense-burning vegetarians who dominate the Virginia bench? The state's judges are extremely conservative, having been selected by the extremely conservative legislature. A Web site is carrying out an enthusiastic search for Virginia's unhinged liberal activist judges. They're proving tough to find.

A Constitution is meant to protect people's rights, not take them away...

Comments

[supergoober.livejournal.com]

Georgia has this amendment already, as of two years ago. It was very far-reaching (as you quote above), yet the ballot contained only one question: "Shall the state constitution be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman?" It did wonders for voter turnout among devoutly religious voters and passed by a landslide. I highly doubt that people knew exactly what they were voting for.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Two years ago was the big right-wing "get out the vote" against Kerry, and Georgia was borderline because of the weight that Atlanta and the black voters hold on the rest of the rural "conservative" countryside.

Here in VA, the party held it back 'til now, because George Allen is in trouble against Webb and his own big mouth. The party had a pretty good idea that Bush was going to take VA (he did) so they saved it for later.

[supergoober.livejournal.com]

Actually, black voters overwhelmingly supported the amendment, in large part because the black churches overwhelmingly supported it. This was a rare case in which the goals of black voters and the goals of the Republican party matched up. It's kind of heartwarming, in a way. "Georgia - United In Homophobia."

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Well, some amendments of the gay marriage thing are worse than others.

VA's is, like Ohio's, particularly bad (and it wasn't even written by a resident of the state). Read the full article I referenced here, as it shows some of the horrors the *conservative* courts have had to deal with - the more recent laws against domestic violence all say "spouse or someone living as a spouse" or words to that effect. Now, the courts are forced to declare domestic violence laws unconstitutional because acknowledging "someone living as a spouse" is against the constitution and can't be recognized by any law in the state.