The Republican War on Love

By: Kenton
Published On: 1/15/2006 2:00:00 AM

The Virginia Republican's War on Love, parental and marriage, has taken another front...

Last year it was Dick Black, who thankfully was ousted by David Poisson, who thought it would be better to bounce kids around foster care than to let them be adopted by homosexuals, never mind the fact that I think most gays around had heterosexual parents. It was left in committee.

This year, Emmett Hanger's SB 414 would ban a same-sex couple from listing both their names on a birth certificate after adoption. Rather than straight-out ban adoption by gays, he would make one of the parents leave their names off the birth certificate. This serves no purpose except to puff up Hanger's ego and to give gays a hard time. Really now, what good does this bill do?

So parental love is something Republicans don't like. What else?

Republicans do happen to love superflous social legislation, and, it seems, stopping prospective families from having full legitimacy. So if orphans can't get families, what else can Republicans fight for?

In addition to trying to stop gay marriage, Jeanmarie Davis has decided to try force prospective couples to verify their citizenship. (SB 844)

Ridiculous! Not only are those illegal aliens coming up from south of the border (North Carolina and Tennessee, apparently), they are getting married! Why are Republicans trying to make heterosexual marriage a pain?

So, the moral of the story from Delegate Hanger and Delegate Davis:

1) Don't fall in love with anyone you can't verify the status of citizenship.
2) Don't fall in love with a kid you want to adopt if you're gay.

Legislating sex and love. The Virginia General Assembly.

Comments



Please call your del (fairinheight511 - 4/4/2006 11:31:23 PM)
Please call your delegate and stop him/her from writing discrimination into the Virginia Constitution on MLK day.  I called and a nice lady recorded my comments for the delegate, which included the idea that the Constitution exists to protect and ensure liberty, not to restrict it.  Adding discriminatory language to the first amendment would be desecration.  She also took down my comment that gay-bashing at the state house is not the people's business.

I am spitting mad.



The huge problem wit (K - 4/4/2006 11:31:23 PM)
The huge problem with the ban on listing both parents is what happens to the poor children if the parent named dies. As in, the kid becomes an orphan because the surviving parent is a legal stranger in Virginia.

Yeah, isn't that wonderful ...



For more on Marshall (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:31:23 PM)
For more on Marshall, see here, here, and dozens of other places on Raising Kaine.

As far as Roemmelt is concerned, all I have to say is: Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce!!!! :)



Jeez, how can you wr (dave s - 4/4/2006 11:31:23 PM)
Jeez, how can you write a post about Reeps and parenthood without mentioning the very special Mr Marshall:

HB 412 Identification of gamete donors. Del. Robert Marshall. Prohibits the use of unrelated anonymous donor oocyte or sperm in the performance of intervening medical technology that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as a means of conception and requires, notwithstanding any traditional practice, agreement, regulation, or law to the contrary, the identity of any unrelated oocyte or sperm donor to be noted in the health record of any woman patient whenever any healthcare practitioner licensed by a health regulatory board uses any unrelated donor gametes in the performance of or while assisting in the performance of such intervening medical technology, such as artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.

Roemmelt in Ought Seven, that's all I have to say...