...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?
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.
Can we have another vote?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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