Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
The new Dark Ages are upon us. I keep predicting that crap this like would happen - that bans on allow gays to have any sort of domestic partnership, etc would pass - and unfortunately, I am right.
Text of Va.’s ban on recognition of civil unions
“A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.”
This bans hospitals from allowing me to be treated as family if my partner is in the hospital, bans companies from offering benefits to domestic partners, etc.
Va. Assembly overrides Warner on DP rights
Legislature ‘set the state back years’
RICHMOND, Va. — In an effort to ensure courts could not force Virginia to recognize civil unions, the Virginia Assembly on Wednesday overruled by a veto-proof margin Gov. Mark Warner’s amendments to legislation that he said will strip same-sex couples of their rights to form any legal contracts resembling marriage.
In a special, one-day session called to address the changes Warner made to 53 bills, lawmakers kept the original version of Del. Robert Marshall’s “Marriage Affirmation Act,” intact with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Virginia now has the nation’s most restrictive laws against same-sex partnerships.
“We lost this round,” said Dyana Mason, the executive director of Equality Virginia. “The legislature just codified second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians, and set the state back years.”
The new law will abolish the rights of same-sex couples to execute a will, sign medical directives or craft custodial agreements, Mason warned. Because each of these “arrangements” grants rights contractually that are otherwise available through marriage, she said, they can be set aside or voided by the action of the General Assembly.
Supporters of the bill said it would have no such broad impact on the ability of gay couples to enter into private contracts with one another.
Warner removed provisions in the bill that outlawed partnership contracts “purporting to bestow the benefits of marriage,” and left intact sections of the measure that would restrict the recognition of civil unions from other jurisdictions in his amendments.
However, both houses of the Assembly rejected the amendments by more than the votes needed to override any veto from the governor. The margin in each house was two more than needed for the two-thirds majority, 27-12 in the Senate and 69-30 in the House of Delegates.
Virginia gay rights activists lobbied hard for the governor’s amendments despite their overall disagreement with Marshall’s bill. But in the end, Mason said, conservative groups “circled the wagons and really made this bill a litmus test for their support.”
The debate inside the Assembly was not always civil.
“Civil unions are a proxy for marriage and domestic partnerships are a proxy for civil unions,” Marshall said, according to Associated Press. “This has nothing to do with abrogating the ability of anyone entering into a contract.”
Del. Brian Moran (D-Alexandria) repeatedly asked Marshall to define the privileges of marriage and what types of contracts would fall under the bill, to which Marshall retorted, “I am not accountable for the gentleman’s lack of enlightenment or understanding,” according to the AP.
House Speaker William J. Howell admonished Marshall and directed him to keep his remarks civil.
Warner thought bill was overkill
Warner said he made the amendments but wanted to keep the status quo with regard to same-sex legal relationships in Virginia, believing Marshall’s changes were unnecessary and contrary to the state constitution. Existing Virginia law prohibits same-sex marriage, and the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states.
“I do not support same-sex marriage, but I have grave doubts about the constitutionality of this broad wording, and I believe that it could have a host of unintended consequences,” Warner said in a statement on April 16, when he submitted his changes to the General Assembly. “I believe it would be regrettable and wrong if Virginia were to go further than any other state in its efforts to restrict the rights of people to enter into legal relationships.
“This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated public schools, the 45th anniversary of the end of Virginia’s egregious policy of ‘Massive Resistance,’ and the 40th anniversary of the federal Civil Rights Act banning segregated public facilities. I will not support legislation that again takes Virginia so far out of the mainstream in terms of public policy.”
Warner’s recent statements marked the first time since the bill’s introduction that he had actively voiced his reservations. But the Democratic governor chose not to veto the legislation, believing that the first course of action should always be to address a bill’s concerns, especially a bill that originally passed by a two-thirds majority, said Warner’s spokesperson, Ellen Qualls.
In considering his amendments to the Marriage Affirmation Act, or HB 751, Warner mainly wanted to prevent a constitutional challenge to both this law, and possibly to the state’s marriage statutes, she added. The governor’s office consulted several constitutional scholars before recommending its adjustments.
Text of Va.’s ban on recognition of civil unions
“A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.”
“The United States Constitution prohibits any state from impairing the obligations of existing contracts. The sweeping language of HB 751 plainly violates that constitutional provision,” Warner said. “Furthermore, HB 751 would appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by prohibiting certain contracts between two people of the same sex (regardless of their sexual orientation) while permitting the exact same contracts between men and women.”
Marshall told the Washington Post in an interview earlier this week that the governor’s objections were misplaced.
“This is not something where there’s any middle ground,” Marshall told the Post. “We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I can’t see how all of us who voted for the bill would believe it would violate the Constitution.”
Now that the legislature failed to heed Warner’s admonitions, the state will most likely face its first legal challenge brought by gay civil rights organizations. While she would not predict when Equality Virginia would act, Mason said that several legal associations had approached the advocacy group about pursuing litigation.
“We haven’t put pen to paper, but this bill is clearly a violation of our constitutional rights,” she said. “Lawmakers can’t infringe upon private contract rights; they can’t go into that territory without expecting some reaction.”
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Well, that's the good old question about 10th ammendment vs. "equal protection."
Jon, I just think it is better for everybody to have individual states make decisions. That way, you can live in a state that allows gay marriage or at least all benefits, while I can raise my family in a traditional setting with no civil unions or gay marriage.
If you give federal government the power to do these things, it's probably going to come back and bite you in the ass, regardless of what position you hold on this issue. Right now, the Court would probably be on your side, but replace one liberal with a conservative and it shifts completely.
Anyway, that's how I see it, get the courts out of this, let individual states do whatever the hell the want- 50 states are likely to reach many different conclusions.
Stefan
__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."
"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."
"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."
Don't move to Virginia
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
