NationStates Jolt Archive

"Virginia has never recognized same-sex marriages. But a new law that went into effect on July 1st goes too far. It not only prohibits civil unions but also could void other contracts between same-sex couples such as wills, child-custody agreements and medical directives."

Quoted above is the jist of this law. Unfortunately i cant find a good link for this, so if you have one, please post (everything i've been able to find doesnt express the law well)

Back on point though, how horrible is this?

Virginia is clearly NOT for lovers. they need to change that damn slogan. this state is horrible! Such extreme conservatism needs to be stopped.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/07/01/1

Sigh.

I'm sorry to hear about that. I hope everyone there who supports gay marriages moves (not likely, but I can wish, can't I?). Places like that don't deserve the economical support of the people they oppress.

Sigh.

I'm sorry to hear about that. I hope everyone there who supports gay marriages moves (not likely, but I can wish, can't I?). Places like that don't deserve the economical support of the people they oppress.

i know, its really horrible. but people are finally acting on this, it just pisses me off that everyone waited so damn long. the law was passed in March i think...

Unfortunately, that's the way people work. They think "Won't affect me. No need to protest".

I bet a bunch of people suddenly realised that people they knew and cared about were gay, and actually realised how much suffering idiotic laws like this cause.

"Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich were shaking hands congratulating themselves on the introduction of an antigay bill in Congress. If it passes, they won't be able to shake hands, because it will then be illegal for a prick to touch an asshole." - Judy Carter.

Bloody good call that was. I picked it up at the quote garden, I can't remember where the site is, just google it and you'll find it ...

Sigh.

I'm sorry to hear about that. I hope everyone there who supports gay marriages moves (not likely, but I can wish, can't I?). Places like that don't deserve the economical support of the people they oppress.


Maybe that is the goal...

Virginia is an economic powerhouse with the best public schools in the country - and I sure don't feel oppressed.

In case you are wondering, I am against such a bill; I dont give a crap what people do with their personal lives. I just think the good things about good ole VA outweigh petty issues such as this.

Its about time. And I hope that make being queer ILLEGAL and all of them that are to be sent away.

ok, time to put my foot in my mouth again...

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that's based on religious beliefs. As such, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government shouldnt recognize any marriage but rather instead only recognize civil unions. These civil unions would have the same 'rights' and 'benifits' that current marriage allows now, but would be available to be entered into by pretty much any 2 individuals.

A man and a woman could choose to get married in church (or not depending on thier religious views) and then get a civil union via the state. 2 gay men/women could choose to get married in church (if they belong to a church that allows such, and, or not depending on thier religious views) and then get a civil union via the state. But that's not all. The stereotypical 2 older sisters, perhaps after their other spouses/companions passed away could live together, and optain a civil union for purposes of death benifits, hospital visitation etc.

This way, everyone would have equal treatment under the law, and marriage would remain in the hands of the church, and not 'violate the sanctity' of marriage as they see it.

** edited for punctuation and spelling errors (where I found them)

Let them get married!

Who cares if a couple of gays get hitched? It's not like it'll wreck the institution of marriage, hell, the heteros already did that with divorce! By letting gays marry, you INCREASE the marriage rate and strength the institution of marriage

Maybe that is the goal...

Virginia is an economic powerhouse with the best public schools in the country - and I sure don't feel oppressed.

In case you are wondering, I am against such a bill; I dont give a crap what people do with their personal lives. I just think the good things about good ole VA outweigh petty issues such as this.

its not petty. it's a human rights violation. i dont think that is EVER petty

Its about time. And I hope that make being queer ILLEGAL and all of them that are to be sent away.

only after all the ignorant, bigoted, uneducated, closed-minded and self-serving people are illegalized and sent away

Its about time. And I hope that make being queer ILLEGAL and all of them that are to be sent away.

i dont see how people can be so heartless and unaccepting.

its not petty. it's a human rights violation. i dont think that is EVER petty

So is arresting peolpe for not wearing seatbelts...

I just think things like education, foreign policy, and taxes are more important. Although having the government interfere with the seperation of church and state is unacceptable.

So is arresting peolpe for not wearing seatbelts...

I just think things like education, foreign policy, and taxes are more important. Although having the government interfere with the seperation of church and state is unacceptable.

i think comparing seat-belt laws in not applicable in this situation, thats a silly argument. I agree that education and foreign policy are important (though taxes less so in my mind). I have a personal connection with this issue on many levels. Mostly, for me, it comes down to the fact that discrimination is WRONG, no matter how you cut it. I feel that it's the root of countless problems and it's a constant menace, an affliction which sadly affects many.

I beleive that Gay couples should be allowed to get married or at least have the union recognized by the community or government. It is suppossed to be a free country and it is their choice as people to do what they want with their lives. So even if someone believes that they are going to Hell for what they do it is their choice to do that (not saying that I believe that). Its not just Virginia that needs to change laws there are other states too.

i think comparing seat-belt laws in not applicable in this situation, thats a silly argument. I agree that education and foreign policy are important (though taxes less so in my mind). I have a personal connection with this issue on many levels. Mostly, for me, it comes down to the fact that discrimination is WRONG, no matter how you cut it. I feel that it's the root of countless problems and it's a constant menace, an affliction which sadly affects many.
Maybe a bit silly, but I stand by it. I want (or dont want) to do something that harms no one but myself. Who is the government to tell me that I cant?

The question is: how can discrimination be resolved? It seems to be that government action (like hate crime laws) only makes matters worse. Creating laws does not change people's heart. What we all need is exposure to different things/people. Then we'll realize that we are all just people, and pretty much the same when you boil it down.

Virginia is still for lovers. Just not gay lovers. So, I guess they'll have to stay in San Fransico if they want to play ass cowboys.

Maybe a bit silly, but I stand by it. I want (or dont want) to do something that harms no one but myself. Who is the government to tell me that I cant?

The question is: how can discrimination be resolved? It seems to be that government action (like hate crime laws) only makes matters worse. Creating laws does not change people's heart. What we all need is exposure to different things/people. Then we'll realize that we are all just people, and pretty much the same when you boil it down.

well said, i agree. i just feel that the legislature thinks that making laws=educating the public. people still drink and drive even though you can go to jail now in VA on the first offence. instead of jail they shouold expose drunk drivers to people who have been personally effected, so that they can make a connection. they should be forced to do things like community service instead of jail time. education and exposure is key.

Virginia is still for lovers. Just not gay lovers. So, I guess they'll have to stay in San Fransico if they want to play ass cowboys.

what about all those heterosexuals who want to play ass cowboys, should they move to san francisco too? I think that would reduce our state to the population size of maine.

I don't care about the gays, they can do what they want. Gay and want to be married, Go for it, but please keep your lifestyle out of my face. I don't care! Don't try to make me accept your lifestyle, I am not making you accept mine! I am a redneck hillbilly, and if you do not like people like me, then you discriminate. Let everyone live the life they chose. As long as you contribute the society and live happy, Who cares! We are only here for a short time..... then death takes us.

The fundamental thing that is disturbing about the scope of this law, at least as I understand it, and the thing that will be challenged about it, is that it acts beyond "marriage" and attempts to regulate private contracts between individuals. It's one thing to deny marriage, it is quite something else when the government steps in and says exactly what sorts of agreements two consenting adults can and can not enter into on their own. This particular law is less of a "gay issue" and more of a "government interference and regulation" issue.

Libertarianism is starting to sound more and more appealing.

I don't care about the gays, they can do what they want. Gay and want to be married, Go for it, but please keep your lifestyle out of my face. I don't care! Don't try to make me accept your lifestyle, I am not making you accept mine! I am a redneck hillbilly, and if you do not like people like me, then you discriminate. Let everyone live the life they chose. As long as you contribute the society and live happy, Who cares! We are only here for a short time..... then death takes us.

no one is trying to make you accept their lifestyle.

The fundamental thing that is disturbing about the scope of this law, at least as I understand it, and the thing that will be challenged about it, is that it acts beyond "marriage" and attempts to regulate private contracts between individuals. It's one thing to deny marriage, it is quite something else when the government steps in and says exactly what sorts of agreements two consenting adults can and can not enter into on their own. This particular law is less of a "gay issue" and more of a "government interference and regulation" issue.

Libertarianism is starting to sound more and more appealing.

the point of the law is to limit/eliminate marriage-like rights to sama-sex partners. this is only being used for gays. i think very few people realized the implications of this law, thats why it has gotten very little exposure here in VA. Just think of all the "contracts" that arent viable anymore.

Just another freedom taken away. Both parties do stuff like this. Pubbies with marriage rights and privacy, Dems with guns. The country's gonna tear itself apart if we lose more freedoms.

(Guns do suck. We shouldn't ban them, we should make the people who own them figure out that hunting/target shooting is all an excuse for primal bloodlust. Then ban them, no one wants them.)

This isn't a "freedom" taken away, because until it was "discovered" by an unelected leftwing activist court in Massachusetts 3 months ago and forced on us, that "freedom" didn't exist at all.

Cultural issues don't belong in the hands of unelected courts. Virginia's reaction is by elected representatives who have to answer to the public at the end of the day. If this was such a bad decision, they'll get voted out. Public opinion will be respected, and that is exactly the way it should be.

Religious arguments or not, gay couples should be allowed to be married (at least legally). That way they get the same rights as the rest of us. Divorce rights and so forth.

This isn't a "freedom" taken away, because until it was "discovered" by an unelected leftwing activist court in Massachusetts 3 months ago and forced on us, that "freedom" didn't exist at all.

Cultural issues don't belong in the hands of unelected courts. Virginia's reaction is by elected representatives who have to answer to the public at the end of the day. If this was such a bad decision, they'll get voted out. Public opinion will be respected, and that is exactly the way it should be.


Never underestimate the ignorance of people in large groups

This isn't a "freedom" taken away, because until it was "discovered" by an unelected leftwing activist court in Massachusetts 3 months ago and forced on us, that "freedom" didn't exist at all.

Wait, gay people weren't allowed to enter into contracts like power of attorney, etc before the Massachusetts court decided that the Massachusetts constitution prohibited banning people getting married??!! I thought you people's whole argument against gay marriage was that they *could* enter into contracts. ::confused::

Cultural issues don't belong in the hands of unelected courts. Virginia's reaction is by elected representatives who have to answer to the public at the end of the day. If this was such a bad decision, they'll get voted out. Public opinion will be respected, and that is exactly the way it should be.

Public opinion should not be respected when it infringes on the rights of others. Popular public opinion in certain parts of the south is that all the blacks should be sent back to Africa or go back into servitude - does that make it right?

the point of the law is to limit/eliminate marriage-like rights to sama-sex partners. this is only being used for gays. i think very few people realized the implications of this law, thats why it has gotten very little exposure here in VA. Just think of all the "contracts" that arent viable anymore.

Exactly. This goes beyond simple civil union vs. marriage debate and may infringe upon rights and contracts that are not necessarily covered by either of those terms (Power of Attorney, Living Wills, wills of any sort, actually, beneficiary designation, etc.). While these are not specifically limited to marriage or civil unions of any sort, they are certainly generally covered under them and, by the limited portions of this HB 751, it is questionable if they will be allowed. This not only specifically limits the rights of a minority class, but actually takes away rights that they currently possess. While a ban on gay marriage is one thing, there is no way that this bill is constitutional because of it's unreasonably broad scope and will be struck down at it's first challenge.

Thank god I live in Canada!

Same sex couples can get married here, but oops not divorced because we forgot to change that law. We should have it all sorted out in a few months.

Marriage is a religious institution. If homosexuality is inherently against a given religion, they have no right to get married before the God of that religion.
It is also unreasonable to force a religious organisation that is against homosexuality to allow a homosexual civil service to take place in their place of worship as it would be an afront to their views and their God.

My personal view is that a same-sex couple is unfit to raise a child and should not be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs a father and a mother to grow up normally. In the event that a parent dies, it is unfortunate but such misfortune shouldn't rob the right of the surviving parent to raise the child. Similarly, I don't believe unmarried people should be allowed to adopt for the same reason.

The purpose of benifits to married people is to facilitate raising children. Children can't bring in their own money (and one member of the married couple may have to leave their job to effectively raise the children) so a married couple need benifits to help them. I personally believe that unless they can't afford to raise children otherwise, only one member of a married couple should be employed full time because again, children should be raised by their parents, not by creches and child-minders.

Thank god I live in Canada!

Same sex couples can get married here, but oops not divorced because we forgot to change that law. We should have it all sorted out in a few months.
And it will take that long because our politicians are morons who can't can't get anything done without petty squabbling.

Marriage is a religious institution. If homosexuality is inherently against a given religion, they have no right to get married before the God of that religion.
It is also unreasonable to force a religious organisation that is against homosexuality to allow a homosexual civil service to take place in their place of worship as it would be an afront to their views and their God.

My personal view is that a same-sex couple is unfit to raise a child and should not be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs a father and a mother to grow up normally. In the event that a parent dies, it is unfortunate but such misfortune shouldn't rob the right of the surviving parent to raise the child. Similarly, I don't believe unmarried people should be allowed to adopt for the same reason.

The purpose of benifits to married people is to facilitate raising children. Children can't bring in their own money (and one member of the married couple may have to leave their job to effectively raise the children) so a married couple need benifits to help them. I personally believe that unless they can't afford to raise children otherwise, only one member of a married couple should be employed full time because again, children should be raised by their parents, not by creches and child-minders.

That's great, bravo to you for having an opinion, but that's not what this bill does. This bill takes away the rights of two adult, consenting people to create contracts between them, such as wills, under the assumption that these are somehow "marriage rights" when they are, in fact, not. Like I've said, outlawing gay marraige is one thing, because this is not a "right" traditionally enjoyed by same-sex couples. However, this bill goes far beyond that and, under the umbrella of "protecting marriage", says you do not have the right to leave your property to someone, or designate your own power of attorney or even have someone on your checking account, rights that everyone, until now, has had in Virginia not because of marriage, but because they are citizens.

Furthermore, because of the hideously broad scope of this bill, a legal contract in another state may be invalid in Virginia. So, technically, if two people are in a relationship and one goes to Virginia and dies, the other couldn't even retrieve the body, regardless of their living will status or legal documents filed in another state. In effect, this bill attempts to remove legal contracts from other states and establish Virginia's law as supreme. Not going to happen.

Marriage is a religious institution. If homosexuality is inherently against a given religion, they have no right to get married before the God of that religion.
It is also unreasonable to force a religious organisation that is against homosexuality to allow a homosexual civil service to take place in their place of worship as it would be an afront to their views and their God.So you have no problems with the idea of gay people getting married if the union is entirely civil?

My personal view is that a same-sex couple is unfit to raise a child and should not be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs a father and a mother to grow up normally. In the event that a parent dies, it is unfortunate but such misfortune shouldn't rob the right of the surviving parent to raise the child. Similarly, I don't believe unmarried people should be allowed to adopt for the same reason.Considering the lack of adoptive parents in the west, is stopping kids from having the chance of a moral thing to do?

All I have to say on this topic is:

Yay for second class citizens!

A bunch of straight people in suits thought it would be nice to take away the rights of gays. How nice.

Anything less sarcastic or longer is not nescessary from me, you can see my opinion right there.

All I have to say on this topic is:

Yay for second class citizens!

A bunch of straight people in suits thought it would be nice to take away the rights of gays. How nice.

Anything less sarcastic or longer is not nescessary from me, you can see my opinion right there.

they see fit to take away plenty of people's rights

minors, the insane, convicts, imegrents, druggies

this time it's on a far far smaller scale, and they didn't take anything away, they just refused to give it to you

they see fit to take away plenty of people's rights

minors, the insane, convicts, imegrents, druggies

this is no different

Ah, so we see- let's compare Gays to immigrants, drug users, and criminals.

Why don't we give them nice tags on their shirts to wear so that we can see who is gay?

Let them get married!

Who cares if a couple of gays get hitched? It's not like it'll wreck the institution of marriage, hell, the heteros already did that with divorce! By letting gays marry, you INCREASE the marriage rate and strength the institution of marriage

or spite the powers that created that institution?

Government REALLY needs to get out of religion. Shouldn't regulate it, shouldn't oppress it, etc. Take civil unions out of the whole structure. It's none of our business what couples (regardless of gender) do, don't do, support, don't support.

Leave marriage a religious issue--no benefits or penalties from the government in any form.

they see fit to take away plenty of people's rights

minors, the insane, convicts, imegrents, druggies

this time it's on a far far smaller scale, and they didn't take anything away, they just refused to give it to you

Which is a flat out lie, because this bill makes currently legal contracts such as beneficiary designation and wills illegal if it happens between a same-sex couple, a right that is not solely in the realm of marriage. Additionally, it attempts to do this to contracts that are legal in another state.

This is not about defining marriage or make laws for a new situation. This is about taking away legal freedoms for a minority for no good reason whatsoever. How in God's name is it anyone's buisness if someone wants to leave their money to someone else and has a will drawn up to show it or if they want to specifically designate someone to make their life choices for them should they become incapacitated? Everyone has these rights now, both single and married, except for open and acknowledged same-sex couples in the state of Virginia, where, for some reason, it's now illegal and this, THIS, is going to save heterosexual marriage? Frankly, if this is what it takes to stop Brittany from marrying someone new every other week or to bring the divorce rate down, heterosexual marriage isn't worth saving.

Additionally, it attempts to do this to contracts that are legal in another state.

contracts that are brought to Virginia, not the ones in other states

just like my Delaware driver's licence not being legal in Virginia were I to move there

contracts that are brought to Virginia, not the ones in other states

just like my Delaware driver's licence not being legal in Virginia were I to move there

It doesn't say that in the bill, it simply stipulates, "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 bill specifically nullifies other contractual agreements brought in from out of state with no defined limit of scope.

Government REALLY needs to get out of religion. Shouldn't regulate it, shouldn't oppress it, etc. Take civil unions out of the whole structure. It's none of our business what couples (regardless of gender) do, don't do, support, don't support.

Leave marriage a religious issue--no benefits or penalties from the government in any form.

Actually, this would be a bad idea. The government has a vested interest in knowing what people have chosen to live their lives together. Otherwise, you end up with all sorts of legal and monetary issues that would start deluging small claims and family courts with cases. You have to have some sort of legal recognition of two people binding themselves together in such a way that they share everything.

contracts that are brought to Virginia, not the ones in other states

just like my Delaware driver's licence not being legal in Virginia were I to move there

Actually, what happens is, if you move to Virginia, your Delaware liscense is no longer valid in *Delaware* because you are no longer a citizen there. Because you have no valid driver's liscense in *Delaware,* Virginia doesn't have to recognize said invalid liscense.

However, if you just drive from Delaware to Virginia to visit (not to move permanently), Virginia does have to recognize your Delaware liscense.

This isn't a "freedom" taken away, because until it was "discovered" by an unelected leftwing activist court in Massachusetts 3 months ago and forced on us, that "freedom" didn't exist at all.

Cultural issues don't belong in the hands of unelected courts. Virginia's reaction is by elected representatives who have to answer to the public at the end of the day. If this was such a bad decision, they'll get voted out. Public opinion will be respected, and that is exactly the way it should be.My god, republican at all? If I hear the term 'activist' judges one more time, I'm going to freak. Do they teach you this stuff at conservative camp or something?

There exists a set of checks and balances in the US government system. The courts decide based on the fairness and equality of all people. If that's not good enough for you, then move to Cuba. Stop trying over legislate the courts. Someone has to appoint these judges anyway... and I'm sure they'd probably get elected if it was an electable seat anyways.

Actually, this would be a bad idea. The government has a vested interest in knowing what people have chosen to live their lives together. Otherwise, you end up with all sorts of legal and monetary issues that would start deluging small claims and family courts with cases. You have to have some sort of legal recognition of two people binding themselves together in such a way that they share everything.

I don't believe so. If you want someone to get your belongings--create a will or living trust--like those who choose not to pay the marriage tax penalty do (or those who can't get married legally in the US).

Even with marriage, probate takes most everything away. The state doesn't help much at all with that--just like most everything else the government touches. It usually does more harm than good.

Has anyone thought about the fact that this is one of those slippery slopes going down the other slope?

Not to mention that one of the conservatives main arguments just went right down the tube. "Homosexuals shouldn't marry because they already get the same rights in Civil Unions." Well, now they don't in the lovely state of Virginia. What will they ban next? Sex is only for procreation and couples are not allowed to sleep in the same bed? (note the sarcasm)

This is horrible. I'm half hoping that people will move out of Virginia in protest, and I'm half hoping that people will stay and try to wreak havoc on their state government.

This is horrible. I'm half hoping that people will move out of Virginia in protest, and I'm half hoping that people will stay and try to wreak havoc on their state government.

And about 95% will ignore it, not know about it, or just not care, and nothing will get done. Watch, and then when it finally comes around to effect them, THEN they'll throw a fit. This is the pitfall with most of America.

Imagine the uproar if gay legislators had done this to straight Virginians- there might be riots, and the bill would overturn in a day.

But, since we're picking on a minority, there's nothing they can do. This legislation will stand and there's nothing any amount of protests and lawsuits can do, in all likelyhood.

I don't believe so. If you want someone to get your belongings--create a will or living trust--like those who choose not to pay the marriage tax penalty do (or those who can't get married legally in the US).

Even with marriage, probate takes most everything away. The state doesn't help much at all with that--just like most everything else the government touches. It usually does more harm than good.

There is a *whole* lot more involved than just wills. For one thing, two people can buy a house together, but if the title is not in both names as a married couple, and one dies, the other loses the house just to pay the inheritance tax on it. Obviously if two people have bought everything together over the years, the surviving member of the couple should not have to pay half of what already belongs to the government.

Wills can be contested by the rest of the family if they don't like the person things are left to.

There are issues of what to do when a relationship breaks up - we certainly don't need every single case going to court just because there is no easy way to determine this.

There would be no way for a person who is not the biological parent of a child but has chosen to be married to the biological parent to take legal responsibility for that child.

There are many, many more things that are involved in legal marriage recognition that would cause huge problems if it were simply done away with.

Its sad what they did in Virginia. In Florida marrage is also banned and Gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to adopt, but we pay our fair share of school taxes,and all other taxes to boot....go figure :gundge:

Imagine the uproar if gay legislators had done this to straight Virginians- there might be riots, and the bill would overturn in a day.

But, since we're picking on a minority, there's nothing they can do. This legislation will stand and there's nothing any amount of protests and lawsuits can do, in all likelyhood.

i think that in all likelyhood, this law will be overturned. It's going to cause many problems because it can be applied so broadly. There have been people ot already take action against this law and lawsuits are in progress. I hope activism wins out, because this is a huge violation of rights.

in terms of economically, i hope people move out, but its unlikely, VA has a lot going for it.

There is a *whole* lot more involved than just wills. For one thing, two people can buy a house together, but if the title is not in both names as a married couple, and one dies, the other loses the house just to pay the inheritance tax on it. Obviously if two people have bought everything together over the years, the surviving member of the couple should not have to pay half of what already belongs to the government.

Wills can be contested by the rest of the family if they don't like the person things are left to.

There are issues of what to do when a relationship breaks up - we certainly don't need every single case going to court just because there is no easy way to determine this.

There would be no way for a person who is not the biological parent of a child but has chosen to be married to the biological parent to take legal responsibility for that child.

There are many, many more things that are involved in legal marriage recognition that would cause huge problems if it were simply done away with.

Oh geez. Get the house title in both names if you're serious. It's easy.

Last I checked, NOTHING belongs to the government. It's a nebulous entity. Everything that the government supposedly owns is actually owned by the citizens of the US. The government already gets way too much money as it is--they shouldn't be getting my half of the house that I leave to the woman I love.

Yes, wills can be contested. That's why I mentioned living trusts. They're more difficult to unravel. Also make explicit provisions as to whom is elligible to contest.

As for legal cases involving disolving relationships: Have you seen divorce courts these days? There are already many disputes. There would be no change there.

And yes, a "step-parent" can legally adopt a child not theirs.

The actual problem is that there are civil laws surrounding a religious institution. They need to be removed. It really isn't all that difficult to do everything that's involved with the marriage benefits/penalties. I'm doing it now.

"Virginia has never recognized same-sex marriages. But a new law that went into effect on July 1st goes too far. It not only prohibits civil unions but also could void other contracts between same-sex couples such as wills, child-custody agreements and medical directives."

Quoted above is the jist of this law. Unfortunately i cant find a good link for this, so if you have one, please post (everything i've been able to find doesnt express the law well)

Back on point though, how horrible is this?

Virginia is clearly NOT for lovers. they need to change that damn slogan. this state is horrible! Such extreme conservatism needs to be stopped.


*mutters under breath about how racist people can be*

Oh geez. Get the house title in both names if you're serious. It's easy.

Last I checked, NOTHING belongs to the government. It's a nebulous entity. Everything that the government supposedly owns is actually owned by the citizens of the US. The government already gets way too much money as it is--they shouldn't be getting my half of the house that I leave to the woman I love.

Yes, wills can be contested. That's why I mentioned living trusts. They're more difficult to unravel. Also make explicit provisions as to whom is elligible to contest.

As for legal cases involving disolving relationships: Have you seen divorce courts these days? There are already many disputes. There would be no change there.

And yes, a "step-parent" can legally adopt a child not theirs.

The actual problem is that there are civil laws surrounding a religious institution. They need to be removed. It really isn't all that difficult to do everything that's involved with the marriage benefits/penalties. I'm doing it now.

The point is, though, that under the new Virginia law, if a same-sex couple enters into any of these legal agreements, they are not valid simply because they are a couple of the same sex. Furthermore, if they go into Virginia after having made these agreements in another state, they are not valid.

I agree with you that you can "synthesize" a marriage with current statutes on the books, which is why this was such a non-issue until Bush chose it as a battle arena by supporting the Amendment to rob states of thier traditional rights. Sure, it's harder and takes more work, but if it's really that important to you to have those benefits and penalties as a couple, then you shouldn't be adverse to a little hard work. This new law, though, goes so far beyond that, though, by arbitrarily taking away rights people already have.

The point is, though, that under the new Virginia law, if a same-sex couple enters into any of these legal agreements, they are not valid simply because they are a couple of the same sex. Furthermore, if they go into Virginia after having made these agreements in another state, they are not valid.

I agree with you that you can "synthesize" a marriage with current statutes on the books, which is why this was such a non-issue until Bush chose it as a battle arena by supporting the Amendment to rob states of thier traditional rights. Sure, it's harder and takes more work, but if it's really that important to you to have those benefits and penalties as a couple, then you shouldn't be adverse to a little hard work. This new law, though, goes so far beyond that, though, by arbitrarily taking away rights people already have.

So, if two gents put both their names on a house title, the Virginia government says that's illegal? The Virginia government can override a living trust?

If that's the case, you're right, that really blows!

So, if two gents put both their names on a house title, the Virginia government says that's illegal? The Virginia government can override a living trust?

If that's the case, you're right, that really blows!

YES!!!

This says it all. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55550

the link doesnt work for me... anyone... help...

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

Why?

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

its not like banning it is going to make it go away. stupidity like that has NEVER worked, look at drugs and prohibition.

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

plus with that logic you will have banned countless great thinkers and their works. Anyone got a banned copy of Shakespeare's complete works???

So, if two gents put both their names on a house title, the Virginia government says that's illegal? The Virginia government can override a living trust?

If that's the case, you're right, that really blows!

Bingo. That's the point. This isn't about same-sex marriage anymore. Under VAHB751, no legally binding contract that is entered into with the intent to provide anything resembling marital-style benefits is valid in Virginia if it is between members of the same sex. Banning same-sex marriage is one thing. That's a state's rights issue and Virginia had already passed a ban. This law, however, not only takes away rights citiznes already have but attempts to put it's own law standards as superior to all other states, regardless of their stance on same-sex couples.

It really does blow and it's going to get struck down as unconstitutional the first time it gets challenged as it rightly should be.

Oh geez. Get the house title in both names if you're serious. It's easy.

It doesn't matter if you get the house title in both names. Unless you are married, only one person gets to get the tax write-off for it and if one of the owners dies, the other has to pay inheritance tax on the other half.

As for legal cases involving disolving relationships: Have you seen divorce courts these days? There are already many disputes. There would be no change there.

Yes, I have, but all divorces don't actually go to court. Why? Because there are laws that stipulate what happens if no one contests it. Without those laws, *every* single breakup of two people cohabitating would have to end up in court to make the split of goods legal. This would increase government beurocracy and the amount of people tying up the courts in this area.

And yes, a "step-parent" can legally adopt a child not theirs.

Only if:
(a) The other biological parent has given up the child.
(b) The step-parent is married to the biological parent.

The actual problem is that there are civil laws surrounding a religious institution. They need to be removed. It really isn't all that difficult to do everything that's involved with the marriage benefits/penalties. I'm doing it now.

I disagree. I think the religious undertones to the civil institution need to be removed. Religious marriage and civil marriage, while synonymous in many people's heads, are actually two separate institutions and need to be kept as such. But there is a compelling reason for government to recognize the civil institution.

Why?

Combination of retardation, lack of self-confidence and general hatefulness probably.

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

Yes, Enodscopia, when you make a statement you have to say why you make it!!! What good is that other then to fill the forum with bullshit!

I for one, live in Holland, where gay marriage and softdrugs are perfectly legal and that's a good thing! I'm not gay myself but I do use alcohol (which is a softdrug too) and weed once in a while.....

I dare say that I'm a decent bloke and not a criminal (well, I did get fined 170 euro's for driving too fast recently).

#1 reason to hate gays and bi's the illnesses they started see i hate bis more cause they spreaded them to others who weren't of that sexuality. it would have killed your sexuallity. but now kills everybody. call me what you like this my view and its my right to express it

#1 reason to hate gays and bi's the illnesses they started see i hate bis more cause they spreaded them to others who weren't of that sexuality. it would have killed your sexuallity. but now kills everybody. call me what you like this my view and its my right to express it

Yeah, damn those mad gay scientists creating evil diseases, bent on destroying heterosexuality for all eternity!

#1 reason to hate gays and bi's the illnesses they started see i hate bis more cause they spreaded them to others who weren't of that sexuality. it would have killed your sexuallity. but now kills everybody. call me what you like this my view and its my right to express it


...SInce when was homosexuality a viral desease?


Look, I think we can all agree on one thing: no matter what, it's always good when more people of your sex are gay :p




Oh, and Virginia sucks. I wish to SQUASH it -_-

#1 reason to hate gays and bi's the illnesses they started see i hate bis more cause they spreaded them to others who weren't of that sexuality. it would have killed your sexuallity. but now kills everybody. call me what you like this my view and its my right to express it

you do, of course, realize that the first humans to get and spread AIDS were heterosexuals, the majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual, and the fastest-growing demographics of infected people are heterosexuals, right? because i'm assuming you were just posting that as a joke, since nobody is actually stupid enough to believe what you typed.

"Virginia has never recognized same-sex marriages. But a new law that went into effect on July 1st goes too far. It not only prohibits civil unions but also could void other contracts between same-sex couples such as wills, child-custody agreements and medical directives."

Quoted above is the jist of this law. Unfortunately i cant find a good link for this, so if you have one, please post (everything i've been able to find doesnt express the law well)

Back on point though, how horrible is this?

Virginia is clearly NOT for lovers. they need to change that damn slogan. this state is horrible! Such extreme conservatism needs to be stopped.
thats nothing, a county in tennessee outlawed homosexuality

#1 reason to hate gays and bi's the illnesses they started see i hate bis more cause they spreaded them to others who weren't of that sexuality. it would have killed your sexuallity. but now kills everybody. call me what you like this my view and its my right to express it
maybe they would stop doing shit in the shadows and trying to hide it and wouldnt spread so much "illness" if dumbasses stopped being so intolerant

you do, of course, realize that the first humans to get and spread AIDS were heterosexuals, the majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual, and the fastest-growing demographics of infected people are heterosexuals, right? because i'm assuming you were just posting that as a joke, since nobody is actually stupid enough to believe what you typed.
you would be surprised

I'm really happy what virginia did, but its still not far enough being a homosexual needs to be BANNED completely.

This dood (i'm assuming its a dood) has an interesting point. not only "why"...but...HOW would someone stop me from having sex? I'm just not into voyeurism...so, short of installing a CCTV (I'm sure the US is on the road to this type of Big Brother-ism - courtesy of Gee-Dub)...

Interesting little adventure into personal liberties, etc.

This dood (i'm assuming its a dood) has an interesting point. not only "why"...but...HOW would someone stop me from having sex? I'm just not into voyeurism...so, short of installing a CCTV (I'm sure the US is on the road to this type of Big Brother-ism - courtesy of Gee-Dub)...

Interesting little adventure into personal liberties, etc.
no no, they arnt banning you from having sex, they want to ban you from existing. they want you in seperate schools from their straight children and drinknig from different water fountains from straight people and living in a designated homosexual person area

no no, they arnt banning you from having sex, they want to ban you from existing. they want you in seperate schools from their straight children and drinknig from different water fountains from straight people and living in a designated homosexual person area

hey there, MrGrimm, what's up? funny I should find you here. I agree with you, man, I just don't know what's taking people so long.

Its about time. And I hope that make being queer ILLEGAL and all of them that are to be sent away.

lol, i hope they do, and that all the homosexuals DO leave the state. since homosexuals tend to be far more affluent than their heterosexual counterparts, the heteros of Virginia can enjoy all the benefits of less tax revenue. since the gay people are currently paying for the marital benefits and child-rearing perks they are forbidden to experience, those areas will take a significant hit if the gay population moves its money to another state.

no no, they arnt banning you from having sex, they want to ban you from existing. they want you in seperate schools from their straight children and drinknig from different water fountains from straight people and living in a designated homosexual person area


That sounds right up my alley! Where were the queer schools when I was a knee-high! This type of arrangement would eliminate all the "is she or isn't she" debate...

In all seriousness, people just need to get over themselves and worry about their own family and problems...really, how does homosexuality affect people who are not gay? It doesn't. Get over it, or try it...you might like it.

...really, how does homosexuality affect people who are not gay? It doesn't. Get over it, or try it...you might like it.

It brings the wrath of God. Just ask Pat Robertson and/or any other braindead blithering idiot with a lucrative ministry and or political platform pandering to ignorance.

In all seriousness, people just need to get over themselves and worry about their own family and problems...really, how does homosexuality affect people who are not gay? It doesn't. Get over it, or try it...you might like it.

More gay dudes = less competition....especially since they are the good looking well dressed ones who actually know how to treat women...

Why is it that most lesbian couples I see look like dudes? Doesnt that ruin the whole point? Or are they after the companionship that only another woman can offer? Let me get my freud out...

hey there, MrGrimm, what's up? funny I should find you here. I agree with you, man, I just don't know what's taking people so long.
and which are you

thats nothing, a county in tennessee outlawed homosexuality

what does that even mean??? How???