Defense of Marriage in Virginia

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
You can find it under their FAQs: http://www.va4marriage.org/faqs.htm

Look specifically at the questions “Have any other contries legalized same-sex marriage?” and “What, if any, effect, has Scandinavian same-sex marriage had on children?”

What concerns me about these arguments is that they seem compelling, but they just say things like “social science research” and don’t give any cites for studies. The only cite they give is to a likely very biased book. Granted, this website is to convince people to vote for the amendment, not have serious debate… so I suppose that explains why.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t call them compelling. I’d call them “reaching”. And remember that correlation isn’t causation-- it could just the natural trend over time to delay marraige. Besides, no Scandinavian country allows SSM anyway-- civil unions, yes, but not marriage. I call BS on that FAQ.

42

I’m voting for the amendment, as are many other people who are probably not on this board and/or aren’t interested in getting into long discussions about their position.

43

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
I consider it a matter of established fact, based on what happened in Ohio, that many victims of domestic violence would (at best) find it necessary to go through an extra wringer to obtain those protections or (at worst) be denied them altogether.

Even the former is unacceptable, given that it would be inflicted as a side effect of an unnecessary measure to ward off a nonexistent problem.
[/QUOTE]

I think you’ll agree that the amendment is going to pass.

What if, a year from now, there are no published reports of any victims of domestic violence being treated differently under this law? Will you then concede you were wrong?

44

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No.

What is your cite for the proposition that any court would interpret that language as you suggest?
[/QUOTE]

Its a bullshit interpretation Bricker. I don’t like constitutional amendments that limit SSM either but the real argument for allowing them is that the arguments against SSM (or at least civil unions) are fucking retarded.

The big problem in Virginia is that Webb, the Dem candidate has a chance of beating the Republican incumbent (Allen, he’s the racist that had some shady stock option deal with a company that was doing government work; the Dem candidate was in charge of the navy during the tailhook incident and has said that women don’t belong in combat) because there is anticipated to be low Republican turnout and high Democratic turnout, this amendment will increase the Republican turnout but will do nothing for the Democratic turnout.

45

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Hokay, let’s use cites, instead…
[/QUOTE]

I take it back, there is no reason to believe that Virginia Judges cannot be as stupid as Ohio Judges.

46

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Just to confirm before proceeding: I take it that you are formally back-tracking on your original question (“What is your cite for the proposition that any court would interpret that language as you suggest?”)…?
[/QUOTE]

Did you post an overturned decision as a cite? Did you KNOW it was overturned when you posted it? Are you trying to ruin your credibility or does it just come naturally?

47

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Do you have a good-faith belief that the ultimate result of the passage of the marriage amendment in Virginia will be the loss, as a matter of law, of the protections of Virginia Code 18.2-57.2, for unmarried family or household members as defined in Virginia Code 16.1-228?
[/QUOTE]

If it happened in Ohio, it can happen in Virginia. BTW, what exactly is the case in Ohio? Was that case overturned or not? Who is making shit up here?

48

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
If that were the only problem, the court would need to look no farther than the “…or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the offender” to toss out the defense. At least some of the original and appeals courts didn’t find it so simple; ergo, the can of worms remains.

I don’t see any need to open it in Virginia.
[/QUOTE]

“consanguinity or affinity” means blood or marriage.

49

On purely intellectual grounds this domestic violence discussion has been interesting. However, it makes me very uncomfortable to hear that even some of the arguments against putting discrimination into a constitution revolve around partners in a relationship beating each other.

I know it happens sometimes, but this is still leaving me with a bad feeling.

50

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I wouldn’t call them compelling. I’d call them “reaching”. And remember that correlation isn’t causation-- it could just the natural trend over time to delay marraige. Besides, no Scandinavian country allows SSM anyway-- civil unions, yes, but not marriage. I call BS on that FAQ.
[/QUOTE]

What I intended was, if I can see cites to unbiased research indicating that their assertions were true AND is convincing that it is the governments responsibility to fix it, then they are compelling. Lacking this evidence, they are not and so I come to a similar conclusion as do you.

[QUOTE=control-z]
I’m voting for the amendment, as are many other people who are probably not on this board and/or aren’t interested in getting into long discussions about their position.
[/QUOTE]

I’m aware that many others are voting for this amendment, including members of my family. What I’m interested in is seeing the perspective of those who support this and why.

However, I will add the caveat that I’m not interested in moral or religious arguments because I do not believe in legislating morality. Personally, based on my beliefs, there are a number of things I find immoral, among them, to choose one that is outside of the scope of this argument to avoid tainting it, is recreational drug use. However, provided the user is consenting and not harming anyone else, I think he should be allowed to do that. Similarly, despite whether I find homosexuality moral or not, assuming both of those who are partaking are consenting adults, I see no reason to legislate against it.

Can you, or anyone else who supports this legislation, regardless of whether you live in Virginia or not, convince me to vote for this amendment? Can you give any cites or arguments to support the assertion that SSM damages traditional marriage and child rearing in such a way that it becomes the government’s responsibility to correct it? Can you show any kind of negative economic impact by allowing SSM like rising health care costs leading to increased cost of benefits leading to lowered wages?

The bottom line is, I like to be educated on my votes when I enter the booth and, on an issue as controversial as this one may turn out to be, I want to make sure I get it right.

51

[QUOTE=col_10022]
If it happened in Ohio, it can happen in Virginia. BTW, what exactly is the case in Ohio? Was that case overturned or not? Who is making shit up here?
[/QUOTE]

Well, actually, no - because as has already been explained, Ohio’s domestic-violence law was different from Virginia’s. Virginia’s law (Va Code § 18.2-57.2) forbids “assault and battery against a family or household member.” It defines “family or household member” in § 16.1-228 as:

Note particularly (vi): "any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person, and any children of either of them then residing in the same home with the person. "

Now, in contrast, Ohio’s law says:

Note that Ohio’s law is tied to “person living as a spouse.” A redefinition of the law to exclude who can be a spouse might possibly change this section’s application, although I’m confident that ultimately the Ohio courts will find that it does not.

Virginia’s law applies regardless: it targets “any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person.” Period. It is NOT subjetc to change based on the amendment.

52

[QUOTE=col_10022]
If it happened in Ohio, it can happen in Virginia. BTW, what exactly is the case in Ohio? Was that case overturned or not? Who is making shit up here?
[/QUOTE]

I disagree, especially considering that you concur that “consanguinity and affinity” equates to “blood or marriage”, then the laws reflecting domestic abuse in Ohio and Virginia are definitely different. Further, considering that Virginia is derfinately more conservative. If it is still in appeal in Ohio, I can’t imagine it would have a snowball’s chance in Virginia.

53

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
On purely intellectual grounds this domestic violence discussion has been interesting. However, it makes me very uncomfortable to hear that even some of the arguments against putting discrimination into a constitution revolve around partners in a relationship beating each other.

I know it happens sometimes, but this is still leaving me with a bad feeling.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. However, what bothers me more is that the opponents of this amendment have to resort to what is essentially scaremongering. As of yet, I think the amendment should be defeated on its own merits, and adding this kind of silliness by either (a) foolishly assuming that different laws in different states with different political views and different judges will necessarily be interpretted the same way or (b) deliberately misinterpretting the law to attempt to scare people in non-marital relationships to think it threatens their livelihood as well.

54

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I agree. However, what bothers me more is that the opponents of this amendment have to resort to what is essentially scaremongering. As of yet, I think the amendment should be defeated on its own merits, and adding this kind of silliness by either (a) foolishly assuming that different laws in different states with different political views and different judges will necessarily be interpretted the same way or (b) deliberately misinterpretting the law to attempt to scare people in non-marital relationships to think it threatens their livelihood as well.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, except that I think it’s very little (a) and very much (b).

This amendment simply enshrines into the constitution what is already law in Virginia. It will be that much more difficult to remove it later. You should vote for this amendment only if you believe that same-sex couples should be permitted neither marriage nor civil union status in Virginia. It’s unclear what, apart from simple animus towards gays, could motivate such a view. If you believe in limited government, for example – a traditional conservative view – surely you would support the right of two people to contract, between themselves, an arrangement that would approximate marriage.

But as you correctly point out, among the many correct arguments against this amendment we do NOT find “it will destroy domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.” That’s not so, and I find it very disturbing that opponents of the amendment feel they have to concoct specious arguments to defeat it.

Steve MB -- let's talk about domestic violence again
55

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I agree, except that I think it’s very little (a) and very much (b).
…
But as you correctly point out, among the many correct arguments against this amendment we do NOT find “it will destroy domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.” That’s not so, and I find it very disturbing that opponents of the amendment feel they have to concoct specious arguments to defeat it.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Honestly, I was being a mostly facetious with regard to (a); however, I do expect there are some people out there who honestly came to this conclusion. I expect a lot more were convinced by those who deliberately misinterpret to create the specious argument.

That’s precisely why I expect I’ll vote against it. However, I want people to vote against it for the right reason(s), not because they’re worried about these red herrings, but because they believe in limited government or expanded personal rights of consenting adults. Similarly, I want people who intend to vote for it for the right reasons, not because they morally/religiously or otherwise object to homosexuality but because… well, that’s where I’m lost. I’m still looking for this compelling argument to vote for it.

56

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But as you correctly point out, among the many correct arguments against this amendment we do NOT find “it will destroy domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.” That’s not so, and I find it very disturbing that opponents of the amendment feel they have to concoct specious arguments to defeat it.
[/QUOTE]

The argument I have consistently made is that it allows (which, for a population the size of an entire state, pretty much equates to “insures”) that lawyers with less restraint and ethical self-control than present company will (at best) waste the judicial system’s resources or (at worst) actually derail domestic-violence prosecutions.

57

People don’t vote for things for “the right reasons”. This amendment is going to pass because most people in Virginia think that gays are and should be second class citizens. And if, by some miracle it doesn’t pass, it’ll be because its opponents have managed to convince a majority of the voters that there’s some chance this amendment can hurt them to.

58

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
People don’t vote for things for “the right reasons”. This amendment is going to pass because most people in Virginia think that gays are and should be second class citizens. And if, by some miracle it doesn’t pass, it’ll be because its opponents have managed to convince a majority of the voters that there’s some chance this amendment can hurt them to.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t disagree with your assessment, and that’s a large part of what bothers me about this amendment… regardless of whether it passes or fails, it will mostly ride on other people’s self-interest. With most other bills and such, I can often at least see a reasoned out and logical argument, and I generally just don’t agree based on political ideology. The problem with this one is, I CAN’T see a logically reasoned out argument supporting this, and even for the side that I do tend to support, most of them are going to do it because they’re scared, not because they believe it’s right.

59

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I think the argument is that by allowing SSM, it somehow discourages heterosexual couples from getting married by “demeaning” it. Or, it makes it more socially acceptable to be in a relationship without being married and thus makes having children out of wedlock more acceptable.
[/quote]

And that is, quite frankly, a stupid argument. To think that allowing homosexual couples to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of fidelity and monogamy before their loved ones and the law somehow “demeans” marriage is just short-sighted and prejudiced. And to think that allowing more couples to get married has anything to do with being in a non-married relationship more socially acceptable is just jaw-droppingly inane.

Even giving this “va4marriage” group’s premise the benefit of the doubt is more credit than it deserves. Put another way, wondering “how much, if any, of that” is due to SSM is shifting the burden of proof from where it rightfully belongs. It is the responsibility of “va4marriage” to demonstrate that there is any kind of causal relationship between SSM and children born out of wedlock. Until they do their ridiculous premise is just so much worthless horseshit.

60

It is the people of VA once again making it clear they don’t want gays in there state. When I lived there they were getting ready to put the question on the ballet.

I left VA earlier then expected because I could not legaly defend myself against discrimination that was occour at my work. My BF joined me as soon as he finish at George Mason. VA does nothing to protect homosexuals and has no intention of changing that. They simple continue to ad laws preventing gays to live there comfortably.

I know a number of gays who lived in VA and left because the political climate. The gays I know that still live there have little intention of staying long term. I guess VA is being successful in driving us out.