Defense of Marriage in Virginia

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Orbifold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Your absolutely right, the burden of proof is on them, and they fail to provide any cites for the studies that supposedly support their claims. I’d hoped someone who supports this amendment might be able to show up and provide such evidence. I can absolutely conceive of, and in fact know, individuals who feel like SSM demeans marriage; however, these individuals are already married.

[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I understand you feeling ostracized by the state, but I’m curious as to what else, obviously aside from SSM, makes you feel so unwelcomed here. Especially in Northern Virginia, I would think you would feel as accepted as you would in any New England state.

62

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I understand you feeling ostracized by the state, but I’m curious as to what else, obviously aside from SSM, makes you feel so unwelcomed here. Especially in Northern Virginia, I would think you would feel as accepted as you would in any New England state.
[/QUOTE]

Gays and lesbians are not a protected class in VA. It is completely legal to descriminate against gays and lesbians because of there sexual preferances. In VA employers can say we are firing you because you are gay. There is no legal recourse one could take to that firing.

While I was in Fairfax VA I worked with a number of ex-military types that were common in that area. While not all military people are bigots, I think it is fair to say bigotry is more accepted in the culture. When I was passed up for a promotion most expected me to receive, I inquired as to why. The answer I got was ‘I don’t think most people are comfortable taking direction from someone with your moral values therefor Bob(unqualified candidate was selected)’

I do not register on most peoples gay-dar. I would have been much more successful in VA if I never made my sexuality known. Overal I am much more comfortable with the social climate in MA because I can be open about my sexuality without fear of bigotry

63

[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]

That’s their right, but if you’re gonna stick your nose into this forum you’re supposed to argue, and then defend your arguments. Polling is done in IMHO.

64

[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]

Why? Why do you hate me, and swampbear and antinor and Miller and all the other gay folk here? Why do you hate gay people so much that you would vote to amend your state constitution to forever make them second-class citizens?

If there were an amendment to strip African-Americans of the right to marry white people on the ballot, would you vote for it?

65

[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
Gays and lesbians are not a protected class in VA. It is completely legal to descriminate against gays and lesbians because of there sexual preferances. In VA employers can say we are firing you because you are gay. There is no legal recourse one could take to that firing.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure this is true 100% true, though I’m sure you’d be more familiar with that than I would be. Virginia is an “at-will” state, and they can fire you for any reason or “no reason”, unless they’re firing you because you’re part of a protected class (eg, religion, race, sex, etc.). Now, whether sexual orientation is or is not considered a protected class, I’m not sure; but, because Virginia is at will, they can actually fire you because you’re a member of a protected class, and just give no reason. Then, as I understand, to fight it the onus is on you to prove that is why they fired you.

While I’m sorry that you were passed up for a job because of that, its an unfortunate circumstance that he was probably right. Not a whole lot of people are as accepting as we (as a society) wish they would be. In fact, an even more disturbing trend I’ve noticed, is that many of the people I do know who are all for homosexual rights and SSM, have a “Not in my back yard” approach. That is, it comes out sounding like they’re saying “sure they should have the rights, I just don’t want to have to work with them, be friends with them, or have them in my family.” Sadly, it seems more and more that, for a number of those who support those rights are hypocrites and merely paying it lip service. I’m genuinely curious how many of them will ultimately betray their words and vote for the amendment.

While I’m sure there are more who are more open about it in MA, I’m curious if you run into many of them that are of the type I mentioned above.

66

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Why? Why do you hate me, and swampbear and antinor and Miller and all the other gay folk here? Why do you hate gay people so much that you would vote to amend your state constitution to forever make them second-class citizens?
[/QUOTE]

These are emotional strawman arguments. I’d be hard-pressed to say that, those who find homosexuality immoral necessarily hate them. Granted, I’m 100% sure that they exist, but I’m also sure that they’re not 100% of them. I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt of the doubt. I imagine many of those who support this legislation are doing so on religious grounds. Remember, as a Christian, we are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. That is, I do not think it is necessarily mutually exclusive to find homosexuality immoral (and therefore a sin)and still love the person who is a homosexual. However, the difference arises because some people believe in legislating morality and some do not.

I’m not sure this is a fair comparison; even though they’re both marriage questions, I think they’re apples and oranges. Race and sexual orientation are not interchangeable ideas, even for bigots. My understanding of the objections to inter-racial marriage is a belief that races should be segregated to prevent diluting their “purity”. I am personally unfamiliar with anyone who is against inter-racial marraige who is also against blacks marrying other blacks. That is, they are not inherently immoral just for being black, but immoral because they want to marry whites. For SSM, there’s no issue if a homosexual male wants to marry a heterosexual female (I suppose, provided he hid his sexuality). However, many of those who object to SSM believe they are inherently immoral by virtue of being homosexual.

I think a more equivalent, but ultimately useless, question would be to ask if blacks should be allowed to marry other blacks. And whether he believes they are inherently immoral simply for being black. I suspect the answers, are the obvious ones and opposite of what you would receive if you replaced the word “black” with “gay”.

67

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Your “at best” regarding lawyer’s challenges is, I agree, inevitable. Lawyers will try any zany argument they can think of. However, any time the law is changed, there will be an inevitable flurry of challenges until precedent is established. That’s not a “waste” of judicial resources, though – it;s precisely what the judicial resources exist to address.

You “at worst” is so far out there that it can be safely ignored. The language here is not going to affect domestic violence jurisprudence in Virginia.

Why do you need any rationale other than: it’s an unwise policy, contrary to our notions of freedom and personal expression, to enact this amendment?

68

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
These are emotional strawman arguments.
[/QUOTE]

You’re damn right they’re emotional arguments. But they’re not strawmen. Many people who refuse to recognize our rights as American citizens do so because, deep down, they consider us as things beneath them, undeserving of the same considerations that they have. They may mask this as religious belief, but that’s usually just a face-saving cover. And even if it isn’t, it has no place in deciding law.

Given that nobody I’ve ever argued this with has ever had a logical and factually valid argument but had to resort, eventually, to “religion”, because religion is not to be questioned, says to me that arguing the “pro” side solely with logical arguments is a losing proposition. Anti-gay folk need to be hit hard with the fact that at the bottom of their argument is the belief that we’re just not good enough to be part of their world. Allowing them to hide behind the nice, soft, obscuring curtain of “religious belief” doesn’t do them or (especially) us any good at all.

69

[QUOTE=jayjay]
You’re damn right they’re emotional arguments. But they’re not strawmen. Many people who refuse to recognize our rights as American citizens do so because, deep down, they consider us as things beneath them, undeserving of the same considerations that they have. They may mask this as religious belief, but that’s usually just a face-saving cover. And even if it isn’t, it has no place in deciding law.
[/QUOTE]

I remain by my assertion that they are strawmen. Granted, control-z was unwarranted in making his assertion in GD and not backing it up; however, automatically assuming that an argument supporting a SSM ban is because the proponent hates homosexuals is baseless. As presented earlier, there are “potentially” arguments that have nothing to do with morality or religion. I will freely admit I find them unconvincing and without any support or evidence outside the assertions of the proponent. This is precisely why I am hoping someone who DOES support the amendment for reasons other than because “homosexuality is wrong/immoral” or “I hate homosexuals” will come in and enlighten us. Or, even if their argument is based on morality, if that someone can make a compelling argument why it is the government’s responsibility to legislate morality (or at least in this specific case).

The fact that you may never have, does not mean that there are not. That is one of the main reasons I openned this thread. For instance, the website va4marriage.org does not make any arguments regarding the morality of homosexuality. I found their arguments unconvincing in lieu of a lack of supporting evidence and several questions left unanswered. I am not allowing anyone to hide behind their religious beliefs for their support of this amendment. This is the same reason I am denouncing your attack on the amendment because it appears that your objections assume that the proponents’ arguments must necessarily be based in religion or outright hatred of homosexuals.

70

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Your “at best” regarding lawyer’s challenges is, I agree, inevitable. Lawyers will try any zany argument they can think of. However, any time the law is changed, there will be an inevitable flurry of challenges until precedent is established. That’s not a “waste” of judicial resources, though – it;s precisely what the judicial resources exist to address.
[/QUOTE]

This argument is, at bottom, a variation on the “broken window fallacy” – the fact that fixing windows is precisely what glaziers exist to address does not change the fact that that the replacement of windows broken by hooligans is a waste of resources that would otherwise go elsewhere, not a net economic stimulus.

At least one detailed legal analysis says otherwise. (warning: large PDF). (A shorter executive summary is available (warning: not-so-large PDF).)

I was not aware that an argument should never be advanced using multiple lines of mutually supporting reasoning and evidence.

71

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
At least one detailed legal analysis says otherwise. (warning: large PDF). (A shorter executive summary is available (warning: not-so-large PDF).)

[/quote]

That is not a dispassionate, neutral analysis. It was commissioned by a group dedicated to defeating the amendment.

But I tell you what. I’m pretty certain it’s going to pass. And I’m pretty certain that the argument about domestic violence laws will be quickly tried.

I’m willing to bet you that two years from now, there will be NO - zero - decisions of precedential weight that vitiate the domestic violence laws based on this amendment. Are we on?

Disclosure: Two years ago, I had a similar discussion with Zakalwe, over whether Virginia’s new LAW forbidding civil unions would lead to precisely the same result. Remember that this Constitutional amendment is not creating something new, merely moving the law to the status of a constitutional prohibition, untouchable by state court judiciaries.

The law at issue was Va. Code § 20-45.3, which provided (and still provides)

Note that the law contains the same provisions – “the privileges or obligations of marriage” – that you now point to as the likely cause of domestic violence laws’ weakening. He felt it would be used to target a living will/medical care arrangment between gays.

Zakalwe and I made a bet in September 2004. He said:

Needless to say, I accepted. And just recently, to his credit, Zakalwe contacted me to remind me that the bet was over and he’d lost.

If he had made a similar bet about domestic violence laws being successfully challenged, he’d have lost that too.

So – if the legal analysis you offer is correct, why hasn’t the feared event happened already, when Virginia’s law ALREADY does what the state constitutional amendment will do?

And if you’re so sure you’re correct – how about making it interesting?

72

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I remain by my assertion that they are strawmen. Granted, control-z was unwarranted in making his assertion in GD and not backing it up; however, automatically assuming that an argument supporting a SSM ban is because the proponent hates homosexuals is baseless. As presented earlier, there are “potentially” arguments that have nothing to do with morality or religion. I will freely admit I find them unconvincing and without any support or evidence outside the assertions of the proponent. This is precisely why I am hoping someone who DOES support the amendment for reasons other than because “homosexuality is wrong/immoral” or “I hate homosexuals” will come in and enlighten us. Or, even if their argument is based on morality, if that someone can make a compelling argument why it is the government’s responsibility to legislate morality (or at least in this specific case).

The fact that you may never have, does not mean that there are not. That is one of the main reasons I openned this thread. For instance, the website va4marriage.org does not make any arguments regarding the morality of homosexuality. I found their arguments unconvincing in lieu of a lack of supporting evidence and several questions left unanswered. I am not allowing anyone to hide behind their religious beliefs for their support of this amendment. This is the same reason I am denouncing your attack on the amendment because it appears that your objections assume that the proponents’ arguments must necessarily be based in religion or outright hatred of homosexuals.
[/QUOTE]

At its core the objection to gay marriage is a manifestation of society’s disapproval of homosexuality. At its core, the gay marriage proponents seek to society’s approval of homosexuality by cloaking it with the imprimatur of marriage. If it was just civil unions, I suspect that any opposition is the result of societal revulsion. When the fight is over semantics (and I realize that we are not at the point where we are just arguing semantics, but a few posters here seem to think that we need to use the term marriage and that just having all the rights of married couples is not enough), then it is about trying to take on the cloak of societal acceptance when society has not accepted you yet.

Right now it is a state issue and I find DOMA obnoxious. The federal government cannot constitutionally step in to limit the rights granted by any of the states (without a constitutional amendment), they don’t have to force every state to perform gay marraiges but they can’t allow one state to ignore the rights of marriage conferred by another state. Utah should have to recognize the legal rights attached to a Massachussetts marraige as much as if it was a Utah marriage unless there is some sort of public interest argument against doing so (and “We don’t like them gays” is NOT a public interest position).

73

[QUOTE=col_10022]
At its core the objection to gay marriage is a manifestation of society’s disapproval of homosexuality. At its core, the gay marriage proponents seek to society’s approval of homosexuality by cloaking it with the imprimatur of marriage. If it was just civil unions, I suspect that any opposition is the result of societal revulsion. When the fight is over semantics (and I realize that we are not at the point where we are just arguing semantics, but a few posters here seem to think that we need to use the term marriage and that just having all the rights of married couples is not enough), then it is about trying to take on the cloak of societal acceptance when society has not accepted you yet.
[/QUOTE]

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Regardless of the cause of the disapproval, the fact that a significant number of people disapprove is what has caused this amendment (and ones like it) to appear. It is this disapproval that causes the stigma on the relationship, on the children of those in these relationships, etc. While the disapproval may or may not be justified, it does, by its very nature, have the potential to cause some of those issues presented by the amendment’s proponents.

However, potential negative effects should not necessarily supercede liberty especially when the potentially negative side-effects are not necessarily intrinsic to the liberty in question. Further, being that the burden of proof is on the proponents, lacking supporting evidence for these proposed drawbacks, it makes it even harder to support this sort of approach to infringing any liberty. Even more, in the future, these stigmas may change as society becomes more/less accepting of homosexuality.

So this leads us to the question as to whether the government has, and should exercise, the power to legislate based, not on rights, but on society’s approval/disapproval. To me, this seems a dangerous precendent, because law no longer reflects the rights of the people, but their contemporary morality.

This is an interesting topic, and probably a separate thread in and of itself. While I think it is likely that this act in particular (but likely those of most of the other states) will violate that specific clause in the US Constitution. However, even if it does, I do not foresee this act, assuming it will be passed, being overturned because the path of appeals will strongly favor keeping the amendment. Yet, I think one better suited to address this sort of legal question should field it.

74

jayjay says the amendment passed – can anyone confirm this and provide a cite? Googling produces nothing.

75

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
jayjay says the amendment passed – can anyone confirm this and provide a cite? Googling produces nothing.
[/QUOTE]

CNN called it on air; I can’t find it on the web site.

76

Looks like it’s a done deal. Gays in Virginia are, for the foreseeable future, condemned to choosing between celibacy and unsolemnized fornication.

Gee, I wonder what they’ll choose? :slight_smile:

77

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
These are emotional strawman arguments. I’d be hard-pressed to say that, those who find homosexuality immoral necessarily hate them. Granted, I’m 100% sure that they exist, but I’m also sure that they’re not 100% of them. I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt of the doubt. I imagine many of those who support this legislation are doing so on religious grounds. Remember, as a Christian, we are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. That is, I do not think it is necessarily mutually exclusive to find homosexuality immoral (and therefore a sin)and still love the person who is a homosexual. However, the difference arises because some people believe in legislating morality and some do not.
[/quote]

You are correct that jayjay’s post was an appeal to emotion. However, that’s simply the nature of the beast when it comes to gay rights. The issue is not rational: it is fueled entirely by emotion. There is no rational basis for approving of this measure. People favor purely out of an emotional response. Therefore, trying to reason people out of supporting it is difficult, although not impossible. If support for anti-marriage proposals are emotionally driven, I think it makes a certain amount of sense to combat them with emotional appeals. This is where emotionally charged language like jayjay’s can be effective. “Hate” may (arguably) be hyperbole, but it’s also an accurate representation of how these laws are perceived by those in the gay community. It’s a rhetorical device: had control-z stuck around to reply that he does not hate gays, the follow up question is, “Then why are you acting so hateful towards us?” The goal is to make the person recognize that, while his intentions may not be hateful, his actions most certainly are. Of course, if he wants to argue that his actions are not, in fact, hateful, he’s free to offer whatever rationalizations of his beliefs he can muster, at which point we can engage him logically, instead of/as well as emotionally. Which leads us to:

Similarly, the fact that I’ve never seen conclusive evidence for the existence of ghosts does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of ghosts. However, after examining a sufficient number of claims, and finding them uniformly wanting, one can state with a certain degree of authority that there is no such thing as a ghost.

There have been a lot of SSM and gay rights debates on this board. I’ve read almost all of them, and participated in most. Additionally, I’ve followed the issue for years in the press and popular media in general. And in all that time, I’ve never once seen an argument against gay rights that was both logically consistent, and based on factual information. From the average “man on the street” to the leaders of the anti-marriage movement, I’ve never once heard an argument that didn’t boil down to, “My God says no,” or “Gays are icky.” If there is a rational, factual reason to oppose gay rights, it’s never been advocated by an opponent of marriage that I’ve ever heard. At this point, I feel entirely comfortable with the assertion that such arguments simply do not exist.