legal bombs

Oooh, this blog is magic. After complaining in my last post, Q's baseball team won their game on Saturday night. They nearly forfeited but one of the kids showed up at the last minute to make it 8. Then they turned around and WON the silly thing. The head coach wasn't there, and Q played catcher most of the game. So I'm just sayin'....

----------------

Virginia's state government is following in the footsteps of several states that have amended their constitutions to define marriage as limited to a man/woman couple. Last November, eleven states approved admendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriages (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). This wave of constitutional tinkering happened directly as a result of the Massachusettes case where the supreme judicial court ruled that MA laws banning same sex marriages violated the state constitution - allowing for (gasp, horror of horrors...) two people who love each other and want to build a family together to get married, even if they are two men or two women. Now Virginia and several other states are worried. While they already have laws on the record that ban same-sex marriage, they are worried that judicial rulings may overturn those laws too. So they are working to incorporate the wording directly into the state constitutions as an added safety measure to keep us all safe from these scary homosexuals. That's the background. (I don't hide sarcasm very well do I?)

Here are the words to Virginia's proposed amendment:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Well.

Obviously, for those who know me, I believe this is a hateful, spiteful, idiotic piece of biogtry. But all that aside, it's also a very poorly worded, confusing piece of legalese that will cause all kinds of controversy and lawsuits if it is passed. The confusion comes in of the "another union, partership, or other legal staus..." phrase, which, if interpreted literally, is probably general enough to encompass legal relationships including things like Living trusts. An opinion piece by Charles Nance in the Daily Press described some of this:

From a property rights standpoint, it's those "other legal relationships" to watch out for. That's because today, the majority of assets owned by Virginians are subject to private contracts and agreements and do not pass to loved ones under their wills or probate. Most of the assets we have today are owned - and will transfer upon our deaths - based on private contractual arrangements that we make during life. These contracts include beneficiary designations (such as you have on life insurance, IRAs, 401(k)s or retirement plans) and depository agreements with your bank or credit union (when you decide how to "title" your account as joint, with survivorship or "payable on death," for instance). These are all private contracts...

...All of these types of contractual agreements could be ignored or set aside under the language of the proposed marriage amendment.

Virginia's idiotic legislators, rather than having the courage to just put out there in black and white that they are homophopic enough to want to ban same-sex marriage, have couched it in enough legalspeak so as to confuse the voters. Why? I have no idea. Morons. If it is passed (and if other states are any indication, it probably will), it will likely generate enough lawsuits and controversy that it will have to be revisited and revised. How much money (that could be spent on other necessary things) is THAT going to waste?

The latest controversy is in the wording of the explanation of the amendment that will go along with the ballot, which opponents claim is anything but a neutral interpretation.

It's bad enough having to live with the reality that my "representatives" are so lost in their closed political worlds that they don't see the blatent discrimination here. But to realize that they are also legal idiots is almost too much to bear. The scary thing is that Virginia is rather in line with much of the rest of the nation. Can anyone give me a good logical reason why two loving adults can't marry? (and "god hates homosexuals" isn't good enough). By the way, what's going to happen to the children of these parents? My friends, who are lesbians, had a daughter 10 years ago. One of the moms got pregnant from sperm of a relative of the other mom. This was done to ensure that the daughter could be legally "claimed" by family in the event that something were to happen to the birth mom. Because her other mom wouldn't be good enough to qualify as a parent around here in these parts. Am I really that far out of place there in this country? I don't get it. :-(