Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Journal sulli's Journal: Impact Of Hate Amendment On Real Virginians 28

Journal by sulli
Virginia is my home state, but I am deeply ashamed of that fact today, thanks to the legal slap in the face of law-abiding gay men and women passed by its legislature.

Opponents of same sex marriage, why would you attack someone like Jay Fisette so personally? Because that is what your friends have done in the Old Dominion.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Impact Of Hate Amendment On Real Virginians More

Impact Of Hate Amendment On Real Virginians

Comments Filter:
  • He's taking a general case, and making it personal. Just the same as I feel about the Ford Layoffs- even though I've never worked for Ford. It's an emotional thing many sensitive and caring people do, but it's a logical fallacy.
    • African-Americans were right to feel personally offended by Jim Crow laws. Multiracial couples were right to be offended by miscegenation laws, overturned by the appropriately named Loving v. Virginia.

      Why is this different?

      • Agreed. When somebody (in this case the government) says to you: who you are is wrong, immoral, and will not be tolerated...that's pretty damn personal.

        • Agreed. When somebody (in this case the government) says to you: who you are is wrong, immoral, and will not be tolerated...that's pretty damn personal.

          If you choose to take it personally, yes. But far better is not to take it personally- and work for a different ideal, everybody treated equally under the law. This may seem like a fine distinction, but it really isn't.

          It's the same reason that I believe defeating the causes of abortion in this country is key to getting Roe V. Wade obsolete. When peopl
      • What sensitive people such as us have to keep in mind is that text based communications such as legislation, print, e-mails, blogs, etc. don't convey emotional information at all. Thus any feelings we feel in response to them, come from inside us- and do NOT indicate a motivation on the part of the writer. Thus, refering to anti-gay-marriage legislation as "Hate Legislation" may be a legally accurate description, but it's not a factually accurate discription. Most people against gay marriage are actually
  • I live in VA and had no idea this was going on...I have to wonder at all of these people who are afraid that recognizing gay couples legally is somehow going to destory the whole notion of a "traditional" marriage and family.

    I've mentioned this before, abolish the word "marriage" from the legal dictionary and reserver it for private institutions such as religions. What is now currently a "marriage" should be redefined to mean the legal contract between two persons of majority concerning various things like
    • You are 100% correct. Just calling it a civil union for everyone would solve the problem entirely. No more right-wingers bloviating about "sanctity" and other stuff the state should have no business in.

      It won't happen for a while, though, not with the theocrats running the show and getting the votes, as David Brooks [nytimes.com] implies with his talk about "values."

      • It won't happen for a while, though, not with the theocrats running the show and getting the votes, as David Brooks implies with his talk about "values."

        I'm not so sure about that. First, each state law against gay marriage brings us that much closer to a Supreme Court ruling that would throw out marriage laws entirely as being against separation of Church and State. Second, it's complicated but you can already accomplish everything in a Civil Union with a set of contracts- marriage has always been a "s
        • each state law against gay marriage brings us that much closer to a Supreme Court ruling that would throw out marriage laws entirely as being against separation of Church and State

          That would be awesome, but I somehow doubt that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would vote that way, and don't you think they could find a fifth vote to uphold the status quo?

          • That would be awesome, but I somehow doubt that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would vote that way, and don't you think they could find a fifth vote to uphold the status quo?

            Actually, based on what they've said and the position that Roberts took in the Oregon Euthanasia case, I'd say that Alito and Roberts would be forced into a position of voting against secular marriage laws if the constitutionality of either a pro-gay-marriage or anti-gay-marriage bill came before the Court. Thomas and Scalia are
            • Actually, based on what they've said and the position that Roberts took in the Oregon Euthanasia case, I'd say that Alito and Roberts would be forced into a position of voting against secular marriage laws if the constitutionality of either a pro-gay-marriage or anti-gay-marriage bill came before the Court.

              You're entirely wrong. The justices would not overturn it simply because a. it's always been done that way and b. there's no clear public mandate for change. And if there were, there would be no need fo
          • That would be awesome, but I somehow doubt that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would vote that way, and don't you think they could find a fifth vote to uphold the status quo?

            All nine justices would vote to uphold marriage laws in the face of the Establishment Clause. There's no question in my mind about it. You'd sooner see them voting to take "In God We Trust" off of money, and none of them would vote for that, either.

            This would have to be legislated.
            • The Establishment Clause bars government establishment of religion. It allows the free exercise thereof, so if religions want to stay bigoted, they can.

              The operative clause is the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

              • The Establishment Clause bars government establishment of religion.

                So? Article I of the Constitution also bars the federal government from doing things like No Child Left Behind. But Robert Bork said (rather recently) that even he would not favor "dismantling" the federal government by ruling it so.

                The operative clause is the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

                No, it's not, for two reasons: first, because I am talking about government recognition of the religious institution of marriage i
      • Just calling it a civil union for everyone would solve the problem entirely. No more right-wingers bloviating about "sanctity" and other stuff the state should have no business in.

        As you probably recall, I've been saying this for awhile, though let me make some notes:

        First, it would not solve the problem entirely. But enough that we could move on.

        Second, the government does have some place in protecting the sanctity of marriage, for whatever that means, but only in this case because they got into the marri
        • The government has no business protecting the "sanctity" of anything. That's what religious institutions do.

          If I want sanctity, I go to church. If I want equal protection under the law, I should be able to go to the government. Perhaps someday gay men and women will be able to.

          • The government has no business protecting the "sanctity" of anything.

            It also has no business defining "marriage," but it does. As long as it does, it has a responsibility to society for how it defines it.
  • By changing the definition of marriage, the family, too, would be redefined, ultimately destroying the traditional family. And if the traditional structure of family no longer matters, what is marriage for? --Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg)

    I think it is my marriage that now needs defending form pseudo -conservative nuts like this. I am my wife aren't planning to have children at the moment. Does this mean that Del. Byron doesn't wish to recognize my marriage either? There are lots of reasons for two peopl
    • I think it is my marriage that now needs defending form pseudo -conservative nuts like this. I am my wife aren't planning to have children at the moment. Does this mean that Del. Byron doesn't wish to recognize my marriage either? There are lots of reasons for two people who are in love to make a life long commitment to each other.

      "Not right now" or "Never"? If the first, be aware that our culture has lied to women about the length of time they can stay fertile; once she's over 40 and "Not right now" wil

Slashdot Top Deals

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Close