Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality

[linwood]

I think that's pretty clear.

Indeed it is and thats the problem.

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.

Clearly no two persons of the same sex can have a legal contract be binding in the state of Virginia.

For example, a divorced spouse of a same sex marriage has but to move to Virginia and no longer is legally bound to pay child support.

I contracted my home with a man, before I bought it.
In Virginia I would not be reposnible if I didn`t go through with the purchase.

ANY civil contract entered into by two persons of the same sex is null and void.
ANY contract.

This law will eventually fall if it is passed, it must as it`s unjust and discriminatory.

 

[Green Gaia]

I think that's pretty clear.

I've heard a slew of lawyers say otherwise.

 

[Aqualung]

ANY civil contract entered into by two persons of the same sex is null and void.

Nope. ANY civil contract that "purport[es] to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage" is definitely not "any civil contract entered into by two persons of the same sex."

 

[Green Gaia]

BTW, the event at the courts building went well. Gay and lesbian couples were once again denied marriage licenses when they applied, and we held a blessing for them afterwards stating that even though the government is bigoted and discriminatory, we as a religious community uphold and affirm their love and commitment to each other.

We got some news coverage too. No doubt my daughter cheesing for the cameras will be on the 6 o'clock news.

 

[Aqualung]

What is "cheesing"? :areyoucra

 

[michel]

What is "cheesing"? :areyoucra

Take photograph, say 'cheese' ???

 

[Aqualung]

Oh. Duh! :bonk:

 

[Green Gaia]

Nope. ANY civil contract that "purport[es] to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage" is definitely not "any civil contract entered into by two persons of the same sex."

It is still discriminatory and wrong.

If a woman leaves a female caregiver her property after her death, that's considered inheritance and a privilege of marriage. That contract could be challenged and under this amendment would not be legal because it is between two people of the same gender.

The proponents of the amendment say that won't happen, that's not the intent. Do you think that's going to matter to a lawyer who's representing the woman's family who is challenging the contract and stands to earn himself a hefty sum?

There is nothing stopping this amendment from being applied to straight people too. Everyone in Virginia should be concerned about this. It will effect everyone.

 

[cardero]

Top 10 Reasons for Civil Marriage Equality
10. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

9. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

8. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

7. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

6. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

5. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

4. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

3. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

2. Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

1.Because love and commitment does not hold any prejudices against an individual’s sex.

 

[Aqualung]

It is still discriminatory and wrong.

I'm not saying it's not discriminatory and wrong. I'm just saying it's clearer than you guys would have had me to believe.

If a woman leaves a female caregiver her property after her death, that's considered inheritance and a privilege of marriage. That contract could be challenged and under this amendment would not be legal because it is between two people of the same gender.

It's not a contract that purport to bestow the rights and obligations of a marriage. You cannot just try any and every same-sexed contract with that statute, because it specifies which type of contract it is.

 

[Green Gaia]

It's not a contract that purport to bestow the rights and obligations of a marriage. You cannot just try any and every same-sexed contract with that statute, because it specifies which type of contract it is.

Well, again, I've had lawyers tell me differently.

 

[Aqualung]

Probably really bad lawyers.

But seriously, no judge would uphold that interpretation of the law. It's like saying, "Everybody must right in blue pens" and interpreting that to mean that red pens are the only acceptable pens.

 

[Ðanisty]

purport[es] to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage

Imagine all the rights and priveleges that go along with marriage. Any of those rights, if written into a contract between two same-sex people would be void in Virginia. For example, what if someone bestowed legal guardianship of their child to someone of the same sex? This could be voided (whether or not the two people in question are homosexual) under this law because this is an understood privilege or obligation of marriage.

 

[jamaesi]

I wonder if the woman who had no help from the law from her abusive boyfriend (I think it was, Ohio, lin) would agree with you about the law being pretty clear, Aqualung.

 

[Jaymes]

Well said, Maize! The list you gave is definately persuasive... but I have to say I'm also lovin' cardero's. A big hand to both of you! :clap

 

[Aqualung]

Imagine all the rights and priveleges that go along with marriage. Any of those rights, if written into a contract between two same-sex people would be void in Virginia. For example, what if someone bestowed legal guardianship of their child to someone of the same sex? This could be voided (whether or not the two people in question are homosexual) under this law because this is an understood privilege or obligation of marriage.

That contract does not purport to be a marriage. It just happens to share one of the same responsibilites.

 

[Pah]

Well, using that same argument, what about a legal marriage between a brother and a sister?

The state Constitution would recognize it as a right. However, law could easily prohibit it in law and constitutionally as a state interest in the health of off-spring.

I have raised the issue at Equality Virginia, who will take it to the ACLU for an opinion, that heterosexual common law marriages may be voided in Virginia, even those that take place in states that permit them. Another point is that the language would seem to say that business partnerships that offer marriage-type benefits (like right of survivorship or insurance in each other's name) might make the business partnership void.

 

[Pah]

That contract does not purport to be a marriage. It just happens to share one of the same responsibilites.

It is any legal status and that includes ALL contracts. No contract is required to show the motive for it's creation or agreement.

 

[Ðanisty]

Another point is that the language would seem to say that business partnerships that offer marriage-type benefits (like right of survivorship or insurance in each other's name) might make the business partnership void.

Exactly!

 

[Aqualung]

It is any legal status and that includes ALL contracts. No contract is required to show the motive for it's creation or agreement.

It specifically states what type of legal contract it includes.