Virginia voids private contracts

Here's a new report on Virginia's attempt to block private contracts between homosexuals.

The law says, “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. 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.”

Gov. Mark R. Warner attempted to amend the bill last month to eliminate its sweeping references to contracts and other agreements, but legislators overruled him and approved the original wording.

The author of the law, Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, said it is worded to prevent any type of civil union or domestic partnership from being recognized in Virginia. Although Massachusetts and Vermont are the most permissive states, other states, individual cities and businesses allow couples to register as domestic partners.

A specific list of rights is attached to such partnerships, and some are so extensive that they are similar to civil unions.

“Civil union is a proxy for marriage,” Marshall said. “Domestic partnerships are a proxy for civil unions. You’ve got to cover all these bases, or they’ll find a loophole. That’s why this law is very thorough.” (Via Wizbang.)

It is one thing not to allow same sex, state-sanctioned marriage, but for a state to refuse to allow private contracts which grant "privileges or obligations of marriage" is an unbelievable invasion of human freedom.

I think this statute is unconstitutional, but it shows the vindictive nature of those who spend their time (and taxpayers' money) obsessing over the morality of people's private lives.

As I've said before, the Family Marriage Amendment is a back-door attempt to do the same thing. Instead of merely prohibiting same sex marriage, it transforms the "incidents of marriage" into a suspect category.

Whether or not the country wants same sex marriage, I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans want the government (or self-appointed busybodies) scrutinizing people's lives and private contracts to eradicate conduct which might be called "incidents" of marriage.

There are some people, though, who think that merely living together and enjoying sexual relations are "incidents" of marriage which should be prohibited. (A modern alternative to sodomy laws, perhaps?)

Long term, I think they'll lose.

posted by Eric on 06.17.04 at 05:30 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1092






Comments

The state will not let you buy or sell cocaine, or heroin, or your kidney. Nor will many of them let you sell sex. Nor will any of them let you sell yourself into slavery.

Does any of that offend impermissably againt the sacredness of human freedom, too?

And your remarks about unconstitutionality are nonsense and you know it. You may hate such laws. That does not make them unconstitutional.

Marcus Tullius Cicero   ·  June 17, 2004 09:05 PM

Despicable (both the Virginia law and the Communist troll here).

Commie: Your type of government doesn't let us sell ourselves into slavery because it already owns us as slaves, or wants to. I'd rather be dead than be a slave. I'll give up my gun and my freedom when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. And, if it comes to that, I'll take you to Hell with me. Yes, human freedom _is_ sacred. Don't tread on me.

I wish I had a dime for every time I've seen somebody argue that homosexuals don't need marriage because they can always buy "Wills for Dummies" at Barnes & Noble. What are they saying now? Hypocrites. (Never mind, we know what they're saying: what that Commie scum said here just now.) I'm mad as Hell.

A few thoughts, lest I be seen as agreeing with the above contention....

Interesting that "Cicero" uses the tired rhetorical cheap shot of putting words in my mouth and asserting that I "know" my own arguments are "nonsense." (A very poor way to debate, if I may be so blunt.)

I tend towards the broad view that laws which interfere with individual liberty are likely unconstitutional except when the individual harms others. But even under a literal constitutional analysis, all federal drug or sex laws are unconstitutional, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments enumerate no federal power to regulate tastes: whether drugs, food, or sex.

States are bound by the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as by individual state constitutions. The power to regulate private contracts involving legal activity is a stretch. I think the statute is unconstitutional because it treats similarly situated unmarried couples differently; whether I hate the law is about as relevant as whether "Cicero" likes it.

It's also unconstitutionally vague; what, exactly, are the "privileges or obligations" of marriage? There are innumerable views on this -- which is why the law must state clearly exactly what is meant.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 18, 2004 08:05 AM

"No state shall [...] pass any bill of attainder, expost facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts [...}"
-Article I, section 10, United States Constitution

ex post facto law



March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits