|
June 17, 2004
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.”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
Comments
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. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 17, 2004 11:07 PM 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 [...}" Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 18, 2004 04:12 PM ex post facto law Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 18, 2004 04:14 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
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.