That’s not the provision I am referring to, this is:no,
*The General Assembly hereby concludes that the Commonwealth of Virginia is under no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize a marriage, civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement purporting to bestow any of the privileges or obligations of marriage under the laws of another state or territory of the United States unless such marriage conforms to the laws of this Commonwealth. *
The law prohibits nothing, the law rejects out of state marriages inside the state of Virginia that do not conform to Virginia’s marriage laws. An example is two men married to each other in Hawaii will not have their “Hawian Marriage” recognized in Virginia. Virginia considers these men as 2 single men. I am sure it will be challenged in US courts and we will see what happens.
§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.
The law prohibits any “partnership contract or other arrangement” that bestows the privileges and obligations of marriage. It was specifically enacted to prevent gay people from using wills, powers of attorney and other legal arrangements to provide for one another.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.
Exactly my point. In many states someone can tell a gay person that they refuse to rent to them because they are gay. Gay people do not have the right to rent homes in those states. It has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. Landlords can refuse to rent to gay people without inquiring into their sexual activity, they can simply refuse to rent to them because they are gay.In most States people have wide latitude as to who to rent to or sale to-as long as they do not discriminate based on race, gender, creed or country of national origin. People who enage in homosexual behavior are not singled out. I, for instance, wont rent to an umarried couple as experience shows they are far more likley to damage the house or walk the lease thatn a married couple is.
Wherer does this law say. It aplies ONLY to people who engage in homosexual behavior?Exactly my point. In many states someone can tell a gay person that they refuse to rent to them because they are gay. Gay people do not have the right to rent homes in those states. It has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. Landlords can refuse to rent to gay people without inquiring into their sexual activity, they can simply refuse to rent to them because they are gay.
So if it is a right, why can’t a daughter/father get married, or brother/sister, or polygamy. These too should be recognized by the govt to be fair if it is a right.There are all sorts of rectrictions as to who can be in the military. Serving in the Militray is not a “right” People who enage in homsoexual behavior have the exact same right to get married as do all Anmercans regardless of race, creed, gender or sountry of national origin
Where does this law say. It aplies ONLY to people who engage in homosexual behavior?That’s not the provision I am referring to, this is:
The law prohibits any “partnership contract or other arrangement” that bestows the privileges and obligations of marriage. It was specifically enacted to prevent gay people from using wills, powers of attorney and other legal arrangements to provide for one another.
The law says you are not requirerd to rent to anyone as long as you don’t discriminate based on race,creed, gender or country of national origin. This does not translate into discrimination aimed at people who engage in homosexual behaviorExactly my point. In many states someone can tell a gay person that they refuse to rent to them because they are gay. Gay people do not have the right to rent homes in those states. It has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. Landlords can refuse to rent to gay people without inquiring into their sexual activity, they can simply refuse to rent to them because they are gay.
The Church existed prior to the government along with her teachings from Christ. This isn’t something you change because of the sign of the times.If gay people had all the rights of straight people , the church’s position would be forgive the sin and love the sinner, not hate the sin and love the sinner.
Peace
To be honest about it, they seem to have more “rights” and “special attention” than “normal” people.
I would totally have to agree with that. After being questioned by a homosexual co-worker if I believe marriage exists between a man and a woman, he looked at me and the first words out of his mouth was “so you’re a bigot”, turned and walked away.
Thank you Lord for the persecution!
The law has nothing to do with behavior. Why do you continually try to make the discussion about behavior? There are plenty of gay people that are not engaging in homosexual behavior. They also face discrimination.The law says you are not requirerd to rent to anyone as long as you don’t discriminate based on race,creed, gender or country of national origin. This does not translate into discrimination aimed at people who engage in homosexual behavior
It does not, but it is part of the law that bans homosexual marriage, and the background and history of the law make it clear that it is aimed at homosexuals. Some states have a long history of writing laws that are aimed at one group without saying so exlicitly, just look at the old grandfathering laws and the literacy tests.Where does this law say. It aplies ONLY to people who engage in homosexual behavior?
.There is no substantial difference in the two sections, “purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited” the law is wise and may or may not stand. The law stops nothing, what it does is to prevent these people who the state specifically states are not civilly married within this state from suing any and everybody for family benefits. This law also directs state employees of how to address these issues which can show up at any time in dozens if not hundreds of state offices. For a simple example suppose one SSA owns a house but passes away and the other SSA claims estate laws do not apply, the law resolves this issue. Some for family insurance, welfare and many other issues.That’s not the provision I am referring to, this is:
The law prohibits any “partnership contract or other arrangement” that bestows the privileges and obligations of marriage. It was specifically enacted to prevent gay people from using wills, powers of attorney and other legal arrangements to provide for one another.
This is a real opportunity for you to understand: If you pass a law banning opposite sex marriage it will have little effect. The reason is the opposite sexes will marry anyway regardless of if the state acknowledges those marriages. That is because opposite sex marriages are in Devine Law and do not need civil law support. SSA need civil support because they lack Devine Law thus they need to make a Law because none exists for them.It does not, but it is part of the law that bans homosexual marriage, and the background and history of the law make it clear that it is aimed at homosexuals. Some states have a long history of writing laws that are aimed at one group without saying so exlicitly, just look at the old grandfathering laws and the literacy tests.
Homosexual behavior , in fact no sexual behavior, is not accorded the same protected status that ones race, creed, gender of country of national origin. There is no rational basis to provide this status but that is what you and other Homosexual apologists are demanding.The law has nothing to do with behavior. Why do you continually try to make the discussion about behavior? There are plenty of gay people that are not engaging in homosexual behavior. They also face discrimination.
So a law that prevents discrimination against certain groups but not other groups does not deny those rights to the unprotected groups? Would you feel the same way if the reference to creed were removed and landlords started refusing to rent to Catholics?
The law is all about behavior. You could be a great guy most of the time but if you behave badly, like assaulting somebody or robbing somebody, the law gets involved. As long as you don’t engage in criminal behavior then the law doesn’t bother you.The law has nothing to do with behavior. Why do you continually try to make the discussion about behavior? There are plenty of gay people that are not engaging in homosexual behavior. They also face discrimination.
So a law that prevents discrimination against certain groups but not other groups does not deny those rights to the unprotected groups? Would you feel the same way if the reference to creed were removed and landlords started refusing to rent to Catholics?
Agreed-No constitutional rights accrue based on with whom and the manner in which one enages in sex.The law is all about behavior. You could be a great guy most of the time but if you behave badly, like assaulting somebody or robbing somebody, the law gets involved. As long as you don’t engage in criminal behavior then the law doesn’t bother you.
God bless,
Ed
God doesn’t “arbitrarily” hate anything. He abhors gay sex, sex between people who are not married, and sex between people and other species, too. God did not make people become homosexual, there is no “gay” gene in the DNA pool. God loves those who are homosexual, just like He loves those who are deviant in other ways. God hates sin, and doing anything that God has said is sinful, is a sin. If society condones sins, then society is leading people to hell.Part 1
Yeah, God arbitrarily hates gay sex and as such powerful men have done a lot of work to make sure society hates them as well. If only he arbitrarily hated other things like crustaceans or clouds, but he doesn’t.
The basis for hating gay sex, actually being repugnant by gay sex, is not a religious idea. It is very logical. As a species, as in all species, the idea is to continue the species. If homosexuality were natural, there should be the ability to have offspring as a result. Homosexuality may be natural for animals who can not reasonably think through the logic of the premise. If a greater population of the animal world were homosexual, there would be no more animals. Hey, I’ve an idea. Let’s find a DNA gene for homsexuality, splice it onto the roach, wasps, and snake DNA and soon they shall be no more. Great idea. But if it were really natural, do you not think that more people would become homosexual?The basis for hating gay sex is purely religious, no logic is needed or applied. Since homosexuality occurs in nature it is a tough position to take that homosexuality is somehow not natural.
Homosexual behavior , in fact no sexual behavior, is not accorded the same protected status that ones race, creed, gender of country of national origin. There is no rational basis to provide this status but that is what you and other Homosexual apologists are demanding.
I am sorry you don’t like to discuss this in the context of homosexual behavior but it the behavior that defines the group we are discussing.
The non-discrimination laws have nothing to do with behavior. For example, black people are protected even if they don’t act black. People of foreign extraction are protected from discrimination on that basis, even if they are mulit-generational Americans with no discernable ties to their ‘homeland.’The law is all about behavior. You could be a great guy most of the time but if you behave badly, like assaulting somebody or robbing somebody, the law gets involved. As long as you don’t engage in criminal behavior then the law doesn’t bother you.
God bless,
Ed
Again there is absolutely no comparison between ones race or country of national origin and the manner in which one engages in sex. You have yet to show where people who enage in homosexual behaiorare are singled out by any law-all you have done is pointed ot that homosexuall behavior does not enjoy the same proteced status as race, creed, gender or country of national origin. The same point could be made about any behavior or any group not encompassed by these 4. to claim that not granting protected status to homosexual behavior is unjust discimination is specious.The non-discrimination laws have nothing to do with behavior. For example, black people are protected even if they don’t act black. People of foreign extraction are protected from discrimination on that basis, even if they are mulit-generational Americans with no discernable ties to their ‘homeland.’
I understand that each of you believe that the law should not protect homosexuals from discrimination in the same way that it protects others from discrimination. What I can’t understand is why you don’t simply say that instead of pretending that homosexuals have equal rights under the law. I get it - you think it’s OK that it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals. Why not just say so and then defend that position, instead of spinning so hard to avoid saying the obvious?
Your comment doesn’t make sense to me. That fact that homosexuals are not given the same protections as other groups means the do not have the same rights as those other groups. Whether they should or not is a seperate question, but they do not. I have also pointed out at least one law that was specifically designed to strip homosexuals of the rights enjoyed by other citizens. What is specious about any of that?Again there is absolutely no comparison between ones race or country of national origin and the manner in which one engages in sex. You have yet to show where people who enage in homosexual behaiorare are singled out by any law-all you have done is pointed ot that homosexuall behavior does not enjoy the same proteced status as race, creed, gender or country of national origin. The same point could be made about any behavior or any group not encompassed by these 4. to claim that not granting protected status to homosexual behavior is unjust discimination is specious.
Only 4 groups have this protected status. Objecting to your desire to see homosexual behavior accorded this protected status(a status no other sexual behavior enjoys) is neither unjust discrimination or bigotry.Your comment doesn’t make sense to me. That fact that homosexuals are not given the same protections as other groups means the do not have the same rights as those other groups. Whether they should or not is a seperate question, but they do not. I have also pointed out at least one law that was specifically designed to strip homosexuals of the rights enjoyed by other citizens. What is specious about any of that?