Virginia just became a negative state
 

Link Link Link

"become heterosexual or leave"

I can't believe that people still believe this kind of crap. If everyone could choose their sexual orientation, not many would choose the hard way.

Now, I'm indifferent to homosexuality; I don't really care one way or another if someone decides to live that way, because it most likely won't affect me. With that said, I am border-line offended by those actions, especially the part about wills devoted to a same-sex partner being void. That's flat-out ridiculous.

This is why I don't live in the south.

let just cross our fingers and hope that its the only state to do this.

Might as well post a big sign that says "homosexuals are not welcome in this state!"

*shakes head*

Any lawyers care to chime in on anything that's going to stop someone from using the fourteenth amendment to make this law deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court?

To get to the supreme court, someone has to file a lawsuit that has to get pushed all the way up there. That would take five years, at the least. Dont count on that anytime soon.

Yeah. There's NO homophobia in the north. In fact, northerners are perfect in every way. No racial problems, no crime at all, they all have all their teeth. Good thing all the backwards fucks live in the south.


Christ sometimes the ignorance of people is astounding.

Wow, I cannot believe how far Virginia has gone with this. Especially with enough votes to override any potential veto. this is crazy.

denim: Great article, but I'd like to see your opinions posted along with the quote. The title you gave suggests your stance, but please in the future amplify with at least a couple of lines what you think about the article you post.

Did I say there was none? No. In the north we don't have entire states trying to ban homosexuality. Your assumptions of my ignorance are astounding! :icare:

Point taken, but whatever the attitudes of some of our fellow northerners we don't pass laws like this in the north.

first I don't live in the south because of the restrictive bible bangers, and the rednecks. Being Asian and having ALWAYS dated white girls, I got odd looks and snide remarks all the time.

as far as "rescinding" all benefits like power of attorney, et. al. that's what is truly ignorant. To try to supercede documents without proper legal precedent is just silly.

To each his own I believe. To make laws like this to control what people do in their personal lives is wrong. I mean I'm married to a partner of the opposite sex but what if I wanted to leave my money to someone who had helped us out a lot while hubby went through a lot of trouble. If it was a girl and not a blood relation and we lived in virgina then she would be excluded on the basis of this law as I understand it. I should be able to choose where my estate goes and why. It's not the State's business WHY I'm giving my money to a person of the same sex. Next thing they're going to outlaw same sex sexual relations again. I thought we were past that outdated notion. While we're at it why don't be outlaw drinking. Those lawmakers would probably be in trouble then. I know I'm rambling. Sorry - this is just so stupid that they would think themselves so high and mighty as to control people like this. Grrrr

This isn't freedom.

Cynthetiq

I call shenanigans. I've lived in the south all my live (Texas, Houston even), have dated an all asian girl and a half asian girl, and never got a single snide comment or look. While I don't doubt that what you said happened to you, I'm sure you wouldn't want to paint an entire region and people with one brush. I mean, that might look bigoted or ignorant. :hmm:

Well I just found it ironic that the best way you could come up with to express your anger at one group being intolerant of another was to state your intolerance for a group.


BTW, Minnesota is about to vote on a gay marriage ban, and 58% of Minnesotans are in favor of the ban. Last time I checked, they were north of the mason/dixon line.

The Wisconsin state assembly approved a gay marriage ban by a vote of 68 to 27. They're northerners too.

I'm just tired of all the bullshit about the south. Northerners (and I know, because I live among them) love to act like the south is the rectum of the country, when in fact there's every bit as much racism, prejudice, and bigotry in the north as there is in the south. The only difference is that the southerners don't deny it.

And the show has reached... a new low.

Why is it we bothered with the civil war again? We should have let the fuckers leave and just snuck all the slaves out when they were too busy having another bigot rally in Billy Jo Bob's yard.

It happened since 1986 until 1992, then i stopped dating. Now my wife is white, and when we are in China town...she gets lots of looks when we walk hand in hand.

so the reverse is true.

Might I remind you that the slaves got here through the port of Boston. The north may not have kept the slaves, but they certainly profited off of them.

At any rate, anyone who claims that prejudice is bad looks like a total jackass by exhibiting prejudice in the same sentence.

Am I the only one who views this law as a good thing?:confused:

i think so. how do you see it a good thing for them to not just ban gay marriage but REVOKE all the items that work for same sex lovers but not same sex friends?

Yeah, I think so. Wanting to ban gay marriage is one thing, wanting to take away other rights that could very well not even have anything to do with homosexuality is another.

Oxymoron.

Actually it's considered the midwest bud.

And Virginia is considered the East Coast. What's your point?

Minnesota/wisconsin sure aren't in the south, and they are certainly north of the mason dixon line as I said in the first place..

Then I'm even more confused- was your point that there's just something about the south that turns everyone into a racist, regardless of their own skin color? Something in the water, perhaps? Or what?

Yeah, see. Here's the thing. no southern resident would call VA the south. North Carolina or at most Richmond is south. But the majority of the state is more ideologicly the north. And migh i remined you it's righ next to the capital?

Now what does that say.

I for one have a less pleasant opinion of Northerners than southerners.

On the topic: Let's all write letters to the ACLU in support of a legal challange to this. At the very least something of this nature needs to be put to popular vote. And that's me refraining my opinion.:rolleyes:

So we're arguing geography now? :lol:

Let me just clarify my view of the south and maybe we can put this to rest.

I do not think that all southerners are ignorant redneck hicks. I don't think that just becuase you are from the north you are less bigoted, a nicer person, whatever. You are correct that to make a sweeping judgement of southerners in a statement denoucing prejudice would be hypocritical.

The reason I don't want to live in the South is that, in my experience, the politics of southern states tend to be more dominated by what I consider to be closed minded socially intolerant forces then the politics in the north, midwest, california, pretty much anywhere besides Utah. I don't care to live under that kind of government.

This new laws is a fine example. Not only is the state of virginia banning gay marrige, and refusing to recognize gay marriges performed in other states (violating the full faith and credit clause, despite the defense of marrige act), they are stripping homosexuals of other legal rights (the right to leave your property to whomever you want) simply because they are gay. A lawmaker felt perfectly fine saying that he wanted homosexuals run out of his state, and suffered no negative repercussions. I don't want to live in a place where my government can do that, regardless of the qualities of the people who live there.

Maybe you shouls explain why to make this thread something other then a debate about southerners.

Strikes one and two. It's a pitcher's count now.

This isn't a matter of north and south, or east and west...

There are many states all over the US trying to ban gay marriage and the recognition of it. Let's keep the discussion to how or why we agree or disagree with the bill, not criticize the state it's being pushed through.

No, I think it is a good thing as well. To disagree with someone is not the same as being bigoted. If the majority of the people in the state want the law written one way or the other and it does not violate the state or federal constitution, let it pass.

As for the north/south debate, as someone who grew up in Wisconsin, and just moved away from Minnesota, I can testify that those states are amazingly bi-polar in thier politics. It has to do with where in the state you are. As for opinions in Dixie, I have been suprised by how liberal some of them are. It is all a matter of what demographic you talk to in that particular geographic region.

Soooooo,

What you're saying is, so long as the majority of people want it, that makes it a good thing?

Well, frankly, this just doesn't cut it in my opinion for several reasons.

Reason No 1. Such logic could lead us to conclude that so long as a majority of the population wanted to do something horrific like bring back slavery, invade Canada or take the vote away from left handed people, it would be a good thing. Clearly however, it wouldn't be a good thing for these things to happen, it would be very bad, and in fact gratuitous thing.

Reason No 2. If the majority of people are wrong, does this mean we ought to follow their will anyway? For instance, if 88% of Americans thought blue eyes were a sign of insanity, ought we therefore condemn all blue eyed people to insane asylums? No.

Reason No 3. Why is it that any group, even a majority, is able to make decisions which affect another. By this I mean, why is it that heterosexual people are able to say 'Gay people shouldn't be able to marry.' I mean, if gay people do marry, how does this hurt heterosexual people at all? This would be like Australians deciding New Zealanders aren't allowed to blow their noses after 5pm. Thus even if the majority decide they don't like gay marriage, it's got nothing to do with them. I don't like strawberry ice cream, I'd go as far to say that the majority of people don't like strawberry icecream, but if people eat strawberry icecream, what am I gonna do about it? Naught.

Bringing back slavery would violate the equal protection amendment of the constitution. It would also violate the 5th amendment by depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore this is a spurious arguement, because it would never get past the courts.

Again, no due process, and a opinion is vastly different from a fact. There are no such similar facts with regards to gay marriage.
Also, the assertion could be disproved by clinical testing for mental health, making it more a matter of education.

Reason No 3. Why is it that any group, even a majority, is able to make decisions which affect another. By this I mean, why is it that heterosexual people are able to say 'Gay people shouldn't be able to marry.' I mean, if gay people do marry, how does this hurt heterosexual people at all? This would be like Australians deciding New Zealanders aren't allowed to blow their noses after 5pm. Thus even if the majority decide they don't like gay marriage, it's got nothing to do with them. I don't like strawberry ice cream, I'd go as far to say that the majority of people don't like strawberry icecream, but if people eat strawberry icecream, what am I gonna do about it? Naught.

There are several tracks I can take with this. 1. That gay marriage is destructive to the family, which has been the basic operating unit of society since the mud hut and cave days. The government has a vested interest in protecting certain societal norms in the interest of public welfare. 2. There are those of us who think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. It is not a great stretch to see why such people would also view homosexual marriage as wrong. 3. Do we really want to create a new set of "rights"? Right now, any man and any woman can marry each other, with respect to the prohibitions on incestious relationships and polygamy. Is it wise to change that just because a few people don't like the way the law is currently written? If we do so, then a precedent is set. Precedent is an important part of law and carries a lot of weight with courts. This decision would then be used as leverage to get other laws passed. It is the classic slippery slope theory. If laws are based on ever shifting public opinion, then there is no rule of law, in fact, it is based on mob rule.

To often when the wishes of the majority of the population are brought up, people forget that there is a Constitution with which to frame these desires. Some things will never happen, no matter how much some people may desire them; the establishment of an official state religion for example. It is this framework that ideally stands between us and the before mentioned mob rule. It is not my intention to lecture on US civics, but simply to add more context to what I have previously stated.

The first two points I made were not supposed to apply to the US as such, but were merely there to demonstrate that a simple majority does not imply rightness of action. Yes these things would be protected by the Constitution, but other situations, such as the one at hand apparently are not afforded the same priviledge.

Anyhow.

1. Gay marriage is destructive to the family? How so?

2. Homosexuality is wrong in and of itself? How so?

3. As you said: 'Right now, any man and any woman can marry each other, with respect to the prohibitions on incestious relationships and polygamy.' How would this change? "Is it wise to change that just because a few people don't like the way the law is currently written? If we do so, then a precedent is set. Precedent is an important part of law and carries a lot of weight with courts. This decision would then be used as leverage to get other laws passed." Obviously this same argument could have been used against civil rights crusaders of the 1960's and 70's who wanted such crazy new 'rights' including equal pay for women and the right to vote for African Americans. Furthermore, from legal gay marriage, where do we have to slide?

As for destructive to the family, many things are much more destructive. What about men who leave their wife and 3 kids, often forcing the mother to work 2 or more jobs, to stay above the poverty line. What about parents who are so driven to make money that they work all day, and the children's needs are neglected as they are forced to grow up by themselves. These situations are not having laws passed agaisnt them, and they certainly are morally wrong, and destructive to the family

VIRGINIA IS FOR LOVERS



*The State of virginia, in conjunction with the attorney general of said state, does not condone or in any way support the use, or participation of the term (s) love , lovers, or loving in reference to the state slogan. The phrase"Virginia is for lovers" is not intended to promote the act of loving in any way.The State of Viginia retains the right to forbid such acts, and prohibit any such version of the above stated terminology from inplying the freedom to participate in said acts. The state slogan is meant as a suggestion, and actual fornication of any type, whether public or otherwise, if involving two (or more) members of like gender, will result in immediate action, up to and including removal of all rights guaranteed under the constitution of the United States of America. The State of Viginia reserves the right to punish anyone who has a different opinion on this issue than it does, at anytime*

The State of Virginia, should be forced, by force if necessary, to accept full human rights for all its citizens... if a tiny minority of right wing people in power want to pass legislation like this that is deeply offensive to the majority of the people, throw them in jail for hate crimes...

if the US is not prepared to force these criminal laws to be abandoned, Virginia certainly should be expelled from the Union, immediately - all aid and protection must be withdrawn from them, either human rights must be accepted or Virginia isolated, because a law which bans gay couples from writing wills to each other is un-American and must not be tolerated in any circumstance.

Soooo. What you're saying is that you want to take the freedom to choose away from the people and revert to a monarchy? If the majority of the people want it, they should get it, provided it doesn't violate the constitution, in which case if you can get 2/3 of the people to want it, the constitution should be changed.

Democracy does not mean "government of, by, and for the people unless the people want something that offends Kostya."

If you don't like the way the majority of the people want things, you can work to change their opinion, or you can leave. You cannot override the majority just because YOU don't happen to like what they did.



You're forgetting something. Who do you think elected these people? That's right, the majority of the people in Virginia. If most of the people dislike right-wing politics, maybe they should elect moderates or liberals next time.



I find this removal of rights as offensive as the next guy, but I also realize that these representatives who passed it did not suddenly decide to have these opinions overnight. They didn't run on a campaign of increased gay rights and then change their position once they were in office.

If the voters want decisions made the way they want them made, then it is the voters' responsibility to educate themselves as to the positions of the candidates and then elect the ones that agree with them.

This really all boils down to the fact that the vast majority of Americans either don't vote or don't bother to inform themselves about the people they're voting for. They'd rather watch The Apprentice than watch a show exploring where the candidates stand.

If the American people want to be sheep, then they get the government they deserve.

Hate to say it but...

The majority of Virginians... are wrong.