Virginia Outrage Revisited

A couple of days ago, we kvetched about the lengths to which Republican Virginia Del. Robert Marshall will go to prevent his GLBT constituents from enjoying equality under law (see Virginia Outrage). Apparently, he isn’t finished.

Virginia-based attorney Michael Hamar writes that Marshall has a new plan to be considered by the commonwealth’s legislature. This vile piece of filth is called the Affirmation of Marriage Act and goes execrably far: barring judges from using constitutional provisions to invalidate unconstitutional laws. Huh-whaaaat???

Let the proposal speak for itself:

Offered January 14, 2004
Prefiled January 13, 2004
A BILL to amend and reenact – 20-45.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to same sex marriage; impeachment of judge.
Patron– Marshall, R.G.
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That – 20-45.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

– 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage 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 by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.

Any judge who rules the provisions of this section to be unconstitutional shall be deemed to have committed malfeasance in office and may be subject to impeachment under the provisions of Article IV, – 17 of the Constitution of Virginia.

And check out Marshall’s chilling House Bill 750; an excerpt of its misleading and mendacious preamble follows:

Whereas, because very few homosexuals will “marry” or seek civil unions, the legal effect for homosexual marriage or same sex unions is not primarily about marriage itself, but is directed at weakening the institution of marriage which is foundational to this country’s history and tradition; and where heterosexual marriage requires sexual exclusivity, advocates of same sex unions merely prefer sexual exclusivity, but do not demand it. Promoting and defending the common good of society requires that marriage be recognized and defended as a preferential and beneficial complimentary relationship between the sexes for one man, a husband, and one woman, a wife which are necessary conditions for the formation of a family; and

Whereas, human marriage is a consummated two in one communion of male and female persons made possible by sexual differences which are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect or motivation. This present relationship recognizes the equality of male and female persons, and antedates recorded history and the writings of revealed religions; consequently, granting legal equivalency status between same sex unions and heterosexual marriage would result in the state’s failure to defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good; and …

which would rely upon the coercive power of the state for their implementation. The structures of civil law constitute a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing and sanctioning patterns of thought and behavior. Such structures are especially influential on younger citizens’ views and evaluation of forms of conduct; and

Whereas, providing for same sex unions would obscure certain basic moral values and further devalue the institution of marriage and the status of children; children need not just parents, but a mother and a father, and to deprive children of a mother and a father is harmful to their development; and

Whereas, defining marriage or civil unions as permissible for same sex individuals as simply an alternate form of “marriage” will radically transform the institution of marriage with serious and harmful consequences to the social order. Same sex civil unions are simply marriages by a different name, … and …

No one is legally denied the opportunity to marry because of their preference for one or more of the more than 20 different “sexual orientations” …

Read the measure in its entirety. Then grab a bottle of the pink stuff.

As Hamar notes in his e-mail to AF&O, these bills are all about “religious beliefs and Marshall’s homophobia.” The delegate, whom our lawyer correspondent calls “an embarrassment to Virginia,” calls this a time of “emergency.” He’s right about that. Decent people have to save the nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia from religious bigotry and its horrid, unconscionable primacy in secular law. Alert level RED.

Posted in Uncategorized

3 thoughts on “Virginia Outrage Revisited

  1. Missing from the bill:

    Whereas, Virginia law need not be based on rational or reasonable logic, nor objective, verifiable facts, nor constrained by any constitution; and,

    Whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia hereby absolves the Executive and Judicial branches of government of their independent obligations to the people and assumes the right to preempt and/or veto any action taken by them.

    But then again, those clauses would be redundant, wouldn’t they?

    (Adjusting my Emily Litella pinbox hat and shrugging my sagging shoulders with a twisted little Gilda Rader grin…) Never mind!

Comments are closed.