Recognizing gay marriages/civil unions - a hypothetical

[Si modo]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

"§ 20-109. Changing maintenance and support for a spouse; effect of stipulations as to maintenance and support for a spouse; cessation upon cohabitation, remarriage or death.

A. Upon petition of either party the court may increase, decrease, or terminate the amount or duration of any spousal support and maintenance that may thereafter accrue, whether previously or hereafter awarded, as the circumstances may make proper. Upon order of the court based upon clear and convincing evidence that the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more commencing on or after July 1, 1997, the court shall terminate spousal support and maintenance unless (i) otherwise provided by stipulation or contract or (ii) the spouse receiving support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of such support would be unconscionable. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all orders and decrees for spousal support, regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support, the date of entry of any such order or decree, or the date of any petition for modification of support.

...."

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

 

[R.D.]

Good reason to keep traditional marriage intact. For the gay side this time

 

[Si modo]

Good reason to keep traditional marriage intact. For the gay side this time

LOL. Yeah, the ex gets the best of both worlds in this case. Nice deal for the lesbian at another's cost.

 

[George Costanza]

I think a court could terminate the support obligation, in spite of the same sex characteristics of the former wife's present living arrangement, depending on several factors.

The court could do that solely on the basis of changed financial circumstances, without having to rely on the cohabitation aspect of it. Most states have a statute like Virginia, i.e., if a support receiving spouse shacks up, the support can terminate. The way I read the Virginia statute, it doesn't matter what the financial situation is - all it requires is a shackup. For example, support receiving wife could take up with an unemployed loser. They are shacked in poverty - but they are still shacked. Game over. Support paying husband could get his support obligation terminated.

Changed financial circumstances are an entirely different matter. If, in her new (lesbian) relationship, it turns out that the former wife's lesbian lover is bringing in Big Bucks, that might be enough to get support terminated on the basis of changed financial circumstances. The former wife might no longer have a need for support.

Interesting issue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Could the court terminate the support if the ex wife won the lotto, or had some other 'life changing financial event' to the positive?

 

[Si modo]

I think a court could terminate the support obligation, in spite of the same sex characteristics of the former wife's present living arrangement, depending on several factors.

The court could do that solely on the basis of changed financial circumstances, without having to rely on the cohabitation aspect of it. Most states have a statute like Virginia, i.e., if a support receiving spouse shacks up, the support can terminate. The way I read the Virginia statute, it doesn't matter what the financial situation is - all it requires is a shackup. For example, support receiving wife could take up with an unemployed loser. They are shacked in poverty - but they are still shacked. Game over. Support paying husband could get his support obligation terminated.

Changed financial circumstances are an entirely different matter. If, in her new (lesbian) relationship, it turns out that the former wife's lesbian lover is bringing in Big Bucks, that might be enough to get support terminated on the basis of changed financial circumstances. The former wife might no longer have a need for support.

Interesting issue.

Thanks, George. I think it is interesting, too. We were assuming that the new squeeze of the ex-wife is pulling in about 160K - basic executive service salary.

I see it the same way you do, but what sparked this is we were looking at the ACLU site and saw that on two occasions, a Virginia judge denied two same sex couples to change both their names to a common name between them. Both judges said no way because that would mean they are presenting themselves as a married couple. But, they just wanted a name change, nothing else. But the first case won on appeal. The appellate court said one can change their name to anything they want. The second case is still in appeal.

So, I think that's an example of how Virgina judges are so afraid to touch anything gay in court.

 

[AVG-JOE]

On a side note, Social Security Law defines marriage as between a male and a female and if you intend to collect retirement or disability from your significant others bigger earnings record, you had best come armed with 10 years of documented marriage to them and they must be a card carrying member of the opposite sex.

 

[Defiant1]

Good reason to keep traditional marriage intact. For the gay side this time

LOL. Yeah, the ex gets the best of both worlds in this case. Nice deal for the lesbian at another's cost.

Good work. I think you have this situation licked.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think a court could terminate the support obligation, in spite of the same sex characteristics of the former wife's present living arrangement, depending on several factors.

The court could do that solely on the basis of changed financial circumstances, without having to rely on the cohabitation aspect of it. Most states have a statute like Virginia, i.e., if a support receiving spouse shacks up, the support can terminate. The way I read the Virginia statute, it doesn't matter what the financial situation is - all it requires is a shackup. For example, support receiving wife could take up with an unemployed loser. They are shacked in poverty - but they are still shacked. Game over. Support paying husband could get his support obligation terminated.

Changed financial circumstances are an entirely different matter. If, in her new (lesbian) relationship, it turns out that the former wife's lesbian lover is bringing in Big Bucks, that might be enough to get support terminated on the basis of changed financial circumstances. The former wife might no longer have a need for support.

Interesting issue.

Thanks, George. I think it is interesting, too. We were assuming that the new squeeze of the ex-wife is pulling in about 160K - basic executive service salary.

I see it the same way you do, but what sparked this is we were looking at the ACLU site and saw that on two occasions, a Virginia judge denied two same sex couples to change both their names to a common name between them. Both judges said no way because that would mean they are presenting themselves as a married couple. But, they just wanted a name change, nothing else. But the first case won on appeal. The appellate court said one can change their name to anything they want. The second case is still in appeal.

So, I think that's an example of how Virgina judges are so afraid to touch anything gay in court.

That's a good point - how much judging is done on a basis of what's right for a given situation versus what's politically correct?

The good news is that judges who judge based on politics will soon have their faces covered with sneaker treads from lawyers going over their heads to an appellate court... at least in theory.

 

[George Costanza]

Could the court terminate the support if the ex wife won the lotto, or had some other 'life changing financial event' to the positive?

Sure could - and probably would.

 

[Si modo]

Another interesting aspect of this is that it provides an example of how gay marriage rights affects us all in one way or another. Here is a red-blooded American heterosexual man who must pay every month (potentially) because folks and laws are too afraid to even recognize that same sex couples exist.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

"§ 20-109. Changing maintenance and support for a spouse; effect of stipulations as to maintenance and support for a spouse; cessation upon cohabitation, remarriage or death.

A. Upon petition of either party the court may increase, decrease, or terminate the amount or duration of any spousal support and maintenance that may thereafter accrue, whether previously or hereafter awarded, as the circumstances may make proper. Upon order of the court based upon clear and convincing evidence that the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more commencing on or after July 1, 1997, the court shall terminate spousal support and maintenance unless (i) otherwise provided by stipulation or contract or (ii) the spouse receiving support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of such support would be unconscionable. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all orders and decrees for spousal support, regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support, the date of entry of any such order or decree, or the date of any petition for modification of support.

...."

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

The statute in regards to changing maintenance and support for a spouse does not specify that the relationship must be between a man and a woman.

 

[Si modo]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

"§ 20-109. Changing maintenance and support for a spouse; effect of stipulations as to maintenance and support for a spouse; cessation upon cohabitation, remarriage or death.

A. Upon petition of either party the court may increase, decrease, or terminate the amount or duration of any spousal support and maintenance that may thereafter accrue, whether previously or hereafter awarded, as the circumstances may make proper. Upon order of the court based upon clear and convincing evidence that the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more commencing on or after July 1, 1997, the court shall terminate spousal support and maintenance unless (i) otherwise provided by stipulation or contract or (ii) the spouse receiving support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of such support would be unconscionable. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all orders and decrees for spousal support, regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support, the date of entry of any such order or decree, or the date of any petition for modification of support.

...."

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

The statute in regards to changing maintenance and support for a spouse does not specify that the relationship must be between a man and a woman.

Yes. That's very true. It just says 'persons'. Then there is the VA Constitution. Taking into consideration the Code and the Commonwealth's Constitution, it doesn't seem to clear what would be the correct ruling based on law.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

"§ 20-109. Changing maintenance and support for a spouse; effect of stipulations as to maintenance and support for a spouse; cessation upon cohabitation, remarriage or death.

A. Upon petition of either party the court may increase, decrease, or terminate the amount or duration of any spousal support and maintenance that may thereafter accrue, whether previously or hereafter awarded, as the circumstances may make proper. Upon order of the court based upon clear and convincing evidence that the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more commencing on or after July 1, 1997, the court shall terminate spousal support and maintenance unless (i) otherwise provided by stipulation or contract or (ii) the spouse receiving support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of such support would be unconscionable. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all orders and decrees for spousal support, regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support, the date of entry of any such order or decree, or the date of any petition for modification of support.

...."

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

Seems cut and dry to me.

the support is lowered or cut.

It would be like the spouse moved back home with mom and dad and no longer needs the same level of support.

Alimony is based on the needs of the spouse, if the need drops for any reason, the support should drop.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

The statute in regards to changing maintenance and support for a spouse does not specify that the relationship must be between a man and a woman.

Yes. That's very true. It just says 'persons'. Then there is the VA Constitution. Taking into consideration the Code and the Commonwealth's Constitution, it doesn't seem to clear what would be the correct ruling based on law.

I disagree I think it's very clear. It doesn't say the relationship must be between a man and a woman it simply states the relationship must be analogous to a marriage. I would argue the scenario you put forth is comparable to a marriage with the exception to the gender of the people involved.

 

[Si modo]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

"§ 20-109. Changing maintenance and support for a spouse; effect of stipulations as to maintenance and support for a spouse; cessation upon cohabitation, remarriage or death.

A. Upon petition of either party the court may increase, decrease, or terminate the amount or duration of any spousal support and maintenance that may thereafter accrue, whether previously or hereafter awarded, as the circumstances may make proper. Upon order of the court based upon clear and convincing evidence that the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more commencing on or after July 1, 1997, the court shall terminate spousal support and maintenance unless (i) otherwise provided by stipulation or contract or (ii) the spouse receiving support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of such support would be unconscionable. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all orders and decrees for spousal support, regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support, the date of entry of any such order or decree, or the date of any petition for modification of support.

...."

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

Seems cut and dry to me.

the support is lowered or cut.

It would be like the spouse moved back home with mom and dad and no longer needs the same level of support.

Alimony is based on the needs of the spouse, if the need drops for any reason, the support should drop.

I couldn't agree more. But, taking into account the Commonwealth's constitution and the name change cases I mentioned, I'm not so sure the court ruling would be in line with the VA Code.

To me, it's an interesting puzzle because of the seemingly contradicting laws - Code and Constitution. Also I think it's a cool example of how even heterosexuals might be materially affected by same-sex marriage law.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'd like to get some input on something a friend of mine and I were discussing a while ago.

First, in the Virginia Constitution, it explicitly states that the Commonwealth will not recognize any gay marriage or gay union of any sort. The exact wording of the amendment is:

So what if a man is paying spousal support for his ex-wife but since the divorce, the ex-wife has realized that she is a lesbian. So, she is living with her lesbian lover, they have 'had a child together' (the other lesbian was inseminated, for example), she is the stay-at-home 'mom' and the other mother (the biological mother) is the bread winner. Seems like a fairly normal situation for a divorcee, but for the same sex aspect.

The husband decides to ask the court to discontinue his requirement to pay spousal support. It seems that VA Code says that if the ex spouse enters into a cohabitating relationship (living together for some time, sharing of financial burdens, romantic attraction/affection for each other exist - IOW, they are living together for reasons more than just convenience like roommates would).

Here is the Virginia Code about that:

What should the court do? The state constitution says the court can't recognize the other relationship because it's not between a man and a woman, but the code doesn't specify that cohabitants be a man and woman (code specifically says 'person' cohabitating).

It doesn't seem too obvious what could be done. I find it an interesting problem.

Seems cut and dry to me.

the support is lowered or cut.

It would be like the spouse moved back home with mom and dad and no longer needs the same level of support.

Alimony is based on the needs of the spouse, if the need drops for any reason, the support should drop.

I couldn't agree more. But, taking into account the Commonwealth's constitution and the name change cases I mentioned, I'm not so sure the court ruling would be in line with the VA Code.

To me, it's an interesting puzzle because of the seemingly contradicting laws - Code and Constitution. Also I think it's a cool example of how even heterosexuals might be materially affected by same-sex marriage law.

They would be. If I get divorced and my wife, by some miracle, pays me allamony based on my income and current cost of living could request it be lowered if I took on any kind of roommate that ponied up money to help cover cost.

there are plenty of laws around that are in contradiction with Constitutions.

Do you live in a state with gun laws that restrict access to any kind of weapon imaginable?

 

[Si modo]

Seems cut and dry to me.

the support is lowered or cut.

It would be like the spouse moved back home with mom and dad and no longer needs the same level of support.

Alimony is based on the needs of the spouse, if the need drops for any reason, the support should drop.

I couldn't agree more. But, taking into account the Commonwealth's constitution and the name change cases I mentioned, I'm not so sure the court ruling would be in line with the VA Code.

To me, it's an interesting puzzle because of the seemingly contradicting laws - Code and Constitution. Also I think it's a cool example of how even heterosexuals might be materially affected by same-sex marriage law.

They would be. If I get divorced and my wife, by some miracle, pays me allamony based on my income and current cost of living could request it be lowered if I took on any kind of roommate that ponied up money to help cover cost.

there are plenty of laws around that are in contradiction with Constitutions.

Do you live in a state with gun laws that restrict access to any kind of weapon imaginable?

I live in NoVA. Virginia has pretty liberal (in the non-political definition) gun laws. I'm pretty new to VA (not to the DC metro area, though). After living in fascist states on gun laws prior to this, I am amazed at the gun laws here.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I couldn't agree more. But, taking into account the Commonwealth's constitution and the name change cases I mentioned, I'm not so sure the court ruling would be in line with the VA Code.

To me, it's an interesting puzzle because of the seemingly contradicting laws - Code and Constitution. Also I think it's a cool example of how even heterosexuals might be materially affected by same-sex marriage law.

They would be. If I get divorced and my wife, by some miracle, pays me allamony based on my income and current cost of living could request it be lowered if I took on any kind of roommate that ponied up money to help cover cost.

there are plenty of laws around that are in contradiction with Constitutions.

Do you live in a state with gun laws that restrict access to any kind of weapon imaginable?

I live in NoVA. Virginia has pretty liberal (in the non-political definition) gun laws. I'm pretty new to VA (not to the DC metro area, though). After living in fascist states on gun laws prior to this, I am amazed at the gun laws here.

Sorry, I was just using that as an example of how laws and Constitutions don't always seem to jive.

We have the right to bear arms. That means I should be able to buy a tank if I want to. I can't recall where, but I think it was Franklin that explained that we are supposed to have access to the same weapons our military does.




I suppose this could be used as fuel to get VA to recognise gay unions/wedding certs. I doubt it will occur for a long long time, nor necessarily should it.


I was stationed at the Navy base in Norfolk. Nice area.

 

[Si modo]

They would be. If I get divorced and my wife, by some miracle, pays me allamony based on my income and current cost of living could request it be lowered if I took on any kind of roommate that ponied up money to help cover cost.

there are plenty of laws around that are in contradiction with Constitutions.

Do you live in a state with gun laws that restrict access to any kind of weapon imaginable?

I live in NoVA. Virginia has pretty liberal (in the non-political definition) gun laws. I'm pretty new to VA (not to the DC metro area, though). After living in fascist states on gun laws prior to this, I am amazed at the gun laws here.

Sorry, I was just using that as an example of how laws and Constitutions don't always seem to jive.

We have the right to bear arms. That means I should be able to buy a tank if I want to. I can't recall where, but I think it was Franklin that explained that we are supposed to have access to the same weapons our military does.
....

Ah, I see. Good point.

....

I suppose this could be used as fuel to get VA to recognise gay unions/wedding certs. I doubt it will occur for a long long time, nor necessarily should it.


I was stationed at the Navy base in Norfolk. Nice area.

As I am neither gay nor lesbian, the only interest I had in same-sex marriage was equality for all humans. But, even more fundamentally, I believe that the government (state and federal) shouldn't be involved in the business of marriage at all. That's a church/synagogue/temple/whatever thing. The contract aspect of it is only where the state should have any say, IMO. But, I never really had a dog in that fight and because I didn't, we found a way where I do have a dog in that fight.

But, as states still seem to want to be involved in religious ceremonies and when that involvement actually has the potential to materially affect me and those close to me, I take a keen interest in it.