Washington D.C. has a new Gay Marriage Proposal

[JD_2B]

wait... Virginia... the same state I now hear allegedly refuses to recognize any legal contract two gays enter if they happen to be partners. Also a KKK stronghold, if I recall.

Coincidence?

Either you are a troofer, or you don't believe it.. Its STATUTORY.. You have to believe it.

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex

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.

(2004, c. 983.)

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Code :: Justia

 

[Setarcos]

wait... Virginia... the same state I now hear allegedly refuses to recognize any legal contract two gays enter if they happen to be partners. Also a KKK stronghold, if I recall.

Coincidence?

Either you are a troofer, or you don't believe it.. Its STATUTORY.. You have to believe it.

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex

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.

(2004, c. 983.)

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Code :: Justia

See, this is why I never run with allegations for assertions without confirmations.

You said

In Virginia, the law states very clearly that gay contracts of ANY kind are not recognized, not just marriage and civil union, but even the ones that exist between any two people of the same sex in a committed relationship, if the contract is with each other.

Which is not an accurate representation of the law to which you just referred. The law says that no contracts between two persons of the same legal sex 'purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage' is honored or recognized. You said it was 'gay contracts of ANY kind', implying that no legal contract between to homosexual persons is recognized.

My suspicions were aroused when you referred to a 'gay contract

 

[JD_2B]

wait... Virginia... the same state I now hear allegedly refuses to recognize any legal contract two gays enter if they happen to be partners. Also a KKK stronghold, if I recall.

Coincidence?

Either you are a troofer, or you don't believe it.. Its STATUTORY.. You have to believe it.

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex

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.

(2004, c. 983.)

Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Virginia Code § 20-45.3 - Civil unions between persons of same sex - Virginia Code :: Justia

See, this is why I never run with allegations for assertions without confirmations.

You said

In Virginia, the law states very clearly that gay contracts of ANY kind are not recognized, not just marriage and civil union, but even the ones that exist between any two people of the same sex in a committed relationship, if the contract is with each other.

Which is not an accurate representation of the law to which you just referred. The law says that no contracts between two persons of the same legal sex 'purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage' is honored or recognized. You said it was 'gay contracts of ANY kind', implying that no legal contract between to homosexual persons is recognized.

My suspicions were aroused when you referred to a 'gay 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."

I am very glad to hear that you would not be an unreasonable judge and view this broadly.. =) -but just consider if a judge decided to consider this statute broadly..

All legislation is open to interpretation. Case law is where the real problems begin- not in the actual legislation, but in how the judicial system chooses to interpret.. Judges are the ones who really decide which way the law is going to go. Since this state's law is already very conservative, it would definitely be plausible that a judge might rule against a gay couple's contractual validity, based on this law alone.

 

[JD_2B]

PS- I said it that way because the law literally states such, if viewed broadly, and wanted to pull some attention towards that detail, because I feel that this particular statute (and its possible interpretation) is what is creating so much anxiety with Gays in Virginia. =)

 

[Setarcos]

"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."

I am very glad to hear that you would not be an unreasonable judge and view this broadly.. =) -but just consider if a judge decided to consider this statute broadly..

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The letter of the law is clear.

 

[Setarcos]

PS- I said it that way because the law literally states such, if viewed broadly

You mean if a single sentence fragment is taken out of context?

 

[Qball]

Not trying to be glib, but what does this have to do with what I was talking about? It's not an accepted conclusion that same-sex marriage is a civil right. Most states don't believe it, and neither does the federal government. Yet, people keep asserting it as if it's empirically true.

If there is no civil right to enter into legal contract with another consenting adult as you please, then wtf was Loving V. Virginia about?

It was about overturning invidious criminal statutes that restricted otherwise traditionally married individuals from being married based on the color of their skin. Loving actually had nothing to do with the non-existent right to a legal contract.

 

[JD_2B]

"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."

I am very glad to hear that you would not be an unreasonable judge and view this broadly.. =) -but just consider if a judge decided to consider this statute broadly..

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The letter of the law is clear.

Way to sidestep the issue of it being possibly INTERPRETED broadly by a not so rational judge..

This was the exact question my law professor asked my class, and the same context.. Chew on it.

 

[Setarcos]

Then your law professor's an idiot who wears tinfoil on his head.

The Right-Wing isn't smart enough to spin that enough to get the context out of the way

 

[JD_2B]

Clearly this is not a matter of intelligence, and is a matter of broad interpretation.

A stupid judge can be easily influenced by a smart lawyer.