105 Ways to Give a Book

In Defense Of Marriage According To My Own Moral Code

I try not to get political, but frankly this post is as much about reading — and reading carefully — as it is about politics. Below is the proposed Constitutional amendment for Virginia.
That 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.
Now, I haven’t paid too much attention to this amendment for two reasons. One, I think that there are more important issues this country faces than whether the gay couple who has lived next door to you for fifteen years can call themselves married and making double-dog dare sure that can’t happen. Two, I think that making a Constitutional amendment for the sole purpose of limiting rights of an entire group of U.S. citizens and Virginia residents is... what’s the word?... wrong.

I had noticed that Virginia Democrats were focusing on telling people that the text of the amendment went farther than people were thinking, to basically outlaw arrangements between unmarried couples. Before reading the text, I thought this approach was a cop-out. It shouldn’t be in the Consititution because it sanctifies discrimination. I believe we will look back at this period of time in the same way we now look back at making marriages between races illegal, and we’ll be ashamed.

But looking for the first time at the text, I am horrified by the extent of the language that many people won’t even read. Let me break it down in verse style, so you’re forced to read it slowly.
That 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.
Don’t blindly trust what your politicians or church or friends are telling you. Some of them may not even realize the extend to which this amendment — and other amendments in other states — will go.

Read. Think.

3 comments:

eisha said...

Yikes! I didn't know that was happening in Virginia... Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

PEOPLE: I live in Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been officially legal here for over 2 years. And guess what? We're all still fine. The entire commonwealth has not been smote off the face of the earth. It's not hurting anybody. If you yourself don't want to marry someone of the same sex, you don't have to. If you yourself believe that the gay couple down the street are damned to spend eternity in hell, you still get to believe that. So where's the problem?

Anonymous said...

"I think that making a Constitutional amendment for the sole purpose of limiting rights of an entire group of U.S. citizens and Virginia residents is... what’s the word?... wrong."

Awesome.

Steve said...

You know I have to comment here.

I always wondered how my partner's and my need to buy groceries, do laundry and cut our lawn threaten marriage. Umm, whatever.

I wish I could say that most Americans don't ride along on this bandwagon, but God love the fact that wonderful Virginans like you are smart enough to realize this damages way more than just us.