Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Article I section 15A is a stain on the Virginia Constitution. It especially doesn’t belong in Virginia’s Bill of Rights. It is more urgent now with the possibility it could become effective again.
Getting rid of an amendment is an arduous process but we need to get started.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “It is more urgent now with the possibility it could become effective again.”
I don’t understand the issues here:
Why is 15A a stain on the VA constitution?
How is there a possibility 15A could become effective again (i.e., what is the legal theory)?
LikeLike
Justice Thomas questioned the similarity of the error of Roe and other privacy right decisions
in any case an amendment denying people equal rights should not be in our Bill of Rights. The amendment not only bans marriage but also contractual legal arrangements simulating the benefits of marriage.
There is no justification for such unequal treatment of gay couples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got it, thanks.
I listened to a video today in which an attorney claimed that Justice Thomas’s comments have been widely misinterpreted. According to this attorney, Thomas’s point was that a right to privacy could not be valid under the 14th Amendment, but could be valid under the 9th.
I take this observation to mean that state legislatures have the power to acknowledge rights that the federal legislature does not have the power to acknowledge.
I believe there may be a justification for unequal treatment of gay couples based on evolutionary biology. But the justification argument is both esoteric and speculative. To wit: Men and women are biologically different in such ways that the cultural institution of marriage is needed to enable heterosexual pairings to become compatible and cooperative. Compatibility and cooperation are necessary to support procreation and child rearing (conferring survival advantages in an evolutionary context).
Same-sex pairings are not characterized by biological differences that might require a cultural adaptation such as marriage to enable compatibility and cooperation. Besides, same-sex pairings do not result in procreation or impose child rearing costs. The evolutionary pressures that apply to heterosexual pairings do not inherently apply to same-sex pairings.
Thus, civilizational law that treats heterosexual pairings in a preferential manner over same-sex pairings is consistent with the natural laws which caused the cultural institution of marriage to come into being in the first place.
You could call this the “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” explanation for the anthropology of marriage. It might be wrong — better science might come along — but I’d argue that it is legitimate for states to test the preference for heterosexual marriage in implementation, if they wish to do so.
LikeLike
If testing the preference for heterosexual marriage only were a valid social reason, then let’s look at why marriage exists.
Virtually every society has a recognized contractual arrangement for family structure. Depending upon the the particular society, it might involve multiple wives or husbands as well. Social stability is a core reason. The end result is somewhat like establishing an ownership of the womb as being a partnership. One’s wife is now sole “property” of a man with respect to sex. That reduces predation by single males against any fertile female. It also provides the structure for raising a human which is one of the longest, if not the longest, training to maturation periods in nature.
Procreation under controlled and approved circumstances is a goal.
For the small percentage of people with same sex attraction, procreation is not the issue, but stability might very well be. Again curtailing predatory sex among singles.
The marriage act is the result of a religious/political backlash with little social use since neither procreation nor stability is protected.
Forcing heterosexuality on people who are not straight has no merit in social or biological reality.
And that is what the Act is trying to do. Either marry heterosexually or hide somewhere so we don’t have to acknowledge you.
People who are heterosexual will still marry, still have children and still raise them as family. Gay couples will not prevent that by being allowed to establish committed legal relationships with equal financial and social responsibilities and privileges.
I agree. Get rid of an amendment that is nothing more than legal spite.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “People who are heterosexual will still marry, still have children and still raise them as family. Gay couples will not prevent that by being allowed to establish committed legal relationships with equal financial and social responsibilities and privileges.”
That’s true. By the same token, defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual does not prohibit or prevent gay partnerships.
LikeLike
Actually the way it is worded in VA it does exactly that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So if a body of law is written in all 50 states plus territories to deal with same sex partnerships, it would save “marriage” as a word or institution for heterosexuals only.
That is setting the stage for second class citizenship. Not to mention an incredible logjam of more laws that must be portable among the states themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Actually the way it is worded in VA it does exactly that.”
Re-reading 15A, I think I see what you mean. But I don’t think the interpretation is ironclad. For example, I don’t think 15A would prohibit a same-sex sexual relationship between consenting adults, or the formation of otherwise legal financial arrangements between the parties to a same-sex relationship, or an insurance company, say, from recognizing a same sex partner for power of attorney or benefits distribution purposes. In effect, 15A says only that VA shall not recognize the personal relationship, financial arrangements, or delivery of third party services as marriage.
LikeLike
If the state refuses to recognize a same-sex marriage as legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, then the interpretation IS ironclad. Unless you believe that the Amendment is imaginary, as you indicated the 14th to the US Constitution is in an earlier thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If the state refuses to recognize a same-sex marriage as legally equal to a heterosexual marriage, then the interpretation IS ironclad.”
I don’t think same-sex marriage is even possible. Same-sex relationships are certainly possible, but there is no discrimination against them in merely recognizing marriage as heterosexual by nature.
LikeLike
“but there is no discrimination against them in merely recognizing marriage as heterosexual by nature.”
And that is not accurate. Marriage cannot be recognized as heterosexual in nature only without being discriminatory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Marriage cannot be recognized as heterosexual in nature only without being discriminatory.”
Statements and beliefs like that are the very reason I am commenting on this topic the way I am. Recognizing the socio-biology of marriage is no different from recognizing that some people can sing.
LikeLike
But it isn’t about the socio-biology aspect of marriage. It IS about the contractual aspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the Constitution allows everyone to sing, whether you like the sound or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know many same sex married couples who have children; so you should not say that: “Besides, same-sex pairings do not result in procreation or impose child rearing costs.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
There would be a lot more if adoption agencies did not discriminate against same sex unions.
Complications of modern science, like IVF and surrogacy need to be accepted. Let’s face the reality that committing to raising children outside of traditional marriages is not taken lightly. Adoption included.
And commitment to raising physically and mentally healthy offspring is important.
Ironically, adopting means subjecting the couple to incredible scrutiny for a stable and economically secure home often with huge fees to boot.
Yet any couple can procreate whether or not they will commit to rearing a child, or even can do so. And we wonder why we have unwanted children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Article I section 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts and marriage from a legal aspect is a contract.
The 14th Amendment demands equal protections under law and makes no exception for sexual orientation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Article I section 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts and marriage from a legal aspect is a contract.”
I agree that marriage is a contract, but note that not all contracts are marriages. Indeed, an entire body of family law arises from the uniqueness of the marriage type of contract.
Would the obligations of marriage be impaired by one state if it defined the legal parties to marriage differently from another state? Yes, the obligations might be impaired if different definitions were allowed. For example, one state’s recognition of polygamy would force another state to recognize polygamy, whether it wanted to or not. The same impairment occurs where one state recognizes same-sex marriage when another does not.
The problem is resolved if it can be shown that marriage is a unique phenomenon with only one natural description. The alternative is to pretend that marriage is not unique in any way, that the word has no particular definition or material reality in the natural world.
In other words, the impairment issue arises whichever direction you take. Either you resolve it through science (so to speak) or through fabrication.
LikeLike
I don’t have much sympathy for gay couples as they indulge in activity and lifestyle that is extremely unhealthy and contrary to the laws of nature. In fact, I view gay males as a public health hazard due to over 70% of all new AIDS cases come from them according to the CDC. I just don’t see anything to clap about but that is my opinion like it or not.
LikeLike
But your post has nothing to do with the thread. It is about repealing the VA Defense of Marriage Act.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t care if it stays or goes. I see no benefit of gay marriage in society but I don’t think anyone will tread down the path of saying they can’t now. Here’s a proposal, repeal the amendment but make it illegal to publicly announce “coming out”. If it’s supposed to be “private” and “protected” keep it that way. Why was it necessary to announce in the Pilot that Convirs-Fowler goes both ways or anyone else in media?
LikeLike
I get it. You are a hateful homophobe. You are entitled to be that. And I am just as entitled to call you out for your blatant bigotry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There goes that stupid “hate” tripe again. I don’t hate homos, I just know that they indulge in disgusting behavior. I feel sorry for them actually. I don’t care if you approve or not.
LikeLike
The words you use constantly are rife with hate. But you being a white male don’t really understand the concept of hate because you have never been a target of it.
Degrading terms like “homos”, calling their lifestyles disgusting, and claiming to feel sorry for them are all hate-filled tropes that you live in.
You don’t want to be labeled as a hater, then use better words and, better yet, stop hating people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So long as they don’t pick my pocket or break my leg, it is no concern of mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do realized that many heterosexual activities are also “against the laws of nature”. But in the past, only gay people were being arrested and charged.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some of the best heterosexual activities are against the law of Virginia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One or two of my favorites do cum to mind
LikeLike
I doubt playing in feces is one of them but that is your choice. Just my opinion.
LikeLike
While repealing of an amendment is an arduous undertaking, I would like to think there is time before SCOTUS receives a case for consideration that woudl repeal Obergfell.
And as some have said, it really should be a non-issue. Thomas’ concurrence in Dobbs changed that.
LikeLike