Republican Tim Anderson seeks to end Defense of Marriage Amendment
At the request of the Tidewater Libertarian Party, Republican Delegate Tim Anderson has introduced a resolution to remove the odious Defense of Marriage Amendment from the VA Constitution.
In the past, attempts to repeal it have failed on party line votes Hopefully, by getting it introduced by a Republican we’ll have better luck this time.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I’m confused. Wouldn’t the Respect for Marriage Act, which seems ready to pass the Senate, make all state laws banning gay and interracial marriage moot? Or is this just a move to get an obsolete law off the books?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/14/schumer-gay-marriage-bill-senate/
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is confusing.
IF, and that is IF, SCOTUS were to reverse on Oberfell, it would be on the same premise as Dobbs, that the decision reverts to the States.
So, Federal legislation would be moot.
That’s why it is important that we take preemptive action at the State level.
The Libertarian stance on same sex marriage, BTW, is separation of marriage and State. If States create civil unions, the legal part of marriage, they should be available to anyone.
If you want to get married as well as have a civil union, then you do that with your church, your family, or your bowling league, whatever community is going to provide social support to the marriage. But that is none of the government’s business.
LikeLike
The federal legislation does not force states to legalize same-sex marriages. It does order that states recognize those marriages performed in other states as legal.
Marriage remains a state issue. States can legalize or not. But they must recognize those from other states.
LikeLike
Article IV section 1 of the Constitution requires the states to give full faith and credit to the laws and judicial acts of other states,
But in practice it gets complicated.
If, for example, Oberfelle were reversed and New York allows same sex marriage a same sex spouse would be the presumptive next of kin if his mate were hospitalized in New York, But Virginia’s Constitution explicitly rejects measures simulating the benefits of marriage, so if he were hospitalized in VA, that would not apply here. The marriage would have to be recognized, but not the benefits.
That is why it is important that we fix Virginia’s Constitution regardless of what the courts or Congress do.
LikeLike
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3753625-democrats-succumb-to-political-reality-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/
Bill has support of enough Republicans to overcome filibuster. But the price is that religious liberty must take precedence over individual liberty.
We will take what we can get, of course, with the possibility of future adjustments.
Why do people have to control others because of faith differences? Religion was responsible in part for rationalizing slavery, then Jim Crow, then mixed marriages. And now gay marriages can be discriminated against in the name of “God”, even though the laws and the people approve of such relationships.
That is not religious liberty, but rather religious domination. In a nation of all Methodists that might fly. But American Christian sects are all over the board in beliefs and practices. And we are also home to dozens of other religions, major and minor. So why not respect that fact, and other Americans too?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not need to be amended by sectarian beliefs.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t understand your objection to religious institution, or religious individuals, not being forced to participate in the ceremony. Why should a church or a caterer be compelled to host a same sex marriage if that conflicts with their faith.
Liberty is liberty. you can’t be for a same sex couple to be able to marry and at the same time deny others the choice to participate.
In any case, we need to fix this at the State level. The Virginia Amendment goes beyond banning same sex marriage, it also bans civil unions and other legal arrangements simulating the benefits of marriage.
So lets focus on supporting the effort to repeal it.
LikeLike
I thought that was decided a few years ago in the wedding cake case?
Regardless, the law is for STATES to recognize ALL marriages from other states.
But I am in FULL AGREEMENT with the concept of repealing Virginia’s law.
LikeLike
RE: “The Libertarian stance on same sex marriage, BTW, is separation of marriage and State.”
This reminds me of the visceral objection I felt when my wife and I had to take blood tests to apply for a marriage license. I understood the practical reasons for that whole process, but it still seemed abusive to me.
It was abusive in the sense that the legal status of marriage doesn’t inherently require government approval. In fact, when my wife I chose to marry officially, we already were married in common law by definition.
LikeLike