Comments on: Marriage Amendment Leads by 18% http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/ Blog-Fu for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park politics. Thu, 17 May 2012 07:08:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: David http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-791 David Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:07:36 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-791 No, regardless of the intent of the legislators, which is another discussion, there is no means of determining at what point an aggregation of private contracts would begin to "approximate" marriage, in other words, align with the rights that would be granted by a domestic partnership. That leaves a huge opening for interested third parties to challenge contracts on the basis of an assumed "intent" to approximate marriage. It's obvious to me that a couple who cobbles together a set of contracts like that <i>is</i> trying to approximate marriage, and I think that Virginia judges have already indicated that they will see it that way, too. No, regardless of the intent of the legislators, which is another discussion, there is no means of determining at what point an aggregation of private contracts would begin to “approximate” marriage, in other words, align with the rights that would be granted by a domestic partnership.

That leaves a huge opening for interested third parties to challenge contracts on the basis of an assumed “intent” to approximate marriage. It’s obvious to me that a couple who cobbles together a set of contracts like that is trying to approximate marriage, and I think that Virginia judges have already indicated that they will see it that way, too.

]]> By: Greg L http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-764 Greg L Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:50:47 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-764 David, my reading of the amendment is "no gay 'marriage'", no "civil unions" and no "domestic partnerships", all which are designed to approximate marriage. If you sign a contract with another person, or execute a power of attorney or other legal instrument, the amendment clearly wouldn't apply as the purpose of those arrangements clearly is not "marriage". No one is going to throw out hundreds of years of common law with this. You're foisting a red herring here. David, my reading of the amendment is “no gay ‘marriage’”, no “civil unions” and no “domestic partnerships”, all which are designed to approximate marriage. If you sign a contract with another person, or execute a power of attorney or other legal instrument, the amendment clearly wouldn’t apply as the purpose of those arrangements clearly is not “marriage”.

No one is going to throw out hundreds of years of common law with this. You’re foisting a red herring here.

]]> By: David http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-762 David Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:22:58 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-762 As the amendment states, the Commonwealth will be prohibited from "recognizing" a legal status which is "intended" to "approximate" the set of rights, obligations, etc, that attach to marriage. The supporters of the amendment have been unable to define a list of such rights, or how one would determine the "intent" of two people in entering into a series of particular contracts with each other. You can drive a truck through the amendment language. It's a conservative's nightmare. As the amendment states, the Commonwealth will be prohibited from “recognizing” a legal status which is “intended” to “approximate” the set of rights, obligations, etc, that attach to marriage. The supporters of the amendment have been unable to define a list of such rights, or how one would determine the “intent” of two people in entering into a series of particular contracts with each other. You can drive a truck through the amendment language. It’s a conservative’s nightmare.

]]> By: admin http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-743 admin Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:21:22 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-743 I don't see any impact, other than they can't have a legally recognized "civil union" or "domestic partnership". I haven't seen too many normal couples clamoring for those though. I don’t see any impact, other than they can’t have a legally recognized “civil union” or “domestic partnership”. I haven’t seen too many normal couples clamoring for those though.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-733 Anonymous Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:27:02 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2006/07/30/marriage-amendment-leads-by-18/#comment-733 What do you guys know about the impact on heterosexual couple who live together outside of marriage? What do you guys know about the impact on heterosexual couple who live together outside of marriage?

]]>