Oh, Virginia.
You disappoint me. Just when it looked like you were getting over the redneck ass-backwards southern thing by electing two moderate Democratic governors back to back, and possibly even ousting George Allen, you have to go and overwhelmingly support an homophobic initiative that doesn't just prohibit gay marriage -- it prevents any type of civil union.
Boy, was Gene Weingarten right this morning when he noted that you declared yourself the "state of sanctimonious bigotry."
And to those Democrats and independents that supported the amendment but voted for Jim Webb: What are you thinking? You should be ashamed.
Seriously.
11 comments:
I think my point from yesterday may resonate again today: look how divided the state's are over this issue. While I can accept it as a state's righter, I can see this thing being a war in Court for many years to come.
I don't know my answer on this, but your post and response yesterday made me wonder: should we completely remove marriage from the civil law, and therefore make it a religious thing? It seems if you are not religious, the only reason to get married is to take advantage of certain civil laws (intestacy, "married filing jointly" etc.) and work benefits (though these are changing to support domestic unions). It would be a huge headache to redo all the laws, etc. (hell, we would need a whole new tax code!!), but just a thought that I had.
I feel ya girl.
I think about this a lot. Mostly because I have questions about marriage, and how it would fit into my life.
My dad says that the only reason to get married nowadays is if you want to have kids, in order to provide them with some stability. I'm not sure if I wholeheartedly buy that argument, since there are so many other legal aspects, like tax benefits, health benefits, tenancy-by-the-entireties, etc., but on a fundamental level, he's right. Today's version of marriage is essentialy a type of civil partnership that provides & protects certain property rights and interests, and is severable by divorce (at least in 50% of cases). I don't understand why people have a hard time allowing that to be equally available to homosexuals, or how denying it is not a violation of Equal Protection.
To me, marriage as a religious institution is just icing on the cake. It's standing up in front of the religious deity of your choice -- not to mention your friends and family -- and declaring your intention to enter into the civil partnership described above, and subjecting it to whatever additional rules and obligations are required by your religion. And maybe if you're a certain type of person making the promise in front of God, you take it a little more seriously -- but in most cases, I doubt that it's true.
With marriage as a religious concept, then I think the decision of what is or is not acceptible is based on the tenets of the particular religion. So, if your religion says that such a ceremony is not available to same-sex partners, fine. And if it bothers you, it's your choice to deal or find a new religion.
Does this make sense?
To be completely honest, marriage is kind of overrated. But I guess Virginia is no longer the Land of Lovers.
Sweet: I checked out the election results by precinct. I'm generalizing a bit, but the numbers indicate that, on average, NoVa and urban areas voted against the amendment about 60-40. (Surprisingly, Arlington & Alexandria were the most opposed, about 70%, and had about 50% voter turnout.) But the rest of the state voted for the amendment about 70-30.
Sad, right?
Mad: Virginia is still for lovers. Just not with any of the indicia of marriage.
Dara: I think you made a lot of sense in your post. I do think there are quite a number of people out there who take their vow in front of God very seriously, or at least more seriously that in front of the state. However, for example in the "Christian" world, the divorce rate is still the same as non-Christians, so I understand your point.
Mad: I am sorry you find (or found) marriage to be overrated. As a married guy, I will admit to marriage not always being easy (or for that matter any committed relationship). HOwever, with a little hard work, and a lot of forgiveness for the "damn dailies" I find marriage to be the second most rewarding thing ever in my life, only after the birth of my son.
Virginia is two states for the price of one.
There's northern Virginia, where you live, that's fairly liberal, and very urban.
Then there's the rest of the state, which, for the most part, is very conservative and rural.
I know this sounds crazy, but I really think it'd be in the best interests of Virginia to split into two states. Make the new capital Vienna.
There are plenty of other differences between the two areas, of course, but I'm supposed to be working. :) One quick one: it would eliminate the complaint of Northern Virginians of only getting $0.80 worth of roads for every $1 spent (or whatever it works out to be).
Ah, Bo. Once again, we prove that a lot of common ground exists between a female Jewish Yankee Liberal and a male Southern Christian Conservative. Just like old times.
RJ: Why Vienna? I mean, what do they have to offer except MicroCenter? :P
Hmm, on the one hand, if we carved up the state, then there would be three Virginias. Take that Carolinas and Dakotas!
Still, I would feel bad leaving Richmond, Charlottesville, and Virginia Beach/Norfolk with the rest of the state, since ideologically, they tend to vote the same as NoVa. Of course, then we'd get into an Israel-Palestine type situation with walled off portions of the state existing wholly within the boundaries of the other -- and it would get completely out of control.
No, sadly, we must find a way to coexist as a unified sort-of purple state.
The thought of the Virginia's 'beating' the Carolinas and Dakotas made me laugh:)
I <3 VA!
Part of why I enjoy this idea so much is that a new state split from VA would really screw with some of the more annoying divisions here at the Census Bureau - and it would barely affect me at all. The chaos would be something to behold. ;)
In case anyone isn't clear that I'm kidding, I don't really think VA should split; it's just an easy way to think about the political, social, and economic differences contained within VA. And VA isn't alone in that, either, of course.
Scarlet: It makes a good punchline.
Although, in all seriousness, what exactly does North Dakota bring to the fight?
RJ: Having lived in Florida, I could definitely envision a state split there too.
And for the record, I don't think anyone here thought you were serious about carving up Virginia. My subset of the blogiverse is pretty quick to pick up on things like that.
Post a Comment