hr – once again, I’m done with you. Not angry, just done. You are not reading what I wrote. I did not dispute that the current law covers unmarrieds who cohabitate. Instead, I pointed out that under the 94 official opinion that such cohabitation means living together as man and wife (which is why it does not apply to gays). “Living together as man and wife” is equivalent to marriage; therefore, the passage of the amendment, which prohibits any arrangement which looks like or smells like marriage, these relationships will not be recognized and the rules will not apply.

This amendment’s gonna pass HUGE, and you think that siding with you against it would help a Republican running for Governor.

My head’s still spinning from that.

Come on Vivian, is that the best you can come up with? A secretary probably wrote it, but he was told what to write. That is pitiful. I come here to debate, not to entertain something like that.

I have not talked in circles. I have stated the same thing about three times now. And I will again: The current law is that domestic violence laws apply to unmarried individuals who live together. I have not seen the 94 opinion and I have not seen it referred to anywhere else, but it’s not being followed, because that is not current law.

Who’s REALLY talking in circles here?

Vivian, I’ve got to sleep. Post something and I will respond in the morning. Who else are you going to have live-blog in the future?

You are talking in circles on the domestic violence issue. Let me copy and paste it for you again:

…our domestic violence law, which when amended to include “family and household members” was originally thought to apply to all unmarried couples living together, was interpreted in an official opinion issued in 1994 by former Attorney General Gilmore (entitled to deference by the courts) as not applying to gay couples because it applies only to heterosexual couples who could fit within the statutory definition of “cohabiting” which he said meant living as “man and wife.”

So, in the only official opinion on the matter, “cohabitating” means living together as “man and wife.” Um – isn’t that marriage??? And if the amendment says “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” how can you argue that its passage would not change the law?

Talk about grasping at straws! Don’t they teach logic in school anymore?

I said it wasn’t an AG opinion, then you criticized me and said it wasn’t an AG opinion. Who’s not thinking?
He did submit the explanation though. I suppose a robot came up with that, and not the AG himself. . .

You are a classic example of a RWA follower. Because an authoritarian figure says so, you believe it. My eyes are wide open. There has been no AG opinion on the amendment.

The current law on domestic violence does not apply to gays and if the amendment passes, will not apply to any unmarried couples. The courts have long said that the domestic violence laws of Virginia were intended to protect those who are in marriage-like relationships. If no such “marriage-like” relationships are allowed to exist under the amendment – and I think we can agree that the amendment prohibits any kind of “marriage-like relationships – then domestic violence laws will not apply.

Bottom line is this: the whole concept behind this amendment was to limit litigation. Yet by its very nature, it encourages it. The answer as to if domestic violence laws apply will be made by the courts – the very courts that you and other supporters are seeking to avoid.

We would not be having this conversation if the amendment had stopped with the first sentence. It didn’t. And that’s why it is going to be defeated. The amendment reaches too far.

You may disagree, but you disagree with your eyes closed. Its like me saying the sky is blue, and you looking down at the ground, closing your eyes, and saying “The sky isn’t blue, I can’t see it, it doesn’t look blue.”

The fact remains that the law says domestic violence laws apply if you are married or ever were married, then gives more instances when they apply, and it includes household. If they were to approximate marriage, the four prongs of the law after the “marriage” prongs would not be there.

And, I disagree on the your interpretation of domestic violence rules. Again, you are talking about an opinion and yours carries no more weight than mine. Has the AG issued an opinion on domestic violence? No.

And, no, domestic violence laws are defined by the sixth “prong” as household, not marriage. In fact, the first and second “prong” says if you are married or ever were married, domestic violence laws apply. The rest of the prongs are “when do they apply if you are not or ever were married.” It does not approximate marriage. In fact, the prongs after the first two are “outside of marriage, when do they apply” prongs. It is so obvious. It does not approximate marriage. Ohio does not have household in their definition.

If first prongs did not say anything about marriage, you would have a point. But the law goes out of its way to define domestic violence laws outside of marriage,and includes household. This is grasping at straws.

Thanks for the permission to put down the DNC newsletter, or, uh, I mean the Washington Post.

The only thing I have been able to find related to this argument is a reference to an “official opinion” issued in 1994 by former AG Gilmore, who interpreted the domestic violence laws as NOT applying to gay couples:

This is in stark contrast to Virginia where our domestic violence law, which when amended to include “family and household members” was originally thought to apply to all unmarried couples living together, was interpreted in an official opinion issued in 1994 by former Attorney General Gilmore (entitled to deference by the courts) as not applying to gay couples because it applies only to heterosexual couples who could fit within the statutory definition of “cohabiting” which he said meant living as “man and wife.” This opinion has never been questionned by the legislature in the 12 years since it was written nor has it been overturned in the courts. Moreover, there is at least one VA Supreme Court case endorsing a similar interpretation of the meaning of “cohabit.”

If one accepts Gilmore’s opinion, then, it’s clear that, if applied to any unmarried couples after the amendment passes, the Virginia domestic violence statute would be giving unmarried couples a “legal status” approximating a benefit, obligation, effect or significance of marriage.

I don’t know what “entitled to deference by the courts” means and have been unable to track down exactly what legal weight is given to AG opinions in Virginia (other states clearly lay out what weight is given to their AG opinions) but in any event, we don’t have one (yet) from the AG. (The Gilmore 1994 opinions are not on the AG’s website.)

the amendment is not going to affect any current laws

Saying it over and over still doesn’t make it so. You may believe that to be the case but as I posted on your blog, opinions are like a________, everybody’s got one.

Next, the amendment is not going to affect any current laws.

Good live-blog though. It rocked!