… you believe this is the first step in a series of rights being taken away from the citizens of Virginia. The Virginia Bill of Rights has never been used to take away anyone’s rights, only to grant them.
“First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”— Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Same sex marriage is sort of silly. Gays can live together, but extending tax benefits to them doesn’t really seem like a sound policy. Best to protect this from over zealous judges. Maybe if they extended extra benefits to single people, eg. somebody could get a parent insured at married people rates, then maybe “partnerships” would be a good idea. As it stands, I think gays are “cutting in line”.
asdf — actually, some employers do just that. Arlington County, for instance, allows one to have one adult dependent (per federal tax code) covered by a “family” plan. That dependent does not even have to be family. The fly in the ointment is that one cannot be a dependent, according to federal tax code, if the relationship violates local law. Cohabitation violates federal law, so one’s live-in lover, of whatever sex, does not qualify. Perhaps that yet one more reason to dispense with the income tax.
Vivian — you’re using the “slippery slope” argument, just as your opponents are: “Once you allow gay marriage, why not polygamy and polyandry?” (Polygamy, at least, is biblically supportable.)
Co-habitation violates federal law? Do tell.
asdf – gay marriage is not on the ballot. Gay marriage has been illegal in Virginia for more than 30 years and will be illegal whether this amendment passes or fails. Civil unions between gays has been illegal since 2004 and will continue to be illegal whether this amendment passes or fails.
So – with that out of the way 😉 how is it that gays are cutting in line?
Jack – address the issue and stop trying to change it, like you did yesterday.
Sorry, MB, I “miswrote.” Cohabitation violates state law, and so, according to the federal tax code, the supported person cannot be claimed as a dependent. Thanks for catching that.
Vivian– fair enough. I just don’t “believe this is the first step in a series of rights being taken away from the citizens of Virginia.” We’ll just have to disagree on this one.
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Huh. So why aren’t we getting a constitutional amendment ensuring that cohabitation remains illegal? Seems a much bigger threat to traditional marriage than anything else, really . . .
Good question, MB. You’d have to ask the sponsors of the amendment. I suspect the answer is simply that they do not think it would pass.
MB,
Good points
This is yet another example of how the drones in Richmond waste time and money on ‘issues’ that don’t address real problems we have in this state.
Why not let same-sex couples have a civil union granting full rights that married couples enjoy? I say let same-sex couples pay the ‘marriage tax’ just like the rest of us!
If this amendment goes forward, what is next? An amendment that only church-sanctioned marriages are valid?
The marriage tax was eliminated with the Bush tax cuts.
Jack – you’re wrong again. The marriage penalty was reduced but not eliminated. If your marginal bracket is above15%, you still pay a marriage penalty. Only the 10% & 15% brackets for married people are exactly double those of singles.
Vivian– Thanks. I’m not in such lofty brackets yet!
asdf-
Can you explain what is “silly” about encouraging and supporting adults who choose to take care of each other? It seems pretty obvious that both individuals and society are better off when people have stable relationships in which they take responsibility for each other and any dependents who live with them.
I think you’ll have a hard time making a compelling argument that it serves society better to discourage people from responsible behavior. I’m sorry, but that just makes me laugh.