… you are concerned that the amendment will be used by opposing factions in families seeking to deny unmarried partners of loved ones the right to hospital visitation, to decide about organ donation or burial, or to determine guardianship of children.
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Well, I’ll start with organ donation. VA Code 46.2-342.F. “The donor designation authorized in subsection E shall be sufficient legal authority for the removal, following death, of the subject’s organs or tissues without additional authority from the donor, or his family or estate. No family member, guardian, agent named pursuant to an advance directive or person responsible for the decedent’s estate shall refuse to honor the donor designation or, in any way, seek to avoid honoring the donor designation.”
Jack – you miss the fact that ANYTHING can be challenged. Just ask Jerry Fallwell 😉 And I notice you said nothing about hospital visits.
All it takes is for someone to charge that such a designation confers one of the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage” and it’s out the window.
Jack:
Consider an unmarried couple, gay or straight, that decides in Virginia that they want to approximate the rights and benefits of marriage and who go to an attorney and pay untold amounts of money to have wills, contracts, visitation rights, declarations concerning life sustaining procedures, child custody, etc. etc. drawn up.
“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”
Legal experts are already having opposing views on whether or not these documents are prima facie evidence of a violation of the marriage amendment. When there is anything at stake: property, children, emotions, etc, you can be sure there will be endless litigation.
According to the Health Care Decisions Act (VA Code 54.1-2981), a adult can assign any other adult to be his “agent” for all medical decisions, including visitation and organ donation (so long as it does not conflict with 46.2-342.F). By 54.1-2986, said agent supercedes any family member, so it is not a right based on marriage.
§ 54.1-2825. Person to make arrangements for disposition of remains.
Any person may designate in a signed and notarized writing, which has been accepted in writing by the person so designated, an individual who shall make arrangements for his burial or the disposition of his remains, including cremation, upon his death.
As you can see, these powers have nothing to do with being married. In some cases, such as medical decisions, a sibling may be at the top of the list, if no agent, spouse, parent, or adult child exists.
If you will excuse me, I’m researching the law on guardianship now.
Jack,
I am a citizen of Virginia – why do I have to jump through hoops to get something that you, as a heterosexual, get as a right of birth? If I can, according to you find some legal way to get all these things, why does it make reasonable sense for the state to make it an expensive, onerous task? Is this punishment for my being gay?
Legal experts are already having opposing views on whether or not these documents are prima facie evidence of a violation of the marriage amendment. When there is anything at stake: property, children, emotions, etc, you can be sure there will be endless litigation.
Exactly.
Yes, Bill, it is. And if you don’t stop, there’s a church in Colorado Springs that you might have to lead . . .
😉
Bill– Call it punishment if it makes you feel better.
I can only speak for myself; I cannot say why others are voting for the amendment, but I will tell you why I will vote for it:
Simply put, I believe homosexual relationships are immoral, and should not be santioned by the government.
As for the second paragraph, I believe sexual relations outside of marriage are also immoral, and should not be sanctioned by the government. If heterosexual couples want the benefits that go with marriage, they can get married.
Vivian’s “Reason to Vote No” countdown is amusing, but so far wholly unconvincing.
And Jack, I believe that people like you are immoral. So, if there are more people like me than you, one day, can we expect your quiet acquiescence to us depriving you of the same rights we have?
Jack,
definition: immoral – conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Perhaps decades ago in America homosexuality might have been considered immoral, but today science, medicine, and enlightened countries, states, religions, and individuals agree that being gay or lesbian is a state of being and not a moral choice.
I see science as the uncovering of God’s law and I see my ability to independently think and reason as a purposeful gift given by God. To not use my reason in context with facts is to me, to live a life based in superstition. And to discriminate against a group of individuals based on ignorance or pre existing bias, is to me a sin against God.
Bill– my definition of immoral does not really coincide with yours. Mine is more “Contrary to the moral code.” In any event, considering that these amendments have passed in 20 states, homosexual relationships seem to fall under your definition as well.
In any event, I never said that BEING homosexual is immoral. Homosexual ACTS are immoral. It does not matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not — we choose our behavior.
The Bible tells us that “fornication” is immoral. That includes both heterosexual and homosexual acts. No exceptions were made for those who could not find a person of the opposite sex whom they wanted to marry, or who were not inclined to do so. Homosexual relationships were never accepted in the Bible, despite silly attempts to claim that David and Jonathan were lovers.
A thought to leave you with:
If homosexuality is not a choice, why are there so many homosexuals in prison? If homosexuality is genetic, why are there not more homosexual Greeks, since homosexuality was widely practiced there in the past?
Deep Thoughts by Jack _______.
Jack,
Political scientists so far are concluding that 20 states have adopted definition of marriage amendments largely due to the Republican strategy of using fear of activist judges to mobilize authoritatively controlled evangelicals to the polls. It is inconsistent to argue that 20 states have passed such an amendment and not mention that The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada and Massachusetts do allow gay marriage — and many other counties and states allow civil unions.
I am reminded of the words of Spanish prime minister Luis Zapatero, hailing the inclusion of homosexual couples in his (predominately Catholic) country’s marital laws.
“We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members… Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty. It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone’s triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.”