The Virginia "marriage admendment"

[Pah]

From an email

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. 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. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

What is to prevent the admendment to be taken as a prohibition against a second marriage? Sound far-fetched? Consider that "one man" is a specific individual, John Moe, and his valid marriage is to the specific, former Jane Doe. No license could be issued twice to the same person even in the case of the death of the marriage partner.

Wouldn't a second marriage be considered under "another union, partnership, or other legal status"?

 

[michel]

From an email

What is to prevent the admendment to be taken as a prohibition against a second marriage? Sound far-fetched? Consider that "one man" is a specific individual, John Moe, and his valid marriage is to the specific, former Jane Doe. No license could be issued twice to the same person even in the case of the death of the marriage partner.

Wouldn't a second marriage be considered under "another union, partnership, or other legal status"?

Good point; someone boobed when they were trying to tie up the loose ends with knots.

 

[Green Gaia]

Frankly, I don't care. The bigotry fueling the amendment and it's intended purpose is of a far more concern to me.

 

[Pah]

I mention it because of the unintended consequences that are ripe when hatred is incorporated in constitutional law. I can safely say that, within Virginia, no homosexual marriage has been dissolved. The onus of the wording would fall heavily on those promoting the hatred.

Any taxpayer could bring suit against any "second marriage"

It is a "talking point" to stop the admendment

 

[linwood]

What is to prevent the admendment to be taken as a prohibition against a second marriage?
Wouldn't a second marriage be considered under "another union, partnership, or other legal status"?

The wording is also very similar to another marriage amendment (Can`t remember where) that forced the judiciary to deny domestic abuse sentencing for unmarried hetero couples.

You`d think they`d learn from that.

 

[Green Gaia]

I mention it because of the unintended consequences that are ripe when hatred is incorporated in constitutional law. I can safely say that, within Virginia, no homosexual marriage has been dissolved. The onus of the wording would fall heavily on those promoting the hatred.

Any taxpayer could bring suit against any "second marriage"

It is a "talking point" to stop the admendment

Perhaps I'm in a pessimistic mood about this whole issue after what has happened the past couple days, but I really do not see that changing anyone's mind on the amendment. Those who enjoy the privilege are too use to it to ever imagine it being taken away.

 

[Sunstone]

The admendment has no basis in rationality, so far as I can see. But should that surprize anyone? We live in a day and age when a large number of people believe aliens built the pyramids, evolution is wrong, and gays will destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage, leading to the collapse of our civilization. This is not a predominantly rational age.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Wouldn't a second marriage be considered under "another union, partnership, or other legal status"?

I would say no. I think this language
"...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..." clearly defines the purpose of the amendement, which is to differentiate marriage( man + woman) from other types of unions of un-married partners. A second marriage would not be affected by this amendment so long as the union consisted of one man and one woman.

IMHO, the 'unintended consequences' angle is not going to convince too many people to vote against this amendment.

 

[Green Gaia]

IMHO, the 'unintended consequences' angle is not going to convince too many people to vote against this amendment.

I agree and even if it were enough to get this particular amendment removed or revised, it doesn't address the motives behind it's intended purpose which is to write discrimination into the Virginia Constitution.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The admendment has no basis in rationality, so far as I can see. But should that surprize anyone? We live in a day and age when a large number of people believe aliens built the pyramids, evolution is wrong, and gays will destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage, leading to the collapse of our civilization. This is not a predominantly rational age.

At least in America.

 

[Pah]

I would say no. I think this language
"...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..." clearly defines the purpose of the amendement, which is to differentiate marriage( man + woman) from other types of unions of un-married partners. A second marriage would not be affected by this amendment so long as the union consisted of one man and one woman.

IMHO, the 'unintended consequences' angle is not going to convince too many people to vote against this amendment.

While the intent is to differentiate the types of marriage, it must define who is allowed/not allowed to marry. The language chosen clearly supports the sacred aspect of marriage that is definitional in the Roman Catholic Church. Without an annulment or death, a second marriage may not take place in the Church. The second marriage, without the annulment or death, is considered adulterous.

When John Doe marries Mary Smith, John may not marry Alice Jones. There is no waiver of time or circumstance before the second marriage may take place.

There is no legal impediment to consider the second sentance connected to the first with "and" making it a secondary disctinction.

The amendment also does not constitutionally prohibit polygamous marriages. Nor does it prohibit "commune" marriages. It can be said that the amendment negates the laws already in place to prohibit such marriages.