Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[Pah]

Become a part of the record for opposing the homophobic effort to write discrimination into State Constitutions.

 

[jeffrey]

You know how I voted! :jam:

 

[Pah]

You know how I voted! :jam:

Yes, we all know - it's a "public poll". Click on the number to see who voted for what choice.

But you knew that, didn't you

 

[ChrisP]

I have already voted FOR in recent times in NZ. It seems very few couples have taken up the availability of this (300 couples married as opposed to the 100,000 some thousand hetero marriages), but it's there now and that's the important thing. BTW there is a high percentage (compared to other countries) of gay people in NZ. In particular Wellington. I get the feeling it's cos we just don't give a rat's arse about lifestyle choices in general.

 

[michel]

I vote whenever I can; though, to be frank, there seems to be little need here in England. There seems to be very little 'anti'...........

 

[Fluffy]

I will vote against attempts to restrict marriage to one man and one women. However, I don't feel that those who vote differently, nor the legislation itself nor those who proposed the legislation in the first place are necessarily homophobic.

 

[Mike182]

i think it is a disgrace that we even need to vote on descrimination.... but for as long as any form of descrimination is up for voting on, i vote against it (now that i am old enough to vote )

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't think I need to tell anyone how I voted or will vote. :rainbow1:

 

[Mike182]

I don't think I need to tell anyone how I voted or will vote. :rainbow1:

we all know you're against, theres no need to rub it in :biglaugh:

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't feel that those who vote differently, nor the legislation itself nor those who proposed the legislation in the first place are necessarily homophobic.

I do.

 

[c0da]

I put the third option because I don't know whats going on.

 

[Pah]

... I don't feel that those who vote differently, nor the legislation itself nor those who proposed the legislation in the first place are necessarily homophobic.

I agree with Maize. Those would seem to at least be "closet homophobics".

 

[Green Gaia]

I put the third option because I don't know whats going on.

What is going on is individual states, mostly in response to [SIZE=-1]Massachusetts' historic step of ending discrimination against gay and lesbian couples and their familes by legalizing same sex marriage, are attempting to write discrimination into their own states constitutions making it illegal for gay and lesbian couples to receive equal marriage rights and benefits.

For example, in Virigina HB 751, [/SIZE]the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act is already the law. In addition to prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, this legislation threatens to overturn private contractual relationships between gay and lesbian couples. The full text of the act is:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 20-45.3 as follows:

§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
​

These laws are clearly aimed at discriminating against gay and lesbian couples and their familes who would benefit from the protections and rights of legal marriage.
The negative consequences to these Virginia citizens (who are otherwise doing nothing illegal) include, but are not limited to:

• Possible loss of insurance. Some employers in Virginia (those that self-insure) offer domestic partner health insurance and other benefits to their employees. To use this benefit an employee must make an “arrangement” for his partner to take advantage of the health insurance. Because married employees enjoy similar such healthcare coverage through their employers, domestic partner benefits could be considered a privilege of marriage, and therefore could be viewed as unlawful under this bill. The harm this bill does is magnified when such invalidated arrangements include the biological or adopted children of an employee’s partner for coverage under a health insurance plan. Inevitably, this would increase the number of Virginians without private health insurance.

• Same-sex couples often make “arrangements” concerning hospital visitation rights and many sign medical directives or medical powers of attorney for each other. These rights are automatically enjoyed by married couples and thus such rights are arguably a “privilege of marriage.” These arrangements are therefore prohibited by the bill. Hospitals may even feel constrained to prohibit visitation. Opposite-sex or same-sex friends would have rights prohibited for same-sex couples. The absurdity of trying to determine the nature of the relationship highlights the irredeemable flaws of this law.

• Same-sex couples with children often make “arrangements” for the non-biological parent to have legal authority to make medical and education-related decisions for their minor children. These arrangements are also voided under this law.

• A person “arranges” in his will that his estate should pass to his same-sex partner and their children upon his death. If the couple were married this would happen automatically by operation of law. Because this can be viewed as a privilege of marriage, those provisions of the will are voided and unenforceable under this law. Again ironically, provisions in favor of anyone else (including presumably pets) could go unchallenged. It is also possible that joint tenancies with right of survivorship in a residence or a bank account, also incidents of marriage, shared by a same-sex couple, are voided under HB 751’s expansive and vague language.

The prohibition of any “partnership contract” adds to the negative impact of the bill.

• Same-sex partners often sign mutual contracts that classify previously –acquired property as either joint or separate property, establish how after-acquired property will be classified, and agree on division of property in the event the relationship ends. Sometimes mutual wills are also executed in a contractual agreement.

• Some same-sex partners, as with opposite-sex couples, are also partners in a family business. Clearly, the business would be governed by a contract that now would likely be invalidated by this unconstitutional bill.

• Same-sex partners sign contracts with each other concerning plans for co-adoption of children and custody of their children if they separate.

HB 751 also has highly undesirable effects on Virginia’s business community.

• Those self-insured Virginia businesses that offer domestic partner benefits to their employees may find such benefits are invalid under HB 751—particularly as these benefits are likely to be challenged as no longer valid by anti-gay groups. Such businesses, no longer able to offer domestic partner benefits, may find it difficult to compete in attracting and hiring the best employees, because businesses in other states cab and do offer same-sex couples health insurance benefits.

• Businesses considering moving to Virginia may be deterred from doing so by this new law. This bill goes well beyond the oppression of gays and lesbians found in even the most intolerant of states. It sets Virginia apart as the single worst state for a gay or lesbian person to reside—so much so that many companies may decline to locate their business here for fear of losing their diverse workforces.

Because this bill also voids similar arrangements entered into in other states or jurisdictions, the bill will also have a negative impact on gay persons and their children who travel to Virginia for business or recreation from states or countries where they have equal rights:

• The domestic partner benefits they enjoy in their home state, such as health insurance, may be voided in Virginia.

• Hospitalization or medical decisions in Virginia may not take into account “arrangements” and directives made and enforceable in other states.

• Child custody arrangements from other states could be void here.

Source


And that's just ONE state doing this and I didn't even mention what the federal government is attempting to do and is doing to discriminate against BGLT people.

 

[Green Gaia]

If you oppose discrimination, read on:

Congress will vote on the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment as early as June. Your members of Congress need to hear from you!

When you fill out the form below and click Sign Now, a postcard with your name and address will automatically print out at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters. The HRC staff will hand-deliver each postcard to congressional offices on June 5 — the week of the Senate vote.

We need everyone to join in the fight, so please also make sure that you check the box to sign up for HRC's online Action Network so we can keep you informed about next steps to fight the discriminatory amendment. Then please spread the word to 10 friends!

Click here: Yes! I oppose discrimination in the Constitution



​

 

[Quiddity]

I voted one man, one women. But I don't mind giving protections and rights to gays and lesbians. But since the avenue that has been choosen to get these rights are thru marriage, I will not support it.

 

[jeffrey]

I just got into a discussion about this with a lady that works in the office. She whipped out her bible.... I stated some things I've learned here, and about the problems in the bible.... She got all huffy with me, won't even look at me now... Oh, well... Hope my checks don't start coming up short. EQUALITY! :jam:

 

[Green Gaia]

i think it is a disgrace that we even need to vote on descrimination....

That's true. Imgaine if there were a vote 50 years ago on voting rights for non-white citizens. Or 100 years ago for women. Neither group would have gotten equal rights when they did. Issues of rights and discrimination should not be voted by the majority but rather by the courts to deem what is fair to all.

Any amendment discriminating against gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

 

[Green Gaia]

I voted one man, one women. But I don't mind giving protections and rights to gays and lesbians. But since the avenue that has been choosen to get these rights are thru marriage, I will not support it.

What other avenue is there Victor, that would give gay and lesbian couples all the legal protections, rights, benefits and responsiblities of marriage?

 

[Quiddity]

What other avenue is there Victor, that would give gay and lesbian couples all the legal protections, rights, benefits and responsiblities of marriage?

Nothing that I am aware of.

 

[Green Gaia]

Nothing that I am aware of.

Exactly. So, don't you see? We have no other option than to persue equal legal marriage rights if gay and lesbian couples are to be able to legally protect their families.