Last Updated on February 12, 2022
The state of Virginia is now home to one of the most Conservative laws in the nation. Those of you who consider me to be a Bush apologist or a “right-wing moron” will likely believe that I’m happy about this.
You’re wrong.
HB751, which took effect on July 1st, prohibits the state from recognizing civil unions (which it never did to begin with), but goes a step further: it removes private contractual rights between same-sex couples by outlawing any partnership contract or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage.
The main reason the bill was passed, from what I have been able to surmise, is basically to allow Virginia to thumb its nose at states who have passed, will pass or at least are considering laws that allow gay marriage or civil unions. It’s other main purpose, apparently, is to send a message to gay couples who are legally married, united, partnered, etc., that if you come to Virginia, it doesn’t count, no matter what you have say about it.
There are two issues here worth addressing.
First, the obvious one. What is accomplished by stripping a gay couple of the ability to exist as a married couple? Does anyone really believe that this law, when it took effect at midnight this past Thursday, suddenly turned any gay people within the confines of Virginia into heterosexuals? Homosexuality has existed for centuries; it isn’t new. Penalizing those who cannot possibly find any happiness in a heterosexual relationship doesn’t seem to me to be a productive endeavor; if the goal is simply to make homosexuals miserable, its intention is cruelty.
Many argue that the concept of gay marriage will lead to the downfall of our society. Others claim that it mocks the concept of marriage. I haven’t seen a compelling argument to explain that thought, either. I don’t know why a homosexual couple would go to the trouble to fight for the right to be married for the sole purpose of ridiculing the institution. Blame me for not having enough free time on my hands, but quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that homosexuals wouldn’t have plenty of things to do with their time besides simply making life difficult for gay opponents.
Likewise, I can’t see how gay marriage in and of itself cheapens the institution of marriage. If anything, it seems to me, a gay couple who fights for the right to be married is saying just the opposite: that the marriage of two people who are in love is a such such a good and admirable concept, people in love should be married and should be faithful to each other, experiencing life through the bonds of a loving, committed relationship no matter what their orientation happens to be. If they didn’t believe that marriage was a good thing, why would they immerse themselves in the “evils” of matrimony?
If all men are created equal, one might suggest that all men should have the same rights. The Constitution makes no reference to excluding homosexuals from that.
In fact, it is a Constitutional issue that brings me to the second problem concern I have with this law. Let’s forget about homosexuality for a moment. Let’s consider two pairs of heterosexual people: Marie and Karen are roommates who want to open a joint checking account and handle their finances through that single account. They want to buy a house together for the investment. When one of them finds Mr. Right and gets married, the other will either buy her half of the house, or the house will be sold and both women will split the profits 50-50. Meanwhile, Ken and Lee have been friends since college. Lee is married with children, and approaches Ken about being his legal representative if he and his wife should ever be required to be sustained on life support. Lee wants Ken to be responsible for deciding whether to continue Lee’s care if Lee’s wife is unable to make the decision.
In the first example, if something was to happen to either of the women, the other would likely end up with the property and money in the account, unless her will specified otherwise. If they were a gay couple, would the situation be treated in a different way?
In the second example, Lee will have presumably put these instructions into a legal document so that his wishes are clear. If they had been gay, these same legal instructions that wouldn’t be questioned otherwise might be thrown out the window.
In other words, the same law, to different sets of people, could mean two different things. It is the selective way in which this law would have to be applied that seems to me to be blatantly discriminatory.
Why do I care? Beyond the fact as an American, I have a duty to question any law that seems contrary to the Constitution; beyond the fact that I don’t approve of discrimination; there is a selfish motive: I happen to be the legal representative of a married friend. I assume, since he is married to a female, no one would ever question whether I could step in and make such a decision on his behalf as he has legally requested. But if we were ever in that situation, why would it be anyone’s business? And who’s to say definitively that the same law intended to negate one’s legal rights in one specific way couldn’t be applied universally if misinterpreted by a judge? This week, in this very journal, an incident I have described at great length shows how easily a misinterpretation can occur.
The lawmaker (in Virginia, they’re known as “delegates”) who sponsored the bill, Robert Marshall, says that those who try to vilify the act as an intrusion on existing rights are “purposefully misleading the public.”
I do not intend to “purposely” (intentionally) mislead. I do mean, however to “purposefully” (with purpose) question the law.
“This law doesn’t do anything to alter any legal rights. No homosexual is going to lose their health insurance because of this statute,” Marshall says.
See for yourself:
 §20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of the 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.
Does this read like a statute that does nothing to “alter any legal rights?”
The Director of Legislative Affairs for the Virginia Bankers Association, adds, “We do not see this affecting anyone’s financial accounts at all.” Owning a joint account, he explains, isn’t a privilege of marriage. “It’s a contractual relationship between two individuals.”
From a legal standpoint, though, isn’t marriage also a “contractual” relationship between two individuals? Aren’t the rights that come with marriage — those privileges of marriage — based, at least in part, on a legally-recognized contractual relationship? If the “contract” of marriage itself is to be voided by this law for certain couples, then other contracts, by the same logic, must be subject to voiding as well.
For that matter, what legal rights are established by marriage that aren’t in any way possible outside of marriage? And do all of those come right out and ask for specific proof that the two persons are married, or is that simply assumed?
The second sentence of the law, which contains the language “other arrangement,” is certainly intended to combat syntax variations from states who pass laws which recognize gay marriages or civil unions but which refer to them as something else. But “other arrangement” is vague. Who is to decide what legal directives fall into that category?
If we reach a point in which every legal arrangement between every individual will be scrutinized to determine — above all else — whether the two in agreement are gay or straight, simply to determine whether the agreements can be considered valid, is there another way to describe this practice other than discrimination based upon one’s sexual orientation?
