Monday, February 13, 2006

An Update On A Previous Post

I promised some time back that I would expound on my reasons for not fully embracing the recent passage of the constitutional amendment regarding homosexual marriage in Virginia.

First, let me state that I do not advocate any law, judicially imposed or otherwise, that would equate homosexual marriage to that wonderful institution to which I have been party now three times.

I have, in the course of my life had numerous friends and acquaintances that "bat from the other side". These friendships have and will continue to be cherished.

Some could even accuse me of trivializing the institute I come here now to defend. I freely, (though not happily) admit that I have been "unlucky at love" three times now. For the purposes of this argument, that is (mostly) irrelevant.

There are certain advantages afforded married couples in our legal system that are designed to encourage the acceptance of the institution of marriage. That is a good thing. However, there are also certain priveledges afforded certain "partnerships" that would also encourage roughly similar partnerships between unmarried partners.

The amendment, as written, would seem to me (admittedly a layman who knows nothing of the law) to prohibit those protections now afforded to the aforementioned same sex partnerships.

Sure, I have some religious objections. But those are not paramount here, at least not now. I do not believe that my state should sanction any behavior that is clearly immoral. But neither do I believe that my state should be in the business of deciding what is immoral. At least not on this level.

My primary concern with this ammendment is the limitations it places upon contractural relations between two individuals. I could be happily married, in a truly heterosexual relationship, but this ammendment could be construed in such a manner as to prohibit a business partner from enjoying the full benefits of my will. That would be intolerable.

I am aware that Lt. Governor Bolling has expressed his belief that no judge would rule in such a manner, but, how many of us truly believed that the onerous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law would be upheld by the Supreme Court?

No comments: