Peterson and Albo co-author gay rights bill.

Here’s an interesting bill — HB2490, submitted by Democrat Chap!™ Peterson and uber-conservative Republican Dave Albo. It partially negates last year’s HB751, which made it illegal for two people of the same sex to form any kind of contract that “bestows the privileges or obligations of marriage,” restoring some measure of sanity to contract law. As Rick Sincere mentioned on his blog, Albo isn’t as anti-gay as some of the other candidates targeted by Virginia Family Values. Not that it matters to VFV — we’ve got nothing to do with gay rights. Still, it interests me to know that, at least on matters of gay rights, Albo’s more down-to-earth than his compatriots.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

4 replies on “Peterson and Albo co-author gay rights bill.”

  1. How is this a “Gay Rights Bill”? This is an anti-gay rights bill. You’re tampering with people’s perception to swing votes toward the Democrats again. What the bill says is that all gay benefits are in effect prohibited. SIf I lived with a girlfriend should I be entitled to the same benefits as my neighbor with a wife in two kids? No.

  2. “If I lived with a girlfriend should I be entitled to the same benefits as my neighbor with a wife in two kids? No.”

    If an employer wants to provide benefits to you and your girlfriend, or you and your boyfriend or you and your wife, why should the Commonwealth of Virigina interfere? Frankly, I’m tiring of Republican big-government sticking their noses into my business and bedroom, where there’s no compelling interest in doing so.

  3. If the employer chooses to give you benefits then fine, go ahead. But what Im against is my state and country mandating it.

    Nobody’s proposing that we mandate it, Brandon. What this bill does is it amends the law that prohibits same-sex contracts that provide any of the many hundreds of legal benefits provided by marriage, making it less restrictive. If not pro-gay-rights, it’s certainly pro-contract-law. It’s a strange day when the two are one and the same.

Comments are closed.