I’m confident my marriage would survive it.

Posted byWaldo Jaquith 7 Comments on I’m confident my marriage would survive it.

“If this is a threat to your marriage, you got a problem.”

–Sen. Dick Saslaw, in the floor debate on SJ 92

Published by Waldo Jaquith

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

7 replies on “I’m confident my marriage would survive it.”

  1. That bill is a disgusting attempt to codify bigotry.

    Additionally while the issue is often opposed under the cloak of religious morality, politicians should just own up to the fact that they don’t want to deal with the additional costs that the entitlements would cause if homosexual marriages were given the same rights and benefits as heterosexual unions.

  2. Stupid characterization of the bill. Considering the source, though, I’m not too surprised. Perhaps the Senator can provide an example of a proponent who makes such an argument (that gay marriage threatens their own marriage).

    I won’t hold my breath.

  3. During the Massachusetts legalization of same-sex unions, that was the predominant argument against it. “It will destroy the institution,” “ruin marriage,” “end society,” etc. And yet not a single person could explain how their marriage would be any the worse. The argument was largely abandoned shortly thereafter, but not everybody has gotten the memo.

  4. The argument “protect the institution of marriage” is exactly the same thing, and still the predominant argument used by the un-Christian Right.

  5. In my opinion “marriage licenses” should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state. It’s the government sanction of a “religious institution.” So the way to solve the issue, is to have the government stop calling them “marriage licenses” and start calling them “Civil Union Contracts.” Make them available to any eligible adult couple, and then leave the sanctioning of “marriage” to one’s individual church.

    Again I think the bottom line is about the money. Homosexual couples are essentially paying into a system of entitlements/benefits that they are not legally allowed to use.

    And I stand by my original characterization of the bill, “it’s a disgusting attempt to codify bigotry.”

  6. Quoted in today’s Washington Post:

    “We’re advancing this amendment today because we trust the judgment of the people of Virginia and not the courts,” Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg), one of the measure’s chief supporters, said in Richmond recently.

    Just wondering: What judgments of the courts CAN we believe in?

    Sadly, this amendment if approved will go into the Bill of Rights.

Comments are closed.