Monday, August 07, 2006
The Queer Exodus
The Washington Post has a story today about gay people who are leaving Virginia rather than risk the outcome of a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar everything from marriage to civil unions to-- hell, anything "purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage" for gay people. Normally, I would be upset by people with a cause leaving and abandoning the fight to the other side, but look at that language. After the debacle of the Ohio girlfriend-beating amendment, there's a very good chance this thing could be used to annul wills between gay couples.
Of course, it also doesn't help that the opponents of gay marriage just don't fucking get it:
Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, the Richmond-based group that backed the 2004 law and the proposed constitutional amendment, said the goal isn't to drive out gay people. She said "extreme homosexual organizations" might be trying to frighten their members by circulating false information about the amendment. She said it wouldn't add restrictions on gays but would simply underscore the ways their relationships are already restricted.
"I think it's extremely sad they would leave because of something they were never allowed to do anyway," said Cobb, who said she believed gays could go to court to defend themselves if a partner's family members challenged their right to own property in common, arrange powers of attorney or visit each other in the hospital.
Yeah, why are they leaving when in our state, they'll have to go out of their way to do things that straight couples never, ever have to do?
I'm still torn on this issue. On the one hand, I believe a battle should be fought until no hope appears evident. On the other hand, I know that at some point, you just have to give up and handle your losses. I guess, like some of the others mentioned in this article, I'll just have to wait until November and see.
Of course, it also doesn't help that the opponents of gay marriage just don't fucking get it:
Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, the Richmond-based group that backed the 2004 law and the proposed constitutional amendment, said the goal isn't to drive out gay people. She said "extreme homosexual organizations" might be trying to frighten their members by circulating false information about the amendment. She said it wouldn't add restrictions on gays but would simply underscore the ways their relationships are already restricted.
"I think it's extremely sad they would leave because of something they were never allowed to do anyway," said Cobb, who said she believed gays could go to court to defend themselves if a partner's family members challenged their right to own property in common, arrange powers of attorney or visit each other in the hospital.
Yeah, why are they leaving when in our state, they'll have to go out of their way to do things that straight couples never, ever have to do?
I'm still torn on this issue. On the one hand, I believe a battle should be fought until no hope appears evident. On the other hand, I know that at some point, you just have to give up and handle your losses. I guess, like some of the others mentioned in this article, I'll just have to wait until November and see.
Comments:
<< Home
That's a good point, and it's something I've struggled with myself. Honestly, though, sometimes I think it is worth it to move if you have a parnter, so you'd be able to adopt (and hence improve the coming generation) or remove the risk of one of you becoming terminally ill and instantly losing visitation and inheritence rights. Sometimes, I think, the well-being and best interests of your partner have to come first.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 1:29 AM
: 1:29 AM << Home
