• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Va takes a big step backwards

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,377
Points
29
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=207468

New Virginia Law Alarms Gay Activists
Updated: Tuesday, May. 25, 2004 - 1:42 PM
By JUSTIN BERGMAN
Associated Press Writer
"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gay activists in Virginia are toying with a new motto for the state: "Virginia is for lovers. Some restrictions apply."
Gays and lesbians are angry and even threatening to leave the state over a new law that will prohibit civil unions and could interfere with contracts between same-sex couples.
Some legal experts call it the most restrictive anti-gay law in the nation..."
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
I am embarrassed to have a UVA diploma, now. :(

Your sig line, is great, by the way. I couldn't believe some servile drone calling into talk radio last night babbling that we have to obey the president and let the military do whatever it wants in Iraq. I'm sorry, the Price of Empire is too high.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
PlannerGirl said:
.........Some legal experts call it the most restrictive anti-gay law in the nation..."
And some people think I am too hard on christianity. :-#

This is what happens when faith turns into dogma, and individuals of "faith" quit thinking. Welcome to the new world acording to the neocons and religous conservatives. Thier so compassionate in thier conservativism..... :-\
 

Trail Nazi

Cyburbian
Messages
2,779
Points
24
Chalk that one up for another reason why I didn't like VA because of all of the small minded people.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
michaelskis said:
Next will be same family (aka cousins) marriages!
Many cultures, some much older than ours, practice cousin marriage. Somehow, the world didn't end-except in cases like the European royal families where for politcal reasons, the inbreeding was carried too far.

On another note, what really is "traditional marriage" that conservatives talk about? It certainly isn't the modern "romantic love" system between two consenting, legally independent adults we purportedly have today. That was a creation of the 19th century (as was the myth that women have no economic role in the family other than watching the children while the male breadearner goes off and "earns a living. Definitely a 19th century invention aimed at "protecting" the idealized woman from the horrors of industrial civilization.)

No, "traditional marriage" is an arranged business deal between two families or clans. The father of the bride basically transfers his daughter to her husband. The woman has no independent legal rights separate from the male members of the family. You can see the lovely results of "traditional" marriage in the honor killings of the Arab world and the bride burnings of modern India. So, when you conservatives start talking about "traditional marriage" lets make sure that you are honest about what you really want :)

Edit: Of course, this is a vast simplification of the diversity of religious systems throughout the world. Which brings up another point: whose "traditional marriage" are we defending? There are examples of "traditional" gay marriages throughout the world.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
BKM said:
...No, "traditional marriage" is an arranged business deal between two families or clans. The father of the bride basically transfers his daughter to her husband. The woman has no independent legal rights separate from the male members of the family...
I have to add some depth to your version of traditional here BKM. General rant to follow, I know I ruffle feathers on occasion. :-D

In pre Christian Germanic traditions, women were not anywhere near this subservient. Prior to the arrival of Christianity, women were full participants in the politics of the tribe, specifically in the Scandinavian traditions. Women were not shut out of political gatherings. They had a legal right to inherit property (still less than first born males, but they still legally were required to receive some inheritance). They had a right to own property (in fact, the woman’s wedding dowry was always considered the woman’s, if she divorced (notice I did not say “if the man divorced her”), she kept her dowry.

What I am getting at here, is that what is happening in VA is more linked to a specific religious dogma, which is anti-democratic. This is not just an affront to homosexuals, it’s an affront to democracy. Right now in VA, if your a catholic and do not support this legislation, a bishop near you may decide to prevent your communion with the divine being. Right now, the state of religion in the US is as anti democracy as anything in the Muslim world. EG made that comment a few days ago, but he forgot to point out that the operators of the Roman Catholic Church are just as anti-democratic, he did not point out that Evangelical religious sects in the US are just as anti democratic. This is not to say that I disagree with his analysis, just that he left out part of the equation that is a danger to our democracy. Few Christian sects actually promote, let alone believe that a woman can be as equally devout or capable of any kind of link with the divine being like men. This is ridiculous and I wonder why women put up with it. It is defiantly not a hallmark of democracy.

If you disagree and have read the article PG linked, it is not just the concept of marriage, its the concept of ANY kind of legal or contractual obligation based on your sexual orientation. If you can't create a legal contract because you are homosexual, to allow your partner access to your bedside in a hospital, the jump to not allowing you to have any kind of legal status in society not far behind.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Thanks, Duke. I was speaking primarily of the Abrahamic traditions, of course (although there are plenty of other religions/cultural traditions with similar attitudes towards the role of women as property, like India).
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,637
Points
71
michaelskis said:
Next will be same family (aka cousins) marriages!
Incidently, in many Muslim countries marrying one's first cousin - child of the parents opposite gendered sibling IS the preferred marriage partner because it allows wealth to stay within the famliy. Suprisingly these same countries do not report (and maybe 'report' is the key word) a disproportionate occurance of genetic anamolies good or bad.
Maybe folks living in Dogpatch are onto something....
 
Messages
3,690
Points
27
There was an article about "Kissing Cousins" in our local paper a few months ago, I can't remember what it said, so i just looked it up and:
26 states allow first cousin marriages
US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics
children of non-related couples have a 2-4% risk of birth defects, first cousins have 4-6%
frequency of cousin marriages in US - 1 in 1,000
In Japan - 4 in 1,000
US is the only western country to outlaw 1st cousin marriage

Something to think about.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,838
Points
25
Off topic, possibly stupid question, but how does the government know if a man and a woman applying for a marriage certificate are cousins? (other than a common last name). I've known a few european immigrants who've done it.
 
Messages
7,649
Points
29
One of our presidents -- FDR -- married a distant cousin. During his tim, I don't think it was considered weird at all.
 
Top