The Washington Post gossip column explains the legalities facing Mary and Heather.
David Boaz has much more. Responding to social conservative whining, he writes:
...children growing up in single-mom households do have a rough time; they're more likely to drop out of school, commit crimes, and produce fatherless children themselves. ... But the situations aren't analogous. ... all the data about the poor outcomes for fatherless children are based on single-mother households. Mary Cheney's baby won't have a father, but it will have two parents who live together as a loving couple. That's very different from having only one parent....
Although Virginia's refusual to recognize Heather as a co-parent certainly doesn't help matters.
41 Comments for “The Cheney Baby.”
posted by dr on
It’s a shame that Heather will legally be a stranger to the child unless they move.
I wish them luck.
posted by Novaseeker on
It is a shame, I agree, but I don’t have all that much sympathy because the couple has chosen to work for the election of people who stand precisely behind the laws that provide that Heather will have no rights. You reap what you sow, I suppose.
posted by Alex the hateful on
I wish them all the support and protection the law allows.
Oh, that’s right…they have money so the law doesn’t really apply to them.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
More to the point, Alex, they have money, so they can find ways to position themselves out of harm’s way — moving somewhere else, for example. It bears repeating that in darker times it’s been personal affluence that has helped gay and lesbian people attain prerogatives that aren’t automatically theirs by operation of law. These days, the objective is to extend essential rights to those who can’t afford to hire lawyers or otherwise get themselves above the fray.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
These days, the objective is to extend essential rights to those who can’t afford to hire lawyers or otherwise get themselves above the fray.
Mhm — by pumping tens of millions of dollars to candidates who support the very laws that gay activists affect to despise.
The gay community doesn’t lack the money to hire lawyers; witness the panopoly of lawsuits that it files annually. It simply prefers to waste it on homophobic candidates and fruitless judge-shopping attempts instead of on helping other gay people access existing rights.
Then again, I can understand why; to the gay left, an invitation to a donor cocktail party held by politicians (who follows up an appeal for gay dollars with an assurance on religious TV that s/he shares Pat Robertson’s values) at a ritzy hotel FAR outweighs the heartfelt “Thank you” that one might receive from helping out another gay couple.
It also underscores that gay leftists are more concerned with whining about the problem than taking immediate, proactive steps to ameliorate it.
posted by Bobby on
“can find ways to position themselves out of harm’s way ”
—What harm? Is this Christian Coalition going to sue them to raise their baby? Is Heather’s father gonna kidnap the baby? Are homophobes going to kill the baby?
Unless Mary decides to break up with Heather, these two face no real harms.
posted by Antaeus on
DallaSeattle, you always make a big production about how Democratic politicians make compromises, which apparently is not acceptable to you. So, what do you counsel every time? Vote Republican! Hey, at least they call you “fag” to your face!
And stop labeling all your opponents on here “leftist”, or hint that they’re “flamboyant” or promiscuous – those are vicious cliches and besides, I’m just a paleolibertarian who finds Republicans much more objectionable than Democrats, both toward liberty and equal dignity for gay people. And when it comes to monogamous relationships, I have no doubt that mine is longer, if comparisons must be made.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Unless Mary decides to break up with Heather, these two face no real harms.”
No, that’s not true at all. Heather has *no* rights with respect to the child. None. So that if Mary is sick, out of town, or otherwise unavailable, Heather has no rights to make medical decisions in an emergency, pick up the kid from school, visit the kid in the hospital as a family member, be notified if something happens to the child and so on. Virginia really gives the non-biological gay spouse no rights at all (it’s one of the strictest anti-gay regimes in the country at the moment), and this is an issue for everyday life as much as it is in the case of a separation and divorce.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 7, 2006, 6:27pm |
Also, if Mary dies before the child reaches the age of majority, the child will likely be placed with a legal relative (the sister or Dick&Lynne) until a guardian can be appointed.
If Mary’s will appoints Heather to be the guardian, the Virginia probate courts may–but aren’t required to–honor the wishes expressed in the will. In any case, the will would need to be probated–which can take a while after death–before the court would award her guardianship.
posted by Bobby on
Heather can adopt Mary’s baby, Virginia is not Florida.
Secondly, if Mary makes her will on video-tape or DVD, it will more likely be honored.
Thirdly, you don’t have to be related biologically to a child to be a guardian. Sometimes the sons of very rich people are appointed guardians while the parents are away, or even in case the parents die. Butlers for example can pick up a child from school, might be allowed to make medical decisions, withdraw money from a bank account, etc.
Heather could very well be named guardian by Mary.
So while it’s fine to support gay marriage, it’s dangerous to assume there aren’t any other legal tricks.
posted by novaseeker on
Don’t be so sure of that.
Second parent adoptions are not per se allowed in Virginia, and are often denied as a result of the prevailing family law practice that denies biologically gay parents of visitation and custody rights in Virginia unless the gay parent agrees to a code of silence. I live in Virginia and I live under this regime with respect to my son. I know what Virginia really does, in practice, relating to the nexus between a gay parent and his/her children.
Sure, there are legal tricks, but the Virginia marriage amendment is very broad. This is what it says: Virginia shall not recognize “another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage.” What that means is that any other legal relationship that would confer benefits equal to that of a married couple is not permitted. You can bet your bottom dollar that the various legal tricks to get around the marital ban will be challenged under this provision at some point and that leaves them unsecure.
Why is it that we have to rely on trickery, and trickery which may always be subject to being contradicted by this hateful amendment? Why is it that we say it’s not a big deal that we have to rely on trickery when straight couples get this automatically? Are we that drenched in self-loathing that we think this kind of blatant discrimination is not a big deal?
posted by dr on
“Heather could very well be named guardian by Mary.”
I think novaseeker is correct in saything that the broadness of the Virginia marriage amendment could easily be used to shred any arraingement between the couple. All you have to do is find a judge who’s willing to say that they are trying to approximate marraige, and any legal agreements would become unrecognizable.
posted by clarification on
bobby,
the va amendment does not simply prohibit state-granted status like a marriage, a civil unions, or a domestic parnerships. the language is even broader.
it prohibits state and local governmental bodies, including the courts, from giving effect to any “legal status” for relationships of unmarried persons that “intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage,” or that otherwise confers
the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage.”
“legal status” is a broad term, and it is not unreasonable for a judge to interpret the language to prohibit PRIVATE agreements as well – power of attorneys, health care proxies, wills, trusts, and any other PRIVATE agreement between unmarried couples that confer similar rights and obligations that state-sponsored marriage automatically provides. these instruments could be seen by a judge as an intent by the parties to “approximate” marriage-like rights and obligations.
posted by clarification on
apologies for the grammar and spelling. i didn’t proofread. =/
posted by ETJB on
Again, with the gay Republican spin;
John Kerry supported Civil Unions. President Bush did not. Jerry Kerry opposed the FMA, President Bush actively supported it. It is a state issue.
John Kerry supported legislation such as the ENDA and the HCPA. President Bush did not.
Howard Dean is…well..Howard Dean. He was given the DNC post in large part so that he would not run for president in 2008.
I think he would have been a better president then Bush or Kerry.
Not all gay or lesbian people have access to the mobility and lawyers to move around the laws.
Putting the ‘gay community’ into one monolithic group is just stupid thinking, especially coming from a gay Republican.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
These women probably decided that Mary should carry the baby BECAUSE her social and political connections could better protect the child, with or without Heather.
And whatever other legal or other documentation, there always seems to be some hole that wasn’t plugged enough that intrudes on the gay couple and parent when they can least deal with it.
All these issues would and could be handled by the legal ability to marry.
Any gay people that DON’T want to marry, don’t have to.
The straight world has created convoluted and impossible standards for gay people that straight people aren’t subject to.
And in the meantime, real lives and obligations are threatened.
There really is no point in doing this to gay people but to mess up their lives.
Doing this never improved straight lives.
It’s frustrating for me to watch this.
And everyone that keeps saying that the ideal situation in which to raise a child is a man and a woman who are married, they leave out the part about IDEAL men and women.
There is no legal precedence for and ideal anything to justify who gets to marry and who doesn’t.
They keep moving the goal post on gay folks and I’m sick of it.
posted by raj on
To give Bobby the benefit of the doubt, I believe that he was saying that Heather could adopt the child after Mary’s death, which is the situation that I was clearly dealing with.
It is the case that there apparently is nothing in VA’s state law that would prohibit Heather from adopting the child after Mary’s death–there would be no issue of second same-sex party parentage in that case–but that’s not the issue that I was addressing. The issue that I was addressing–and to which I believe Bobby was responding–is who might be appointed guardian after Mary’s death and before any adoption would take place. It takes a while for both the will to be probated and the adoption proceedings to be finalized. And that’s aside from the anti-gay nature of Virginia law and, in all likelihood, its courts.
posted by dr on
“It takes a while for both the will to be probated and the adoption proceedings to be finalized. And that’s aside from the anti-gay nature of Virginia law and, in all likelihood, its courts.”
Knowing nothing about adoption law, wouldn’t Mary’s parents be named as the child’s guardians after her death? Assuming they initiated adoption proceedings, or whatever happens, wouldn’t they have a stronger claim on the child than her partner?
I mean, even if Mary’s will named Heather as the guardian of the child, it seems to me that a court could easily construe the VA ammendment to hold that as close enough to one of the rights, benefits, etc. marraige to be unrecognizable.
posted by Novaseeker on
In Virginia, it is more than likely that Heather would not be the favoured adoptive parent by the Virginia courts, even after Mary’s death, regardless of the amendment. The prevailing Virginia interpretation under child custody (which uses the same “best interest of the child” standard as is used for adoptions) is that it is per se not in the best interests of the child for a gay parent to have physical custody over the child. In cases where a married couple divorces and one of the parents is gay, the courts will not award physical custody to the gay parent, and generally only allow the gay parent visitation under strict restrictions (including: cannot have gay partner present during visits, cannot live with gay partner, and can’t tell child of your own sexual orientation). These are routinely applied by the Virginia courts. I know this because I live in Virginia, and they were applied to me, and my very experienced family law attorney advised me that these are routine conditions when a gay parent is involved. Equality Virginia’s website confirms this. The legal standard is basically the same for adoptions, meaning that it would be very hard to Heather to be awarded custodial care of the child following Mary’s death regardless of Virginia’s amendment. Clearly the amendment makes it worse, because it adds to the already existing very anti-gay practice in Virginia the added argument that awarding custody to Heather in such a situation would be in a way recognizing the legitimacy of her relationship with Mary, which the Virginia Constitution forbids.
Honestly, if I were Heather and Mary Cheney, I would leave Virginia before Virginia has the ability to exercise any legal jurisdiction over that child.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
DallaSeattle, you always make a big production about how Democratic politicians make compromises, which apparently is not acceptable to you. So, what do you counsel every time? Vote Republican! Hey, at least they call you “fag” to your face!
The question is, Antaeus, why you consider stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments to be an acceptable “compromise” when Democrats do it, but not when Republicans do.
And tell me who you think is treating you with more dignity: a person who tells you upfront that they want to strip you of rights, or a person who tells you they support you and asks for money, but then turns around upon receiving it and supports stripping you of rights?
Now, to the rest of the topic.
Virginia has had in place since July 1, 2004, a law (the Marriage Affirmation Act) which states the following:
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
How many private arrangements/contracts between gay couples that confer any of the privileges of marriage have been invalidated by the courts under this act? Indeed, even with the very CLEAR language that the state of Virginia was perfectly within its rights to gut one, the Virginia Court of Appeals chose the opposite.
In fact, I would issue a challenge to the gay leftists here who are insisting the following:
“legal status” is a broad term, and it is not unreasonable for a judge to interpret the language to prohibit PRIVATE agreements as well – power of attorneys, health care proxies, wills, trusts, and any other PRIVATE agreement between unmarried couples that confer similar rights and obligations that state-sponsored marriage automatically provides. these instruments could be seen by a judge as an intent by the parties to “approximate” marriage-like rights and obligations.
Since you think that the Virginia amendment invalidates ANY legal arrangement that grants ANY benefits that marriage would grant between unmarried individuals, find one and file a lawsuit to invalidate it. Prove your point.
posted by clarification on
ndt:
all i said is that there is more room for interpretation than there would be if the language clearly stated a general prohibition against state-sanctioned unions (i.e. those terms like “marriage,” “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships.”) i never said that a judge WOULD interpret the language in a broad manner (or in a narrow manner); i simply said that a judge COULD choose a broad reading. the language leaves a judge open to prohibit certain private agreements; there is simply more wiggle room than in other states. as to whether a judge *would*, that’s for time to tell. i’m only speaking from a theoretical standpoint.
and i can hardly see how “leftist” my comment was. the *possibility* of cutting into an individual’s power to contract would seem more upsetting to a libertarian.
posted by Novaseeker on
“How many private arrangements/contracts between gay couples that confer any of the privileges of marriage have been invalidated by the courts under this act? Indeed, even with the very CLEAR language that the state of Virginia was perfectly within its rights to gut one, the Virginia Court of Appeals chose the opposite.”
That case turned on a federal law that says that states have to recognize the custodial orders issued by courts of other states. In that case, Vermont had issued a custodial order, and Virginia refused to enforce it because Virginia law doesn’t recognize the underlying union. The court of appeals simply noted that this contradicted the federal statute, and reversed on that ground. The case has no impact on what we are discussing here, because Heather and Mary are not parties to a non-Virginia union or marriage, or trying to enforce an out of state court order relating to such a union or marriage.
If you are going to sit there and cite cases, at least be familiar with the legal reasons for why they were decided! The case you cited is 100% irrelevant to the issue we are discussing here.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, it’s very relevant. The clear intent of the individual in question was to use the Virginia law in such a way as to invalidate the union’s orders, and it didn’t happen.
Since gay leftists like yourself insist that these laws are being used to invalidate contractual agreements between unmarried individuals, prove it. Cite cases in which this has happened. Or file ones yourself to prove your points.
posted by Bobby on
Yes, Virginia has an amendment that wants to prevent any kind of gay marriage.
But like the sodomy laws of the past, the existence of a law and it’s day to day application are different.
Mary has the right to designate who will take care of her child in case she dies. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, look at the catholics, during the baptism of a child there is a godfather and godmother, an ancient tradition designed to protect a child against abandonment in case the parents die.
Has the constitutional amendment been tested against a power of attorney? Has a hospital rejected a non-biological gay parent who had such document?
“Why is it that we have to rely on trickery, and trickery which may always be subject to being contradicted by this hateful amendment?”
—Because we have to live in the present. We cannot wait for gay marriage to be legalized to get married, or adopt children, or do any of the things straight people do. Why do some gays join the military inspite of DADT? Because they are commited to do what they want inspite of the obstacles.
“Are we that drenched in self-loathing that we think this kind of blatant discrimination is not a big deal?”
—Buddy, I don’t loath myself for being gay. I loath myself for not having a boyfriend and for not being rich. And if I had a boyfriend, I don’t think I would loath myself just because my relationships and the children I might adopt won’t be accepted by society as large.
There’s a lot of gays who live in “homophobic” places and thrive because they have an attitude of I’m gonna do what I want and nobody’s gonna stop me.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Actually, it’s very relevant. The clear intent of the individual in question was to use the Virginia law in such a way as to invalidate the union’s orders, and it didn’t happen.”
No, it is not relevant to the Heather and Mary case because Heather and Mary are not parties to an out of state union, and trying to enforce an out of state court order. They are in Virginia, and the federal law that the court of appeals based its decision on WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEIR SITUATION. What about that don’t you understand?
“Since gay leftists like yourself …”
You make a lot of assumptions, and this is one of the main reasons why your argumentation here has been weak. I’m a “leftist” because I’m in favor of gay marriage? Guess again, and maybe next time you might get somewhat closer to my actual political alignment, which I can pleasantly assure you is not objectively describable as “leftist”. But, hey, labels are fun, aren’t they?
“insist that these laws are being used to invalidate contractual agreements between unmarried individuals, prove it. Cite cases in which this has happened. Or file ones yourself to prove your points.”
This is like saying that if Virginia passed a law making it a crime for two men to hold hands, we should be just fine with it until they start rounding people up and putting them in prison.
posted by Novaseeker on
“There’s a lot of gays who live in “homophobic” places and thrive because they have an attitude of I’m gonna do what I want and nobody’s gonna stop me.”
Of course we do what we can where and how we can, but none of that means we should at the same time minimize the danger posed by things like virginia’s amendment. Coping with the current situation is very different and saying it’s not a big deal is very different than coping with the current situation while noting the problems with it, and working to get rid of them.
posted by Bill from FL on
Let’s just see what kind of fun Right-Wing activist judges have with this one, and how fast right-wing groups will sue the state demanding we don’t get benefits if say a “blue” city in VA votes for the benetits or I dare say a private company. The court battles are going to be fun to watch on this one, and it’s gonna be the lower/middle class/average gays like myself that get screwed.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 8, 2006, 4:56pm |
The case that is apparently being referred to was governed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the text of which is here. As a result of that federal statute, VA courts were required to enforce the VT court’s visitation order, and if even the VA supreme court (VA’s Court of Appeals) had refused to do so, it would have been reversed in the US Supreme Court. The issue before the VA courts had nothing to do with any relationship between the two women involved–whether it be an out-of-state marriage or civil union or a contract–it only involved the fact that another state’s court had issued a valid visitation order. The irony is that the VA litigant had originally invoked the jurisdiction of the VT court that issued the valid visitation order; if she had not done that, it is questionable whether the VT court could have issued such an order.
Novaseeker | December 9, 2006, 5:21am |
“Since gay leftists like yourself …”
You make a lot of assumptions…
Just laugh it off. “Leftist” is a noise word basically meaning “I don’t like…” something you wrote. Mighty Righty blowhards throw it a lot around here and elsewhere. Some nutty former professor from Australia even has a web site named Dissecting Leftism; I read it every once in a while for a good laugh.
“insist that these laws are being used to invalidate contractual agreements between unmarried individuals, prove it. Cite cases in which this has happened. Or file ones yourself to prove your points.”
I’m not sure where you got this from, but apparently whoever wrote it is unaware that one cannot run around filing suits to invalidate contracts willy-nilly. One has to be a party to a contract (or maybe a third party beneficiary under the contract) in order to file a suit to invalidate the contract. It’s a requirement in the law known as “standing”–one has to have a legal interest in the contract in order to try to invalidate it.
posted by Novaseeker on
“The issue before the VA courts had nothing to do with any relationship between the two women involved–whether it be an out-of-state marriage or civil union or a contract–it only involved the fact that another state’s court had issued a valid visitation order.”
Indeed.
The contra view (which I’m sure that the Virginia party will raise on appeal) is that the federal law was written at a time when there were no same sex unions or marriages, and therefore it could not have been intended to apply to custodial decrees relating to such marriages, and as a result it is possible to reconcile Virginia’s non-recognition law with the federal statute by simply holding that states are not required by that statute to enforce custodial orders of other states relating to same sex marriages or unions. Now, the PKPA is indeed neutral on its face in that it does not say it only applies to orders relating to straight relationships, which would suggest that the argument articulated above simply should lose, but the reality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act being on the books as well at least muddies the waters.
I mean, as far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty much a clear-cut supremacy clause case, and I think that the intermediate appellate court got it right in this case, but I think we should be aware that there are contra arguments that can be made, and that likely will be made, before the dust settles on this one.
And in any case, all of this just underscores how irrelevant this case is to the Heather and Mary situation.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 9, 2006, 8:41am |
The VA case solely turned on the supremacy clause issue. The PKPA is silent as to the sex of the litigants involved, is silent as to whether the litigants had any legal relationship (marriage or civil unions), and, indeed, contemplates that persons other than legal parents may be involved (the definitions sub-section (b) refers to “person acting as a parent,” which obviously contemplates that someone other than a parent may have a valid custody or visitation order that is covered by the PKPA).
It is highly unlikely that DOMA will come into play in this case. The PKPA was added to the US Code in 1980, but it was amended twice, in 1998 and 2000, both of which were subsequent to DOMA (1996). If Congress had intended the PKPA to not extend to same-sex custody or visitation contests, they clearly could have indicated. Of course, if they had done so, then that may have had far-reaching consequences, as it would apply to custody/visitation contest between any same-sex litigants, regardless of whether they had been romantically involved–for example, grandmother/mother, where the grandmother had obtained a custody order because the mother was an unfit mother.
posted by Novaseeker on
Ah that’s good, I was not aware the Act had been amended in 1998 and 2000. That makes any intent argument based on the age of the statute much weaker.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 9, 2006, 11:03am |
In point of fact, the Virginia Court of Appeals did consider the VA litigant’s DOMA issue. The text of the VA court’s opinion is here. They didn’t go into as much detail as I would have, but they did address it, and they specifically noted that the VA litigant herself specifically invoked the jurisdiction of the VT court when she filed her complaint in VT.
posted by Novaseeker on
“In point of fact, the Virginia Court of Appeals did consider the VA litigant’s DOMA issue. The text of the VA court’s opinion is here. They didn’t go into as much detail as I would have, but they did address it, and they specifically noted that the VA litigant herself specifically invoked the jurisdiction of the VT court when she filed her complaint in VT.”
Yes, I know, but I could see another court going a different way on the DOMA, to be honest. It seems at least colorable to argue that recognizing/enforcing another state’s custodial ruling relating to same-sex union *is*, tacitly at least, recognizing the underlying union (or the dissolution thereof) in the facts here where the two parties litigating custody were partners of such a same-sex union — the reasoning being that if there were no such same-sex union, there would be no such custodial order. The intermediate appellate court went the other way, saying that PKPA is narrowly about custody, and that the DOMA doesn’t say anything about out of state custodial decrees (which is true) … but another reading of the DOMA is at least colorable and the intermediate court’s holding here is subject to attack, I would think, by a conservative-minded Virginia Supreme Court who could reconcile the two statutes by simply saying that the PKPA was not intended to apply to custodial orders issued in respect of same sex unions (because Congress didn’t consider such unions when it enacted the PKPA), and that therefore it doesn’t apply in this case. That is a somewhat harder argument to make due to the fact, as you pointed out, that the PKPA has been amended in relatively recent history, meaning that an argument can be made that Congress, post-DOMA, was aware of same sex unions and marriages and could have amended the PKPA to not apply to custodial orders relating to such unions and marriages if it so intended to limit the law (in other words, an argument of negative implication) … that would be a stronger argument (perhaps a dispositive one) if there were legislative history relating to the amendments that was favorable. Do you know whether the legislative history of those amendments indicates anything about custodial orders relating to out of state same sex unions or marriages?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
why you consider stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments to be an acceptable “compromise” when Democrats do it, but not when Republicans do
That’s funny — yet again you’re lying and making up a position out of whole cloth to assign to someone who you don’t like.
Then again, I am not surprised given your impassioned advocacy of the “rights” of Congressmen to molest young teenaged boys, ND30.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s a requirement in the law known as “standing”–one has to have a legal interest in the contract in order to try to invalidate it.
Yes, but the Demopublican consensus on the “need” for the state to make decisions for us on who we can live with, how we can live with them, etc. has created a precedent under the law where unaffiliated third parties have successfully sued in private matters claiming that since it is a question about government marriage, they have standing as “a member of society, for which marriage was created.”
These suits have been filed by meddlesome family members, and have even resulted in right wing groups having their testimony entered into some of the divorce and custody cases of same-sex couples as a result.
Rather than reject the state as the entity which determines family relationships, Democrats have chosen to endorse the state — and not individuals — as the mechanism through which our most private affairs are set up, governed, and dissolved. As a result, the predicaments that gay families find themselves within are as much the fault of liberal Democrats — with their belief in big benevolent government — as they are with conservative Republican homophobes who use big government to make the lives of gays difficult.
There’s also something rather sick about the obsession with Ms. Cheney and her partner’s family life from both the left and the right. One gets the distinct feeling that right-wingers want her marriage and custody to fail to “get the gays” and that left-wing gays are hoping the state ruins her life to punish her for having the “wrong politics.”
It’s perverted — like Libertarians hoping that all Democrats and Republicans have their lives destroyed by the anti-gay laws that Bush and Kerrey unabashedly embraced in 2004 (and continue to promote since then). Except that no Libertarian has ever invaded the personal lives of their political opponents with such gusto. I guess we just value our privacy, and that of our fellow citizens, above the Republicratic politics of personal destruction.
posted by ETJB on
…except the Libertarian Party of California…
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 10, 2006, 9:36am |
I don’t know anything about the legislative history of other than PKPA other than what is posted on the Cornell USCode web site. That’s where I found out that the PKPA had been added in 1980, and amended twice since then, in 1998 and 2000.
Regarding whether the VA Supreme Court might make use of DOMA to reverse the appeals court’s decision, it is impossible to say what that court might do, in part because it is conservative, but it is also (as far as I suspect) elected. On whether the decision should be reversed, I’ll point out that
(i) The PKPA was specifically designed to address a particular problem–the problem that arose here–that is, the situation in which two states assume jurisdiction to issue custody and visitation orders regarding a minor child, and that is true regardless of whether either or even neither of the litigants are actual parents of the child (remember the reference in the statute to a “person acting as a parent”?). Thus, the PKPA does not require that the litigants actually be parents of the child, and that was not been amended by the Congress in the two instances in which it easily could have done so; and
(ii) The VA litigant herself specifically invoked the jurisdiction of the VT courts in her complaint filed in VT. If she had not, in her VT complaint, designated IMJ as ?the biological or adoptive? child of the ?civil union,? and if she had not asked the Vermont court to not only to dissolve the civil union, but also to award her legal and physical ?rights and responsibilities for the minor child? and award Janet ?suitable parent/child contact (supervised)? and ?award payment of suitable child support money,? (from the VA CtAppeals opinion), she might have a better leg to stand on. But she did, she did not–as far as can be determined–move to amend her complaint in VT, and so it would seem that she would be stuck with what she filed in VT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s funny — yet again you’re lying and making up a position out of whole cloth to assign to someone who you don’t like.
Mhm; that’s why I quoted them directly.
And as for your attempted charge as to my advocacy, go right on repeating it; the reality only makes you look more petty.
Now, on to Novaseeker:
I’m a “leftist” because I’m in favor of gay marriage?
No; you’re a leftist because you can’t tell the truth to voters and let them make a decision.
The practical implications of Virginia’s amendment are simply that it state or local government from creating or recognizing marriages or civil unions that don’t meet the one man, one woman criteria.
The contract language, even if someone were to interpret it in the way you claim, is unenforceable in that fashion. As Raj (correctly) pointed out, it’s very difficult to prove you have legal standing to invalidate a contract to which you aren’t a party or direct beneficiary; furthermore, for a court to invalidate a contract based on it providing a benefit that is also provided by marriage is ridiculous. The state of Virginia is not going to go around invalidating peoples’ health care proxies, for example, because the benefit of making health care decisions for another is provided by marriage. In addition, Virginia law was changed in 2005 to allow private companies to offer partner benefits to unmarried individuals.
The only thing this amendment does, ironically, is make it easier for two glbt individuals in a contract to break it up. If one doesn’t want to keep the terms any more, all s/he has to do is petition that the contract is invalid, and the court would likely rule that direction.
In essence, this law is not going to forbid glbts from receiving partner benefits from private employers. It’s not going to facilitate dissolving existing or future contracts except by the parties involved. All it’s going to do is to stop gay people from getting married or forming civil unions.
The reason we keep failing as a movement is because gay leftists like yourself won’t sit down and honestly discuss matters. Voters know you’re exaggerating when you say that it will take your private benefits away, or that all your contracts will be invalidated. They don’t believe a word gays say because “we” lie to them constantly; furthermore, as I pointed out above, they also know that when Democrats support stripping gays of rights, “we” jump on command and praise it as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Meanwhile, when someone like James talks about more assimiliation and “normal” behavior that would actually mirror the “gay families” rhetoric you try, he’s mocked and told he wants to impose “Stepford wife” behavior on gays.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You didn’t quote him directly any more than you quoted me directly in your latest flight of fancy.
The practical implications of Virginia’s amendment are simply that it state or local government from creating or recognizing marriages or civil unions that don’t meet the one man, one woman criteria.
No it’s not. Read the actual amendment, then come back with what the actual amendment says. You could start by showing which part of the amendment stipulates that it applies to government, and only government.
You’re good at selective editing and making up things, so I’ll wait patiently for you to do it yet again. Something tells me, however, that you’re not going to. . . because you’d be so transparently incorrect.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
except the Libertarian Party of California
You clearly believe in the practices of Goebbels, ETJB — he noted that if one is going to tell a lie, make sure it’s a big lie and repeat it often. You’re quite adept at it!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Read the actual amendment, then come back with what the actual amendment says. You could start by showing which part of the amendment stipulates that it applies to government, and only government.
Actually, NL, what I’m going to have you do is to bring a copy of the amendment here, and show where it specifically affects private businesses. I’m also going to challenge you to produce example court cases under the current law in Virginia in which an outside party successfully sued to invalidate a gay couple’s contractual arrangement or private business benefits.