rootofnewt | (no subject)

(no subject)

Virginia Is For Haters is recommending a boycott of Virginia-based businesses, especially J. Crew, due to the recent HB 75, limiting the rights of non-heterosexual couples.

Now, I know I haven't written on this, while many people I know who live out of state are shocked and outraged. Well, I'm not surprised or shocked. I live in a state full of conservatives--many are of the scary sort. I know this. It's one reason I referred to Virginia as The Evil Dominion for years before I moved here. I live in a moderately liberal enclave. My delegates didn't vote for the bill and, for that, I'm quite thankful. I'm a little surprised that something representing such a huge government intrusion was actually passed--I know a lot of conservative Christians who really hate laws that limit *anything*, simply because they see it as big government. Apparently, they're so afraid of hot gay sex they'll stand for hateful acts by the Assembly.

This is a conservative state. This is what happens when people who believe religious law is not separate from civil law. I'm a bit surprised by the shock... after all, this state had some of the most vicious eugenics programs during the last century... not to mention the huge problems with desegregation. Hell, this state doesn't even have real strip clubs. When the Supreme Court ruled on the Texas sodomy case (Lawrence and Garner v Texas), some of our delegates tried to figure out a way to officially say, "No matter what the Supreme Court says, we still think sodomy laws are a good thing because sodomy (defined in VA as just about anything BUT married, heterosexual PiV sex) is a bad, bad thing."

I don't buy anything from J. Crew, anyhow. Heck, the fact that the CEO supports Kerry might be enough for me to go buy some socks there. Some folks have mentioned an AOL boycott--I don't use their products, either, save for a sporadic ICQ session. I don't pay for the use of ICQ, though I have friends who work at AOL and I'd rather they not lose their jobs due to sudden cuts. I'm not going to boycott Virginia businesses. I try to buy from local businesses whenever I can. Part of my beliefs center on supporting the local economy. That's not going to change.

I don't think a boycott of my state is in order. I think a huge influx of very visible queer culture is in order. I think the rest of the state should be dotted with rainbow flags the way Charlottesville is. I think "Hate is not a family value" bumperstickers should be plastered on cars in a guerilla campaign. I want to see queer families vacationing here with their kids, strolling down the boardwalk of VA Beach or taking in Civil and Revolutionary War Battlefield sites all over the state. Don't leave us in the dark. We need light more than anything right now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Right on. Being shitty back to people never changes a thing. Education and positive examples will change the minds of those who might be able to be swayed; there are some types who are NEVER going to change their opinion, and NOTHING you do will make them see the light. Let's work on those who can be swayed, that's my philosophy.

ps - Hi there from PA. I'll be back soon!

I've written a bit about this in a few corners of the net, but none where anyone who knows me IRL is likely to see it, so this is as good a place as any to respond, if you don't mind.

Well, I'm not surprised or shocked.

Good. You shouldn't be, since many people representing the whole spectrum of views on this issue have been predicting exactly such a reaction for, oh, six or seven months now.

Apparently, they're so afraid of hot gay sex they'll stand for hateful acts by the Assembly.

There may be a minority within the state for whom this is true, but the political history of the last few years doesn't support the view that this is the impetus behind this bill.

Are you aware that Virginia only recently recognized, for the first time, the right of same-sex partnerships to be recognized by insurance companies for health benefits purposes? This was a huge step since prior to that only very large companies which self-insured or offered their own plans could offer same-sex partner benefits. No, that wasn't exactly civil unions, but it was a big step toward it, granted, taken rather quietly. Of course it's out the window now, this law makes it illegal once more.

So why the dramatic reversal? Are the majority of legislators in the middle more afraid of steamy gay sex this year than they were last year or the year before? I don't see any reason why they should be. No, they're afraid of a loss of political control. How many times over the last six months have we seen the spectacle of judges and elected officials sanctioning same-sex marriages in plain contravention of state laws? And how many times have we seen advocates for same-sex marriage jubilantly proclaiming that because of the Full Faith and Credit clause, the people of other states would be forced to accept these changes whether they liked it or not, that their opinions would not be consulted and their approval was not needed?

Well, here's their answer.

I think a huge influx of very visible queer culture is in order.

I think that's not a bad idea at all. But I think you need to take that a step further and ask what that culture is going to send as its message to the other citizens of Virginia. Is it going to throw down a gauntlet and dare them to fight it, to pass even more restrictive laws against it? Or is it going to do its best to show that the people who compose it are no threat to order or decency, that its agenda is not a radical one, that its members can coexist peacefully with the rest of society without turning the place into Sodom West?

I think "Hate is not a family value" bumperstickers should be plastered on cars in a guerilla campaign.

Do you really think vandalizing people's property is a good way to convince them that they should be more tolerant and accepting? Because I don't think most people react very positively to such an approach. Nor do I think they respond well to insults and inflammatory language. That's a great way to alienate people and make enemies, though.

It's like this. If those of you who support equality for gays want to fight a war with both the arch-conservatives and the undecided mainstream who are put off by excessive radicalism, you will lose. If you take your dollars and leave the state, the people you are hoping to offend will smile and wave goodbye. If you hope to win acceptance, you need to show those in the middle that you do not intend to subvert control of the political process for a radical agenda against the will of the majority, as is being done by the gay activist movement in much of the country. If you are unwilling to show this restraint then you can hardly claim to be surprised or outraged when the fear engendered by such radicalism provokes a vicious backlash that was predicted well in advance.

re: the guerilla campaign. poor choice of words. i in no way recommend vandalizing other people's property. i meant ordering a whole bunch and distributing them for free to folks who *will* use them happily.

frankly, i'm waiting for the day when we can use eugenics in our favor and make everyone yearn for hot gay sex. we'll kill ourselves off and give the planet back to the dolphins.

yep.

Darn you. How am I supposed to start a nice rousing argument if you're not going to argue?

re: the guerilla campaign. poor choice of words. i in no way recommend vandalizing other people's property.

That's cool. I thought you meant just slapping them on every car in sight.

frankly, i'm waiting for the day when we can use eugenics

Best not to use that word 'round these parts, darlin'. Gets summa them thar legislators all excited, know what I mean?

in our favor and make everyone yearn for hot gay sex. we'll kill ourselves off and give the planet back to the dolphins.

Well, I'm already doing my part and not reproducing. Alas, I fear that just leaves more room for people who couldn't give a shit, but hey, I won't be here to see the mess.

Several points:

1) No where is it mentioned that the gov'nor has signed the bill; as a Democrat, I wonder if he actually would. Do you know if he has?

2) I agree... Boycotting AOL and J. Crew (both of which I also don't use) doesn't seem to have much of a point. I really doubt that either one will step into the culture war, because of the perception that doing so would hurt their sales even more. They also seem to be innoncent in terms of participation in this law, and no where is it stated that they have alternate policies.

3) Now boycotting VA in terms of tourism (something the state government advocates actively) would seem more in line. This would be similar to the activity put forth against South Carlonia for being total idiots with their flag. On the other hand, one could argue that getting their and getting involved is a good thing.

4) Finally, this law is unconstitional (full faith and credit and all that), so it's probably not really worth it. I just don't have enough energy to fight every single law; I reserve that energy for ones that get signed and past the Supreme Court. And given the crap coming out of the Federal Government... It's a full time job fighting the evil of the day.

Kenn

He signed it after it passed with a veto-proof majority. He does NOT support gay marriage *or* civil unions, but he thinks gay folks should be able to have private contracts for wills, medical directives, etc. his proposed amendments, removing the contractual limits, were not passed.

http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-23/news/localnews/override.cfm
http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-30/news/localnews/failed.cfm

non-queer news source:
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0404/141297.html

Hell.

The good news is that the bill as it is written is pretty much unconstitutional. Has the ACLU started their lawsuit yet?

Full Faith and Credit does not require states to enforce the legislative enactments of other states within the first state's borders, particularly where the first state has demonstrated a public policy against such an enactment. That is the reason so many laws against same-sex marriages and partnerships are being proposed and passed this year. The general consensus of legal opinion is that for most purposes, civil unions will not be enforceable across state lines into states where they are banned. The situation is analogous to that for, example, common-law marriages or marriages between close relatives - Virginia would not be required by FF&C to recognize a marriage between brother and sister if another state made such a marriage legal, nor is it required to recognize common-law marriages which are still recognized in states such as Texas. The purpose of FF&C is to prevent a state from arbitrarily refusing to recognize otherwise valid marriages (or other judicial and administrative acts) performed in other states simply because they were performed in other states.

Also, there is nothing specific in the law which says exactly how restrictive it is - what it means by "the privileges or obligations of marriage" which are bestowed by a partnership or civil union. That will be a matter to be interpreted by courts. There is a general principle of statutory construction that says that if a law can be interpreted in one of two ways, one of which would make it unconstitutional, the other constitutional, it will be assumed that the latter, narrower meaning is what was meant, so as to save the statute. So the question is not will this law stand or fall - it will stand; the question is how broad or narrow a sweep it will be given by the courts.

I expect that arrangements such as the governor mentioned will not be affected by the law, and only interference with marriage and comprehensive civil unions meant to be marriages in everything but name (such as Vermont has) will be constitutionally permissible, because otherwise there is a very heavy-handed intrusion on the constitutionally protected due process right of individuals to enter into contracts, without the marriage issue to give the state any justification for doing so.

Your last paragraph is beautifully-said. Right on!

Some folks have mentioned an AOL boycott--I don't use their products, either, save for a sporadic ICQ session. I don't pay for the use of ICQ, though I have friends who work at AOL and I'd rather they not lose their jobs due to sudden cuts.

Just another datapoint: AOL recognizes domestic partnerships and extends health benefits, etc., to same-sex partners. The words "sexual orientation" are included in its non-discrimination policy. (I just verified this in the company HR manual.) All of this puts us a step or two above a lot of companies in the country, let alone the state of VA.

VA businesses are not at fault for the actions of the government, and I see no reason to boycott them because our legislators are bigoted assholes.

America Online has shown terrific support for their staff and customers choices with regards to sex and sexuality. AOL is holding it's third annual Gay/Lesbian/Bi (I've always hated that term) film festival, er, I think next week. They have a whole marketing engine, "Out@AOL", aimed at the aforementioned GLB crowd. They are pitching this to their employees every bit as much (perhaps more!) than their customers.

Boycotting AOL for being based in Virginia (and Sao Paolo, Frankfurt, London, Paris, Shanghai, Mountain View, Tokyo, Sydney, Chicago, New York, New Jersey, Houston, ... ) is kind of short sighted, definitely misinformed, and silly.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I, too, live in Virginia. I don't think a boycott of a state is feasible, practical, or useful. If you want to make a difference on sodomy laws, or on anti-gay-marriage laws (which really just amount to limitations on marriage in general), write your representatives, and write the governor. I've gotten letters back from all of the above regarding everything from gun laws, to tax hikes (and a dispute with the VA dept of taxation), and my motor vehicle registration conundrum du jour. It really does work. They have people paid to read your letters and triage them for your designated political critter.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Hmmm...

Re: Hmmm...

Re: Hmmm...

Re: Hmmm...

no subject

no subject

Virginia, AOL Boycott