(no subject)

[rootofnewt]

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.

Comments

Hmmm...

[flynnk.livejournal.com]

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

Re: Hmmm...

[krasota.livejournal.com]

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

Re: Hmmm...

[flynnk.livejournal.com]

Hell.

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

Re: Hmmm...

[oberstgreup.livejournal.com]

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.