Talk:Virginia Bill of Rights to deny legal status to same-sex and unmarried relationships

A news report does not ask a rhetorical question of the reader, it simply reports. And it cannot make statements found in the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph: "Supporters [of the amendment] feel they have strengthened the family unit and thus society in general." A generality by the writer is no-no, quotes ascribed to some person are a yes-yes.

This reads like an editorial. I'm moving this to develop and will help with it. I was going to write about the topic anyway. Best intentions, Edbrown05 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed,

Thanks, I appreciate the help. We have discussed this much on Forums and Meetings in Virginia. Of the discussions, I am most concerned with the issued of grafting laws into the bill of rights and the fundamental implications of deluting Rights in this way. An issue that I don't feel is given appropriate attention. I hope this can be discussed somehow. Others are more concerned about the affects on unweb couples, for instance elderly couples who don't get married to avoid the "Marriage Penalty".

I'm having a lot of trouble using the tools. For instance, everytime a log in and click on something, it tells me I'm NOT logged-in. Is there some reference I can look at that would help navigate and use these tools correctly.

Thanks, Don

66.82.9.74 09:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When can/should I publish

How do I know when it's OK for me to publish this article? Also, I'm wondering what the best day to publish would be. Do more people read on the week-end or at the beginning of the week. I'm wondering if it would be better to published on Monday morning?

Don 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One big point that needs cleared up is who makes the assertions in the "Stability and security of Individual Rights" section? That *still* reads like editorial content because the author makes his opinion clear. The other problem is the thing is becoming encyclopedic, I should have the gist of the story in less content than is on this talk page and if that is well enough written you delve into the gory details. Yes, keeping within project guidelines on the gory details bit is difficult. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on the intro and try to get an interview with an expert on Constitutional Law at George Mason University to fact check and flush out the last section. -- Don 10:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• That would be an excellent bit of original reporting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To your original question, you decide when to publish and if other editors still think it needs work then they de-publish it. Sugarpine 15:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

moved discussion from article to talk page

The following was a comment by 66.82.9.88 placed mistakenly in the article itself. I have moved it below. — Doldrums(talk) 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think text suggesting that article 1, section 4 is a precedent for the amendment is an incorrect application

Unless I misunderstand what your trying to say, I think suggesting that section 4 is a precedent to exclude rights from specific groups that apply to others is an incorrect application of the statute. Section is basically saying that "all men are equally free" and that exclusive benefits and privileges cannot be given to a specific man or groups of men, especially based on hereditary, such as was the case for the British royal class.

So to say that section 4 is a precedent to deny status to a specific group, I think is actually getting it backwards. To exclusively deny rights to only the group of non-heterosexuals, one is necessarily giving exclusive status to heterosexuals. So the amendment is again an apparent contradiction to section 4, and unprecedented. Don

"My Daddy was a magistrate, so I should be a magistrate too," is congruent, or incongruent, with more modern concerns over, "My Mommy was married to my Daddy for 7-years, so since I lived with Roger for that long, I should be married too?"

The sooner the sour grapes taste goes away from this article, the better. -Edbrown05 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is more like, I and Jenny have adopted a child and my corporation recognizes our relationship as a domestic partnership, and provides health benefits to both Jenny and our adopted child. Why is the government interfering with the private affairs of my family and a private corporation? Why is it attempting to deny health benefits to my child, even though it is not paying for them and then denying legal rights to my partner? This is clearly government intrusion.

The big question is why was the media so negligent in providing a thorough analysis of the ramification of this amendment, prior to November 7?

Further, if the legislative branch is going to put such a fundamental referendum on the ballot then they have a responsibility to ensure that the public is properly educated on the issue, so they can intelligently vote on it. What happened instead was a slogan-based marketing campaign that was in my opinion dishonorable. The fact is that nearly no one understood what they were really voting for. Most people saw the amendment for the first time on Election Day. Not even experts at Law know what the implications will be, even after studying it.

So I hope the article is not seen as “sour grapes”, but as an attempt to provide the information that should have been provided prior to the election, post-mortem. Because this issue is not dead, the objective is to pass a similarly regressive amendments in other states and to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Don 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. -Edbrown05 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Why is the government interfering with the private affairs of my family and a private corporation?" Because you are interferring with public monies. -Edbrown05 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The social cost of uncommitted and broken relationships among adults with the responsibility of children is so enormous that nobody is stupid enough to try to put a price tag on it. Then gays swoop in and try to win the no-marriage equal-rights debate by framing it, somewhat, on status that maybe ought be accorded unwed bisexual couples. That's cheap gay shot, and only Arizona fell for it. -Edbrown05 08:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What do they do in Arizona? Isn't there a bar there where a few teeth get knocked out? I'm sure the absentee ballots that were sent in there to put the measure over the top were mailed in by Don :) Edbrown05 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, there is one thing I remain encouraged by, and proud of. Two guys, with views that are obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding a contentious issue, were able to collaborate, develop and publish a meaningful treatise on that subject. Thanks for you contribution. Don 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)