Log in

No account? Create an account
Mama Deb

December 2010
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Mama Deb [userpic]

Go to penknife's journal. If you haven't read it elsewhere.

Your views on gay marriage rights may differ from mine, but this is not about gay marriage rights.

This is about taking away rights that already exist. This is about a government telling a not inconsiderable group of its citizens (and taxpayers) that they do not have the right to decide who should raise their children, who should own their property with them, who should have the right to take care of them in sickness or old age or who should receive their property after they die. This does not protect heterosexual marriage, which needs no protection.

This is a government telling a group of its citizens "convert or leave."

And doesn't that sound familiar? Is the next step, I wonder, registration or simply confiscating the property of those who choose to leave?

And does Virginia know what happens to states that practise expulsion? What happens when a large group of professionals and artists and just plain people who contribute economically to the state leave? This is not just horrible and wrong, it's *stupid*.


illegal for people to buy property jointly if they're not married?

You know, I am amused/appalled by this, in the light of popular culture. You see, I enjoy watching Monster House, in which a home is given a makeover to a theme specified by the owners. In one episode, the owners are a pair of men who had been friends and who each needed more space. One had the means but not the credit rating; the other, the complementary assets, so they bought jointly.

The fact that each was raising kids (IIRC) and at least one was dating (a woman) suggest strongly that they're not in a mutual relationship. (And I wouldn't care -- but it is relevant to the topic at hand.) But under this debacle down Southish, they never could have been homeowners, unless the law looked the other way.