Anti-Gay VA Foundation Starts Bashing Straights, Demands Restrictions of Divorce

[Ian David]

RICHMOND, Jan. 4 -- After its victory in last year's fight over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Virginia, the Family Foundation of Virginia announced Thursday that it will push to change the state's divorce laws to make it more difficult for parents to end their marriage.

The Family Foundation, which opposes abortion and promotes socially conservative values, said it will lobby the General Assembly this year to amend the state's long-standing no-fault divorce law, which essentially allows a husband or wife to terminate a marriage without cause.

The foundation is advocating "mutual consent divorce" for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty. The proposed legislation would not affect childless couples.

"Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end , and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation. "When we send a message that one can up and leave their family and have no consequence, the Old Dominion is encouraging divorce."

More:
http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/anti-gay-va-foundation-starts-bashing.html

I say we get every gay organization in the country to lend their support to this!

[Deja Q]

1. I second that.

Though when it comes to infidelity, how does that get dealt with? If I was married or whatever, I wouldn't tolerate infidelity at all and I'd expect no less from my partner. They're vows for a reason, and I'm sorry our society prefers to foist up Britney Spears as a fine example of an American. :puke:

[CC]

2. Though I don't agree with anything these

self appointed guardians of other peoples' lives have to say I will give them this much, divorce is a much bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage could ever be. Doesn't make them right but they are at least a bit closer than they ever were with their homophobia and hatred.

[Ian David]

3. The gay rights organizations should all issue press releases in support of this...

since divorce "threatens" all marriages, gay AND straight.

And because it would make the anti-gay group look really, REALLY bad to have the gay groups all on their side.

[Mojambo]

4. Nothing makes great parents like two people who can't stand each other living together. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

10. LOL...that hit pretty close to home.

I used to plead with my parents to divorce - I just wanted some peace in the house!

[ismnotwasm]

5. Maybe this will make people see what insane

Assholes these people really are. Although I doubt it.

I'm extremely amused at the thought of a large group of Gay activists lending support to the latest from this group, God their heads would explode.

[Ian David]

6. We should try to ban "lusting in your heart" for other women. n/t

[kevinbgoode]

7. Actually, I think the first thing we should do is demand it be in a

Constitutional Amendment. . .and then DEMAND that the PEOPLE VOTE on the proposal. After all, as we've been told time and time again, the PEOPLE should vote on something as important and as foundational as "marriage."

Our press release should also state very clearly: "We DEMAND that ALL the people get to vote on this amendment. As gay citizens who have had our constitutional rights stripped by the people of this Commonwealth, we deserve to exercise what few rights of citizenship we still have in the form of our vote. This would be the first time we were ever allowed to have a voice in the conduct of heterosexual marriages, even though we are too often stuck with the bill and the consequences of their behaviors."

But then we should do just like the evangenitals and MAKE UP STUDIES which show that the Talibans are not only more likely to mentally abuse their children, but are also more likely to have unhealthy marriages, both sexually and spiritually. We can then propose to the rest of the Commonwealth that a constitutional amendment should be passed which requires that all those who engage in "religious" marriage shall be bound by the laws of their church in matters of divorce. Only the state can grant the divorces, but their consent to be married within the Church should require them to be responsible for those vows. And yes, this should come in the form of a constitutional amendment, because everyone needs to vote on such an important matter.

Throw this shit right back at them.

[Ian David]

8. ABSOLUTELY! n/t

[fairfaxvadem]

9. Oh lordy, spare me quotes from Victoria Cobb.

I swear, that woman is so uptight, she probably still undresses in the dark. I saw her during a debate over that horrid VA marriage amendment at the Fairfax County Gov't Center back in the fall, and she has this nasally, condescending voice that makes you want to say "Hey, use a normal voice or shut up." She reminded me of Dan Akroyd's girlfriend in Trading Places, Muffy,or Buffy, or whatever.

We all knew they'd be coming for the straights next, but we couldn't convince enough people that this isn't about "gay marriage," it's about social control.

[kevinbgoode]

13. Read #7

If you guys get wise to these nutcases, you can stick the screws to them real well over this issue.
Point out every dysfunctional family situation involving abuse in which evangenitals are involved, and so not to appear to be hateful, make up studies if you need to...they did it to us (gays) and STILL do it to us.

Then counter that the state, if it wants to toughen divorce laws, should require those taking vows in churches be forced to adhere to those tenets. If a church wants to align itself with existing state law as divorce policy, that's perfectly fine. But this would force the Taliban to live by their own damned vows - and they won't be allowed to step into a commonwealth courtroom until they meet the standards set by their church for ending their "contract with God and the state." It's almost perfect. .. they made the choice - the state should enforce that choice.

As for the rest of the citizens, a civil ceremony can do just fine - along with the no-fault divorce option. After all, they don't have to subscribe to anyone else's religious beliefs. The fundies will go NUTS - for one thing, I predict an immediate and major drop in church weddings (and revenue for the megachurches) at least for the evangenitals - and the state will have tons of evidence that the Taliban doesn't even want to live by their own rules.

There is information on the failure of "covenant" marriage, too...the brand Gov. Huckabee in Arkansas tried to start pushing. .. and very few of the Taliban jumped on THAT bandwagon.

If ya'll frame this as unwarranted state interference in individual rights, and offer a constitutional amendment enforcing their religious vows in addition to state requirements, you can easily mount the argument that people who make certain choices should be held accountable for them. If you mount this in conjunction with a campaign to get the "family" association out of your homes, you might hit a libertarian enough position that they'll get their asses whipped and be effectively through in the state.

Be warned, however - they will LIE. . .and will do so with absolute impunity.

[fairfaxvadem]

15. I hear you loud and clear.

That argument was made, in part, at the debate. Just about everyone I know who bothered to be informed about the MA understood exactly what it was about, and the hypocrisy of these people and their railing of the sanctity of marriage.

I think that will finally sink in with more voters, it just hasn't yet, and I promise, we will keep arguing against this crap and pointing out what their real agenda is.

And I am not above making stuff up about them, even though there's enough truth out there you almost don't have to.

[Neurotica]

11. The bills have already been introduced by Del. Robert Marshall

He's one of the most right-wing members of the Virginia General Assembly, sponsoring bill after bill designed to impose his particular set of beliefs on everyone through public policy. It's all about control of women in my opinion.

Unfortunately, this year he is also championing a number of "smart growth" transportation and development bills that may lead many new residents in the booming No. VA suburbs to support him without really understanding what he's all about.

[kevinbgoode]

14. Then, just like the Taliban did in Virginia

demand that anything having to do with something as important as marriage be put to a public vote and must be in the form of a constitutional amendment. Since the Taliban rep already introduced a bill, Virginians would be smart to start considering a petition drive to nullify that law, and propose a constitutional amendment which strips the legislature from enacting any new laws which affect "an institution as important to the foundation of society" as marriage (or divorce) without a public vote.

The citizens of the Commonwealth willfully and intentionally wrote their gay citizens out of the Constitution. People in that state have every right, now, to vote on ANYTHING having to do with "marriage."

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Why don't they just cut to the chase and demand that anyone who fucks for non-procreative purposes

be burned at the stake?

That's what they're really after.

[JohnnyLib2]

16. Are erections endangered in Virginia?

Seemed wise to ask.

[kevinbgoode]

17. Yes they are. . .

and even worse, you won't be allowed to waste one drop of precious Jesus-juice sperm which could be used to manufacture another evangenital baby.