VA FREEPERS ****ACTION NEEDED TO STOP PRO-HOMOSEXUAL BILL

[Gopher Broke]

VA LEGISLATION ALERT

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA'S TOP INITIATIVE IN 2002

House Bill 133, introduced by Delegate Karen Darner (D-49, Arlington) reduces the penalties for sodomy or crimes against nature. This dramatic policy shift would ignore more than 300 years of sound public policy and increase the grave public health risks that result from the practice of sodomy. The sodomy statute is all that stands between Virginia and the slippery slope that leads to domestic partner benefits, special rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriages and gay adoptions. In November of 2000, the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this statute. Given the proven public health risks associated with sodomy, any efforts to reduce the penalties for sodomy actually promote behavior adverse to Virginia families

ACTION: Urge your delegates to "Vote No on HB 133 and protect Virginia families."

E-Mail and Call these Key Delegates on the Courts of Justice Committee:

Del.McQuigg(R-PrinceWilliam)804-698-1051, del_McQuigg@house.state.va.us

, Voted Yes in'01

Del.Hurt,(R-Chatham)804-698-1016, del_Hurt@house.state.va.us

, newly elected Del. Bell, (R-Charlottesville) 804-698-1058, del_Bell@house.state.va.us

, newly elected Del. Reese, (R-Fairfax) 804-698-1067, del_Reese@house.state.va.us

, newly elected Del. Johnson (D- Abingdon) 804-698-1004, del_Johnson@house.state.va.us , Voted No in '01

Del. Armstrong (D-Martinsville) 804-698-1010, del_Armstrong@house.state.va.us , Voted No in '01

Del. Joannou (D-Porsmouth) 804-698-1079, del_Joannou@house.state.va.us , Voted Yes in '01

Delegate address: c/o General Assembly Bldg., Capitol Square, Richmond, VA 23219

TOLL FREE HOTLINE: Virginia General Assembly - 800-889-0229

(Leave a message for your delegate or Senator) Hours are 7 AM - 7 PM, best time to call is around 7 AM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA One Capitol Square 830 East Main Street, Suite 1201 Richmond, VA 23219, General Assembly Phone 804-:440-8272, Fax:804-343-0050

[OWK]

House Bill 133, introduced by Delegate Karen Darner (D-49, Arlington) reduces the penalties for sodomy or crimes against nature. This dramatic policy shift would ignore more than 300 years of sound public policy and increase the grave public health risks that result from the practice of sodomy.

Holy smokes!!

You mean they're trying to take away government's power to put consenting adults in jail for what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

This must be stopped.

Everyone knows government's legitimate role is to dictate the private sexual activity of consenting adults.

[OWK]

Given the proven public health risks associated with sodomy, any efforts to reduce the penalties for sodomy actually promote behavior adverse to Virginia families

The failure of the state to forbid a behavior, is equivalent to state promotion of the behavior?

[OWK]

And no straight people ever engage in sodomy. uh huh. right.

Shhhhh.... that's supposed to be a secret.

[ellery]

I fail to understand why government intrusion into the private bedroom behavior of consenting adults is any different that government intrusion into private gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Sorry, but if you welcome government's intervention in one area of private life, you can't complain when it broadens its reach into every area. Slippery slope, indeed.

[OWK]

I dig chicks myself, but as a rule, it's none of my damned business what other adults do in their bedrooms, and it CERTAINLY isn't any of the government's damned business.

These busy-bodies need to mind their own business and get a life.

[RussianBear716]

With Republicans in control of the legislature, this bill is DOA. Mark Warner is busy appointing his Deomcratic cronies like Doug Wilder to state positions. Wilder is going to be in charge of studying government for Mr. Warner. My question is.. didn't Wilder study it enough when he was Governor?? What's new to study? How to increase taxes after Warner PROMISED no new taxes to during the campaign?

Personally, things like more taxes and more government are infintely more troublesome to me than what consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.

[OWK]

Exactly.

[Dimensio]

You mean they're trying to take away government's power to put consenting adults in jail for what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

Don't you get it? These laws are needed to stop people from having sex in public parks. After all, there are no laws specifically prohibiting indecent acts in public places...

...er, wait, there are laws like that. I guess that argument is a red herring then. Nevermind.

[OWK]

You don't know how many times I've heard that pantload.

[Wolfie]

VA FREEPERS ****ACTION NEEDED TO STOP PRO-HOMOSEXUAL BILL

I'm all for this bill...I don't want any amateur homosexuals running around, somebody could get hurt.

[OWK]

No, it means you can't get her pregnant, if you do it in the bum.

Uhhh.... I understood you the first time...

No visuals were necessary. ;^]

[OWK]

Oh I thought you didn't,thats why you said you dug chicks.

No.... I usually just toss in the "I dig chicks" thing on these threads, because condemnation of government control of private sexuality, usually leads to the inevitable "you're a homo" comments somewhere in the thread.

[RussianBear716]

Chicks? lil baby chicks? Lets not get into bestiality here ... Gopher Broke will go ballistic!!

Just joking people .....

[Ligeia]

Thanks for the post. You might want to post a link to your thread on the Virginia page.

[Howie]

The Desert Sun
Palm Springs, Ca. January 16th, 2002

---

Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to extend health benefits to domestic partners of gay and lesbian county employees.

The move was hailed as long overdue by local gays and heterosexuals concerned with human rights.

"The definition of family here in the U.S. is changing, and this decision recognizes that," said Gene Touchet, a gay rights activist and Cathedral City resident.

The board’s decision was spurred by recent new rights for domestic partners signed into law by California Gov. Davis.

Among other things, that law -- which went into effect Jan. 1 -- requires health care service providers and insurance carriers operating in California to offer medical coverage that includes domestic partners.

"It was a matter of equal protection under the law," 4th District Supervisor Roy Wilson said. "We felt that since the state now requires those benefits, we should extend them as well."

The county’s new policy will take effect April 1. Same-sex partners as well as heterosexual partners over age 62 qualify, and to receive benefits employees must be registered as domestic partners with the state.

The change will cost the county $39,500 a year -- a minimal amount compared to the county’s multibilliondollar budget, Wilson said.

About 4,360 U.S. employers offer domestic partner health benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign. More than 150 of those are Fortune 500 companies, and more than 125 are state and local governments.

Locally, several cities in Riverside County offer the benefits to employees, including Palm Springs and Cathedral City.

"It’s been a real good thing for us," said Cathedral City Councilman Greg Pettis, who is openly homosexual. "It shows the staff that we care about them and their families. It helps retain employees, and it also helps us attract new employees."

Some opposition was voiced on the issue.

In a letter sent to the Board of Supervisors, Riverside County Republican Party Chairman Kevin Jeffries said the proposal "seeks to overturn the people’s vote on marriage and undermine the values and benefits associated with traditional marriage."

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, affirming that only marriage between a man and a woman should be recognized.

But gay-rights and equal-rights proponents say that times are changing, and employers have to change as well.

"We don’t live in the same kind of world," said Touchet. "As stereotypes fall, the world is going to be a better place. This is just one tiny step."

---

Natalie Singer covers demographics for The Desert Sun. She can be reached at 778-4644 or by e-mail at Natalie.Singer@thedesertsun.com

[RussianBear716]

Well seriously, your right about it just being sex between two consenting adults. As a conservative and a Christian, I find it not acceptable for me. But once again, its a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice. And in the end, those involved will have to deal with God, whom takes a really dim view of this activity. But if someone gets AIDS by exercising their personal choice, don't expect me as a taxpayer to feel sorry for you and help with your medical bills. Or give you special consideration. Your choice, your responsible for your actions.

[OWK]

Well seriously, your right about it just being sex between two consenting adults. As a conservative and a Christian, I find it not acceptable for me. But once again, its a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice. And in the end, those involved will have to deal with God, whom takes a really dim view of this activity. But if someone gets AIDS by exercising their personal choice, don't expect me as a taxpayer to feel sorry for you and help with your medical bills. Or give you special consideration. Your choice, your responsible for your actions.

I'm not a Christian, but otherwise I agree completely.

[RussianBear716]

I agree. And I'm opposed to smokers with lung cancer trying to sue cigarette companies and pretend that they didn't know inhaling smoke isn't good for you. They never heard of smoke inhalation related problems before? Personal responsibility for one's actions is something that I was taught as a child and its stuck with me, one of those principals that I'm inflexible on. A large part of what's wrong with this country is that people don't want to be responsible for their actions, they prefer to have government or anyone else take the blame and also bail them out. Liberals and leftists feed on these kinds of people.

[eaglewatch]

COULD YOU PLEASE POST THE EXACT WORDING OF THE SODOMY LAW THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED ON THIS THREAD?

Sorry to shout but wanted to make sure you saw this so you would post the sodomy law and then we can figure out what you are talking about. Thanks.

[RussianBear716]

Whats the penalty for a Class 6 felony? They wash your mouth out with soap? Carnally knowing a female with one's mouth covers alot of territory. And I'd venture to say that most the happily married adults in Virginia are guilty of this law...repeated times. Shall we prosecute them all?

I find it weird that the same behaviour between family members (incest), only gets you a Class 5 felony .... seems to me this be a little more serious

[RussianBear716]

Have a nice breakfast....

[RussianBear716]

If I VOLUNTARILY contribute money or my time to help smokers with lung cancer, or someone with AIDS or the homeless ..... thats being a good Christian. To have government take my tax money and help the same people when they will not take responsibility for their actions and make an attempt to help themselves before demanding government help them, is repulsive to me ... bordering on extortion.

[Howie]

How about bestial relations?

[RussianBear716]

Hope you weren't implying that I'm a perfectionist .... my wife could lay any rumor of that to rest pretty quickly.

[Howie]

Beastial

[stuartcr]

I have no problem with what 2 consenting adults do.

[OWK]

How about bestial relations?

What are you asking?

[Howie]

If a citizen considers his sheep or dog a "domestic partner" should they get all the benefits of a married couple?

[Dimensio]

If a citizen considers his sheep or dog a "domestic partner" should they get all the benefits of a married couple?

Is the sheep or dog capable of providing informed consent and/or being a partner in a legal contract?

[alpowolf]

Since these laws are seldom enforced (except on suspiciously selective occasions), how are they "protecting" VA families?

Putting someone in jail for sodomy--where they'll be forcibly sodomized--hardly seems like a sensible solution.

[OWK]

If a citizen considers his sheep or dog a "domestic partner" should they get all the benefits of a married couple?

The state has no business being involved in marriage, or demanding that others seek it's permission at all, heterosexual, or otherwise.

As for beastiality, animals do not have rights, and therefore they are property. While I would consider an individual who had sex with animals to be pretty damned disgusting, it is not my place, (nor is it the state's) to restrain him by force.

As for an individual marrying an animal, marriage is a contract. A contract is a statement of agreement to specific terms, between two individuals. Animals being unable to comprehend (much less express agreement) are incapable of entering into contract.

[OWK]

You beat me to the punch.

[Dimensio]

As for beastiality, animals do not have rights, and therefore they are property. While I would consider an individual who had sex with animals to be pretty damned disgusting, it is not my place, (nor is it the state's) to restrain him by force.

Well it's arguably animal abuse, which is legally actionable.