Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
invisibility doctrine

Utah State Rep. LaVar Christensen Doesn’t Even Want Gays Signing Legal Contracts With Their Partners

Sometimes it’s difficult to tell how seriously we need to take random bills introduced by state lawmakers, but the new one from Utah’s State Rep. LaVar Christensen is cause for concern. Revisiting a bill that failed to move in 2006, Christensen’s HB 182 would bar same-sex couples from making any contractual agreements in matters like wills and property. Why give this guy even a minute of your time? Because Christensen is the same guy who in 2004 introduced the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — and drummed up the support to pass it. While Christensen’s bill would also have the effect of barring unmarried heterosexual couples from forming contracts, “at least” straights have the option to get married. Utah grants gay couples no legal recognition, making power of attorney and living will documents among the only ways we have to ensure our partners call the shots. The bill, Voiding Transactions Against Public Policy, would classify any such legal dealing as “an arrangement, agreement, or transaction that is illegal or against public policy to be void and unenforceable.” At least(?) Wyoming’s Gov Matt Mead, who supports state lawmakers’ move to ban any recognition of gay marriages or civil unions, wants queers to be able to use the courts to protect some of their rights.

On:           Jan 28, 2011
Tagged: ,
    • Mike in Asheville


      Jan 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SammySeattle

      Apparently this fool has no understanding of contract law.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks

      he has a blow-job-giving mouth.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jay_max

      +1 for SammySeattle

      Any such bill that Christensen would be struck down by the courts, not necessarily because it affects GLBT folk, but rather, the law of contracts has to be applied equally. Because of that, this bill is doomed, even if it does pass.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GoodboyPA

      This is pretty much a rehash of what the court decided in Romer v. Evans, isn’t it?

      Jan 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChicagoJimmy

      Wow. Just when I thought crazy had a limit.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spike

      Would we expect anything less from the Mormon Taliban state Of Utah?!!?

      Jan 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Francis

      Continue to expect things as we are seeing in Utah and Wyoming. These bigots are on the defensive, and when people are threatened, they attack.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard

      @jay_max: “[this law] would be struck down by the courts…because…the law of contracts has to be applied equally.”

      (a) Marriages are civil contracts that gay people are overwhelmingly excluded from by state constitutional amendment, statute and/or policy, and (b) DOMA is a federal law that purports to exempt state and federal governments from any Constitutional or statutory obligation to reciprocally recognize those contracts.

      While in theory you’re correct, in practice you aren’t.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keiffer

      @GoodboyPA: Good thought. I’m guessing you’re right. The only problem is the time that will elapse between a bill’s passage and the overturn.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fonfax

      The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”. [1] The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006

      Virginia already has had a similar law on the books since 2006. It may be unconstitutional, but its legal until changed. It has not be challenged yet.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random Hero

      I wonder how much he charges for tug jobs at interstate rest stops.

      Jan 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blackmattachine

      “Framing mischief by law”

      Jan 29, 2011 at 3:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.