nic at night

one of the weirdest things about living in dc is the reality that we're living in the south. not just "the farthest south we've ever lived," although that's certainly true. but below the mason-dixon line. which, in case you didn't know, runs along the top of maryland, and along the bottom of pennsylvania. while I like to argue that the qualitatively relevant line is the line of secession (putting dc and maryland in the "north" for civil war era purposes), that's just because I'm a northerner in pretty much every possible way.

lately, it seems like virginia just keeps giving me more and more reasons to renew my vow never to live there (a tough one to keep for many middle-class people in this area, as the statewide cost of living is much lower than dc or much of maryland), to the point that even dana agrees there's pretty much no way we're ever going to be voluntarily in the position of paying taxes to "that state."

now, I concede that many states in all parts of the country are rushing to pass homophobic laws In These Difficult Times. yes, I fault all those other states, too. but virginia is in the vanguard of states trying to not only be homophobic themselves (by preventing gay people from adopting children or gaining status equal to married couples), but are trying to negate any arrangements made in other states that might *gasp* grant rights to gay people that virginia denies. while virginia, I'm sure, just believes its being really clever and thorough (and yes, I do think of the state itself as a malevolent being of sorts), there's such a appalling disregard for the basics of inter-state relationships that it's concerning in and of itself.

what the hell am I talking about? I'm talking about the full faith and credit clause (article iv, section 1). ok, yes, normally things like discussions of what articles of the constitution actually say are tediously boring and make most people's eyes glaze over. but, consider this: you buy a car in dc, you expect to still own it when you drive it to virginia. you decline to be an organ donor on your dc license, you expect that to still be honored in virginia. you rent a car in dc, you expect it to still be yours to drive in virginia. complete no-brainers, especially on the small-state coast. in the other direction, it doesn't matter that you're only 20 and can't buy alcohol in the u.s.; if you go to canada, you can drink there. ok, so: you adopt a kid in dc, you expect to still be their parent in virginia. you marry someone in dc, you expect to still be married in virginia.

this is where virginia has gone off the deep end, by refusing to recognize legal arrangements entered into in other states. it's one thing to deny those things to people in your state, but the whole concept of the freedom to travel or, basically, buy things in other states and take them home, is based on the presumption that contract entered into in other states (especially contracts entered into with other state governments, which is what marriages and adoptions are) are recognized as valid wherever you go in the u.s. (a reasonable presumption, given that it's one of the few affirmative provisions in the admirably brief original body of the constitution).

so yes, other states are refusing to grant marriage certificates to couples where both people are of the same gender. other states and counties refuse to allow either second-party adoptions by someone of the same gender as a child's biological parent or adoptions of children by two people of the same gender. ok. but only virginia is refusing to acknowledge contracts entered into in other states as valid in virginia.

and we're not talking about things, we're talking about people. it's one thing to say that the car you bought in another state has to meet certain criteria to be driven on our roads (as virginia also does wrt window tinting). it's a completely different thing to say, *poof* that deed's not valid here.

perhaps it's nerdy of me to be incensed by how blatantly this violates the full faith and credit clause than that it violates equal protection principles. but interpretations of the equal protection clause don't yet protect you from denial of the right to marry, but the full faith and credit clause always protects contracts that you enter into that are legal when and where you entered into them.

the upshot is that it's wack. one of the gifts I gave my parents this year for christmas was a donation to an organization that helps protect the rights of gay and lesbian parents (moral of the story: if you encourage me to give a donation to charity in your name, I will, in fact, go ahead and do so). I haven't actually made the donation yet, because I was searching for a local group to give to, which looks to be equality virginia. receiving a letter from them in the mail reminded me of this whole nonsense.

if dc weren't entirely overseen by a congressional committee, I'd be tempted to work to get the city council to pass a law refusing to recognize any contracts entered into in virginia. since it is, I just bitch about it whenever it comes up.