With state elections fast approaching, I'm beginning my research into the candidates and their stances on "the issues". I'm getting all the "I support family values" nonsense since I live in Virginia, so I decided to investigate a little bit about the legislative leanings of some elected officials in Virginia. Strolling through the General Assembly website, I found this little gem from last year. It never made it into law, but I feel so much better that this is what some delegates consider a useful endeavor. Consider (italics from original bill, indicating proposed change):

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That § 20-45.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.

Any judge who rules the provisions of this section to be unconstitutional shall be deemed to have committed malfeasance in office and may be subject to impeachment under the provisions of Article IV, § 17 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Am I the only one who finds the legislator frightening who thinks this might make good law? At least it's about traditional family values and not bigotry. I'm just genuinely stunned it didn't make it into law last year.

Further into my research diversion, this law fascinated me. (It, too, didn't pass last year, but it was extended into 2005.) Consider:

Prohibited executions. Provides that the Department of Corrections shall promulgate regulations setting forth procedures to assure that no person sentenced to death shall be put to death while she is pregnant.

I have no problem with the proposed law specifically. Without getting into an abortion debate, the superficial goal of this law is acceptable since I think the death penalty should be abolished. But what annoys me about this is the real goal of the law. It has nothing to do with the death penalty or a hypothetical female inmate being executed. Since the time between conviction and execution is so long in America, I see little opportunity for a female inmate to be impregnated. Unless it's a guard (in which case, there's obviously a significant system failure), I just see no way. Since the state can't reasonably be expected to ever invoke this law, it seems like a misdirection intended to set up a future scenario in which the General Assembly can point to an extra example of how Virginia law identifies a fetus as an innocent human being.

I don't want laws to preach, as evidenced in the first law above, but I also don't want laws to obfuscate their real purpose. Our laws should be transparent. Any confusion, intentional or not, only hurts the basic idea that the governed are governed by choice. When it comes to laws like these, I dissent.