Duck, Duck, Goose
In Virginia, libertarian instincts reign supreme--until they don't.
In Virginia, you can carry a gun just about anywhere you like, and legislators in Richmond are eager to lift the few remaining restrictions, whether that involves classrooms, bars or day care centers. Virginia lawmakers for years have fought to protect your right to carry open containers of alcoholic beverages while you drive. And the good folks in Richmond are the national leaders in the battle to prevent the police from enforcing seat belt laws.
Well, at least those bits are consistent.
But when the legislators find some right they don't like, the principles go straight out the window. Last week, the legislature killed a bill that would have ended Virginia's status as the only state in the union that does not permit motorists to use radar detectors in the Roadrunner vs. Mr. Coyote. Here's how the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported the move:
A committee has axed a bill that would have ended Virginia's distinction as the only state that bans radar detectors.
Representatives of the Virginia State Police, the insurance industry and the Virginia Sheriffs Association spoke against the bill, sponsored by Del. Joe T. May, R-Loudoun, arguing that it would make the highways more dangerous and drive up insurance rates.
The House Transportation Committee voted 11-4 to table the bill.
We all know that the only purpose of radar detectors is to permit us to elude the cops and drive faster than the legal limit. So I applaud Virginia for calling the gadgets for what they are. But how do lawmakers square their position on radar detectors with those other stands above?
And if that's not enough of a contradiction for you, consider the constitutional amendment that Virginia voters will be asked to consider this fall:
Not only would Virginia join the stampede of other states that are banning single-sex marriages, but the proposed amendment would go well beyond what other states are doing and prohibit contracts between unmarried partners of any sex. So heterosexual couples who now shack up would lose many of the legal rights they've enjoyed up til now. Here's how the AP reported Gov. Tim Kaine's reservations about the amendment:
By Bob Lewis AP Political Writer
RICHMOND, Va. - The proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Virginia could impair the integrity of a wide range of personal contracts between unmarried individuals, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday.
A day after the Senate gave final passage to a resolution that would restrict marriage to one man and one woman, Kaine said he supports that goal but believes two other sentences in the amendment are profoundly flawed.
"It just has consequences far beyond marriage. Folks who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe that, I support that as the law," Kaine said on his first appearance on the Virginia News Network's monthly "Ask the Gov." call-in program. "But to potentially, for example, outlaw contracts between unmarried couples--and I think that's a fair read of the second and third sentences of the bill--there's just no reason we need to do that," he said.
Sadly, the legislators in Richmond act not according to any set of logical principles, but according to their own drifting and kneejerk conglomerations of bias, whim and momentary passions.
By Marc Fisher |
January 31, 2006; 7:21 AM ET
Previous: Mall Politics: Surrounding the Washington Monument | Next: Nervous Kaine, Victorious Herring
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: bc | January 31, 2006 9:59 AM
Posted by: ET | January 31, 2006 10:12 AM
Posted by: Tom T. | January 31, 2006 11:11 AM
Posted by: Stick | January 31, 2006 11:56 AM
Posted by: Tugboat Phil | January 31, 2006 1:53 PM
Posted by: CT | January 31, 2006 4:57 PM
Posted by: kme | February 2, 2006 10:37 AM
Posted by: Mike | March 3, 2006 2:46 PM
Posted by: insurance auto | June 21, 2006 1:44 AM
Posted by: bridge43 | July 7, 2006 8:39 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.