The newly enacted Virginia statute which bans private contracts and other unspecified “arrangements” that “purport[] to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage” (see our posts of Mar. 19, Apr. 18, Apr. 23) gets wider discussion, in places that include a Washington Post editorial (“Uncivil Disunion”, May 9) and a commentary by UCLA’s Eugene Volokh (May 10). Andrew Sullivan (May 6) linked to our coverage last week in sounding the alarm about the law. A range of further views: Obsidian Wings, Beaverhausen, Ramesh Ponnuru, Justin Katz. It should be noted that although several of the above commenters express a high degree of certitude (sometimes in opposite directions) as to whether the bill would or would not ban various forms of private arrangements commonly entered into by same-sex couples (e.g. medical powers of attorney, wills, pooling of assets), the actual experience under the law is more likely to consist of a prolonged guessing game as to whether or not such devices, singly or in combination, are or are not too “marriage-like” to be upheld as valid — and that guessing game is likely to impose significant costs on hapless persons caught up in the Virginia legal system even if the law is eventually construed narrowly or struck down. Update May 31: response to Ponnuru defense of law.

Filed under: family law