I love scouring the newspaper. I never know when something completely off the wall will be reported to make my day or at least provide some fun topic of conversation. Other times I'll find an article that on the surface seems non-germane to anything I'm concerned about, but, in fact, proves to be Exhibit A in proving a point. Such was the case this morning in the venerable Richmond Times-Dispatch. Its business section reported a feature article on a new trend of people contracting to buy houses together for various reasons: Older, widowed women who don't want to rent, or recent college grads who want to invest in home ownership but can't get a mortgage on their own. (According to the article, Time dubbed young co-owners "communal homeowners" or "co-hos.")
Right, right . . . I know this isn't a real estate blog . . . getting to the point. Let's go back to 2006 and the Marriage Amendment campaign. What was the biggest — of the endless —scare tactics used by the homosexual lobby and liberal politicians, and brainlessly repeated by the lofties at numerous editorial pages and Mainstream Media types?
Unintended consequences. That's right. If the marriage amendment passed all sorts of evil unimagined things would happen: unrelated people would not be able to enter into contracts, go into business, or buy real estate together, to name but a few of the here-to-Alaska list.
The article (read it here) is about two Richmond-area women who have been best friends for 30 years. One is a widow, one is divorced and both are empty-nesters for the most part. They rented homes but spent so much time on the phone talking to each other, it made great sense to buy a house together. More than that, according to the article:
Grady and McAbee consulted an attorney and had a contract prepared that addresses such issues as what happens when one of them dies — each has a lifetime right to the house as long as they can afford it — and who inherits the proceeds from the eventual sale of the property.
So much for not being able to enter into contracts with non-spouses. They got a lawyer and everything! They got all legaled up with inheritance rights and all of that stuff even though the best and brightest lefties said it couldn't happen. Hysteria, indeed. But let's see the left prove their point. Let them file suit to make people who've bought houses together dissolve their contracts and sell off their assets. (Here's another story we reported on in June which also proves our point.)
If this isn't an example of the misdirection and untruth that constantly comes from the hysterical left, we don't know what it is. In fact, it should serve as a warning to any fair minded person to take with an entire Morton's Salt container anything that comes from their mouths.
We're waiting for the homosexual lobby and their liberal politician allies to apologize for spending millions of dollars misrepresenting the truth to Virginians — and even their donors — who expect much better. We also wait for the dozens of know-it-all editorial page editors and Mainstream Media types to admit they were wrong. Of course, all the above mentioned could prove us wrong. Let them file a law suit against those who have bought homes together.
Right. Sure they will. There is an important lesson here, for all great issues that affect us: Policy discourse is about who you can believe. It's about the truth. It's about who has credibility — and who has a lack of it.