Social conservatives frequently temper their objections to same-sex marriage by highlighting the fact that they support equal rights for homosexuals — just not “special rights” under the law.

Yet a Virginia law scheduled to go into effect July 1 will produce quite the opposite effect: Going beyond simply prohibiting state recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions, it threatens to stamp out any form of recognized legal benefits enjoyed by same-sex couples that might even come close to shadowing those enshrined by marriage, in addition to tying the hands of private employers in how they choose to issue benefits to their employees.

The law, dubbed the “Marriage Affirmation Act,” specifically states, “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited.”

It further declares any such arrangements to be considered null and void in the state of Virginia — and legally unenforceable.

The problems with this law start even with the most cursory reading. Banning “partnership contracts” and other arrangements of marriage would include institutions like durable power of attorney, estates, medical directives, as well as joint property and custody arrangements.

In other words, under this law, gay couples would be forbidden from transferring legal authority to their partners if they are incapacitated or granting them power to make medical decisions for them.

Worse yet, should one of them have the misfortune of dying in the state of Virginia, they run the risk of having the state nullify their rightful claims to an estate, property, or even children — all of this despite the fact that these are legally binding contracts nominally open to anyone who wishes to sign them.

Naturally, such noxious legislation finds itself running afoul of the Constitution, specifically forbids states from “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

In other words, no state has the lawful power under the U.S. Constitution to forbid homosexual couples from engaging in contractual arrangements which share in the protections of marriage.

Syndicated columnist Jonathan Rauch frames the issue of contracts as one of personal autonomy, writing, “To abridge the right of contract for same-sex partners, then, is to deny not just gay coupledom, in the law’s eyes, but gay personhood … By stripping us of our bonds to each other, it strips us even of ownership of ourselves.”

Rauch is absolutely correct in the sense that the right to form contracts with others is an essential human liberty: Without the right to bind ourselves to others through contract, society as we know it does not exist.

A contract is what allows us as a society to mitigate our claims as a question of laws rather than force. It is what allows us to form a society based upon associations of consent rather than coercion. Yet this is the core principle under attack in Virginia —by attempting to place certain elements of contract as “off-limits” to certain members of society in an attempt to make marriage a more exclusive institution, lawmakers chip away at one of the most fundamental liberties we have — the right to freely make contracts with others.

This does not simply extend to gay couples seeking shared legal protections, however: Like any bad piece of legislation, this one has tentacles which manage to snake their way into all aspects of private life.

Consider now the case of private employers recognizing same-sex couples for purposes of insurance benefits. For example, in barring an “arrangement between persons purporting to bestow the privileges […] of marriage,” any private organization which offered its same-sex employees the same health and insurance benefits as it did to married couples would be in violation of the law.

Of course, this case is mostly moot — Virginia already bans companies from offering such benefits to unmarried couples as it stands.

It is perhaps ironic that conservatives are not so terribly vocal about a governmental intrusion into the practices of private businesses in this particular case.

It’s now time for opponents of gay marriage to put their money where their mouth is — if they truly favor treating homosexuals as citizens with equal rights, they more than anyone else, now need to be the ones raising their voices against such an unjust law, one which specifically and brutally disenfranchises gays of one of their most basic protections under the law.

This isn’t about “special rights” or redefining an enduring societal institution anymore. This time, it’s a question of one of our core human values.

Which side will you be on?