Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Deuce said:

The 1950s was ****ed up. Your childhood memories seem nicer because you were a child at the time. You weren't aware of how ****ed up things were because children don't know these things.

Click to expand...

Racial segregation, women seen as little more than pets, hundreds of aboveground nuclear detonations, yup it was a golden era for everybody.

Deuce said:

The 1950s was ****ed up. Your childhood memories seem nicer because you were a child at the time. You weren't aware of how ****ed up things were because children don't know these things.

Click to expand...

I do not think they were, but again that is a matter of opinion. Life was simpler in those days. I will not say easier, just simpler.

Perotista said:

I do not think they were, but again that is a matter of opinion. Life was simpler in those days. I will not say easier, just simpler.

Click to expand...

Yes, children have simpler lives.

blarg said:

how it a question individuals are forbidden to make a contract and receive rights based on gender where the contract and rights have nothing to do with gender

Click to expand...

It doesn't help that there are religious connections to marriage either. As I said earlier I think that same sex marriage will become a standard. My concern is that Judges with an ideological bent will use spurious reasoning on forcing adaptation by States taht are not now willing to accept them.

Shadow Serious said:

It doesn't help that there are religious connections to marriage either.
2.)As I said earlier I think that same sex marriage will become a standard.
3.)My concern is that Judges with an ideological bent will use spurious reasoning on forcing adaptation by States taht are not now willing to accept them.

Click to expand...

1.) thats meaningless, theres religious ties to lots for things. Religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage. Not saying you just saying in general anybody clinging to that is extremely misguided.
2.) i agree i give it 5 years max before equal rights for gays is national
3.) youll have to explain this more as i dont know what specifically your fear is

what ideological bend of a judge are you concerned about
what spurious reasoning are you concerned about
what will be "forced" on the states that you you are concerned about
what are the states now not willing to accept

blarg said:

the ideological grounds are we should go this way because its what give are citizens equal protection under the law

Click to expand...

The problem is that is an ideological idea there must be protected groups of people instead of actual equality under the law. The idea of equal protection under the law is both an idea under common law and the Constitution. The problem when we decide to think in groups of people instead of individual rights we somehow discover Rights that somehow suddenly apply when there is enough awareness or need in such situations as in same sex marriage. With to marriage specifically, people who married did marry for reasons which do not longer apply anymore like to bring different families into an alliance or for old age insurance by having childern or to develop a form of society among others.

and that it increases liberty and fairness and are defense from the whims of others with out doing nay one any harm.

Click to expand...

My main concern if protecting Liberty from actions by the State. At best the State is a protector of Liberty against actions by individuals or groups of people. It doesn't work so well when the State is the violator of Liberty. If the Courts are going to restrict the Powers of the State on limiting restrictions on marriage then I can only hope that is what they are doing and not just engaging in assigning special protections to groups of people.

the people who oppose gay marriage are more likely to bring up time often in an appeal to tradition

Click to expand...

This is true. And as a society we have to develop to a point where we can accept such even though we might be opposed on some religious level. I believe that within a decade we will arrive at such a point that all but the most reactionary will accept the existence though they will not support it.

so im still not sure what kind of abuse your worried about

Click to expand...

Bad Judaical rulings will make for bad case law in the future. A bad means to a good end now will eventually be a bad means to a bad end in the future.

blarg said:

see what I amen about bringing up time as if it was relevant coupled with an appeal to tradition

Click to expand...

The problem is that laws exist and are made in a particular point of time with unspoken assumptions and those assumptions might not even be thought of as assumptions such as marriage involving two people who have different genders.

Furthermore when it comes to Law the appeal to tradition is NOT a fallacy. If anything Law is tradition codified. If you want an appeal then I could just as well have and appeal to a new ideal,

Shadow Serious said:

It doesn't help that there are religious connections to marriage either. As I said earlier I think that same sex marriage will become a standard. My concern is that Judges with an ideological bent will use spurious reasoning on forcing adaptation by States taht are not now willing to accept them.

Click to expand...

Well, you can stop worrying. The reasoning is not spurious. It is well-grounded in constitutional law.

Shadow Serious said:

The problem is that laws exist and are made in a particular point of time with unspoken assumptions and those assumptions might not even be thought of as assumptions such as marriage involving two people who have different genders.

Furthermore when it comes to Law the appeal to tradition is NOT a fallacy. If anything Law is tradition codified. If you want an appeal then I could just as well have and appeal to a new ideal,

Click to expand...

Yes, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. "This is how we did it before" is not a reason in itself to continue doing it.

Deuce said:

Yes, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. "This is how we did it before" is not a reason in itself to continue doing it.

Click to expand...

correct even the last two judges to rule on this mentioned this, they mentioned how tradition is important but NOT when it trumps individual rights

both those judges made spectacular rulings and they were a breathe of fresh air

Deuce said:

Irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It is only irrelevant if one has an ideological axe to grind. A better argument would be that the definition and the inherent privileges of marriage have changed over time and that the proposed idea of gay marriage is not that alien given the changes have already occurred.

No you don't, because you called it an issue of sexual identity.

Click to expand...

Sorry I was not the one that introduced that I was responding to a comment on it.

You discussed it.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

A distinction of gender is still being made under the law.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out an error that equality does not mean that people are identical. And I will expand on that statement saying that different individuals of a defined group of people are not identical either though they are equal.

Equal protection on the basis of gender is not a point of contention.

Click to expand...

When it comes to marriage and where people think of marriage as a covenant with God yes it does if you have it between two members of the same gender. This is all the more reason why it might be a good idea to limit the State as just a record bearer instead of the one that makes such official. This idea will might eventually occur sometime at the end of this century at the earliest.

What do you mean "wrong equipment" and "wrong sort?"

Click to expand...

I am adding a bit of humor into what is becoming a heated argument. The "wrong equipment" is of course the piping that people have to excrete urea. The "wrong sort" has to do with the strange other people who live on the wrong side of the tracks or those who crack the wrong end of a boiled egg to eat it.

I see no reason to wait until people are comfortable with civil rights.

Click to expand...

The question is whether or not marriage between same sex couples IS a civil right. I think that "your" side is gong to win the argument.

Marriage with respect to the state is separated from the religious underpinnings.

Click to expand...

That is not obvious. In the US marriage IS still considered a very religious thing.

The government doesn't care whether or not you got married in a church or a 7-11.

Click to expand...

The problem is not what the government "establishment" cares about but what certain religious people are concerned about when the concept of same sex marriage is brought to the fore. What concerns me is that the Courts must make a ruling based on an appropriate legal metaphysical basis and not one based on a political contemporary ideology.

Actions are more important than appearances.

Click to expand...

Appropriate actions must not appear to be wrongful actions.

Reality is more important than opinion.

Click to expand...

Opinion must be informed thru "reality" and thus be informed opinion.

People are being discriminated against and it needs to stop.

Click to expand...

We are talking about a new idea and one that in my opinion will be adopted eventually. Don't be too impatient. Enjoy the journey even though the destination is important.

roguenuke said:

Then you are simply in denial of the obvious. The state has to be able to justify restrictions in its laws that show people being treated differently, unequal. That is the EPC of the 14th, and it has been extended to laws when it comes to marriage and it has included all sorts of characteristics used to determine restrictions, many times with those things being struck down (Turner v Safley, Zablocki v Redhail, and Loving v VA). Those are all cases where state marriage restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional because the state was unable to show how those restrictions actually further any state interest. Currently, they cannot show how restricting marriage based on sex/gender furthers any legitimate state interest.

Click to expand...

As long as the rulings do not involve extra-constitutional additions in the decision I would be okay with with a similar verdict.

roguenuke said:

The part of marriage we are discussing is contract law.

Click to expand...

We are? Does everyone know this?

Same sex couples can already have the metaphysical/personal marriage.

Click to expand...

As long as it is agreed to that marriage is more than a sort of contract that is desirable for personal and social reasons I'm O.K.

The contract is what is being denied to them.

Click to expand...

And to think that this was just discovered in the past decade or so and is causing such contention.

AGENT J said:

1.) thats meaningless, theres religious ties to lots for things. Religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage. Not saying you just saying in general anybody clinging to that is extremely misguided.
2.) i agree i give it 5 years max before equal rights for gays is national
3.) youll have to explain this more as i dont know what specifically your fear is

what ideological bend of a judge are you concerned about
what spurious reasoning are you concerned about
what will be "forced" on the states that you you are concerned about
what are the states now not willing to accept

Click to expand...

1. Sorry it is not meaningless. It may be a point of no reasonable concern but is not meaningless.

2. It can happen in 5 but I think that the Supreme Court will want to make a ruling sending back to the States a challenge to find a legitimate State interest to restrict marriage to two people of different gender. If this is not handled properly an Article V Convention could be called just for this issue which can upset a city's worth of apple carts when it does convene.

3. A badly worded Judaical ruling is worse than a badly worded law. I worry of unattended consequences of such a badly worded ruling.

One thing that is actually really bothering me about a lot of these SSM cases is that they are holding that SSM bans don't meet the rational basis test. They are NOT holding that SSM is subject to strict scrutiny the way that interracial marriage is under Loving v Virginia. It's a way of hedging their bets and it's preventing any of these decisions from having national implications. The case that truly secures equality for sexual orientations will have to extend greater constitutional protection than rational basis. These cases are obviously a step in the right direction, but some judge is going to have to address the level of constitutional scrutiny that SSM should have before this will be settled.

Shadow Serious said:

1. Sorry it is not meaningless. It may be a point of no reasonable concern but is not meaningless.

2. It can happen in 5 but I think that the Supreme Court will want to make a ruling sending back to the States a challenge to find a legitimate State interest to restrict marriage to two people of different gender. If this is not handled properly an Article V Convention could be called just for this issue which can upset a city's worth of apple carts when it does convene.

3. A badly worded Judaical ruling is worse than a badly worded law. I worry of unattended consequences of such a badly worded ruling.

Click to expand...

1.) no its meaningless to the discussion of legal marriage. It has no merit in the discussion or impact. Religion marriage is a separate thing. Its meaningless
2.) i doubt that ever happens, SCOUTS may punt but they will never send it back to the states and allow the states to violate rights. The state should have ZERO say on this particular matter and within 5 years SCOUTS will fix this. WIth all the SSC rulings and the recent federal court rulings, it will probably happen in 2-3 actually.

3.) this answers nothing its a dodge. Ill ask again

what ideological bend of a judge are you concerned about
what spurious reasoning are you concerned about
what will be "forced" on the states that you you are concerned about
what are the states now not willing to accept

As more and more states become rational and declare SSM legal Scotus will eventually have to make a ruling to unite all of these decisions not to state constitutions but the US Constitution. It will then be written in stone. Bravo Virginia.

Deuce said:

Yes, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. "This is how we did it before" is not a reason in itself to continue doing it.

Click to expand...

And if I were so inclined that you are making an appeal, I would say you are making an appeal to novelty.

AGENT J said:

1.) no its meaningless to the discussion of legal marriage. It has no merit in the discussion or impact. Religion marriage is a separate thing. Its meaningless
2.) i doubt that ever happens, SCOUTS may punt but they will never send it back to the states and allow the states to violate rights. The state should have ZERO say on this particular matter and within 5 years SCOUTS will fix this. WIth all the SSC rulings and the recent federal court rulings, it will probably happen in 2-3 actually.

3.) this answers nothing its a dodge. Ill ask again

what ideological bend of a judge are you concerned about
what spurious reasoning are you concerned about
what will be "forced" on the states that you you are concerned about
what are the states now not willing to accept

Click to expand...

1. The problem is that marriage has religious elements in general though not in a specific case. Perhaps the legal marriage should not have such but I think that is the underlying assumption. Only civil marriages conducted before jurist or justice of the peace have no religious element. Only civil marriages themselves would religion be considered meaningless.

2. No I am saying that they will require that the States have a better reason to forbid same sex marriage than that is what the definition of marriage is.

3. It doesn't matter what is the ideological bent having one and letting that get in the way of making a well written decision is bad.

What I think is spurious is extra-constitutional reasonings to make such decisions.

That which is forced on States was just a dependent clause to clarify what the dominant clause was talking about.

That which the States are not willing to accept is just what is occurring in other States.

Shadow Serious said:

1. The problem is that marriage has religious elements in general though not in a specific case. Perhaps the legal marriage should not have such but I think that is the underlying assumption. Only civil marriages conducted before jurist or justice of the peace have no religious element. Only civil marriages themselves would religion be considered meaningless.

2. No I am saying that they will require that the States have a better reason to forbid same sex marriage than that is what the definition of marriage is.

3. It doesn't matter what is the ideological bent having one and letting that get in the way of making a well written decision is bad.

4.)What I think is spurious is extra-constitutional reasonings to make such decisions.

5.) That which is forced on States was just a dependent clause to clarify what the dominant clause was talking about.

6.) That which the States are not willing to accept is just what is occurring in other States.

Click to expand...

1.) thats not a problem its made up its 100% meaningless and bringing up religion in a discussion of legal marriage is a complete failed strawman.

Legal marriage factually has nothing to do with religion. this fact will never change

2.) so like i said it wont be up to the states since that would violate rights

3.) still dodging the questions and not committing. This thread as a topic and its equal rights for gays so apply your concerns to that and give us real examples instead of dodges and meaningless generalizations.

4.) what is " extra-constitutional reasoning" and whats an example of that pertaining to equal rights for gays
5.) see 4 what specifically would be forced on the states that applies to equal rights for gays
6.) see 5 and 4

please provide REAL answers

Shadow Serious said:

It doesn't help that there are religious connections to marriage either. As I said earlier I think that same sex marriage will become a standard. My concern is that Judges with an ideological bent will use spurious reasoning on forcing adaptation by States taht are not now willing to accept them.

Click to expand...

their are no legal religious connections to marriage In this nation though

and its the moves to ban same sex marriage that have the problem with spurious reasoning

that combined with the discrimination and lack of equal protection under the law justifies forcing those states to allow them

they can grumble about it all they like after

Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?

Texashonor said:

Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?

Click to expand...

Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
•Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
•Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
•Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
•Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
•Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
•Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

filing single
10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus
15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus
33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.

filing married
10% on taxable income from $0 to $18,150, plus
15% on taxable income over $18,150 to $73,800, plus
25% on taxable income over $73,800 to $148,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $148,850 to $226,850, plus
33% on taxable income over $226,850 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $457,600, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $457,600.

in the tax system you get penalized for being married 2 single people could file 406,749 x 2 people = $813,498 before they reached the top tax bracket where as it is only $457,600 when you file together so there is a disadvantage. The numbers at the bottom of the tax bracket are simply multiplied. 9,075 x 2 = $18,150. So the bottom of the tax bracket doesn't benefit at all and at the top of the tax bracket are at a disadvantage. We can argue any one point but this one is an obvious one chose 1 of your bullets and ill tell you why it isn't a benefit.

Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

can start their I guess