Page 18 of 45 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 444

Thread: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

  1. #171
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Here's something I haven't found:

    Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
    I am not sure any one has yet. The search for some one with standing will be interesting. However, there are a number of similar cases so one will be heard.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #172
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    edit: and a quick wiki check says that the 9th circuit also said that in a later case, based on SCOTUS applying heightened scrutiny in Windsor.
    As a note, Redress...I think this was the case that was playing in my head regarding lower courts deeming Homosexuality falling under Heighted Scrutiny despite the SCOTUS never directly asserting that. I knew I wasn't completely crazy :P

  3. #173
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Here's something I haven't found:

    Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
    Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

    Ultimately, this was the Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The citizens who voted that amendment into law, REGARDLESS of your feeling for it, deserve to at LEAST have a say in court. So while the Attorney General is not defending it, it has been allowed for other entities within Virginia to put forth a defense.

    While the Attorney General may not be interested in defending the laws of Virginia, he does not singularly get to make a call as to what laws the people of the state wish to have defended in court. There have been other's that have been found by the court to have standing, and as such able to take over as defense for the case.

  4. #174
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

    Ultimately, this was the Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The citizens who voted that amendment into law, REGARDLESS of your feeling for it, deserve to at LEAST have a say in court. So while the Attorney General is not defending it, it has been allowed for other entities within Virginia to put forth a defense.

    While the Attorney General may not be interested in defending the laws of Virginia, he does not singularly get to make a call as to what laws the people of the state wish to have defended in court. There have been other's that have been found by the court to have standing, and as such able to take over as defense for the case.
    But isn't that similar to what happened with Hollingsworth?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #175
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    One of these many court cases will be the case that finally gets through to SCOTUS and is used to overturn same-sex marriage bans nationwide. I can't decide which would be more delicious: Utah or Virginia.

    Utah has the mormon effect and all the money they've hurled into the deal, even shoving their efforts into other states. Virginia has the historical connotations with Loving v. Virginia.
    I'm hoping for Utah, just to show them what they get for spending MILLIONS to deny equal rights to other citizens.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  6. #176
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    But isn't that similar to what happened with Hollingsworth?
    Yep, and the USSC found that they didn't have standing.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  7. #177
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    Yep, and the USSC found that they didn't have standing.
    That is what I thought.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #178
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

    Ultimately, this was the Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The citizens who voted that amendment into law, REGARDLESS of your feeling for it, deserve to at LEAST have a say in court. So while the Attorney General is not defending it, it has been allowed for other entities within Virginia to put forth a defense.

    While the Attorney General may not be interested in defending the laws of Virginia, he does not singularly get to make a call as to what laws the people of the state wish to have defended in court. There have been other's that have been found by the court to have standing, and as such able to take over as defense for the case.
    Redress beat me to it, but SCOTUS ruled that "others" don't necessarily have standing to do that. The "pro family" groups, at least, were ruled to not have a dog in that fight, therefore no grounds to appeal. (a deceptively important precedent: SCOTUS basically declared heterosexuals are in no way harmed by same-sex marriage)

    Another poster said it was the county clerks who had to give out marriage certificates who were appealing. They, at least, have a somewhat better grounds to appeal because this case does affect them kind of. I think it's pretty frigging shaky grounds, though, and will make for a really, really weak case right from the start. But, hey, the social conservative types are getting pretty desperate at this point.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #179
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The courts ate not defining marriage. That is a common misunderstanding. The courts are saying that certain bans on marriage are not legal under the constitution. That is the proper role of the courts.
    States establish the definition of marriage when the Courts decide that the definition the State uses is "Un-Constitutional" then yes they do make a definition of marriage. Previously we did have States who prohibited mixed race marriages and they were Unconstitutioal (no quote marks) since the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection with respect to race so in that instance the States are prohibited to transgress there. There is no explicit requirement with respect to sexual idenity. I'm sorry this is somthing that the culture will have to deal with and it will probably take a couple of generations in some States to resolve.


    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    More because it is irrelevant and impossible to implement.
    I was just responding to your comment.

    .

    True but kinda pointless to say. No one is mistakenly referring to bisexual or asexual marriage.
    Yes, but there is no need to test whether is a person has a sexual slant for marriage.


    It is a state issue. Just like all state issues, the individual states can regulate them as they choose within the boundary of the constitution. What the courts are ruling on is the constitutionality of SSM bans.
    Unless there is a specific prohibition in the Constitution the States can make any requirement for marriage even things like income if they chose. I would not favor any restriction beyond prohibiting marriage between second dgree or closer, multiple partners, 17 or older, and be mentally competent. The fact that both partners must consent is implied.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) yeah just like blacks could drink out of fountains in all states too, sorry thats thats a intellectually dishonest and failed argument

    2.) sorry equal and civil rights arent state issues
    The prohibitions on mixed race marriages was Un-Constitutional since the Constitution requires equal protection with regard to race. The same with respect to the Jim Crow laws.



    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Once again you're making the argument that rights should be voted on, and not given equally. We happen to live in a country that is supposed to respect the rights of even the minorities, and even the 95% can't take the rights away from the 5%.
    The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.


    I've asked you this before and you went out of your way to ignore it, most likely because it is extremely uncomfortable to your position. If 51% of the country wanted to remove rights from African Americans, would you support it because it's democracy? Or do you believe that maybe all US citizens should be treated equally under the law?
    The Constitution of the United States require that equal protection under the law with respect to race. It would Un-Cnstitutional and I would be against it snce I do believe it violates the fundamental Rights of those who were targeted.

    A majority does not have the right to vote away rights of a minority. I don't know what kind of society you thought you were living in.
    That is correct but the question is whether the Courts can argue that it is Un-Constitutional to do so. My view is it cannot be argued under the Constitution that gay marriage is a Right that supersedes the Power of the States to decide what is allowable under the law the State's Legislature decides at a given time.



    I find it curious that you claim to be a libertarian yet believe that states should vote on who gets rights and who doesn't. Most libertarians I know, by definition, support absolute rights even for the minorities.
    States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

    With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  10. #180
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Marriage also use to be about property. Man getting married to a woman who was nothing more than property.
    This was somewhat less in the United States which is where the issue is about.

    He even paid for for in the form of a dowery.
    The dowery was for the wife in case of the husband died or became destitute that she would still have something to live off of.

    He could even do whatever he wanted with her.
    Not quite anything murder is murder.

    And claim to her fathers lands if she happened to be an only child
    .

    As long as her farther did not disown her. Even if not the husband would only have control of the property at worst.

    While she got nothing.
    She technically got title not that matters much.

    It was also forbidden between two differing races.
    Yes even after that would have been Constitutionally prohibited.


    IE Only between whites or blacks but never whites and blacks.
    I think members of the various tribes were an exception.



    1: Why should it concern you? How do two males or two females getting married affect you? Whether they are neighbors or a couple that live on the other side of the continent.
    It doesn't concern me and I do not care. At this time there is no Constitutional requirement that States legislate gay marriage.



    2: I'm quite sure someone said the same thing when the courts were trying to "expand" marriage into meaning whites and blacks can marry each other.
    Given the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection under the law with respect to race they were wrong.


    3: Why wouldn't it be under the equal protection clause? Marriage IS a right according to many SCOTUS judges...even before it was even acceptable for gays to be out of the closet, much less vying for marriage equality. If you are going to allow two people to be married then what difference does their gender make? Marriage is not about status anymore. Its not about having kids otherwise all those sterile couples would not be allowed to marry....much less the ones that can have kids but don't want them. Marriage now a days is about nothing more than love, tax breaks, and being able to have a say in the medical decisions of a loved one and inheritance rights. What valid reason does the State have to deny marriage between two men or two women?
    The concept of gay marriage is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too fast on the issue. This is something the general culture is going have to deal with. I think that eventually most States will recognize it.



    It may not have been your point. But it is the logical conclusion to what you said. If you truely believe that the courts striking down this law is a legislative step and that the courts should not be taking legislative actions then you have to logically apply that to EVERTHING. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical, biased, and prejudicial.
    The Courts should strike down laws that are in conflict with the Constitution and not strike down laws that they do not like. I should point out that I fear the Courts striking down Rights that they do not like is just as likely and they have done so in the past.



    As well you should. Everyone should. But striking down a law banning same sex marriage is not over riding anyones rights. It takes nothing from you or anyone else. It instead gives rights. Indeed when a court strikes down ANY law that is giving freedom to the people. Its when they uphold laws that they start to over ride our Rights. Of course you may want to say that by them striking down this law...which people voted on...is taking away peoples Right to vote. Well, you would be wrong in that assessment. For the simple fact that people cannot vote away other peoples Rights. Was it taking away peoples Right to vote when the ruling for Loving vs Virginia came in? The people voted on the law that was struck down in that ruling also. The answer of course is No. If it wasn't then...well....its not now.
    Again the problem is that the Courts read into the Constitution Rights that are not explicitly stated and negate the Power of a State by doing so they also decide to negate Rights of individuals such as to property and seizing it to give to competitor that would make more taxes for government is wrong.

    I do not have an issue with gay marriage but I do not want the Courts being involved at this point since once this is done in this manner it will allow multiple marriage (and possibly others) which we are not any way ready for.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

Page 18 of 45 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •