• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

No important state interest is served by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, therefore the laws that do so are unconstitutional.

Since you specifically say "important"...

Are you suggesting your reading of it is based on gender discrimination?

Or are you asserting that sexual orientation falls within middle teir scrutiny despite no case law supporting that at at the highest level?

Or were you just using a word that sounded good and were not quoting the actual notions of levels of state interesting as they related to the EPC?
 
1) Love is a stupid reasoning to determine the law

2) Equal Rights per the rule of law. Pedophiles, or children (take your pick which angle you want to come at this one), do not fall under middle or strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. As such, they're subject to rational basis scrutiny. I believe the discrimination against either group can be shown to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest (the least of which, children not being able to enter into binding contracts)

The same can not be said, imho, for gender discrimination where a man can do something a woman can't do and vise versa. I can't see where that discrimination is substantially related to serving an important state interest. As such, I believe our current marriage laws unconstitutional when it comes to SSM.

We have equal rights under the law, but allow for discrimination, in multiple ways. Keeping on the children theme, curfew laws are an example of this. Age to buy alcohol or cigerettes. Age to be drafted into the military. Etc



Won't speak for others, but my objection to it when discussing these matters has nothing to do with my personal beliefs that pedophilia is wrong and everything to do with the Law and the constitution.

Your sarcasm would be of more use if it was actually making a point

yet these people will be making the same case. i forget the name of the organization. i agree it is disgusting, and i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.

actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear. how can you tell two people that love each other they can't marry. they are wanting to define marriage as anyone that loves another person.
 
actually it is and there are already lawsuits being generated out there that are waiting to see how this thing blows up.

polygamists are lining up along with other non-traditional marriage arrangements to press the same argument and there is nothing you can do to argue against it.
so it isn't a slippery slope as much as it is waiting in the wing sort of speak.
You're in favor of heterosexual marriage, therefore you must allow heterosexual child marriage!

See, it is a fallacy. The arguments for same-sex marriage do not apply to pedophilia or bestiality. Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts, and a rational state interest is served by keeping it that way.

once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.
Love isn't relevant to this discussion.

we are not talking race, we are not talking gender.
we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.
Marriage is a right, as recognized by the courts. Marriage is not a "lifestyle choice." And defining marriage as between a man and a women is a gender-based classification.

you can't say that gay people and heterosexuals can marry but polygamist or any other alternate lifestyle can't. if you do then you are being a bigot and whatever other name you call people. your own view then fails to it's own hypocrisy.
You can't say heterosexuals can marry but polygamists can't, or you're a bigot. Right? You can't say interracial marriage is fine but bestiality isn't. Right?

if you don't think that this won't be pressed in court for the same reasons think again. then we will see where you really stand on the matter.
the fact that you are speaking out against it pretty much sums it up.
Just because it's pressed in court doesn't mean it will be successful. "You allowed interracial marriage, therefore you must allow me to marry a chair!" Go ahead and try that argument if you think it will work.
 
polygamists are lining up along with other non-traditional marriage arrangements to press the same argument and there is nothing you can do to argue against it.

You shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do...especially when you're so amazingly wrong about it.

First, there's no argument that can be made regarding polygamy that qualifies as an already established middle or higher tier of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. So already, the level of difficulty on the part of the state to justify it's discrimination is lower than it would possibly be for Same Sex Marriage on the basis of gender.

Second, even when it comes to the issue of sexual orientation, there is FAR more case law pushing sexual orientation closer to a middle tier level of scrutiny then there is for pushing polygamists that direction.

Third, there are additional factors regarding polygamy that legitimately can impact the discussion that aren't present under the notion of Same Sex Marriage, instantly making it more difficult to compare the two as exact analogs. By having multiple people signing into a marriage contract you open up entirely new pitfalls into the law. Changing most marriage laws from a man and a woman to two people requires little but verbage change. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different when you start allowing people to get married to multiple people.

Tax law, inheretance, power of attorny, property rights, divorce law, child custody, etc all would not simply need a verbage change but a complete rewrite to account for this. This is an additional burdern onto the government that absolutely can be taken into account and is absolutely not present in the same sex marriage debate.

So one would need to argue for a less crucial state interest, and need show a lesser degree of importance to that interest in regards to the dsicrimination, when it comes to polygamy over same sex marriage. It wouldn't be hard at all to argue for one and not the other unless someone was arguing from a non-sensical and laughable emotionally laden point like "Everyone should marry who they love!".

For those that actually speak about things from the notion of constitutionality and the law...not from a stance of morality or emotions or religion...it's not difficult in the least to argue for one of those and against another.

once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.

True, but most SSM people don't use "people that love each other" as the foundation of their argument.

we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.

One, we absolutely COULD be talking about Gender

Two, there's far more research and evidence towards sexual orientation not being a "lifestyle choice" then there is towards polygamy regardless of your PERSONAL opinion on the matter.
 
Since you specifically say "important"...

Are you suggesting your reading of it is based on gender discrimination?

Or are you asserting that sexual orientation falls within middle teir scrutiny despite no case law supporting that at at the highest level?

Or were you just using a word that sounded good and were not quoting the actual notions of levels of state interesting as they related to the EPC?

I think same-sex marriage bans fall under at least intermediate scrutiny because they are defining marriage as between a man and a woman - a gender-based distinction. While the intent is clearly to discriminate against homosexuals, the method chosen for that discrimination is through the use of gender-based distinctions. Some recent cases seem to hint at heightened scrutiny, but don't really state it outright.

edit: Some argue for strict scrutiny on the grounds that marriage has been called a "fundamental" right by SCOTUS, but I'm not sure I really buy that.

I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue. But then again, lots of things are constitutional until they aren't. While this type has traditionally been applied to treating women differently than men, I don't see any reason it shouldn't apply to any gender-based distinction.

Quite frankly I don't think same-sex marriage bans even meet a rational basis.
 
Last edited:
yet these people will be making the same case.

Let them. If they make the "Same" case they'll fail miserably, because there are aspects of the Same Sex Marriage case that isn't inherent WHAT SO EVER in the under-age marriage camp...and vise versa...that make each thing relatively unique. If they stupidly want to use the "same" case to make their argument then they'll fail.

i forget the name of the organization.

Probably NAMBLA

i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.

And they're free to argue for it. Hell, if they feel strongly they should argue for it. That's our system. But I don't think they'll succeed, because the case law is weighed against them far more than it is for same sex marriage. We have case after case of judicial rulings that speak to the constitutionality of discriminating on the basis of age.

actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear.

Then you have massively selective hearing. Just looking at this thread alone I'm seeing a multitude of arguments more than I'm seeing "Two people who love each other should be able to get married" as the primary justification. If that's the number 1 you hear, it's because you tune out any others.
 
I think same-sex marriage bans fall under at least intermediate scrutiny because they are defining marriage as between a man and a woman - a gender-based distinction. While the intent is clearly to discriminate against homosexuals, the method chosen for that discrimination is through the use of gender-based distinctions. Some recent cases seem to hint at heightened scrutiny, but don't really state it outright.

Gotcha. That's my take on it as well

I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue.

Oh, I know that as well...but SCOTUS has written that gender discrimination is of a middle teir.

My comments regarding SCOTUS not ruling yet was on whether or not sexual orientation would be "middle teir".

I think it's reasoanble to go "SCOTUS has ruled in the past that gender discrimination is middle teir....I can make an argument this is gender discrimination....thus it falls under middle teir".

I think it's a lot more questionable to go "SCOTUS has never ruled that sexual orientation is middle teir...but I think it is...and I think this is sexual orientation discrimination...thus it falls under middle teir."

I was trying to figure out which of those two thought processes you were going with. It appears its the first one. Which I particularly agree with, and explains why you used "important".

So thanks for clarifying :)
 
One, the pedophile argument is just weak. The government can, and should, discriminate against people. There's a reason there's levels of the Equal Protectoin Clause with regards to the court of law, and the level of impact to the states interest that the discrimination provides. There's a state interest to view minors as unable to enter into contracts, therefore there's a state interest in disallowing them to become married.

Two, the Virginia Constitution is kind of irrelevant to this whole thing if my understanding is correct. The law in question was an amendment TO THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION. In terms of the "constitutionality" in regards to Virginia's Constitution, the marriage law was just as inherently "constitutional" as the notion that "all men are by nature equally free". The issue was that the judge believed it did not function within the Constitution of the United States.

If, through the proper constitutionally designated method, passed an amendment that proclaimed that "People may no longer use the word "Boob", then that would be constitutional. Would it theoritically be at odds with the first amendments freedom of speech? Yes. However, there is no superiority over one amendment or the other and both are "constitutional"...thus basically suggesting you have the freedom of speech except you can't say boob. In a similar way, referencing other things Virginia's Constitution says as a counter to an amendment to Virginia's constitution is hollow.

Third, the reason I say that the lower court cases are somewhat useless is because one, ultimately SCOTUS is going to have a say and it's the only one that matters, and two, many are basing it off a principle that has not been established at the SCOTUS level yet...that sexual orientation is greater than rational basis scrutiny, more akin with middle teir (like gender) or strict (like race).

I've been saying for multiple years now, the thing I'm going to find most interesting when this finally reaches SCOTUS is to see if they rule based on discrimination based on sexual orientation and provide definite precedent bumping sexual orientation into a higher tier of the EPC OR if they rule based on gender discrimination.

Oh, and since apparently some posters ignorantly and ridiculous believe that they can read minds and enjoy making retarded and foolish statements of what "ALL" people think (of course, they then backtrack a few sentences later from the ridiclous assertion...but don't bother to erase it in the first place), I've also long been one saying since this issue started actually being discussed that our marriage laws are unconstitutional on the basis of gender discrimination.

Actual most, if not all, of these cases rely on rational basis, not any heightened scrutiny.
 
Read the virginia constitution. Literally the first thing.

She is a Federal judge ruling on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Exactly where does the Virginia Constitution have anything to do with her statement?

I'm just surprised she didn't also say that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is also in the Constitution!
 
Is this yet another one of those threads that uber-cons confuse "natural" and "normal"? If so, I really don't wanna read.
 
Third, the reason I say that the lower court cases are somewhat useless is because one, ultimately SCOTUS is going to have a say and it's the only one that matters, and two, many are basing it off a principle that has not been established at the SCOTUS level yet...that sexual orientation is greater than rational basis scrutiny, more akin with middle teir (like gender) or strict (like race).

This is where you go wrong. Judges have rules, and likely will continue to rule, that SSM bans fail even under Rational Basis Review. While the consensus among the judges ruling so far seems the be that Intermediate Scrutiny would apply since SSM is ultimately a question of gender, I know of no ruling yet that has stated that bans on SSM would pass Rational basis Review, and several have specifically said it would not. The judges who have ruled such have stated that the SSM bans are arbitrary, not based on a rational basis.
 
Oh why do you bigots want to stand in the way of LOVE and EQUAL RIGHTS? How un-American. Just because your personal moral beliefs are against pedophilia, doesn't mean you have a right to force everyone else to adhere to your rules. Keep your religion out of other people's bedrooms. Why are you such a xenophobe?

(Sarcasm, in case the degenerate state of our culture makes it unclear)

There is no law against pedophilia. There are laws against having sex with children since they cannot give informed consent. You might want to learn about the laws of this country, and also about logical fallacies and how to avoid making them.
 
and another one
and another one
and another one bites the dust

even thought this one was stayed (which is awesome in itself because it will go to SCOTUS) the two court cases by FEDERAL judge have BIG TIME verbiage in them. not just saying equality or equal rights or unfair discrimination but UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VIOLATES THE 14th AMENDMENT

HUGE steps
this is awesome equal rights is coming and coming soon!!!!!

:usflag2::2party:

link
Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | NBC4 Washington

back-up links:
Judge: Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - ABC News
Virginia judge strikes down gay marriage ban
Judge rules VA gay marriage ban unconstitutional - NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News
Federal judge declares Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional | Fox News

Are you at all worried that this might accelerate a battle at the Supreme Court before the Court is ready to give such a sweeping ruling? In that event you'd calcify existing SSM bans forcing you to fight them one by one.
 
You're in favor of heterosexual marriage, therefore you must allow heterosexual child marriage!

See, it is a fallacy. The arguments for same-sex marriage do not apply to pedophilia or bestiality. Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts, and a rational state interest is served by keeping it that way.

your above is a strawman.
a clear distortion of the argument.

if you support gay marriage but not polygamy then you are being just as a bigot as people that think marriage is between 1 man and 1 women.
which is the next step and the next argument in courts.

they are going to use the same arguments as gay couples are using.

i will leave the whole nambla thing out of it since that will fail no matter what. polygamists on the other hand have an argument to make and it is just as strong as gays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing most marriage laws from a man and a woman to two people requires little but verbage change. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different when you start allowing people to get married to multiple people.

Tax law, inheretance, power of attorny, property rights, divorce law, child custody, etc all would not simply need a verbage change but a complete rewrite to account for this. This is an additional burdern onto the government that absolutely can be taken into account and is absolutely not present in the same sex marriage debate.
zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes. gay couples have kids. who is the father or mother of the child and who is the one that supplies the child support etc...
all of these are causing a lot of issues. who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.
 
Red and Wolf. Thanks for that info. I'm still interested to see what SCOTUS rules on it, as ultimately they're the ones that are going to truly matter. That notion doesn't really change my feeling that ultimately I don't care too much about the various results of these lower court decisions becuase they're basically secondary to the only one that will have any meaningful impact.
 
your above is a strawman.
a clear distortion of the argument.

if you support gay marriage but not polygamy then you are being just as a bigot as people that think marriage is between 1 man and 1 women.
which is the next step and the next argument in courts.

they are going to use the same arguments as gay couples are using.

i will leave the whole nambla thing out of it since that will fail no matter what. polygamists on the other hand have an argument to make and it is just as strong as gays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes. gay couples have kids. who is the father or mother of the child and who is the one that supplies the child support etc...
all of these are causing a lot of issues. who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.

Both parents are parents.
The one that pays alimony is the higher wage earner.

Just like in heterosexual marriages.
No laws need to be changed.
 
zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes.

Sure, it causes changes. However, I specifically spoke to changes of LAW. Let's see what you reference

who is the father or mother of the child

Not really an issue of the Law but of definition within ones own family.

and who is the one that supplies the child support etc

To my understanding, this is not something currently under the law that is determined singularly by "Whose the mother and whose the father". Both women and men can potentially have to pay child support depending on where custody lies. Not seeing a significant change or rework in the law here.

who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.

Again, under the current rules both the wife or the husband could end up having to pay alimony. As such, it'd still remain...either spouse could end up having to pay alimony. Are you under a misconception that only "husbands" pay it?

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.

Laws will have to be changed, but not to any significant impact and largely in superficial matters.

Take the Tax Law for example. The only significant change is allowing for two spouses rather than specifically husband/wife if it's written into law. Under a polygamous marriage though, an entire new subsection of laws would need to be written. Why's that you ask?

Person A marries Person B. Person B marries person C. Person A is not marrie to person C, however Person B is sharing income with both person A and person B. What income goes to which tax returns? Can Person C claim a child of Person A and Person B as a dependent since it's technically the chlid of the person they're married to? And I can go on and on.

How about spousal privledge with medical conditions. Person B in the above situation is in the hospital, incapacitated. Which spouse, A or C, has the right to make medical decisions?

The addition of additional individuals into the marriage contract creates a whole host of new issues and situations that are ENTIRELY non-existant in the two person dychotomy and must be account for. Where as with same sex marriage, the primary thing that has to be accounted for is simply VERBAGE.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes. gay couples have kids. who is the father or mother of the child and who is the one that supplies the child support etc...
all of these are causing a lot of issues. who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.

I suspect that with great agony eventually the biological Mom or Dad will have preference in family court, however I do see a situation developing where it will be successfully argued that one of the non-bio parents will be the psychological parent of the child, and there's already been some precedent to back that up, juts not in a gay coupling case. In terms of the court there is no material difference between a psychological parent and that of a biological one. The courts are already moving in this direction, BUT oh boy I see a big USSC case on this issue looming. Secondly, child support is easy to figure out. They take both parents incomes, and depending on the number of children a percentage is decided, usually 25% for one kid 27% for two etc.. Then they pro rate the parent who does not have physical custody and that will be their payment each month out their gross pay, tax free to the other parent. Pretty sweet deal eh? Problem is, with two equally qualified parents, there will have to be shared physical custody, and that again will bring legal challenges to the courts, I guarantee it. Thirdly, maintenance is also an easy calculation, the working partner pays the non working partner usually for a period that is at least equal to how many years they have been married. Or, you give the house and alimony goes away. :)


Tim-
 
Red and Wolf. Thanks for that info. I'm still interested to see what SCOTUS rules on it, as ultimately they're the ones that are going to truly matter. That notion doesn't really change my feeling that ultimately I don't care too much about the various results of these lower court decisions becuase they're basically secondary to the only one that will have any meaningful impact.

If I had to guess, I suspect, at least in the short run, SCOTUS will punt. Simply not accepting any of these cases, leaving intact the lower court rulings and the ability of the court to revisit it at another time. What I think we learned with Windsor and Hollingsworth is that SCOTUS did not really want to tackle the meat of the issue beyond reaffirming that the federal government has to recognize marriages performed by states(a states rights issue more than an SSM one).
 
If I had to guess, I suspect, at least in the short run, SCOTUS will punt. Simply not accepting any of these cases, leaving intact the lower court rulings and the ability of the court to revisit it at another time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the SCOTUS put stays on actions in Utah (and now Virginia) where the laws were over turned, thus disallowing them from actively ALLOWING same sex marriages?

If my understanding of that is correct, I can't see SCOTUS punting. To me that says they very much plan to take up this issue and rather than having lower courts create a jumbled mess of situations as people try to fight the change/enforce the change they are simply saying "Stay with the status quo until we deal with this".

I don't see how they could do that, and then just sit on it and not take action.

Unless my understanding of the stays in places like Utah are off base, I have to imagine within the next year the SCOTUS will come down with a ruling on one of these cases that either clearly asserts that 1) same sex marriage is constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can't deem otherwise OR 2) Same sex marriage is not constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can deme otherwise. I don't really see a third way to really go there.

What I think we learned with Windsor and Hollingsworth is that SCOTUS did not really want to tackle the meat of the issue beyond reaffirming that the federal government has to recognize marriages performed by states(a states rights issue more than an SSM one).

And I agere there to a point. The problem is that both sides are grabbing Windsor and using it as a means of suggesting that the SCOTUS either are saying state laws ARE unconstitutional or saying that they aren't. I think they tried to go for a middle way (The federal government has to recognize it, but states can determine their own) and both sides basically said "NO DICE!" and the only real resolution is an either/or decision.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the SCOTUS put stays on actions in Utah (and now Virginia) where the laws were over turned, thus disallowing them from actively ALLOWING same sex marriages?

If my understanding of that is correct, I can't see SCOTUS punting. To me that says they very much plan to take up this issue and rather than having lower courts create a jumbled mess of situations as people try to fight the change/enforce the change they are simply saying "Stay with the status quo until we deal with this".


I don't see how they could do that, and then just sit on it and not take action.

Unless my understanding of the stays in places like Utah are off base, I have to imagine within the next year the SCOTUS will come down with a ruling on one of these cases that either clearly asserts that 1) same sex marriage is constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can't deem otherwise OR 2) Same sex marriage is not constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can deme otherwise. I don't really see a third way to really go there.

The judge herself who made the ruling in Virginia put the stay in place until the appeals court rules(cite: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | NBC4 Washington). Utah's stay did come from SCOTUS, but was until the Appeals court rules in the case(cite: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf). So until the appeals court rules in each case, SCOTUS will not look at it.


And I agere there to a point. The problem is that both sides are grabbing Windsor and using it as a means of suggesting that the SCOTUS either are saying state laws ARE unconstitutional or saying that they aren't. I think they tried to go for a middle way (The federal government has to recognize it, but states can determine their own) and both sides basically said "NO DICE!" and the only real resolution is an either/or decision.

Neither Windsor nor Hollingsworth ruled on the merits of SSM bans. While both for minor victories for SSM proponents, the preponderance of cases all with the same outcome on the merits of SSM are actually much more important. Judges are seemingly almost unanimous in that SSM bans fail even Rational Basis Review. This makes it more and more unlikely that SCOTUS will overrule them.

However, with 4 justices going to be retiring most likely soon(Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer...expect Ginsberg at the very least to retire while Obama is still president) the makeup of the court could very well change in the near future and that would leave things very interesting.
 
What about people who want to marry children? Why should pedophiles be treated as second class Citizens? Why do want pedophiles to die while on hold with 911?

Lamest attempt at an arguement was never created when they came out with this. Getting married requires informed consent. Children are not old enough to make informed consent to anything, much less marriage.
 
Lamest attempt at an arguement was never created when they came out with this. Getting married requires informed consent. Children are not old enough to make informed consent to anything, much less marriage.

The marriageable age is based on existing legal tradition. A group like NAMBLA could argue that "it's been done this way" isn't a valid argument.
 
As a former Virginian, this is awesome. It's like watching domino's fall
 
How many of us were actually thinking about politics twenty-five years ago?

Considering I was arguing this subject in high school about 18 years ago, I'm willing to bet many were. In fact, DOMA was passed through Congress 20 years ago. Plenty of people on here who are older than I am.
 
Back
Top Bottom