• 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

I found this funny.

Section 15 of the Virginia constitution
That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.
Click to expand...

Section 15A
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Click to expand...
Constitution of Virginia

So "a firm adherence to justice" except for those icky gays.
 
This is why the SCOTUS runs this nation..

These assclowns can interpret the law any way they see fit and they do so with a political agenda in mind. These aren't Supreme Court Justices - they're nothing more than politicians in robes.
 
Paleocon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually it is based on the fact children are, well, children and not emotionally or intellectually able to enter into such a relationship. Making **** up is a piss poor debate tactic.
 
Mr.Nick said:
This is why the SCOTUS runs this nation..

These assclowns can interpret the law any way they see fit and they do so with a political agenda in mind. These aren't Supreme Court Justices - they're nothing more than politicians in robes.
Click to expand...

Oh for god's sake...read the ****ing article. SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with this at this time. It was a lower court ruling. It is also correct legally.
 
Redress said:
Oh for god's sake...read the ****ing article. SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with this at this time. It was a lower court ruling. It is also correct legally.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, it will go to the SCOTUS and those district judges are the same anyways - they're just politicians with robes that get their jollies off circumventing democracy and the Constitution(s) which is ironic in its on right.

They're the real rulers of society and at times even this country...

These ass hats should be representatives of the people not appointed officials - the SCOTUS should be expanded to 10x it's size.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It doesn't matter, it will go to the SCOTUS and those district judges are the same anyways - they're just politicians with robes that get their jollies off circumventing democracy and the Constitution(s) which is ironic in its on right.

They're the real rulers of society and at times even this country...

These ass hats should be representatives of the people not appointed officials - the SCOTUS should be expanded to 10x it's size.
Click to expand...

What part of we are not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic do you not get?
 
roguenuke said:
What part of we are not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic do you not get?
Click to expand...

When a ballot initiative is put on a ballot for direct democracy that initiative becomes direct democracy..

Furthermore appointing judges has absolutely NOTHING to do with "democratic republic" er electing officials to represent the people.

You're just happy with tyranny because you enjoy the outcome and that is just downright disgusting in my book.
 
Mr.Nick said:
When a ballot initiative is put on a ballot for direct democracy that initiative becomes direct democracy..
Click to expand...

There are no Federal ballot initiatives though. Only state and local ones.
 
Mr.Nick said:
When a ballot initiative is put on a ballot for direct democracy that initiative becomes direct democracy..

Furthermore appointing judges has absolutely NOTHING to do with "democratic republic" er electing officials to represent the people.

You're just happy with tyranny because you enjoy the outcome and that is just downright disgusting in my book.
Click to expand...

We are a constitutional republic. There are no federal ballot initiatives that are legal. And all such state initiatives are still subject to the US Constitution, just as those laws that are put into place by representatives are. Direct democracies are stupid. They are tyrannies of the majority and that completely goes against the ideal of freedom for all.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It doesn't matter, it will go to the SCOTUS and those district judges are the same anyways - they're just politicians with robes that get their jollies off circumventing democracy and the Constitution(s) which is ironic in its on right.

They're the real rulers of society and at times even this country...

These ass hats should be representatives of the people not appointed officials - the SCOTUS should be expanded to 10x it's size.
Click to expand...

Have you read the ruling? If so, what part do you find incorrect?
 
Paleocon said:
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.
Click to expand...

And they'd fail, because the argument for a minimum age to marry ISN'T based on "tradition" but rather based on a legitimate state interest...namely, that children (Who are still a dependent of their parents at such an age, and are deemed to not have the full cognitive ability to adequately make significant impactful life choices) should not be able to enter into binding contractual agreements.

You can't just keep making a bogus claim and ignoring people pointing out your error and expect anyone to actually take your arguments seriously.
 
roguenuke said:
We are a constitutional republic. There are no federal ballot initiatives that are legal. And all such state initiatives are still subject to the US Constitution, just as those laws that are put into place by representatives are. Direct democracies are stupid. They are tyrannies of the majority and that completely goes against the ideal of freedom for all.
Click to expand...

There are no federal ballot initiatives because there are no federal ballots duh?

State ballot initiatives DONT HAVE TO CLEAR ANY JUDICIAL PROCESS, the the initiative wins - it's up to a challenge (or lawsuit) by a bitter party... And these anti-democracy assclowns do their best to find a judge that will rule in their favor - which is quite common considering the majority of judges are tyrants themselves, that view the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a philosophical living document rather than a blunt piece of legislation that it is - an a blueprint for the rights of people and not the state or federal government.

In short the majority of judges in the United States are corrupted, by money or politics - they can rule any way they want on any issue and justify the ruling with a statement that 90% of the US population could hardly understand - which makes the rulings a lot easier on the tyrants that ruled on the issue...

This is why I believe the SCOTUS should be expanded form 9 to 18 or even 27.

That would open up a broader debate amongst the Justices when an issue is in question.
 
Mr.Nick said:
There are no federal ballot initiatives because there are no federal ballots duh?

State ballot initiatives DONT HAVE TO CLEAR ANY JUDICIAL PROCESS, the the initiative wins - it's up to a challenge (or lawsuit) by a bitter party... And these anti-democracy assclowns do their best to find a judge that will rule in their favor - which is quite common considering the majority of judges are tyrants themselves, that view the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a philosophical living document rather than a blunt piece of legislation that it is - an a blueprint for the rights of people and not the state or federal government.

In short the majority of judges in the United States are corrupted, by money or politics - they can rule any way they want on any issue and justify the ruling with a statement that 90% of the US population could hardly understand - which makes the rulings a lot easier on the tyrants that ruled on the issue...

This is why I believe the SCOTUS should be expanded form 9 to 18 or even 27.

That would open up a broader debate amongst the Justices when an issue is in question.
Click to expand...

Just because an initiative gets the majority vote, does not mean it is constitutional. The entire point of the BoR is to keep the government from infringing upon the rights of the people because of a majority opinion. That now applies to states thanks to the 14th Amendment.

And laws that are unconstitutional should be challenged, no matter who voted for them.

I consider those who complain about judicial review (especially considering the fact that laws have to be challenged to receive it) to be the bitter ones.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because an initiative gets the majority vote, does not mean it is constitutional. The entire point of the BoR is to keep the government from infringing upon the rights of the people because of a majority opinion. That now applies to states thanks to the 14th Amendment.

And laws that are unconstitutional should be challenged, no matter who voted for them.

I consider those who complain about judicial review (especially considering the fact that laws have to be challenged to receive it) to be the bitter ones.
Click to expand...

First off **** the Fourteenth Amendment - It could justify free apple pie and ribs everyday all day to everyone in the US if a judge so ordered...

Secondly a ballot initiative needs to be CHALLENGED, and until a ruling has been made that law is currant law. The problem is that those special interest groups who challenge these ballot initiatives generally have swagger and are high powered attorneys which usually come from the anarchistic ACLU and they know what judge to put the case or issue in front of - a judge what will rule in their favor.

The judicial system is just as corrupt as politics - if not more.

The Fourteenth Amendment needs to be abolished considering it justifies just about anything and everything.
 
Paleocon said:
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)
Click to expand...

what does child rape and infringe on another right have to do with equal rights?
oh thats right nothing LMAO

another failed and retarded strawman bites the dust
 
Sherman123 said:
1.)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.
Click to expand...

honestly, no. they will never rule in a way that bans SSM at worse they punt and the federal courts right under them continue to knock it down.
 
ludin said:
your above is a strawman.
a clear distortion of the argument.
Click to expand...

Not a straw man, because it wasn't actually suggesting this was your belief.
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.
Click to expand...
How come this isn't true of supporting heterosexual marriage? Why is it ok to support heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage, but it's not ok for me to support homosexual marriage and be against child marriage? I've already given you reason that child marriage should be illegal, and it wasn't my personal moral disapproval. You haven't given a reason why homosexual marriage should be illegal.

they are going to use the same arguments as gay couples are using.
Click to expand...
You are using the same arguments that people used against interracial marriage.

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.
Click to expand...
Polygamists actually do have a strong argument to make. I don't personally approve of polygamy, but I can acknowledge that that disapproval alone is not grounds to make it illegal. If you can demonstrate some sort of harm caused by either same-sex marriage or polygamy, I would like to hear it. Might even change my mind on same-sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
When a ballot initiative is put on a ballot for direct democracy that initiative becomes direct democracy..

Furthermore appointing judges has absolutely NOTHING to do with "democratic republic" er electing officials to represent the people.

You're just happy with tyranny because you enjoy the outcome and that is just downright disgusting in my book.
Click to expand...

Tyranny is letting 57% of voters take away rights from someone. Tyranny is letting 57% of voters violate the constitution.
 
Paleocon said:
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?
Click to expand...

not sure I want any 1 ignored when they call 911 but the reason you cant get marriage to kids is its bad for the kids

which is why you don't like it

but gay marriage is not bad for any 1 just because 2 people are the same gender and you don't like it
 
Deuce said:
Tyranny is letting 57% of voters take away rights from someone. Tyranny is letting 57% of voters violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Violate WHAT CONSTITUTION?
 
Deuce said:
Libertarian.txt
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment is **** and opens the doors to basically government endorsed anarchy. The 14th Amendment has no limitations as all Amendments do.
 
Paleocon said:
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)
Click to expand...

cause that's not equal rights for the kids
 
Mr.Nick said:
First off **** the Fourteenth Amendment - It could justify free apple pie and ribs everyday all day to everyone in the US if a judge so ordered...

Secondly a ballot initiative needs to be CHALLENGED, and until a ruling has been made that law is currant law. The problem is that those special interest groups who challenge these ballot initiatives generally have swagger and are high powered attorneys which usually come from the anarchistic ACLU and they know what judge to put the case or issue in front of - a judge what will rule in their favor.

The judicial system is just as corrupt as politics - if not more.

The Fourteenth Amendment needs to be abolished considering it justifies just about anything and everything.
Click to expand...

I will ask again: have you read the ruling and if so what part did you feel was wrong?
 
Zyphlin said:
Gotcha. That's my take on it as well



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 :)
Click to expand...

Right. And my not-so-clear statement there is that some recent cases have hinted at heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation. In Windsor the circuit court said intermediate scrutiny should apply. SCOTUS affirmed the case, but they didn't explicitly say they applied intermediate scrutiny.

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.
When the Supreme Court has refrained from identifying its method of analysis, we have analyzed the Supreme Court precedent "by considering what the Court actually did, rather than by dissecting isolated pieces of text."
--

In its words and deeds, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Wndsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom