• 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

Paleocon said:
What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as natural?
Click to expand...

What source before the last 200 years considered owning a gun natural? And yet that is a right.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Acceptable and moral are subjective and therefore irrelevant. If you mean "normal" in the sense of statistics, then lots of things aren't normal. If you mean it differently, then it also is irrelevant. In fact, as soon as you used the word "should" you placed your comments in the realm of subjectivity. Oh, and dysfunctional and unnatural have also been shown to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Morals are not subjective when it comes to death and judgement and absolute right and wrong. When it comes to democracy it is relevant as well with the morals of others having weight when it comes to "subjectivity" or right and wrong for a population. Show me how dysfunctional and unnatural from a biological standpoint are incorrect. We know biologically that sex organs exist for reproduction. We know that, at least in humans, the penis and vagina are actually optomized to function together and there are significant health risks behind gay sex practices that are not natural for those parts of the body (primarily male on male anal sex).
Equal rights is not allowing the tyranny of the majority to oppress the minority. Our Constitution is built on concepts like that and it is the judiciary's job to manage that... as they did in this case.
Click to expand...

And what about oppressing the voters of VA that supported upholding the definition of marriage that was widely held as the default and legal definition for decades? Anyone can claim they are being oppressed, our Constitution, as written, doesn't appear to have specific verbiage extending to sexuality, sex practices as things on par with gender, religion and race. To try and apply it as such is wrong.
 
Redress said:
What source before the last 200 years considered owning a gun natural? And yet that is a right.
Click to expand...

What source considered it unnatural?
 
digsbe said:
Human nature is evil :shrug:

Just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it should be approved of or used in defense of it being "normal" or "moral" or even "acceptable." As far as biology and sex goes, homosexuality is dysfunctional and "unnatural" in how those sex organs are being used. But that's besides the point.

I sincerely hope this gets struck down. It is a grave injustice to the voters of VA to have their attorney general refuse to defend state laws and the state constitution in court and also have their ability to uphold traditional marriage, which has been the defacto marriage position for many many years, essentially removed largely due to a progressive judicial opinion and changes in public opinion. I'm happy for the gays in VA that may be able to get married and I support SSM, but not through this type of judicial tyranny and lack of legal representation for those on the other side. Equal rights is not imposing a new definition of marriage upon every state due to new social changes and acceptances of certain sex practices or sexual relationships. Equal rights is respecting the rights of voters who disagree and allowing them to govern as well. The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality or personal sex choices/relationships unless amended.
Click to expand...


there is no "grave" injustice here
there is no tyranny here thats just silly an unsupportable
there are no equal rights of the
the equal rights of the voters are intact

Federal judge Heyburn wrote, Protecting tradition, no matter how ancient or deeply held, was not good enough of defense for laws that create different rules for different groups of people.
"For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society," "Similarly, many states deprived women of their equal rights under the law, believing this to properly preserve our traditions. In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of another's constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass."
Click to expand...


Federal Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen
Wright Allen opened her decision with a quote from Mildred Loving, who was at the center of the Virginia case that the Supreme Court used in 1967 to strike down laws banning interracial marriage.
“Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.”
Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.Laws excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violate personal freedom, are an unnecessary government intrusion, and cause serious harm,”

“The legitimate purposes proffered by the Proponents for the challenged laws—to promote conformity to the traditions and heritage of a majority of Virginia’s citizens, to perpetuate a generally-recognized deference to the state’s will pertaining to domestic relations laws, and, finally, to endorse “responsible procreation”—share no rational link with Virginia Marriage Laws being challenged,” the judge wrote: “The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.”
Click to expand...
 
digsbe said:
Human nature is evil :shrug:

Just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it should be approved of or used in defense of it being "normal" or "moral" or even "acceptable." As far as biology and sex goes, homosexuality is dysfunctional and "unnatural" in how those sex organs are being used. But that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

Straw man Digsbe. No one has claimed that because it is found in nature it is normal, moral or acceptable. Only that it is natural. The argument is used to counter those who claim homosexual acts are unnatural.


I sincerely hope this gets struck down. It is a grave injustice to the voters of VA to have their attorney general refuse to defend state laws and the state constitution in court and also have their ability to uphold traditional marriage, which has been the defacto marriage position for many many years, essentially removed largely due to a progressive judicial opinion and changes in public opinion. I'm happy for the gays in VA that may be able to get married and I support SSM, but not through this type of judicial tyranny and lack of legal representation for those on the other side. Equal rights is not imposing a new definition of marriage upon every state due to new social changes and acceptances of certain sex practices or sexual relationships. Equal rights is respecting the rights of voters who disagree and allowing them to govern as well. The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality or personal sex choices/relationships unless amended.
Click to expand...

So is it your opinion that majority rules in all cases? I can think of many instances when you would disapprove of that. Is it not the job of the court to, in part, protect people from having their rights taken away by the majority?
 
Paleocon said:
What source considered it unnatural?
Click to expand...

Moving the goalpost now? No one commented on it being natural or unnatural, since by any accepted definition of natural it clearly is not.
 
also somethign to be clear on and i cant speak for everyone but im going to throw this two cents out there


the question of natural and unnatural is only brought up by anti-gays
and then the pro-equal rights people simply point out the following:

that typically thier subjective definition they are using is factually wrong
the factual definition they are using has a very limited scope or specific narrow usage

and or most importantly natural and unnatural is 100% totally meaningless to equal rights for gays and this topic, its a side discussion that has no actual merit

its complete strawman that has ZERO impact
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, opinion, nothing more. And a very pessimistic view of humanity you got there.
Click to expand...

The innate nature of human beings is sinful, it's evil. It's not pessimistic, it's just the truth of the situation and who we are as fallen beings.
Morals are subjective. No one is asking for your personal approval of their relationships. And normal is relative. Acceptance isn't even being asked for.

As far as homosexuality goes, it is natural and in no way "dysfunctional". It works just fine and in no way inhibits a species growth/evolution. And sex organs are used for many purposes. Or have you forgotten that every man's sex organ is also used to dispel waste from the body?
Click to expand...

Morals are not subjective. The morals and laws of God are absolute. In the realm of absolutes, under which all things will be judged, subjectivity is wrong. The very notion that "all morals are subjective" is in itself a defeating statement with such a statement being an absolute statement about morality and a self contradicting logical fallacy in and of itself.

As far as homosexuality goes I have no problem with people that chose to be homosexual. I support their right for legal recognition and have no problem with them or want to impede on their ability to live their lives. My issue comes in with states and the voting rights of others being nullified unfairly and without due representation.

The dispelling of waste serves a dual function... The act of urination is not sex, that's dishonest to imply as such. Fact of the matter is that evolutionary changes in the penis and vagina evolved to be compatible with each other with intricate physiology to make them as such. The act of sex, biologically speaking, primarily (and sometimes solely) exists to repopulate the species. Species that cannot due so are sexually dysfunctional in that they can't reproduce. Does that dysfunction make them less of a living being? No, but it does mean that their organs and physiology are not able to go towards their intended use or are not able to do so.

Equal rights has never been about "respecting the right of voters", ever. In fact that is the complete opposite purpose of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
Click to expand...

Equal rights has been about the rights of others to vote as equals. People voted on the definition of marriage, one side lost. The fact of the matter is that voters do have rights, and up until just a few years ago amid social changes and judicial activism the default and widely held lawful definition of marriage was one man one woman. I don't think any rational person would say 20 years ago, with the Constitution as written, that we would be seeing rulings like this. Heck, maybe even 5 years ago before SSM became this massive issue in the US. The majority has protection, and with laws that are Constitutional the majority is allowed to set policy per democracy.
 
digsbe said:
The innate nature of human beings is sinful, it's evil. It's not pessimistic, it's just the truth of the situation and who we are as fallen beings.


Morals are not subjective. The morals and laws of God are absolute. In the realm of absolutes, under which all things will be judged, subjectivity is wrong. The very notion that "all morals are subjective" is in itself a defeating statement with such a statement being an absolute statement about morality and a self contradicting logical fallacy in and of itself.

As far as homosexuality goes I have no problem with people that chose to be homosexual. I support their right for legal recognition and have no problem with them or want to impede on their ability to live their lives. My issue comes in with states and the voting rights of others being nullified unfairly and without due representation.

The dispelling of waste serves a dual function... The act of urination is not sex, that's dishonest to imply as such. Fact of the matter is that evolutionary changes in the penis and vagina evolved to be compatible with each other with intricate physiology to make them as such. The act of sex, biologically speaking, primarily (and sometimes solely) exists to repopulate the species. Species that cannot due so are sexually dysfunctional in that they can't reproduce. Does that dysfunction make them less of a living being? No, but it does mean that their organs and physiology are not able to go towards their intended use or are not able to do so.



Equal rights has been about the rights of others to vote as equals. People voted on the definition of marriage, one side lost. The fact of the matter is that voters do have rights, and up until just a few years ago amid social changes and judicial activism the default and widely held lawful definition of marriage was one man one woman. I don't think any rational person would say 20 years ago, with the Constitution as written, that we would be seeing rulings like this. Heck, maybe even 5 years ago before SSM became this massive issue in the US. The majority has protection, and with laws that are Constitutional the majority is allowed to set policy per democracy.
Click to expand...

morals are subjective
they might not be PERSONALLY subjective but they are factually subjective in reality and have no meaning with equal rights

how does one choose to have a homosexual orientation?

you say you support gays but your posts scream something else

states and voting rights are intact

again subjective or factual natural vs unnatural is meaningless to equal rights
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality...
Click to expand...

Isn't that the whole point of contention? To people who believe the 14th does extend to sexual orientation, your statement reads like a plea to bring back interracial marriage bans in the states which had them struck down by Loving versus Virginia. Put yourself in the shoes of those who disagree with you. If you saw sexual orientation as no different than race would you really see this as "judicial tyranny"?
 
digsbe said:
Equal rights has been about the rights of others to vote as equals.
Click to expand...

1. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic.
2. The will of the people is the US Constitution, not a majority vote of any particular state.
3. What makes us equal is equal protection under the laws and constitutional protection of our individual liberties.
4. Marriage is a law and under precedent, a fundamental civil right, and in our country, civil rights should not subject to majority votes.
 
Redress said:
Moving the goalpost now? No one commented on it being natural or unnatural, since by any accepted definition of natural it clearly is not.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
digsbe said:
The innate nature of human beings is sinful, it's evil. It's not pessimistic, it's just the truth of the situation and who we are as fallen beings.
Click to expand...

This is only "truth" to you and those that believe as you do. It is in no way a fact. And it is very pessimistic. It fails to recognize the many positive and good things that humans do.


digsbe said:
Morals are not subjective. The morals and laws of God are absolute. In the realm of absolutes, under which all things will be judged, subjectivity is wrong. The very notion that "all morals are subjective" is in itself a defeating statement with such a statement being an absolute statement about morality and a self contradicting logical fallacy in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Morals are always subjective until the point where you can prove there is a higher power (God) and that His (Her/Its) morals/laws match your beliefs. You cannot currently prove any of that so morals are subjective, all morals. Everyone's, mine and yours. Even those that the vast majority of people share are still subjective.

digsbe said:
As far as homosexuality goes I have no problem with people that chose to be homosexual. I support their right for legal recognition and have no problem with them or want to impede on their ability to live their lives. My issue comes in with states and the voting rights of others being nullified unfairly and without due representation.
Click to expand...

People do not choose to be homosexual. They do not choose their attractions. They choose their relationships, but that is true for everyone. States have not held an ultimate right to a "tyranny of the majority" in quite some time. And many decisions prove this. Votes have always been subject to being restricted by the US Constitution.

digsbe said:
The dispelling of waste serves a dual function... The act of urination is not sex, that's dishonest to imply as such. Fact of the matter is that evolutionary changes in the penis and vagina evolved to be compatible with each other with intricate physiology to make them as such. The act of sex, biologically speaking, primarily (and sometimes solely) exists to repopulate the species. Species that cannot due so are sexually dysfunctional in that they can't reproduce. Does that dysfunction make them less of a living being? No, but it does mean that their organs and physiology are not able to go towards their intended use or are not able to do so.
Click to expand...

The comment was that the sexual organs are being misused. This is not true. Not only is the penis used to dispel waste, but there is nothing that says that any parts of our body are exclusive use only parts. We don't come with instruction manuals. If something doesn't work the way we are using it, it harms us. Since using the sexual organs in other ways than just procreative sex does no more harm than using those organs for procreative sex, then there is no objective way to say that they are being used wrong.

digsbe said:
Equal rights has been about the rights of others to vote as equals. People voted on the definition of marriage, one side lost. The fact of the matter is that voters do have rights, and up until just a few years ago amid social changes and judicial activism the default and widely held lawful definition of marriage was one man one woman. I don't think any rational person would say 20 years ago, with the Constitution as written, that we would be seeing rulings like this. Heck, maybe even 5 years ago before SSM became this massive issue in the US. The majority has protection, and with laws that are Constitutional the majority is allowed to set policy per democracy.
Click to expand...

People voted on the definition of marriage being "two people of the same race" as well. People voted to segregate their schools. People voted to keep inmates from getting married. People have voted on all sorts of laws that are unconstitutional. Many people are stupid and/or gullible.
 
roguenuke said:
This is only "truth" to you and those that believe as you do. It is in no way a fact. And it is very pessimistic. It fails to recognize the many positive and good things that humans do.




Morals are always subjective until the point where you can prove there is a higher power (God) and that His (Her/Its) morals/laws match your beliefs. You cannot currently prove any of that so morals are subjective, all morals. Everyone's, mine and yours. Even those that the vast majority of people share are still subjective.



People do not choose to be homosexual. They do not choose their attractions. They choose their relationships, but that is true for everyone. States have not held an ultimate right to a "tyranny of the majority" in quite some time. And many decisions prove this. Votes have always been subject to being restricted by the US Constitution.



The comment was that the sexual organs are being misused. This is not true. Not only is the penis used to dispel waste, but there is nothing that says that any parts of our body are exclusive use only parts. We don't come with instruction manuals. If something doesn't work the way we are using it, it harms us. Since using the sexual organs in other ways than just procreative sex does no more harm than using those organs for procreative sex, then there is no objective way to say that they are being used wrong.



People voted on the definition of marriage being "two people of the same race" as well. People voted to segregate their schools. People voted to keep inmates from getting married. People have voted on all sorts of laws that are unconstitutional. Many people are stupid and/or gullible.
Click to expand...

correct the strawman argument about the rights of voters is a complete failure, it never has held water, not for womans rights, not for minority rights, not for interracial marriage etc etc

It has no logical or factual support and the rights of voters are in tact.
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

but what about the victims the people who don't like acknowledging legal same sex marriage they will feel bad

and they will have to treat these couples like their married because they will be right down to calling them married

because that's the kind situation their in

its cruel :2bigcry:
 
Meh, it's stayed...which was entirely predictable based on SCOTUS's recent stance on this. They'll deal with the question in due time and at least get some semblance of a solid oath forward at that point. The opinions of the rest of these lower court judges are largely irrelevant at this point.

When it actually gets to the SCOTUS I'll start paying attention and see if they go more towards the notion of states defining marriage as being a constitutional thing, or if they invest it fully into the preview of the federal. Till then....meh
 
Just more overreach on the part of the Courts. That is the concern that should highlighted not issue of whether gay marriage should be allowed or not.

Each State should determine what a legal marriage is. It should not be forced on a state by the Courts. There is nothing in the Constitution that would require gay marriage to be made mandatory for the States.
 
blarg said:
but what about the victims the people who don't like acknowledging legal same sex marriage they will feel bad

and they will have to treat these couples like their married because they will be right down to calling them married

because that's the kind situation their in

its cruel :2bigcry:
Click to expand...

LOL id tell them the same thing that is told to all the people that think thier "feelings" are more important than equal rights


tissues are on special at walmart

have a nice day.



Sadly though we have people that STILL have hurt feelings over religions, races, genders etc being on equal planes, who care.
 
Zyphlin said:
Meh, it's stayed...which was entirely predictable based on SCOTUS's recent stance on this. They'll deal with the question in due time and at least get some semblance of a solid oath forward at that point. The opinions of the rest of these lower court judges are largely irrelevant at this point.

When it actually gets to the SCOTUS I'll start paying attention and see if they go more towards the notion of states defining marriage as being a constitutional thing, or if they invest it fully into the preview of the federal. Till then....meh
Click to expand...


Fine, let states take care of it. Then there should be no federal recognition, regulations or laws concerning marriage at all. Further, states would not be required to recognize marriages from other states. If a couple moves, they need to get married again. The best result? Being married would mean NOTHING legally, as states could not afford (time or money) to provide benefits or laws regarding it.

I support marriage being removed from government entirely. Good plan.
 
I'm not sure what point you think you're making by attempting to sarcastically respond to my post...but my general stance has been for some time that the best option would be to remove marriage entirely from government, and install a "civil union" law at a federal level to handle some specific instances where it's in the state interest to allow any two people to be granted certain privileges under the law.
 
Last edited:
I have an exam (well, 4 to be exact), so I'll respond to posts more properly sometime in the coming days. I think many have opposition to homosexual "marriage" because marriage is also largely a social and moral term with states having SSM as essentially a moral endorsement of homosexual relationships. The feds have no business in marriage, it should be up to the states. I would also support a complete removal of "marriage" with only allowing for civil unions/partnerships to be recognized with states being able to regulate them within constitutional parameters as what meets their best interests or even just up to a federal standard with the states not having much say in it.
 
digsbe said:
Human nature is evil :shrug:

Just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it should be approved of or used in defense of it being "normal" or "moral" or even "acceptable." As far as biology and sex goes, homosexuality is dysfunctional and "unnatural" in how those sex organs are being used. But that's besides the point.

I sincerely hope this gets struck down. It is a grave injustice to the voters of VA to have their attorney general refuse to defend state laws and the state constitution in court and also have their ability to uphold traditional marriage, which has been the defacto marriage position for many many years, essentially removed largely due to a progressive judicial opinion and changes in public opinion. I'm happy for the gays in VA that may be able to get married and I support SSM, but not through this type of judicial tyranny and lack of legal representation for those on the other side. Equal rights is not imposing a new definition of marriage upon every state due to new social changes and acceptances of certain sex practices or sexual relationships. Equal rights is respecting the rights of voters who disagree and allowing them to govern as well. The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality or personal sex choices/relationships unless amended.
Click to expand...

Umm...how do you think the decision in Loving vs Virginia was made? Via the 14th. If it wasn't for the 14th we would still have miscegenation laws. And people do not have a right to deny other people their Rights. That is just mob rule.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Just more overreach on the part of the Courts. That is the concern that should highlighted not issue of whether gay marriage should be allowed or not.

Each State should determine what a legal marriage is. It should not be forced on a state by the Courts. There is nothing in the Constitution that would require gay marriage to be made mandatory for the States.
Click to expand...

this seems to cover it

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
digsbe said:
Morals are not subjective when it comes to death and judgement and absolute right and wrong.
Click to expand...

No morals are subjective in all cases and there is no absolute right and wrong. This was incorrect the last 30 times you posted it and it will be incorrect the next 30.

When it comes to democracy it is relevant as well with the morals of others having weight when it comes to "subjectivity" or right and wrong for a population.
Click to expand...

Weight does not translate into right and wrong. It translates into weight. There are no absolutes with right or wrong. Right and wrong are transitory, subjective, and relative.

Show me how dysfunctional and unnatural from a biological standpoint are incorrect. We know biologically that sex organs exist for reproduction. We know that, at least in humans, the penis and vagina are actually optomized to function together and there are significant health risks behind gay sex practices that are not natural for those parts of the body (primarily male on male anal sex).
Click to expand...

Firstly, the health risks have nothing to do with homosexuality. They have to do with risky sexual behavior. This is factual, so please stop posting inaccurate information. Secondly, you are discussing sexual behavior and procreation, two issues that are separate from sexual orientation and marriage, so your issues above are irrelevant to this particular issue.


And what about oppressing the voters of VA that supported upholding the definition of marriage that was widely held as the default and legal definition for decades? Anyone can claim they are being oppressed, our Constitution, as written, doesn't appear to have specific verbiage extending to sexuality, sex practices as things on par with gender, religion and race. To try and apply it as such is wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong is an opinion and subjective, so your last sentence is irrelevant. Your first sentence uses the appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Overall, if the decision of the majority is oppressing that of the minority, then reversing that and "oppressing" them is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom