Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I will say it AGAIN... and I've posted this a few times, lately. All the "government should get out of marriage business" is sour grapes BS from the anti-SSM crowd. You never heard this 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or 25 years ago, or at least no where NEAR as much as you hear it now. You hear it because anti-SSM people see the writing on the wall. SSM will become the law of the land at some point in the near future, so anti-SSMers figure they should take ALL the toys away rather than having to live with that. I'm SURE there are folks who actually do believe it, but I'd be those people are few and far between. Most fit into the category that I have outlined in this post.

blarg said:

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.

Click to expand...

The existing definition of marriage being a type of contract between one man and one woman doesn't mean that equal protection is denied when the law doesn't allow two men or two women to be married.

Expanding the definition is something that the State can decide to do to allow gay marriage by changing the law. It is not something that the Courts should decide to do so since that would be in effect a legislative action.

Paleocon said:

It is certainly new to say that gay marriage is even a thing, much less a right.

Click to expand...

Marriage is a right. Just because you tack on the word "gay" doesn't make it a different kind of marriage. Indeed the only time that the word "gay" is used is during debates such as we are having and in politics. In general surroundings people don't say "oh your gay married huh?". They just say "oh your married huh?".

And no, gay marriage is not new. Its been around for centuries at the very least. One small example is the Native American's. Two guys that got to gether were often considered "married". Though they used different wording. But thats to be expected since they had different language. And then there was the Ming Dynasty where young men or women would bind themselves to the same sex in the province of Fujian. It also occured in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

So no, gay marriage is not new. Might be new to the United States, but not new as a societal concept.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I will say it AGAIN... and I've posted this a few times, lately. All the "government should get out of marriage business" is sour grapes BS from the anti-SSM crowd. You never heard this 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or 25 years ago, or at least no where NEAR as much as you hear it now. You hear it because anti-SSM people see the writing on the wall. SSM will become the law of the land at some point in the near future, so anti-SSMers figure they should take ALL the toys away rather than having to live with that. I'm SURE there are folks who actually do believe it, but I'd be those people are few and far between. Most fit into the category that I have outlined in this post.

Click to expand...

How many of us were actually thinking about politics twenty-five years ago?

CaptainCourtesy said:

I will say it AGAIN... and I've posted this a few times, lately. All the "government should get out of marriage business" is sour grapes BS from the anti-SSM crowd. You never heard this 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or 25 years ago, or at least no where NEAR as much as you hear it now. You hear it because anti-SSM people see the writing on the wall. SSM will become the law of the land at some point in the near future, so anti-SSMers figure they should take ALL the toys away rather than having to live with that. I'm SURE there are folks who actually do believe it, but I'd be those people are few and far between. Most fit into the category that I have outlined in this post.

Click to expand...

It is more than writing on the wall at this point. Windsor requires the federal government to recognize SSM from states that allow it. Those are the lion's share of rights, benefits and responsibilities. As soon as a state without a residency requirement for marriage allows SSM(New York did this), that makes it so that any SSM couple can get most of what goes with marriage by taking a simple vacation and filling out a bit of paperwork.

So it is really all over. There is just a bit of kicking and griping left to go.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I will say it AGAIN... and I've posted this a few times, lately. All the "government should get out of marriage business" is sour grapes BS from the anti-SSM crowd. You never heard this 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or 25 years ago, or at least no where NEAR as much as you hear it now. You hear it because anti-SSM people see the writing on the wall. SSM will become the law of the land at some point in the near future, so anti-SSMers figure they should take ALL the toys away rather than having to live with that. I'm SURE there are folks who actually do believe it, but I'd be those people are few and far between. Most fit into the category that I have outlined in this post.

Click to expand...

yep for some its desperation and for others its simply to hide thier bigotry


lets add more

protesting about divorce?
protesting about legal marriages involving ZERO religion?
protesting about government endorsing other marriages that dont match thier opinions (different religion, remarriages etc)
etc etc

its a strawman

a curtain to hide the true reasons in the vast majority of cases

Shadow Serious said:

The existing definition of marriage being a type of contract between one man and one woman doesn't mean that equal protection is denied when the law doesn't allow two men or two women to be married.

Expanding the definition is something that the State can decide to do to allow gay marriage by changing the law. It is not something that the Courts should decide to do so since that would be in effect a legislative action.

Click to expand...

that's exactly what it means those couples don't get the protections and privileges of marriage because of gender, requiring a gender combination without cause denies 1 gender couples equal protection

same principle as bans on interracial couples from getting married

those couples were denied equal protection and privileges under the law even if the law was the same for them and single race couples

the states can decide to end that inequality of protection and privileges but the courts must decide to end it if the states don't

Shadow Serious said:

The existing definition of marriage being a type of contract between one man and one woman doesn't mean that equal protection is denied when the law doesn't allow two men or two women to be married.

Click to expand...

The "existing" definition of marriage has changed quite a bit in the last two hundred years alone. And that isn't even considering gay marriage.

Shadow Serious said:

Expanding the definition is something that the State can decide to do to allow gay marriage by changing the law. It is not something that the Courts should decide to do so since that would be in effect a legislative action.

Click to expand...

Its not expanding anything. And yes, the courts should always protect peoples Rights. Also striking down law is not legislation. Legislation is making law. Not striking down law. Unless of course you consider striking down law as a form of legislation. In which case you have about 200 years of the court legislating things that protected your rights. Guess we should just strike down all the courts rulings that struck down some law or other that protected your rights over the last 200 years huh? Which would bring back all those laws that limited free speech, protected voting rights of minority groups, and all the other Rights that the Legislative Branch has continueally tried to curtail.

Henrin said:

How many of us were actually thinking about politics twenty-five years ago?

Click to expand...

Maybe WE weren't, but others were.

Shadow Serious said:

The existing definition of marriage being a type of contract between one man and one woman doesn't mean that equal protection is denied when the law doesn't allow two men or two women to be married.

Expanding the definition is something that the State can decide to do to allow gay marriage by changing the law. It is not something that the Courts should decide to do so since that would be in effect a legislative action.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear and comment on a pet leave...there is no orientation test for marriage, nor is it asked about. Gay people can get married in all states. What is at issue and being questioned is whether same sex couples can be married. This is actually important as it effects the legal arguments.

Henrin said:

How many of us were actually thinking about politics twenty-five years ago?

Click to expand...

I was. If you are above, say, 40, there is a good chance you where thinking about politics to some extent.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Maybe WE weren't, but others were.

Click to expand...

I was six, so marriage laws wasn't exactly on my radar of things to think about. Anyway, my view has been to get government out of marriage long before this issue ever became popular. The civil union thing people are pushing here however is more than a little transparent. I don't really like people pretending to be on my side when they're not. I understand they think it works to their favor, but still, they need to **** off.

Kal'Stang said:

The "existing" definition of marriage has changed quite a bit in the last two hundred years alone. And that isn't even considering gay marriage.

Click to expand...

The ages of when one can marry has changed but it was still between two people and requires them to be different genders.


Its not expanding anything. And yes, the courts should always protect peoples Rights. Also striking down law is not legislation. Legislation is making law. Not striking down law. Unless of course you consider striking down law as a form of legislation.[/QUOTE]

What concerns me is that the Courts are deciding to make the definition of marriage to include between two people of the same gender. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the Courts view that this under equal protection. If the Court can decide to mandate a change here outside of the Constitution then they can also decide to override Rights on similar reasoning.

In which case you have about 200 years of the court legislating things that protected your rights. Guess we should just strike down all the courts rulings that struck down some law or other that protected your rights over the last 200 years huh?

Click to expand...

That is not my point.

Which would bring back all those laws that limited free speech, protected voting rights of minority groups, and all the other Rights that the Legislative Branch has continueally tried to curtail.

Click to expand...

I'm concered on what actions the Courts could make that overried our Rights.

Henrin said:

I was six, so marriage laws wasn't exactly on my radar of things to think about.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of people interested in politics LONG before you or I were born. I'd like to see statistics on how often getting government out of marriage came up and how many supported that... compared to now. I'd be interested in seeing the difference.

Anyway, my view has been to get government out of marriage long before this issue ever became popular.

Click to expand...

You may be in the rare minority, which I did mention.

The civil union thing people are pushing here however is more than a little transparent. I don't really like people pretending to be on my side when they're not. I understand they think it works to their favor, but still, they need to **** off.

Click to expand...

I can agree with this. This is not an issue with which one can successfully walk in the middle of the road.

Redress said:

Just to be clear and comment on a pet leave...there is no orientation test for marriage, nor is it asked about.

Click to expand...

That's because no one thought that such a thing would be necessary.


Gay people can get married in all states.[/QUOTE]

So can bisexuals and asexuals.

What is at issue and being questioned is whether same sex couples can be married. This is actually important as it effects the legal arguments.

Click to expand...

For the time being it should be a State issue and allow this to be debated how and to what extent this should go. Some States will decide to allow it and some will not.

Shadow Serious said:

What concerns me is that the Courts are deciding to make the definition of marriage to include between two people of the same gender. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the Courts view that this under equal protection. If the Court can decide to mandate a change here outside of the Constitution then they can also decide to override Rights on similar reasoning.



That is not my point.



I'm concered on what actions the Courts could make that overried our Rights.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Serious said:

That's because no one thought that such a thing would be necessary.

Click to expand...

More because it is irrelevant and impossible to implement.

So can bisexuals and asexuals

Click to expand...

.

True but kinda pointless to say. No one is mistakenly referring to bisexual or asexual marriage.

For the time being it should be a State issue and allow this to be debated how and to what extent this should go. Some States will decide to allow it and some will not.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Serious said:

1.)That's because no one thought that such a thing would be necessary.


1.)Gay people can get married in all states. So can bisexuals and asexuals.

2.)For the time being it should be a State issue and allow this to be debated how and to what extent this should go. Some States will decide to allow it and some will not.

Click to expand...

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

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...

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%.

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?

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.

Shadow Serious said:

That's because no one thought that such a thing would be necessary.


Gay people can get married in all states.

So can bisexuals and asexuals.



For the time being it should be a State issue and allow this to be debated how and to what extent this should go. Some States will decide to allow it and some will not.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Serious said:

The ages of when one can marry has changed but it was still between two people and requires them to be different genders.

Click to expand...

Marriage also use to be about property. Man getting married to a woman who was nothing more than property. He even paid for for in the form of a dowery. He could even do whatever he wanted with her. And claim to her fathers lands if she happened to be an only child. While she got nothing. It was also forbidden between two differing races. IE Only between whites or blacks but never whites and blacks.

Shadow Serious said:

What concerns me is that the Courts are deciding to make the definition of marriage to include between two people of the same gender. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the Courts view that this under equal protection. If the Court can decide to mandate a change here outside of the Constitution then they can also decide to override Rights on similar reasoning.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Shadow Serious said:

That is not my point.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Serious said:

I'm concered on what actions the Courts could make that overried our Rights.

Click to expand...

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.

Kal'Stang said:

Marriage also use to be about property. Man getting married to a woman who was nothing more than property. He even paid for for in the form of a dowery.

Click to expand...

It was not payment for the woman, it was payment for the loss of her labor from the family. And paying for a bride is not dowry, that's bride price.

ecofarm said:

It was not payment for the woman, it was payment for the loss of her labor from the family.

Click to expand...

So they say. In the end she was a slave. Sold to the highest status bidder the father could achieve.

Kal'Stang said:

So they say. In the end she was a slave. Sold to the highest status bidder the father could achieve.

Click to expand...

Who wasn't a slave in ancient times, except the king. In the end? In the beginning, she and everyone else in the family were slaves. They were all born into tyranny and died in it. Men and children were sold just the same. That a family be compensated for a loss of labor was hardly atrocity given context.

ecofarm said:

Who wasn't a slave in ancient times, except the king. In the end? In the beginning, she and everyone else in the family were slaves. They were all born into tyranny and died in it. Men and children were sold just the same. That a family be compensated for a loss of labor was hardly atrocity given context.

Click to expand...

I think you're taking the word "slave" to the extremes here. If you want to go that route then its not much further to consider US slaves also. After all, neither you nor I alone could stop Congress or the President from putting us in Gitmo.

Kal'Stang said:

I think you're taking the word "slave" to the extremes here. If you want to go that route then its not much further to consider US slaves also. After all, neither you nor I alone could stop Congress or the President from putting us in Gitmo.

Click to expand...

Let's not totally drop context. By slave I meant always lacking human rights and often, quite literally, a slave. Men, women, children... much of society. Let's not confound the state of civilization with compensation for labor lost.

neither you nor I alone could stop Congress or the President from putting us in Gitmo.

Click to expand...

The president and congress are not like a divine right king.

Of course we could. There are specific requirements that must be met for incarceration at Gitmo. Those requirements are enforced. Without a change in the law, there is no way the president or congress could put me in Gitmo. If I became a terrorist and conducted operations in foreign countries against the US, then Gitmo would be too good for me.

So, as it stands, the president and congress CANNOT put me in Gitmo. I, myself, could stop it merely by contacting a military attorney and having the requirements enforced. Perhaps, under your fantasy law, these things can be done randomly - but we all know that's not reality.

'Harold and Kumar Escape from Gitmo' was not a documentary.