• 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

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...

No, it could not justify free anything unless there was already a law providing those to some people.

And the challenges are heard by judges, that is how our system works. If you have some better way that ensures people cannot vote into place the laws of others and those laws stand, please enlighten us. So far, you haven't really provided any other suggests except maybe adding more of those judges that you consider corrupt.

Go ahead and see how much support you can get for abolishing/repealing the 14th.
 
Redress said:
I will ask again: have you read the ruling and if so what part did you feel was wrong?
Click to expand...

What was wrong??

MMM since when does one bitch dictate outcome, not to mention the EVIL 14th Amendment.

This is not some sort of ****ing theocracy or monarchy but the courts have circumvented those ideas and created their own.

All judges belong in prison on charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What was wrong??

MMM since when does one bitch dictate outcome, not to mention the EVIL 14th Amendment.

This is not some sort of ****ing theocracy or monarchy but the courts have circumvented those ideas and created their own.

All judges belong in prison on charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason.
Click to expand...

Whoah.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it could not justify free anything unless there was already a law providing those to some people.

And the challenges are heard by judges, that is how our system works. If you have some better way that ensures people cannot vote into place the laws of others and those laws stand, please enlighten us. So far, you haven't really provided any other suggests except maybe adding more of those judges that you consider corrupt.

Go ahead and see how much support you can get for abolishing/repealing the 14th.
Click to expand...

There have already been state laws in place in which every gay progressive and their other go screaming 14th Amendment violation...

Let me ask you this - what DOESN'T the 14th Amendment forbid and what does it allow?
 
Paleocon said:
Stupid is as stupid does, just because.

BTW, not allowing people to contract unnatural marriages in no way constitutes racial voting discrimination, but I guess if you had any sense you would already know that.
Click to expand...

It is, of course, nothing akin to racial voting discrimination. It is, however, government force against the free rights of the individual. In this case, the right to contract.
 
ludin said:
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.
once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.

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.

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.

i am sure there are good polygamist marriages out there so how can you say that 2 or 3 adults that love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry and co-habitate as married?
you are discriminating against their rights. (argument sound familiar it should.)

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.
Click to expand...

their going to be judged on their own no one is saying marriage should be based on love alone except for people who don't like gay marriage its a straw man

I never chose to be hetero sexual its not a life style choice you don't choose if your attracted t the same gender or not either

marriage to some one of another race is also a choice not letting some one marry because they choose to marry out of race is still a violation of equal protection under the law even if every one of any race can marry someone of the same race

same thing with gay marriage 1 gender couples are still not being treated as equals under the law just because you will let them marry who they don't want to without allowing yourself to marry some one you don't want to

based on gender

we can allow same gender couples to marry because their marriage is just like hetero sexual marriage that we allow

polygamy will have to make it own case and if the case against it is as empty of meaning as the opposition against gay marriage then it should be aloud

this whole

well its may not be bad that these guys can marry but if you let them some kind of marriage that is bad must happen thing makes no sense

it is the slippery slope fallacy and your accusations of hypocrisy are based on a straw man
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
The 14th Amendment is **** and opens the doors to basically government endorsed anarchy. The 14th Amendment has no limitations as all Amendments do.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has limitations. No, it's not just based on the whims of a judge. But if you aren't actually willing to discuss court decisions and how the structure of the 14th amendment actually works in practice, there's really nothing left to say to you. Are you willing to do that?
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

you don't seem to hear very clearly or read very clearly
 
Mr.Nick said:
There have already been state laws in place in which every gay progressive and their other go screaming 14th Amendment violation...

Let me ask you this - what DOESN'T the 14th Amendment forbid and what does it allow?
Click to expand...

Would you like an actual short-version of how equal protection actually works in practice?

edit: because your rant about all judges being treasonous seems to indicate you don't actually want to talk about this rationally.
 
Mr.Nick said:
There have already been state laws in place in which every gay progressive and their other go screaming 14th Amendment violation...

Let me ask you this - what DOESN'T the 14th Amendment forbid and what does it allow?
Click to expand...

It forbids restrictions within laws that treat people differently without proper justification of such restrictions furthering a legitimate state interest, at the least. It forbids laws that treat people differently in general without proper justification of such laws furthering a legitimate state interest. It allows for restrictions or laws that are justified as furthering some sort of legitimate state interest. Not that hard to figure out really.

The 14th is what prevents states from saying that men cannot have a driver's license, or white people cannot own cars, or Christians cannot be teachers, and it allows for age restrictions on contracts or even certain restrictions on state regulated/controlled licenses/permits based on ability, rather than saying that everyone can have one.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Who what?

Manipulating our Constitution is not treason?
Click to expand...

Not who. Whoah. An expression of surprise. (or sometimes indicating a desire to slow down or back up, but I suspect he meant the first thing)

And no, overturning an unconstitutional law is not treason.

So, do you want to discuss the limitations on the 14th? Because I can give you the short-version of why it's not actually an unlimited authority.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

um if we cant come up with reasons why we should ban polygamy what's the problem with it?

if we can how is a polygamist argument just as strong?

and if you know marriage to a child will never be aloud because of simple reasoning why did you present people calling for marriage to kids as a cause not to allow gay marriage?

why say people who don't support child marriage are hypocrites?

you would have 2 fathers or 2 mothers and don't the courts decide how parents need to support there children in cases of divorce any way

what happens if a hetero couple adopts a child then splits?
 
Mr.Nick said:
What was wrong??

MMM since when does one bitch dictate outcome, not to mention the EVIL 14th Amendment.

This is not some sort of ****ing theocracy or monarchy but the courts have circumvented those ideas and created their own.

All judges belong in prison on charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason.
Click to expand...

Well, we now know that not only do you know not a single thing about this case, nor constitutional law, nor how the judicial system in this country works.

Hint: the judge who made the ruling issued a stay on it until it is ruled on by the appeal court. That alone makes everything in your post painfully ignorant.
 
One of these many court cases will be the case that finally gets through to SCOTUS and is used to overturn same-sex marriage bans nationwide. I can't decide which would be more delicious: Utah or Virginia.

Utah has the mormon effect and all the money they've hurled into the deal, even shoving their efforts into other states. Virginia has the historical connotations with Loving v. Virginia.
 
Redress said:
Well, we now know that not only do you know not a single thing about this case, nor constitutional law, nor how the judicial system in this country works.

Hint: the judge who made the ruling issued a stay on it until it is ruled on by the appeal court. That alone makes everything in your post painfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

Here's something I haven't found:

Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
 
Deuce said:
Here's something I haven't found:

Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
Click to expand...

The clerks that issue marriage licenses in some VA counties (I can't really see how they would have any standing on this, it is their job and it in no way violates their rights to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples).
 
roguenuke said:
The clerks that issue marriage licenses in some VA counties (I can't really see how they would have any standing on this, it is their job and it in no way violates their rights to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples).
Click to expand...

Ahh.

Assholes. Hey, maybe I can get a job at the IRS and say it violates my religious freedom to issue tax-exempt status to Jews or Mormons or Hindus.

It would be irony of the most amazing kind if those employees were the ones that got this case to SCOTUS and thereby got same-sex marriage bans overturned nationwide, but I suspect this case would be punted on lack of standing just like Prop 8.
 
Deuce said:
Here's something I haven't found:

Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
Click to expand...

I am not sure any one has yet. The search for some one with standing will be interesting. However, there are a number of similar cases so one will be heard.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

As a note, Redress...I think this was the case that was playing in my head regarding lower courts deeming Homosexuality falling under Heighted Scrutiny despite the SCOTUS never directly asserting that. I knew I wasn't completely crazy :p
 
Deuce said:
Here's something I haven't found:

Who the **** is appealing this? Didn't VA drop defense of the case?
Click to expand...

Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

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

While the Attorney General may not be interested in defending the laws of Virginia, he does not singularly get to make a call as to what laws the people of the state wish to have defended in court. There have been other's that have been found by the court to have standing, and as such able to take over as defense for the case.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just because the Attorney General refuses to defended it doesn't mean others can't stand up and defend it.

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

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

But isn't that similar to what happened with Hollingsworth?
 
Deuce said:
One of these many court cases will be the case that finally gets through to SCOTUS and is used to overturn same-sex marriage bans nationwide. I can't decide which would be more delicious: Utah or Virginia.

Utah has the mormon effect and all the money they've hurled into the deal, even shoving their efforts into other states. Virginia has the historical connotations with Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping for Utah, just to show them what they get for spending MILLIONS to deny equal rights to other citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom