Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:

My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Nobody is endorsing anything. Recognizing other people's rights is not more endorsing it than endorsing the hate spewed by those imbeciles at service men's funerals because we protect free speech.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions.

Click to expand...

Playing a gam of semantics is somehow making a difference for you?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you somehow not comfortable with admitting that seeking moral equivalence is the goal here?

Click to expand...

Please tell me which state has civil unions that are federally recognized. As far as I know, not one civil union is federally recognized and does not receive the 1,100 + federal benefits and protections that a civil marriage does.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

One more state challenge has been denied. Virginia is the next in the ever-shortening list of states where gays may not marry.

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia

"A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court’s decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.

"Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman."

Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year."


IMO, state governors and legislators should stop wasting their taxpayer money on challenging SSM....the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now.

Where is Agent J? I need him to post an updated list

Click to expand...

Virginia didn't fall. I take issue with the language in your title.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

prometeus said:

Nobody is endorsing anything. Recognizing other people's rights is not more endorsing it than endorsing the hate spewed by those imbeciles at service men's funerals because we protect free speech.

Click to expand...

Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

One more state challenge has been denied. Virginia is the next in the ever-shortening list of states where gays may not marry.

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia

"A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court’s decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.

"Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman."

Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year."


IMO, state governors and legislators should stop wasting their taxpayer money on challenging SSM....the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now.

Where is Agent J? I need him to post an updated list

Click to expand...

I did so yesterday but here it is
Changes/Updates in RED
7/27/14 Version 16.0

21 States with Equal Rights and 14 Stayed/Appealed/Pending

21 States with Equal Rights
Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Oregon May 19, 2014
Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
Colorado July 23, 2014 (partial)
Virgina - July 28th, 2014 (could affect NC, SC, WV)


14 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
Utah – December 20, 2013 (Stayed) June 25th 2014 10th upheld banning is unconstitutional. Ruling stayed.
Oklahoma - (Stayed) (10th ruling could impact this)
Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated)
Virginia - February 14, 2014 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)
Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Ohio - April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Idaho - May 13, 2014 (Stayed)
Wisconsin - June 6, 2014(Stayed)
Indiana - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Kansas - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Wyoming - June 25th, 2014(Stayed)
Florida - July 17th, 2014



20 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama
Georgia
Kansas (10th ruling could impact this)
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wyoming (10th ruling could impact this)

4 States with Court Cases and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Arizona
Missouri
Nevada


thats 50 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - RULED ON and probably going to SCOTUS
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- nothing pending, talks of two cases
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")
10-th - 3 panel judge ruled banning SSM is unconstitutional. Stayed

State Attorney Generals no longer defending the bans due to their unconstitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada
Oregon (has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Virginia(stayed)

THERE ARE NO STATES LEFT NOT FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:

Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".

Click to expand...

LMAO 100% factually false only the contract and rights are being protected and endorsed

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you somehow not comfortable with admitting that seeking moral equivalence is the goal here?

Click to expand...

well facts prove your post wrong since civil unions are factually not equal, try again your fantasy strawman fails

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

well facts prove your post wrong since civil unions are factually not equal, try again your fantasy strawman fails

Click to expand...

What part of civil unions was not equal? I am allowing for the possibility that I am not aware of all of the facts here, so fill me in if you don't mind.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

Please tell me which state has civil unions that are federally recognized. As far as I know, not one civil union is federally recognized and does not receive the 1,100 + federal benefits and protections that a civil marriage does.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the concept of civil unions as a mechanism to allow same sex couples to gain the same benefit. The very concept was rejected outright before the feds even had to make it their business to figure out how to deal with it. And seriously... 1,100 benefits? I'm married, fill me in, please. I feel like I'm missing out.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

prometeus said:

Playing a gam of semantics is somehow making a difference for you?

Click to expand...

If you are going to respond to my posts I would ask just two things:

1. Respond to the WHOLE post and don't cherry pick lines to avoid having to acknowledge the context.

2. Don't use words that you obviously don't understand the meaning of. "Semantics".... sheesh.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

One more state challenge has been denied. Virginia is the next in the ever-shortening list of states where gays may not marry.

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia

"A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court’s decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.

"Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman."

Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year."


IMO, state governors and legislators should stop wasting their taxpayer money on challenging SSM....the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now.

Where is Agent J? I need him to post an updated list

Click to expand...

The vision of legal gay marriage in all 50 states is coming to fruition!

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

I was talking about the concept of civil unions as a mechanism to allow same sex couples to gain the same benefit. The very concept was rejected outright before the feds even had to make it their business to figure out how to deal with it. And seriously... 1,100 benefits? I'm married, fill me in, please. I feel like I'm missing out.

Click to expand...

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.2

We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003

Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

Click to expand...

I was never aware that civil unions were even offered. many states banned them at the same time they banned marriage. Maybe you could show me where the offer was extended federally.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf


I was never aware that civil unions were even offered. many states banned them at the same time they banned marriage. Maybe you could show me where the offer was extended federally.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about a formal offer being extended federally. My only comment on the matter was that the CONCEPT of civil unions was rejected by the gay community. It was. If you're trying to say that it wasn't then maybe you could point me to some of the gay rights groups who supported it?

Look, you and a couple of others here took issue with me stating that gay marriage was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency. I don't find anything profound or controversial at all about that statement. I even acknowledged that IF I were gay I'd probably be seeking the same thing. So what is the bid deal about saying it out loud? Am I wrong? Do gay couples really not give a **** about it?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

One more state challenge has been denied. Virginia is the next in the ever-shortening list of states where gays may not marry.

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia

"A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court’s decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.

"Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman."

Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year."


IMO, state governors and legislators should stop wasting their taxpayer money on challenging SSM....the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now.

Where is Agent J? I need him to post an updated list

Click to expand...

Well impeaching a sitting president is almost impossible to impeach - the president would either have to be wihtout a reasonable doubt guilty of treason or commit other high crimes or misdemeanors...

As much as I would like to see that pesedo-socialist/anti- capitalist impeached, from the information I have I just cant see that happening...Now I have no access to the classified information the House Committees possess, I would certainly hope they have enough evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt Obama was acting nefarious in is his position. As a person will little information other than that was leaked - I believe it would be better for the prosecutor to attack those close to Obama and have them "talk."

Either way it would be an extremely bizarre case, and quite frankly I would certainly wait until he is a civilian to start knocking doors down.

Obama is no better than a Madoff as far as I'm concerned that the government acts like a Ponzi Scheme , and potential RICO charge could be filed against all these clowns Invloved in this present administration.

The best part is that if such a criminal indictment can be filed against Obama when he is out of office, his entire presidency goes up in smoke.

However if those in Congress want to impeach Obama I would love to hear their legal briefs......

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

I never said anything about a formal offer being extended federally. My only comment on the matter was that the CONCEPT of civil unions was rejected by the gay community. It was. If you're trying to say that it wasn't then maybe you could point me to some of the gay rights groups who supported it?

Look, you and a couple of others here took issue with me stating that gay marriage was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency. I don't find anything profound or controversial at all about that statement. I even acknowledged that IF I were gay I'd probably be seeking the same thing. So what is the bid deal about saying it out loud? Am I wrong? Do gay couples really not give a **** about it?

Click to expand...

In order for something to be rejected, as you claimed, it would have to be offered. No federally recognized civil unions were ever offered, so they could not be rejected.

I honestly don't give a flip what you think about my relationship. The opinion of others has no effect on my life, or my relationship. I am interested in having all of the same legal protections Married couples have. I am interested in not being denied access to my fiancee when she is in the hospital. I am interested in not having to pay estate taxes on our home if something happens to my fiancee, just like current spouses don't have to. I am interested in having our children be legally both of ours. you know those little day to day things that married couples don't have to deal with.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

In order for something to be rejected, as you claimed, it would have to be offered. No federally recognized civil unions were ever offered, so they could not be rejected.

I honestly don't give a flip what you think about my relationship. The opinion of others has no effect on my life, or my relationship. I am interested in having all of the same legal protections Married couples have. I am interested in not being denied access to my fiancee when she is in the hospital. I am interested in not having to pay estate taxes on our home if something happens to my fiancee, just like current spouses don't have to. I am interested in having our children be legally both of ours. you know those little day to day things that married couples don't have to deal with.

Click to expand...

And I appreciate your honest response. I do.

And just out of curiosity, what have I posted would give you any indication that I have the slightest concern about your relationship?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

And I appreciate your honest response. I do.

And just out of curiosity, what have I posted would give you any indication that I have the slightest concern about your relationship?

Click to expand...

You are asking if the reason I want to get legally married is for acceptance. No, it's not. People can accept my marriage or not, it doesn't matter in the least, as long as I have the same legal protections as every other American citizen. That includes all of the legal protections that go along with marriage.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

What part of civil unions was not equal? I am allowing for the possibility that I am not aware of all of the facts here, so fill me in if you don't mind.

Click to expand...

I dont mind giving people facts at all. and you are NOT aware of the facts whether you allow it or not.

there are approx 1200 federal rights/protections that come with a marriage contract then there are the many state ones also.

civil unions and domestic partnerships have NEVER nor COULD they ever be equal nor do they grant all the same things in one swoop.
In fact some things cant be granted any other way but through marriage.

Sorry this fact will never change

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

I dont mind giving people facts at all. and you are NOT aware of the facts whether you allow it or not.

there are approx 1200 federal rights/protections that come with a marriage contract then there are the many state ones also.

civil unions and domestic partnerships have NEVER nor COULD they ever be equal nor do they grant all the same things in one swoop.
In fact some things cant be granted any other way but through marriage.

Sorry this fact will never change

Click to expand...

That sentence in bold seems like BS on the surface. Married couples get certain federal benefits based on marriage. The concept of civil unions gave the same benefits from what I understand. If they didn't, what was the difference?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

That sentence in bold seems like BS on the surface. Married couples get certain federal benefits based on marriage. The concept of civil unions gave the same benefits from what I understand. If they didn't, what was the difference?

Click to expand...

The difference is not one civil union is federally recognized, thus they do not receive those 1,100+ FEDERAL benefits and protections that come with marriage.

What Is Marriage?
Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union?
A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. States that have domestic partnership or civil union laws include Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois.

Click to expand...

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

You are asking if the reason I want to get legally married is for acceptance. No, it's not. People can accept my marriage or not, it doesn't matter in the least, as long as I have the same legal protections as every other American citizen. That includes all of the legal protections that go along with marriage.

Click to expand...

So in other words you just want to be viewed and treated the same as any other married couple?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

So in other words you just want to be viewed and treated the same as any other married couple?

Click to expand...

I want to be viewed and treated by the government the same as any other married couple, as dictated by the 14th amendment.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

The difference is not one civil union is federally recognized, thus they do not receive those 1,100+ FEDERAL benefits and protections that come with marriage.

Click to expand...

And that is a total cop out. Why would the federal government go through the hassle of creating a formal recognition of something that hadn't been created yet? Civil Unions was never anything more than a concept. A concept that was rejected. Why was the concept rejected? That's what I'm asking.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Mr.Nick said:

Well impeaching a sitting president is almost impossible to impeach - the president would either have to be wihtout a reasonable doubt guilty of treason or commit other high crimes or misdemeanors...

As much as I would like to see that pesedo-socialist/anti- capitalist impeached, from the information I have I just cant see that happening...Now I have no access to the classified information the House Committees possess, I would certainly hope they have enough evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt Obama was acting nefarious in is his position. As a person will little information other than that was leaked - I believe it would be better for the prosecutor to attack those close to Obama and have them "talk."

Either way it would be an extremely bizarre case, and quite frankly I would certainly wait until he is a civilian to start knocking doors down.

Obama is no better than a Madoff as far as I'm concerned that the government acts like a Ponzi Scheme , and potential RICO charge could be filed against all these clowns Invloved in this present administration.

The best part is that if such a criminal indictment can be filed against Obama when he is out of office, his entire presidency goes up in smoke.

However if those in Congress want to impeach Obama I would love to hear their legal briefs......

Click to expand...

?????