• 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

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional


A federal judge ruled late Thursday evening Virginia's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's decision makes Virginia the second state in the South to have a ban on gay marriages overturned.

Eight years ago, Virginians voted to constitutionally define marriage between a man and a woman. Thursday, Wright ruled the ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

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
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...-Marriage-Ban-Unconstitutional-245473531.html

back-up links:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/va-judge-sex-marriage-unconstitutional-22510341
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/virginia-same-sex-marriage/5473687/
http://www.nbc12.com/story/24721161/judge-rules-va-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ia-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-unconstitutional/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 15th AMENDMENT

HUGE steps
this is awesome equal rights is coming and coming soon!!!!!

:usflag2::2party:

Pat Robertson may have some weather reports coming.:lol:
 
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.
 
Pat Robertson may have some weather reports coming.:lol:
LOL

Pat Robertson is a disgrace Karna is going to push him down a metal flight of stairs soon or later.

like i said above and in the other post
these two rullings are SOOOOOO HUGE!

the fact that they were federal judges and they have to go to SCOTUS or one case like it and the fact that these judges just didn say just "equality" or "equal rights" or "discrimination" is so big.

they mention how marriage is a right
they mentioned the unequal and civil rights violations of women and minorities and compared them (which some topically uneducated posters say they arent comparable and call it hyperbole which is pure dishonest ignorance)
and they say UNCONSTITUTIONAL and they say IT VIOLATES THE 14th AMENDMENT


thats HUUUUUUUUUUGE to actually put it in thier ruling and directly say it

it makes me so happy that im living during one of those times in america when we right one of our wrongs, when i was younger i thought id never see it
 
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.

I think you are in the wrong thread
 
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.

You don't know what unnatural means, but if you had any sense you would already know that.
 
I love how well she puts it too.

“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.”

She didn't beat around the bush at all about it. In simple terms, she told the proponents of the law that their reasoning holds no water in the law and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Tradition is not valid. Enforcing the will of the people is not valid when it comes to a constitutional challenge. And the claim of "responsible procreation" is not valid (since without some major restrictions upon opposite sex marriages, marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation and limiting same sex couples from marriage in no way harms responsible procreation).
 
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.

Before we can go anywhere with this, you need to define natural. Be very careful with this, because many rights involve things which do not occur in nature. Good luck, have fun.
 
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.

Marriages themselves are unnatural, particularly legal marriages. People invented marriage, not nature. Mating is natural (various forms of mating), marriage is not.

There is nothing wrong with something being unnatural.
 
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.

Pretty sure that Agent J just mis-typed on that, particularly since the article...which he quoted...say's the 14th...which he also quoted, and put in nice bright red...something that is very hard to miss for most people.

And how is it stupid for them to uphold peoples right to get married? We have a long history of judges affirming that getting married is a right so its not like it sets any new precedent.
 
I love how well she puts it too.



She didn't beat around the bush at all about it. In simple terms, she told the proponents of the law that their reasoning holds no water in the law and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Tradition is not valid. Enforcing the will of the people is not valid when it comes to a constitutional challenge. And the claim of "responsible procreation" is not valid (since without some major restrictions upon opposite sex marriages, marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation and limiting same sex couples from marriage in no way harms responsible procreation).

Wow. She really nailed it.
 
I love how well she puts it too.



She didn't beat around the bush at all about it. In simple terms, she told the proponents of the law that their reasoning holds no water in the law and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. Tradition is not valid. Enforcing the will of the people is not valid when it comes to a constitutional challenge. And the claim of "responsible procreation" is not valid (since without some major restrictions upon opposite sex marriages, marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation and limiting same sex couples from marriage in no way harms responsible procreation).

exactly it was beautiful, the judge in Kentucky said a similar statement about the total bull**** excuse of tradition

Protecting tradition, Heyburn wrote, 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," Heyburn wrote, in what may likely become one of the most frequently-quoted passages of his decision. "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."



It hard to believe that people don't understand this basic common sense
 
I think you are in the wrong thread

I see you edited your post.

You don't know what unnatural means, but if you had any sense you would already know that.

Yep, everyone was defining it wrong for centuries before the liberals showed up and figured out what the word actually meant (without actually defining what it was, but only what it supposedly wasn't).
 
Yep, everyone was defining it wrong for centuries before the liberals showed up and figured out what the word actually meant (without actually defining what it was, but only what it supposedly wasn't).

Actually it has always been defined correctly, but now conservatives have tried to alter the definition in order to fit with their bigoted agenda. Fortunately, the dictionary, something that they may not have read, proves them wrong.

Btw... I noticed you removed my quote from your signature. I liked having it there. It humiliated you with every post you made.
 
Before we can go anywhere with this, you need to define natural. Be very careful with this, because many rights involve things which do not occur in nature. Good luck, have fun.

In accordance with the nature of a thing.

Marriages themselves are unnatural, particularly legal marriages. People invented marriage, not nature. Mating is natural (various forms of mating), marriage is not.

There is nothing wrong with something being unnatural.

Are you saying that human nature mandates promiscuity?

Pretty sure that Agent J just mis-typed on that, particularly since the article...which he quoted...say's the 14th...which he also quoted, and put in nice bright red...something that is very hard to miss for most people.

And how is it stupid for them to uphold peoples right to get married? We have a long history of judges affirming that getting married is a right so its not like it sets any new precedent.

It is certainly new to say that gay marriage is even a thing, much less a right.
 
Might as well post the equal rights tracker here also to help us keep track.
I also try to keep all updates here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...winning-equal-rights-gays-coming-soon-72.html
and ask people to help because its going so quick.


2/13/14 Version 5.0

21 States with Equal Rights (3 in stay)

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
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 Currently Stayed and wiil be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed and wiil be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - Janurary 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - Feburary 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virgina - Feburary 2/14/14 (stayed)

Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

18 States Working Towards Equal Rights

11 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Nevada
 
Actually it has always been defined correctly, but now conservatives have tried to alter the definition in order to fit with their bigoted agenda. Fortunately, the dictionary, something that they may not have read, proves them wrong.

Btw... I noticed you removed my quote from your signature. I liked having it there. It humiliated you with every post you made.

What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as natural?
 
Are you saying that human nature mandates promiscuity?

I'm saying that our sexual relationships are not what make our marriages. And the marriages we are discussing are legal contracts. No legal contracts are natural. Do you see animals making legal contracts with each other? Do we need a legal contract of marriage to have sex? To have children? Do we need to be in a marriage to love someone? Do marriages automatically make people monogamous by nature?
 
What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as natural?

You are NOW using the word natural as an opinion. Sodomy has always been natural as it occurs in nature. Your, or anyone elses opinion on that is irrelevant to the fact of the definition.

You are also making the error of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
 
What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as natural?

Any. Sodomy is part of nature, found in nature, in many species. It is completely natural. Just because you disapprove of something doesn't mean it isn't natural.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Amen.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
In accordance with the nature of a thing.

Congratz on an impossibly vague, circular definition. It does not even work for you. Homosexuality has been around since at least the dawn of man, so I think you could easily say it fits in as part of the nature of things. Many animal species engage in homosexual behavior, so such behavior is clearly found in nature and "in accordance with the nature of things".

That definition fails you on multiple levels, care to try again?
 
Human nature is evil :shrug:

First of all, opinion, nothing more. And a very pessimistic view of humanity you got there.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom