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

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

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

Click to expand...

1.) what it seems like in your opinion is irrelevant to facts lol
2.) correct which civil unions and domestic partnerships are not, hence not equal
3.) and your understanding is factually false. the fed doesnt even HAVE set regulations for this nor do the small amounts of rules that apply equal marriage in anyway lol
4.) property, taxes, medical decisions, child rights, testifying against each other, etc etc etc

You should educate yourself more about this topic before making false claims

Im sorry you are severely misinformed on this issue but the fact remains they are not equal and again that fact will never change.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

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.

Click to expand...

because it was factually not equal LMAO

why would anybody accept inequality and being treated as a lesser

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

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.

Click to expand...

Civil unions are more than a concept. Every state already has civil unions that are not the same as marriage even though most states ban same sex couples from entering into those civil unions.

The federal government has never recognized any civil union.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Again.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions | LegalMatch Law Library

A basic run down of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages, all of which ALREADY exist as more than concepts.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

1.) what it seems like in your opinion is irrelevant to facts lol
2.) correct which civil unions and domestic partnerships are not, hence not equal
3.) and your understanding is factually false. the fed doesnt even HAVE set regulations for this nor do the small amounts of rules that apply equal marriage in anyway lol
4.) property, taxes, medical decisions, child rights, testifying against each other, etc etc etc

Im sorry you are severely misinformed on this issue but the fact remains they are not equal and again that fact will never change.

Click to expand...

And you should learn to read a little better. What did I "claim"? I claimed that the pursuit of marriage rights was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency. Nothing you have responded to me with even addresses that very simple statement/observation. Why is that so uncomfortable to deal with?

As for the whole "the fed doesn't recognize civil unions" angle? That's along the same lines as arguing that we weren't equipped to handle all of the women voters should the 19th amendment pass.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I don't even comprehend how any of these pieces of SSM are even taken seriously considering there is no real federal legislating gays and lesbians to be married.

My personal position on the subject is completely different than what was manifested in the Constitution.... Hell if DOMA is a legitimate document then this whole SSM nonsense would be shocked down every time....

What I see is a Federal and some state government that are absolutely hypocritical in their laws....... The states and the federal government that founded this nation have turned in to absolute tyranny.

Now if the federal government or even sates want to deal with this issue than they can amend the Constitution(s)..... Until then they can stop using vague clauses that could justify just about anything.....

IMO, I hate this issue with a passion because it addresses a needless social issue in the middle of an economic hazard - save the social nonsense for after we get this economy back on track (which is difficult to do with Obama's anti-non-union private business vendetta.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

1.)And you should learn to read a little better.
2.)What did I "claim"?
3.) I claimed that the pursuit of marriage rights was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency.
4.) Nothing you have responded to me with even addresses that very simple statement/observation.
5.)Why is that so uncomfortable to deal with?
6.)As for the whole "the fed doesn't recognize civil unions" angle?
7.)That's along the same lines as arguing that we weren't equipped to handle all of the women voters should the 19th amendment pass.

Click to expand...

1.) dont need already proved your post and strawman to be false lol
2.) you claimed:
civil unions are equal to marriage
that SSM its not about equal rights

both are factually false

3.) correct you claimed that flasehood thanks for doubling down on that proven wrong strawman

4.) not only does it address it, to the honest, educated and objective people readinf it destroys it lol

5.) its not facts are easy to accept for me and facts prove your post wrong

6.) again not an angel its just a fact

7.) sorry this analogy doesnt work on any level and is not a parallel at all, try again.
one is a fact one is a subjective opinion. Your post loses again

do you have ANYTHING relevant , factual or that actually matters?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

Again.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions | LegalMatch Law Library

A basic run down of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages, all of which ALREADY exist as more than concepts.

Click to expand...

And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.

From your source...

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...

What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.

From your source...


What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.

Click to expand...

wrong again, they werent interested cause its wasnt, is not, and can never be equal. Its impossible.

this is a very easy and factual concept to understand, its hilarious you cant or wont

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

1.) dont need already proved your post and strawman to be false lol
2.) you claimed:
civil unions are equal to marriage
that SSM its not about equal rights

both are factually false

3.) correct you claimed that flasehood thanks for doubling down on that proven wrong strawman

4.) not only does it address it, to the honest, educated and objective people readinf it destroys it lol

5.) its not facts are easy to accept for me and facts prove your post wrong

6.) again not an angel its just a fact

7.) sorry this analogy doesnt work on any level and is not a parallel at all, try again.
one is a fact one is a subjective opinion. Your post loses again

do you have ANYTHING relevant , factual or that actually matters?

Click to expand...

Oh for Christ sake would you just give it a rest!

I'm stopping at #2...

What Is a Civil Union?

2.) you claimed:
civil unions are equal to marriage
that SSM its not about equal rights

Click to expand...

I never claimed EITHER. You, son, are LYING. I said that SSM is about seeking moral equivalency. That's it. Is seeking moral equivalency somehow not a noble endeavor?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

wrong again, they werent interested cause its wasnt, is not, and can never be equal. Its impossible.

this is a very easy and factual concept to understand, its hilarious you cant or wont

Click to expand...

What is hilarious is that you can't articulate a thought on the subject.

This post has no substance at all and you know it.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

1.)Oh for Christ sake would you just give it a rest!
2.)I'm stopping at #2...
3.)What Is a Civil Union?
4.)I never claimed EITHER. You, son, are LYING. I said that SSM is about seeking moral equivalency. That's it. Is seeking moral equivalency somehow not a noble endeavor?

Click to expand...

1.) sorry facts bother you but no, i wont lol
2.) the better move would have been to stop at your first factually wrong post
3.) NOT a marriage, thats all that needs said
4.) you can post that lie all you want thread history proves it wrong LMAO

Facts win again

SSM is about equal rights.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

What is hilarious is that you can't articulate a thought on the subject.
2.)This post has no substance at all and you know it.

Click to expand...

1.) oh look a failed personal insult. this is common when one has no intellectually honest and factual path to take to defend their failed and factually proven wrong posts.
2.) accept it points out the fact that the post it was referring to was factually wrong. :shrug:

do you have anythign factual and on topic you would like to discuss and that you can support?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

Facts win again

Click to expand...

What were the facts that won?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

AGENT J said:

1.) oh look a failed personal insult. this is common when one has no intellectually honest and factual path to take to defend their failed and factually proven wrong posts.
2.) accept it points out the fact that the post it was referring to was factually wrong. :shrug:

do you have anythign factual and on topic you would like to discuss and that you can support?

Click to expand...

Again... what facts are you talking about?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.

From your source...


What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.

Click to expand...

Civil unions are distinctly different than marriage. Why would the government make them the same as marriage when they were created specifically to not be like marriage? There is already a government union that offers all the rights of marriage, it is called MARRIAGE. Why have two separate sets of laws, called different names, that do exactly the same thing?

I don't have a gay drivers license, I have a drivers license. I don't have a gay fishing license, I have a fishing license. Why would I have a gay marriage license when there is already a perfectly suitable marriage license already in existence?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

?????

Click to expand...

Everybody know (well anyone that is politically informed knows) that the president can either be disposed of or impeached via high crimes and misdemeanors...(high crimes such as Murder or Treason) and mistomenors such as perjury , theft or even a DUI.... Now do you think Obama would EVER take the stand in any case? - the most ironic thing is that IF Obama was impeached he would play "dumb president" and his defense would be that his administration was anarchistic and tyrannical and made their own decisions on their own volition and Obama had nothing to do with any of that.... Of course the evidence that proves he was behind it would either be lost or extremely blacked out - like most "top secret" documents are that have been filed and released by the US government via the FOIA....

If Obama was impeached with substantial evidence -this would be the trial of the next 500 yeas.

Obama is certainly one of the most spiteful and damaging presidents in US history against US citizens and our economy, and I believe a strong pseudo-case an be made with that, however the patriot act certainly puts a damper on how much information a special prosecutor could obtain due to that fact alone.

Furthermore Obama is an evil man on a mission - he is not stupid enough to take the trial in an alleged impeachment via cross examination.

Once Obama is a civilian he will end up with the blago treatment.......

My sense tell me as a civilian he will be indicted on well over 500-750 charges because they directly connect NOT to international law but to US law.

What is good for the Goose is Good For the Gander.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Mr.Nick said:

IMO, I hate this issue with a passion because it addresses a needless social issue in the middle of an economic hazard - save the social nonsense for after we get this economy back on track (which is difficult to do with Obama's anti-non-union private business vendetta.

Click to expand...

Well then stop fighting it since there are more pressing matters. The ****ing GOP is the one with anti-SSM in their PLATFORM. So maybe you should tell them to stop fighting it and move on to more pressing matters ok?

Oh wait, that is because the GOP makes it a big ****ing deal each election instead of worry about other things. SSM is going to be legal it is inevitable so why do they waste time fighting it?

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:

So you believe that gays want to 'turn' other people gay? Oh. My. God. That believes you think that people can 'be turned gay.' I think we're back to the dinosaurs.

Also, can you please name a "society that sanctioned homosexuality that ended up with rampant homosexuality?" And it's not Rome, you've already had that explained to you.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a good one.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

wolfsgirl said:

Civil unions are distinctly different than marriage. Why would the government make them the same as marriage when they were created specifically to not be like marriage? There is already a government union that offers all the rights of marriage, it is called MARRIAGE. Why have two separate sets of laws, called different names, that do exactly the same thing?

I don't have a gay drivers license, I have a drivers license. I don't have a gay fishing license, I have a fishing license. Why would I have a gay marriage license when there is already a perfectly suitable marriage license already in existence?

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and personally I don't really care if you're license says 'married" or "united". I was only talking about the concept and there are a lot of people out there that have a problem with two people of the same sex having their relationship being categorized, named, and referred to in the same way as two people of the opposite sex.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:

I hear what you are saying and personally I don't really care if you're license says 'married" or "united". I was only talking about the concept and there are a lot of people out there that have a problem with two people of the same sex having their relationship being categorized, named, and referred to as, in same way as two people of the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

Did you not notice that states were passing laws against same sex civil unions? That alone shows me it isn't about "preserving marriage" to those people. It was about keeping same sex couples as second class citizens.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:

It's not that people don't want homosexuals to marry. It's that homosexuals don't seem interested in having sex with legitimate potential marriage partners.

I suppose soon enough homosexuals will be playing husband and wife all across the nation, though. I don't know why but it seems that any society that encourages rampant homosexuality doesn't last long after that happens. When in Rome, huh?

Click to expand...

It's certainly not for you to decide what constitutes 'legitimate partner.' Go shed tears over britney's 24hr marriage or the 50% divorce rate. As for 'encouraging' homosexuality, we don't need your approval, at all. It's going to happen whether there's legal marriage or not, whether you encourage it or not.

You only wish this country had the sustained dominance that Rome did, over 1000 years. Most powerful empire the world has ever known, tolerance of homosexuality waxed and waned over time, and this is what you come up with to support your 'cause'.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

TheNextEra said:

Well then stop fighting it since there are more pressing matters. The ****ing GOP is the one with anti-SSM in their PLATFORM. So maybe you should tell them to stop fighting it and move on to more pressing matters ok?

Oh wait, that is because the GOP makes it a big ****ing deal each election instead of worry about other things. SSM is going to be legal it is inevitable so why do they waste time fighting it?

Click to expand...

Or maybe the US can just stop recognizing marriages altogether and let the sacrament of religion adhere to religion?

That's the only FAIR way to tackle such social issue, considering Mariiage is NOT a civil right and it has NEVER been a civil right in any civilization that I'm familiar with.

Governments have ALWAYS been at the forefront of this marriage debacle..... When the general consensus of popular votes have done it the democratic way the measure ALWAYS FAILS....

Of course a libertarian would always come up with such a sane and FAIR outcome for all.

Unions are by your church - not by a bunch of suits in the Beltway/NE/etc.. arguing existing nonsense bonding are or should be illegal on speculation.

That sort of wording was NEVER in the Constitution NOR was it ever in the Bill of Rights....

My opinions on the subject don't mater - what does are the words of our founding father, and how twisted and vague Constitution Amendments can twisted into anything they want and can ant can be .......

The Federal and State goverments have played a much larger role in the gay and lesbian community than local communities have in the past.

Now we can't use these vague words in the Constitution to validate homosexual marriage when those said words can validate juts about anything ...

Besides in this day in age in 2014 it maybe abnormal to in gauge in a homosexual relationship, but at the same time hardly illegal.

My only concern is that those relationships are not taken too far in public as an act of defiance.

Yes as a libertarian a my political affiliation - I certain do not agree with their lifestyle -- however I am far as from accepting it just as long as they don't bother more.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:

Rest assured, SCOTUS has already decided this in favor of marriage equality. It's hidden in the Windsor decision. Even Antonin Scalia acknowledged that in his dissent.

Click to expand...

scalia doesn't believe in precedence so he tends to rule however he may feel from one day to the next.

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Mr.Nick said:

What I see is a Federal and some state government that are absolutely hypocritical in their laws....... The states and the federal government that founded this nation have turned in to absolute tyranny.

Now if the federal government or even sates want to deal with this issue than they can amend the Constitution(s)..... Until then they can stop using vague clauses that could justify just about anything.....

IMO, I hate this issue with a passion because it addresses a needless social issue in the middle of an economic hazard - save the social nonsense for after we get this economy back on track (which is difficult to do with Obama's anti-non-union private business vendetta.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's tyrannical of them to ban marriage equality. You might want to look up these definition before throwing out random words as if you're being oppressed because *others* can marry. Such hysteria makes anything else you say unappealing.

I suppose you also think interracial marriage should be banned since the constitution doesn't clearly state otherwise. It's not the legislature that's dealing with this issue either, but the courts. They've ruled over and over that such bans are unconstitutional. No need to amend anything.

Please, this is far easier to solve than poverty and in fact will be over and done with next year when SCOTUS rules. And easy for you to just say let's delay it inevitably when it's not your rights being denied. Considering that, again you have no credibility on this.

Besides, this was being debated way back in the *good* economy. Ever heard of "DOMA"/clinton? The endless appeals of every single court's ruling are what's dragging this on, so go blame all the bigots out there.