- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- 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 15th AMENDMENT
HUGE steps
this is awesome equal rights is coming and coming soon!!!!!
:usflag2::2party:
LOLPat 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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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 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).
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).
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."
I think you are in the wrong thread
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you saying that human nature mandates promiscuity?
What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as natural?
What sources before the last two hundred years consider sodomy as 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.
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.
In accordance with the nature of a thing.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?