Federal judge strikes down Virginia's ban on gay marriage

[aGameOfThrones]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional late on Thursday, saying it denied gay couples a fundamental freedom to marry.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen in Norfolk, Virginia, added momentum to growing acceptance of gay marriage in the United States.

Allen said Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violated the right to due process and equal protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution. However, she stayed execution of her order striking down the ban pending an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry," Allen, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote in her 41-page opinion.

She ordered submission of a proposed final order by March 14.

The decision in Bostic v. Rainey, in which two gay couples sought to strike down the Virginia ban, follows two high-profile rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-virginia-39-ban-gay-035515846.html

 

[Christian Liberty]

Wow, so now we have two states having this done in what... two days? Is the entire country going to have SSM by the end of the month?

 

[JK/SEA]

Wow, so now we have two states having this done in what... two days? Is the entire country going to have SSM by the end of the month?

is that a problem?....remember, gay people vote and support political candidates too.

just sayin'.....

 

[Brett85]

This is what happens when the Supreme Court issues such a vague ruling. They should've addressed the actual issue when the case came before them. Hopefully it will get back to them and they'll rule on the actual merits of the case and decide to uphold the 10th amendment.

 

[Spikender]

Yep, my state... I would like to know where in the Constitution the part about the natural right to decide who to marry is, I'm a bit confused on that point.

Either way, I wish my state would just get out of the business of marriage. States rights and all that, but honestly it causes more trouble than it's worth. Let the homosexual people do whatever as long as it doesn't effect me.

 

[Brett85]

Either way, I wish my state would just get out of the business of marriage. States rights and all that, but honestly it causes more trouble than it's worth. Let the homosexual people do whatever as long as it doesn't effect me.

What the gay lobby is actually pushing for with this is a massive police state; it's an attempt to criminalize and persecute anyone who disagrees with them. We've already seen that with a bakery owner being forced to sell a cake to a gay couple, a photographer being forced to take photographs of a gay wedding. These people don't just want equal rights. They want to use force to make everyone agree with them and accept their lifestyle. No dissent allowed.

 

[eduardo89]

Yep, my state... I would like to know where in the Constitution the part about the natural right to decide who to marry is, I'm a bit confused on that point.

Of course there is a natural right to decide who to marry. There's also the Constitutional right of freedom of association.

That said, there is nothing in the Constitution that says states must recognise any type of marriage. That is left completely up to the states.

 

[Spikender]

Of course there is a natural right to decide who to marry. There's also the Constitutional right of freedom of association.

That said, there is nothing in the Constitution that says states must recognise any type of marriage. That is left completely up to the states.

True.

 

[phill4paul]

What the gay lobby is actually pushing for with this is a massive police state; it's an attempt to criminalize and persecute anyone who disagrees with them. We've already seen that with a bakery owner being forced to sell a cake to a gay couple, a photographer being forced to take photographs of a gay wedding. These people don't just want equal rights. They want to use force to make everyone agree with them and accept their lifestyle. No dissent allowed.

Which is pretty much what the "moral majority" has done for centuries to push their anti-gay values agenda.

 

[Brett85]

Which is pretty much what the "moral majority" has done for centuries to push their anti-gay values agenda.

The social conservatives aren't advocating arresting any gay couple for getting married or doing anything else. The only group that actually wants to criminalize its opposition is the gay lobby.

 

[phill4paul]

The social conservatives aren't advocating arresting any gay couple for getting married or doing anything else. The only group that actually wants to criminalize its opposition is the gay lobby.

They've come along way, baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

 

[eduardo89]

Which is pretty much what the "moral majority" has done for centuries to push their anti-gay values agenda.

Perhaps because homosexual acts are immoral?

 

[fisharmor]

I hope my home commonwealth has already learned long ago the folly of choosing a hot-button topic as the one to choose for pushing back against federal overreach.

 

[phill4paul]

Perhaps because homosexual acts are immoral?

Not to homosexuals.

 

[Spikender]

Perhaps because homosexual acts are immoral?

I disagree with you on this point, that's a purely religious perspective.

 

[eduardo89]

Not to homosexuals.

Morality isn't subjective.

But enough on this topic, we disagree and it's just going to lead to further thread derailment.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why is a federal court ruling on a state matter? If the federal ruling was to strike down a state law passed legalizing SSM, would supporters of the Virginia ruling think that was fine too?

 

[thoughtomator]

eh, hardly matters... Virginia is lost to the Socialists already. They'd pass this as legislation soon enough.

 

[Occam's Banana]

They've come along way, baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

The fact that that sort of thing is now largely passé is a sign of progress.
But as per usual, the pendulum is now swinging too far in the other direction ...

 

[Christian Liberty]

is that a problem?....remember, gay people vote and support political candidates too.

just sayin'.....

Yeah... I think it is. Not because of my personal feelings about homosexuality, which aren't really relevant, but because of the combination of the fact that, as TC points out, a large portion of the gay lobby wants a police state, and the fact that this is a further erosion of the 10th amendment.

As far as issues go, this isn't necessarily the one I'm going to die on. But I still don't want the government recognizing homosexual marriage, and I especially don't want the government destroying the 10th amendment. I'm completely in favor of getting the government out of marriage.

Yep, my state... I would like to know where in the Constitution the part about the natural right to decide who to marry is, I'm a bit confused on that point.

Either way, I wish my state would just get out of the business of marriage. States rights and all that, but honestly it causes more trouble than it's worth. Let the homosexual people do whatever as long as it doesn't effect me.

They aren't actually being prevented. What should change is the fact that heterosexuals have their marriages specially recognized by the State. Nobody should, it should be treated like any other contract.

The "benefit designee" idea that someone proposed awhile back is a good step in that direction.

That said, even if we don't like a decision an individual state makes with regards to this issue, whether to recognize or not to recognize homosexual marriages, it is no excuse to expand the police state.

What the gay lobby is actually pushing for with this is a massive police state; it's an attempt to criminalize and persecute anyone who disagrees with them. We've already seen that with a bakery owner being forced to sell a cake to a gay couple, a photographer being forced to take photographs of a gay wedding. These people don't just want equal rights. They want to use force to make everyone agree with them and accept their lifestyle. No dissent allowed.

Unfortunately, this seems to be true most of the time. I kind of feel bad for those gay rights activists who do NOT fit into this category. But, they need to wise up and become libertarians on this issue, rather than fascist libertines. Or, at least, they need to stop associating what they support with that which the fascist libertines support.

The social conservatives aren't advocating arresting any gay couple for getting married or doing anything else. The only group that actually wants to criminalize its opposition is the gay lobby.

There are exceptions to this. I know a pastor, who believe it or not is actually pretty darn good on fiscal and foreign policy, but he thinks homosexuals should be arrested and repeat offenders should be castrated. I don't know any full fledged theonomists IRL, but I've talked to a couple of them on the internet that want to execute homosexuals. That said, these groups are a huge minority at this point and politically irrelevant, at least on this one issue. There are far MORE people on the homo-fascist side than on the Christo-fascist side of this issue.

Also, P4P's comment is kind of collectivist. I never advocated legally punishing homosexuals. As far as I know TC hasn't either, and if he ever did think that, he doesn't think that anymore. Most modern Christians have never advocated for criminalization of homosexuality, and those older ones who have mostly do not do so anymore. You want to attack those who still want to criminalize it, go ahead, but that's not most of us.

The fact that that sort of thing is now largely passé is a sign of progress.
But as per usual, the pendulum is now swinging too far in the other direction ...

Yep.