Judge Rules Virginia Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Case to go to appeals court.

Judge rules VA ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Judge rules VA ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
A federal judge in Norfolk ruled Thursday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, effectively sending the case to an appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's decision made Virginia the second state in the South to issue a ruling recognizing the legality of gay marriages, The New York Times reported.

Wright stayed her decision until an appeals court rules, meaning that gay couples will not be able to marry in the state immediately.

Kim McCoy February 24, 2014 at 05:35 PM
Cahal...if you think bullying me is going to be effected, you would be dead wrong. I could engage in the same childish dialogue as you, but I've grown past that. If you actually read my post, the answer you seek is there (unless you don't understand the meaning of the word you chose to use). I don't think government has any business being involved in marriage in any way. No tax incentives, no directive over our personal choices, nothing that has to do with our personal lives. Unless I am in some way engaged in commerce, government should butt out...do you get it yet?
Ray Wedell February 24, 2014 at 05:35 PM
Did anyone see the final episode of Boston Legal many years ago? The one in which Denny Crane marries Alan Shore so they can use the Federal tax code the same way married people do, even though they have no intention of being anything other than heterosexual roommates? Just askin'.
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 06:27 PM
So now we're citing a fictional dramedy that was canceled in 2008 in this thread? Ray, I think you said it best earlier... "whatever".
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 07:18 PM
Okay, now I think I'm starting to smell what your cooking. It's your opinion that no government (Local, State, or Federal) should pass legislation that would impose on a persons ability to not only fall in love with, but also live with and/or get married to. So that would mean you feel that the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as other states and Commonwealths, has overstepped its (their) bounds when it (they) passed legislation to ban gay marriage; and that the Federal government also overstepped its bounds when it enacted the "Defense of Marriage Act", provisions of which have already been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Furthermore, as long as someone's activities do not somehow affect the environment of business, any and all governments in this Great Union should "butt out". Am I understanding your position correctly?
Kim McCoy February 24, 2014 at 08:42 PM
Cahal, no you don't understand the position, but feel free to ramble on...Ray, it IS quite the civil rights issue, isn't it? In normal circumstances, I would think "epiphany" might come into play here, but, sadly I don't think that is to be...
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 09:06 PM
So enlighten us, what exactly do you mean when you say "I don't think government has any business being involved in marriage in any way."? You've said that there should be, "No tax incentives, no directive over our personal choices, nothing that has to do with our personal lives." Clearly a ban on marriage of persons of the same sex is a directive over a persons choices and said persons life.
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 09:12 PM
Oh, and Ray, "The fact that unmarried couples cannot file joint returns is a major civil rights issue" is not the issue here, the issue here is that two persons of the same sex, who are in a loving and committed relationship CANNOT enter into the a legal marriage so that they CAN file a joint tax return AND enjoy other benefits afforded to two persons of opposite sex.
Ray Wedell February 24, 2014 at 10:24 PM
I have to admit that I talked to several divorce lawyers who could not agree with Cahal more. They are salivating over the increased business that will come from all this. As are the many cottage industries which have developed to suck funds from couples who are having difficulty and headed for a divorce, and doing so in the name of trying to mend relationships. Truth is, the divorce industry and its tentacles have no interest in couples reconciling or mending fences; they profit from bitterness and drawn out battles between two people who used to be "in love" and should at least be encouraged to split with dignity and respect for each other, and without sacrificing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. So they subtly feed couples' bitterness as best they can. Sorry for digressing but maybe that is something we can all agree on. In Western cultures, legal marriage is not this great and wonderful "benefit". Sometimes the old adage applies: be careful what you wish for.
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Why did you stop at just divorce Ray? Gay parents should be able to experience bitter custody battles, child support battles, and all the other things that hetero couples can experience after getting married?
Cahal M February 24, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Oh and how about the marriage penalty tax? Gays who are not currently permitted to marry are denied the opportunity to experience the current progressive tax-rate structure of federal income taxes. Where's the justice there? Equal rights for everyone right?
Kim McCoy February 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM
Hey Ray..maybe Cahal is finally on to something there (wink, wink). Did you notice that he mentioned the "progressive tax-rate structure?"...This is getting good, don't you think?
Ray Wedell February 25, 2014 at 05:33 PM
I am just going to stop commenting on anything, or trying to bring even a touch of levity to the situation. Just microwave the popcorn and watch this show.
Ray Wedell February 25, 2014 at 05:35 PM
Is he saying that gay couples should have the right to pay higher taxes? Whew, this one has gotten waaaaaaay off the tracks.
Cahal M February 25, 2014 at 06:03 PM
Oh Sunshine, you've got me ROLFLMAO... Thanks for taking the bait hook, line, and sinker. To quote The A-Team's Hannibal Smith, "I love it when a plan comes together!"
Cahal M February 25, 2014 at 06:14 PM
Sorry Sparky, didn't see that you'd chimed in too... Hope you watch a more current show than Boston Legal our was it Allie McBeal you quoted?
Ray Wedell February 25, 2014 at 08:37 PM
Such amazing wit. Is that all you've got?
Cahal M February 26, 2014 at 07:29 AM
"Ray Wedell February 18, 2014 at 10:02 pm Whatever."
Kim McCoy February 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM
US Attorney General Eric Holder February 25, 2014, State AGs don't have to defend laws they don't "agree" with...I rest my case, sheeple.
Ray Wedell February 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?" Even the most liberal appointee to the Supreme Court grapples with the issue. Funny how when Ben Carson made the exact same points as Sodomayor, he was ripped mercilessly by the advocacy groups, and called an idiot, homophobe, Uncle Tom, etc. Very sad, actually. Either tow the line and repeat the Commissar's words exactly, or you are the enemy. But Carson is correct: the opposition has made themselves intellectually irrelevant with such sheeple-like behavior.
Kim McCoy February 26, 2014 at 03:50 PM
Gee...I wonder what happened to Barbara?
Barbara Glakas February 26, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Good timing. Today’s News: “(CNN) -- Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its same-sex marriage ban, thanks to a sweeping decision holding that its current prohibition has no ‘legitimate governmental purpose.’ … Judge Garcia echoed his colleagues Wednesday with respect to Texas, saying that ‘equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate. [The Texas law] is unconstitutional because, without a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, it denies same-sex couples the benefits, dignity and value of celebrating marriage and having their out-of-state marriage recognized,’ the judge said.”
Kim McCoy February 26, 2014 at 11:21 PM
Stan, Cahal, & oldtowner...if you are what passes for respectable adults these days, it's no wonder America is winning the race to the bottom. Barbara, are you being thick on purpose? Does it not bother you in the least that the attorney general of the United States of America just told the world that if state AGs don't want to defend laws they don't like, they really don't have to? So, would you feel the same if some state's AG decide they didn't want to defend, oh I don't know, let's say... any state firearms restrictions they don't agree with? That shouldn't need to go through any process, right?
Ray Wedell February 26, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Kim... that power not only extends to state AGs, but to unelected, appointed judges in any remote city who decides he/she does not like a certain law. I understand that tomorrow heroin will be made legal because some federal judge in Harrisonburg said he does not agree with state law on that.
Ray Wedell February 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM
Why is it that people who promote the need for Government involvement in almost every aspect of our lives suddenly switch gears on this one and begin to discuss "legitimate government purposes" and pretend to support limited government involvement in our lives?
Kim McCoy February 27, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Ray...I think the word you are looking for is hypocrite. Personally, I can't wait for a state AG or an appointed judge to find that their state does not need to recognize or enforce many well-defined LICENSING issues...just think of the possibilities this precedent will set.
Kim McCoy February 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM
If this doesn't say it all, I don't know what would. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/27/the-moment-a-prof-warned-that-america-is-at-a-constitutional-tipping-point/
Barbara Glakas February 27, 2014 at 03:12 PM
Sorry for the length, but.... “PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, November 2, 1994. “(This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes). MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE ABNER J. MIKVA COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. “I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional. “First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command). “Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional….”
Kim McCoy February 27, 2014 at 03:50 PM
Barbara...are you kidding me with those citations, right?....Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term......You are equating the removal of a postmaster by the President to the Attorney General of the United States telling state AGs not to defend laws they don't like?....WOW, that's stretching it don't you think?...and of course, it had to involve the most socialistic former President this country has ever had the displeasure of electing (except for the current one, of course)Then you site a tax judge appointment ruling. BUT THE ONE THAT REALLY GETS ME is the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case...Justice Black wrote for the majority, although the number of divergent concurring opinions made it clear that he did not necessarily speak for it. Black took, as he often did, an absolutist view, holding that THE PRESIDENT HAD NO POWER to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress...Keep trying to justify the unlawfulness of this and I'll keep holding the rule of law at the ready. Maybe you should actually READ the opinions next time.
Barbara Glakas February 27, 2014 at 05:23 PM
It doesn't really matter what I say, right?
Ray Wedell February 27, 2014 at 06:28 PM
Side note on Woodrow Wilson. Once he took office, his own paranoia and love of power turned him into a tyrant. He was responsible for the Sedition Act, which Chris Hedges has cited as ending real progressive politics in the USA as we know it. Wilson locked up many of those who were his supporters a mere year earlier (when he won election against a split Republican ticket by lying to the American people that he would not enter WWI when he already had plans drafted to do so). Hedges has also compared Obama's paranoia and use of EO's, the drones, the NSA stuff, etc. to Wilson. So someone may be a "liberal" in words and maybe even private thoughts. Once they take office, it can be a different story, but one nobody wants to see clearly. Wielding universal power to accomplish that which many may agree with is not "liberal" nor "progressive." Nor is it the right thing to do.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something