Judge rules Va gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Fenny the Fox]

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen made the ruling late Thursday night. The issues stay pending appeal - so nothing immediately changes.

Judge rules VA gay marriage ban unconstitutional - NBC12.com - Richmond, VA News

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's decision Thursday makes Virginia the second state in the South to have a ban on gay marriages overturned. It comes the day after a similar ruling in Kentucky and following similar rulings in federal courts in Utah and Oklahoma.

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | NBC4 Washington

Couple news posts within the last half hour on the breakthrough.

 

[Sadalbari]

I would expect an immediate appeal and for the ruling to be set aside. Isn't Virginia in the 4th Circuit?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I would expect an immediate appeal and for the ruling to be set aside. Isn't Virginia in the 4th Circuit?

Looks like the judge anticipates just that, quick appeals, since he even stayed his own ruling pending said appeals. And yes, Va is in the 4th Circuit.

 

[Sadalbari]

Looks like the judge anticipates just that, quick appeals, since he even stayed his own ruling pending said appeals. And yes, Va is in the 4th Circuit.

Well it could be that the judge in this case is just fast-tracking the inevitable appeal anyway.

 

[South Bound]

I would expect an immediate appeal and for the ruling to be set aside. Isn't Virginia in the 4th Circuit?

In her ruling, the judge showed that she didn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I can't help but wonder what a competent judge would have said.

 

[AceHero]

I would expect an immediate appeal and for the ruling to be set aside. Isn't Virginia in the 4th Circuit?

In her ruling, the judge showed that she didn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I can't help but wonder what a competent judge would have said.

The judge also cited the Constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

The judge also cited the Constitution.

Did she cite the 10th Amendment? Has she ever even read it?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Did she cite the 10th Amendment? Has she ever even read it?

I'm sure she has read it. I don't see how the fact that states are able to decide issues changes anything. If the laws they pass are not able to pass Constitutional muster - such as breaking the 14th Amendment by denying rights without viable reasoning- then the law is not viable itself.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm still not sure how marriage (of any kind) can be constitutional or unconstitutional since the document makes no mention of it one way or the other...

That leads me to believe that the government shouldn't even be in the marriage business to begin with.

However, since the government did decide to make marriage a public institution (and thus making tax dollars involved), people who pay taxes should get a vote on how it's defined... And the level of government at which it's defined has already been laid out in the 9th & 10th amendments.

Short version: Each state should be allowed to have it's own laws pertaining to marriage based on a vote of the people in that particular state.

When lobbyist groups go running to the federal government to overturn a state level vote, it's the ultimate display of being a sore loser in my opinion.

 

[South Bound]

The judge also cited the Constitution.

Yes, and she cited it wrongly, attributing a line from the Declaration of Independence to it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sure she has read it. I don't see how the fact that states are able to decide issues changes anything. If the laws they pass are not able to pass Constitutional muster - such as breaking the 14th Amendment by denying rights without viable reasoning- then the law is not viable itself.

Marriage isn't a "right", it's a government defined public institution.
(IE: a piece of paper)

If the government was making a law that forbid two people from cohabitating then you may have a point.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Marriage isn't a "right", it's a government defined public institution.
(IE: a piece of paper)

If the government was making a law that forbid two people from cohabitating then you may have a point.

Tell that to the writers of all of these rulings: https://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Marriage, as a legal contract sanctioned by the government, is a fundamental right.

 

[Cute Tink]

Did she cite the 10th Amendment? Has she ever even read it?

However, since the government did decide to make marriage a public institution (and thus making tax dollars involved), people who pay taxes should get a vote on how it's defined... And the level of government at which it's defined has already been laid out in the 9th & 10th amendments.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The lawsuit was brought under the 14th Amendment. States are required to provide equal protection under the law. In other words, the 10th Amendment controls unless it is found to violate another amendment when it comes to state powers.

Marriage isn't a "right", it's a government defined public institution.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The lawsuit was brought under the 14th Amendment. States are required to provide equal protection under the law. In other words, the 10th Amendment controls unless it is found to violate another amendment when it comes to state powers.

Marriage isn't a "protection" though...the idea of "licensed marriage" wasn't even around until the 50's if I'm not mistaken.

Prior to that, marriage was just a social status thing and was between two people and the clergy of their choosing.

And which marriage amendment is it violating in this case? As I stated before, there's no such mention of that in the constitution.

 

[South Bound]

The lawsuit was brought under the 14th Amendment. States are required to provide equal protection under the law. In other words, the 10th Amendment controls unless it is found to violate another amendment when it comes to state powers.

One small problem: Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply here because Loving v. Virginia was about two persons of the opposite sex being denied the right to marry on Unconstitutional and, frankly, illogical grounds.

Whereas, homosexual marriage is about redefining marriage altogether to allow two persons of the same sex to marry.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

One small problem: Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply here because Loving v. Virginia was about two persons of the opposite sex being denied the right to marry on Unconstitutional and, frankly, illogical grounds.

Whereas, homosexual marriage is about redefining marriage altogether to allow two persons of the same sex to marry.

You may see such a distinction, but the law does not. There is nothing fundamental to the definition of legal marriage that will change.

 

[Sadalbari]

One small problem: Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply here because Loving v. Virginia was about two persons of the opposite sex being denied the right to marry on Unconstitutional and, frankly, illogical grounds.

Whereas, homosexual marriage is about redefining marriage altogether to allow two persons of the same sex to marry.

Edit: Insert irony award here please

 

[Cute Tink]

Marriage isn't a "protection" though...the idea of "licensed marriage" wasn't even around until the 50's if I'm not mistaken.

Prior to that, marriage was just a social status thing and was between two people and the clergy of their choosing.

And which marriage amendment is it violating in this case? As I stated before, there's no such mention of that in the constitution.

Marriage is now a legal entity (as you noted before) and it carries with it an extensive variety of legal rights and privileges.

The question under the 14th Amendment is whether the state is providing equal protection under the laws. Also, if the state is not providing equal protection, then there must a fundamental government interest in not doing so.

 

[Cute Tink]

One small problem: Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply here because Loving v. Virginia was about two persons of the opposite sex being denied the right to marry on Unconstitutional and, frankly, illogical grounds.

Whereas, homosexual marriage is about redefining marriage altogether to allow two persons of the same sex to marry.

It's not an altogether redefinition. Marriage will still be what it is under the law, just open to more people.

 

[South Bound]

It's not an altogether redefinition. Marriage will still be what it is under the law, just open to more people.

Of course it's a redefinition. The whole point of the lawsuit is to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex.