Judge rules Va gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Cute Tink]

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

My point was that it isn't much of a change. Marriage will still be what it is now legally.

 

[Sadalbari]

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

Oh so opposite-sex couples marriages will be annulled and they won't be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex anymore right?

 

[South Bound]

My point was that it isn't much of a change. Marriage will still be what it is now legally.

Actually, it's a very big change. Marriage, which has always been recognized as two persons of the opposite sex will now include two persons of the same sex and sets a precedent for more than two persons of any combination of sexes, marriage between groups and ages that had not previously been allowed to marry, marriage between family members, marriage to inanimate objects, marriage to animals, etc.

Marriage has always been the basis of the family, which has always been the basis of Western Civilization, and was, in fact, the first institution ordained by God in the Bible. But with these rulings, the left is trying to remove that foundation.

 

[Sadalbari]

Actually, it's a very big change. Marriage, which has always been recognized as two persons of the opposite sex will now include two persons of the same sex and sets a precedent for more than two persons of any combination of sexes, marriage between groups and ages that had not previously been allowed to marry, marriage between family members, marriage to inanimate objects, marriage to animals, etc.

Marriage has always been the basis of the family, which has always been the basis of Western Civilization, and was, in fact, the first institution ordained by God in the Bible. But with these rulings, the left is trying to remove that foundation.

Bzzz wrong. Oh so sorry. Try again.

 

[Cute Tink]

Actually, it's a very big change. Marriage, which has always been recognized as two persons of the opposite sex will now include two persons of the same sex

You should have stopped here and you would have been right.

All of this is slippery slope nonsense:

and sets a precedent for more than two persons of any combination of sexes, marriage between groups and ages that had not previously been allowed to marry, marriage between family members, marriage to inanimate objects, marriage to animals, etc.

Marriage has always been the basis of the family, which has always been the basis of Western Civilization, and was, in fact, the first institution ordained by God in the Bible. But with these rulings, the left is trying to remove that foundation.

Well, maybe polygamous marriage could be argued, but those are still consenting, unrelated adults.

Consent is still a requirement in all marriages and same sex marriage does absolutely nothing to change that (animals and children cannot consent).

Does the Bible clarify what ages marriage is allowed in? Never seen that snippet.

 

[Marius27]

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 clearly don't understand how Constitutional Law works. Loving v. Virginia is quite applicable as legal precedent and has been cited in pretty much every case involving this subject.

You're seriously going to need to move on and get over this issue. You will not win.

 

[Belk]

Actually, it's a very big change. Marriage, which has always been recognized as two persons of the opposite sex will now include two persons of the same sex and sets a precedent for more than two persons of any combination of sexes, marriage between groups and ages that had not previously been allowed to marry, marriage between family members, marriage to inanimate objects, marriage to animals, etc.

Marriage has always been the basis of the family, which has always been the basis of Western Civilization, and was, in fact, the first institution ordained by God in the Bible. But with these rulings, the left is trying to remove that foundation.

Yes, "the left" is trying to remove the foundation of society by expanding it so more people can be included.

 

[Sadalbari]

Yes, "the left" is trying to remove the foundation of society by expanding it so more people can be included.

No. Clearly you don't understand the logic. Gays need to be prevented from marrying in order to protect traditional marriage.

Why? Marriage is a special thing between a man and a woman, but there is no incentive for men and women to get married unless gays are excluded. You see? In other words, once gays are able to marry each other straight people will suddenly lose interest in sex with the gender they are naturally attracted to and the Human race will just die out. This is the same phenomenon that led to the downfall of the Roman Empire. Once gays existed in Rome, people went extinct because gay sex is much more fun or something.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You clearly don't understand how Constitutional Law works. Loving v. Virginia is quite applicable as legal precedent and has been cited in pretty much every case involving this subject.

You're seriously going to need to move on and get over this issue. You will not win.

While I'm not agreeing with Southbound on this one (I've always been of the mindset, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...what two grown adults want to do is their business), I think far too much stock is put into legal precedent in terms of that being the "end all" ruling on a matter.

Saying that legal precedent defines the outcome of an issue is to say that because one guy, one time, took a particular side in a case, that must define the outcome for everyone, everywhere, until the end of time.

I don't subscribe to that theory. That's putting a whole heck of a lot of faith in one person living in one period of time...

If one judge, one time, ruled in a court case that it's a person's right to steal a car, does that mean now that car theft is officially legal nationwide? It also rules out any possibilities that a future generation might have a better idea on the matter.

In terms of the legal precedent, sure it sounds nice when that one case happens to go your way, however, what about the times when it doesn't?

I notice that on a wide array of issues, both Republicans and Democrats tend to cherry pick the times when legal precedent is valid and when it's not.

For example, I'm seeing some Democrats do it on this thread... If I were to browse around to a gun thread, I'd see some Republicans do it with DC vs Heller (and the Democrats in those threads would reject it much the same way as the Republicans reject the legal precedent for this subject).

Often times, "legal precedent" (in my opinion) is just a disguised version of legislating from the bench.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No. Clearly you don't understand the logic. Gays need to be prevented from marrying in order to protect traditional marriage.

What's funny, we don't even have "traditional marriage" anymore...

Government licensed marriage is a new thing if you take into account the entirety of human history...

...and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Government Licensed marriages came about just before the divorce rate started spiking. Government offering marriage incentives to get people roped into a non-necessary institution probably encouraged some people to get married (for the tax breaks) that wouldn't have done so otherwise.

 

[Sadalbari]

While I'm not agreeing with Southbound on this one (I've always been of the mindset, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...what two grown adults want to do is their business), I think far too much stock is put into legal precedent in terms of that being the "end all" ruling on a matter.

Saying that legal precedent defines the outcome of an issue is to say that because one guy, one time, took a particular side in a case, that must define the outcome for everyone, everywhere, until the end of time.

I don't subscribe to that theory. That's putting a whole heck of a lot of faith in one person living in one period of time...

If one judge, one time, ruled in a court case that it's a person's right to steal a car, does that mean now that car theft is officially legal nationwide? It also rules out any possibilities that a future generation might have a better idea on the matter.

In terms of the legal precedent, sure it sounds nice when that one case happens to go your way, however, what about the times when it doesn't?

I notice that on a wide array of issues, both Republicans and Democrats tend to cherry pick the times when legal precedent is valid and when it's not.

For example, I'm seeing some Democrats do it on this thread... If I were to browse around to a gun thread, I'd see some Republicans do it with DC vs Heller (and the Democrats in those threads would reject it much the same way as the Republicans reject the legal precedent for this subject).

Often times, "legal precedent" (in my opinion) is just a disguised version of legislating from the bench.

You're free to move to another country where they don't have any judicial oversight or right to petition the government if you like.

 

[Cute Tink]

While I'm not agreeing with Southbound on this one (I've always been of the mindset, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...what two grown adults want to do is their business), I think far too much stock is put into legal precedent in terms of that being the "end all" ruling on a matter.

It depends on the precedent. Some rulings are very broad and strong in their wording. Other ones are very specific to a certain set of circumstances.

 

[Belk]

While I'm not agreeing with Southbound on this one (I've always been of the mindset, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...what two grown adults want to do is their business), I think far too much stock is put into legal precedent in terms of that being the "end all" ruling on a matter.

Saying that legal precedent defines the outcome of an issue is to say that because one guy, one time, took a particular side in a case, that must define the outcome for everyone, everywhere, until the end of time.

I don't subscribe to that theory. That's putting a whole heck of a lot of faith in one person living in one period of time...

You do realize that is not how legal precedence works, correct? Otherwise we would be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision.

If one judge, one time, ruled in a court case that it's a person's right to steal a car, does that mean now that car theft is officially legal nationwide? It also rules out any possibilities that a future generation might have a better idea on the matter.

In terms of the legal precedent, sure it sounds nice when that one case happens to go your way, however, what about the times when it doesn't?

I notice that on a wide array of issues, both Republicans and Democrats tend to cherry pick the times when legal precedent is valid and when it's not.

For example, I'm seeing some Democrats do it on this thread... If I were to browse around to a gun thread, I'd see some Republicans do it with DC vs Heller (and the Democrats in those threads would reject it much the same way as the Republicans reject the legal precedent for this subject).

Often times, "legal precedent" (in my opinion) is just a disguised version of legislating from the bench.

My (non expert) understanding is legal precedence can be changed. It, admittedly, takes a higher standard then a case without precedence but if a judge shows that the original reasoning was flawed or if there is new information or a new wrinkle the previous standing can be overturned.

I wonder if NoterDame or one of the other lawyers is around to give clarification?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're free to move to another country where they don't have any judicial oversight or right to petition the government if you like.

Is that a liberal using the "love it or leave it" line???

If you can show anything in my post that suggests that I oppose judicial oversight or the right to petition the government, please share it with us


I'm simply saying that "legal precedent" shouldn't be the end-all in terms of our laws from now until the end of time.

I have no problem with Legal precedent being cited in a case, but our judicial process should be more flexible than just saying "well, Judge Tom Smith said XYZ back in 1991, so we're just gonna go with that forever"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You do realize that is not how legal precedence works, correct? Otherwise we would be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision.

My (non expert) understanding is legal precedence can be changed. It, admittedly, takes a higher standard then a case without precedence but if a judge shows that the original reasoning was flawed or if there is new information or a new wrinkle the previous standing can be overturned.

I wonder if NoterDame or one of the other lawyers is around to give clarification?

I agree with you (maybe I didn't word my post as clearly as I should have).

Legal precedence can/should be changed when needed (obviously as time goes on, we, as a society learn more)...

My post was speaking against the people in this thread who somehow think legal precedent is the end-all truth and use it as a debating tool. When debating a topic, the discussion points should be pertaining to the topic itself, and not what someone else said.

Judges are still just people and since their job is to interpret the laws, we're essentially trusting their opinion for many cases.

 

[Marius27]

You do realize that is not how legal precedence works, correct? Otherwise we would be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision.



My (non expert) understanding is legal precedence can be changed. It, admittedly, takes a higher standard then a case without precedence but if a judge shows that the original reasoning was flawed or if there is new information or a new wrinkle the previous standing can be overturned.

I wonder if NoterDame or one of the other lawyers is around to give clarification?

Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The courts follow what's called stare decisis which means let the decision stand. All lower courts are bound by an appellate decision within their jurisdiction, meaning if they're presented with a case with a similar fact pattern, they must follow the higher courts holding in their ruling. They can't change the legal precedent of the higher court. Only the higher court can change their previous ruling if their interpretation changes, and that new interpretation then becomes binding on the lower courts.

Obviously the Supreme Court has ultimate say, so any holding they find, must be followed by every other court in the nation. The Supreme Court, however, can change their holding and the precedent in future cases if they come up with a different interpretation of the issue.

We're obviously on a hierarchy court system, so all lower courts under a specific appellate court are bound to follow that court's decisions. For example, the Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit is the highest court for all States under the 9th Circuit. All district courts in the 9th Circuit must follow the precedent of the Appellate Court. But they do not have to follow precedent set by Appellate courts in other Circuits (although they can use those cases if they find them persuasive).

 

[MachZer0]

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.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage so marriage is a state issue

 

[USincognito]

What's funny, we don't even have "traditional marriage" anymore...

Government licensed marriage is a new thing if you take into account the entirety of human history...

...and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Government Licensed marriages came about just before the divorce rate started spiking. Government offering marriage incentives to get people roped into a non-necessary institution probably encouraged some people to get married (for the tax breaks) that wouldn't have done so otherwise.

Marriage licensing goes back to the 1800s. And if we take into account the entirety of human history, "traditional marriage" would be one arranged by the parents as more of a business transation than a covenant of love. In many parts of the world, for much of human history, that would include a man and however many women/girls he could provide for.

 

[USincognito]

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage so marriage is a state issue

It does mention equal protection.

 

[poolerboy0077]

It does mention equal protection.

I've always found statements like "marriage isn't in the Constitution" to be comical. One wonders how such persons grapple with other issues, such as the Commerce Clause authorizing the government to intervene in trade of goods that are themselves not in the Constitution. Perhaps they should open a law school of armchair conjecturers who simply squint at the Constitution as though that will produce complex analysis and answers. One cannot be bothered to mess with those pesky nuances like judicial doctrine and whatnot.