Virginia prepares for possibility of ...

Virginia prepares for possibility of gay marriage

There are 34 comments on the Cybercast News Service story from Aug 20, 2014, titled Virginia prepares for possibility of gay marriage. In it, Cybercast News Service reports that:

Virginia officials are preparing for the possibility that same-sex couples will be able to wed in the state Thursday by drafting a revised marriage license form for courthouse clerks to use as soon as they open their doors.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cybercast News Service.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Mick

Branford, CT

#1 Aug 20, 2014
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.

Since: Jan 08

Rayong, Thailand

#2 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
Yeah, hate those activist REPUBLICAN judges that declare civil rights have precedence over religious beliefs! Imagine, stating that constitutional rights can't be denied by popular vote. Ever since women got the right to vote those liberal judges have just ruined America! LOL
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers.
Well, that _is_ what y'all thought of Loving v., after all.

States don't get to enact unconstitutionally discriminatory laws by legislation or by vote. You don't understand the first thing about our system of government.

I don't have a sense whether the ruling to permit marriage equality in VA will be stayed or not, however.
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Aug 20, 2014
Yesterday I felt sure a stay would be issued. Today I think chances are 50 50. Roberts has shown he can vacillate (change 180 degrees) during deliberations on cases of major significance.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Aug 20, 2014
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
Yesterday I felt sure a stay would be issued. Today I think chances are 50 50. Roberts has shown he can vacillate (change 180 degrees) during deliberations on cases of major significance.
The problem is that, if he's vacillating, he'll stay the decision. Allowing marriages to begin in Virginia would be a sure sign that the justices are resigned to overturning marriage bans.
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Aug 20, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that, if he's vacillating, he'll stay the decision. Allowing marriages to begin in Virginia would be a sure sign that the justices are resigned to overturning marriage bans.
The context of my post was clear:

Roberts opposed Obamacare. We all but know this for certain from Scaliar. Then Roberts vacillated, and in fact switched.

My presumption - everyone's - was that Roberts would support a stay in the VA case. If he were to vacillate on this question _that_ would mean no stay.

I agree it would be momentous if Roberts (or the Justices) don't support a stay at this time.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
Funny how they're ACTIVIST Judges when they DON'T rule in your favor, but just DOING their jobs when they DO rule in your favor!!!

Poor sap, the sky is FALLING, right?

By the way....we DON'T live in a Democracy.....we live by a Republic form of Government.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
By all means, please do tell us what "marriage law" is being rewritten. Specifics please to support your rhetoric.

Waiting...

Waiting....

Waiting....
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Aug 20, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
By all means, please do tell us what "marriage law" is being rewritten.
Marriage equality is a huge change, an advance. All manner of statutes and even lowly forms are being re written to be gender neutral or inclusive.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11 Aug 20, 2014
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage equality is a huge change, an advance. All manner of statutes and even lowly forms are being re written to be gender neutral or inclusive.
I was asking for a specific "law" that is being rewritten. This is a common piece of rhetoric thrown out by those opposing marriage equality, and it's a lie. There is absolutely no law related to marriage that has been "rewritten" in order for gays to have marriage equality. I was simply calling the original poster out on his lie.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#12 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
Do you REALLY need a law to keep yourself from marrying another man?
juls

Edison, OH

#13 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
CRYBABY>>>>> >we should be whooping your %$#

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14 Aug 20, 2014
Mick wrote:
Not so fast. There is likely to be a stay of the ruling while the supreme court considers claims that activist judges are legislating from the bench and rewriting the nation's marriage laws, thumbing their noses at our democracy and the separation of powers. But then again, when it comes to gay marriage, Kennedy is the worst offender, so we'll see.
Activist judges SQAWK

Activist judges SQAWK

Activist judges SQAWK

Does Polly want a cracker?
Ex Senator Stillborn

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Aug 20, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asking for a specific "law" that is being rewritten. This is a common piece of rhetoric thrown out by those opposing marriage equality, and it's a lie. There is absolutely no law related to marriage that has been "rewritten" in order for gays to have marriage equality. I was simply calling the original poster out on his lie.
As I said many statutes have been re written in gender neutral or inclusive terms. And that's just the simplest counter example. There are many others which have been more substantially re written.

Your point is that marriage equality is not a big deal in terms of laws or social mores. It is, obviously. An overdue big deal.

What marriage equality doesn't do is shatter the marriages or lives of reject, fundie homophobes in any material way.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16 Aug 21, 2014
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said many statutes have been re written in gender neutral or inclusive terms. And that's just the simplest counter example. There are many others which have been more substantially re written.
Your point is that marriage equality is not a big deal in terms of laws or social mores. It is, obviously. An overdue big deal.
What marriage equality doesn't do is shatter the marriages or lives of reject, fundie homophobes in any material way.
It is disingenuous to pretend that replacing a pronoun with a gender-neutral term fundamentally rewrites the marriage contract. By contrast, changing the number of participants will fundamentally change many rights and responsibilities. It will also change the fundamental symmetry of the two-person marriage.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Aug 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It is disingenuous to pretend that replacing a pronoun with a gender-neutral term fundamentally rewrites the marriage contract. By contrast, changing the number of participants will fundamentally change many rights and responsibilities. It will also change the fundamental symmetry of the two-person marriage.
His argument was that nothing has been re written and so because of that and other reasons marriage equality is no big deal. Or should be no big deal.

It obviously is a big deal in social, cultural, legal and political terms regardless of statutes, etc., being re written. And I gave only the simplest counter example regarding the re writing.

But that's beside the point: Marriage equality is not trivial.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18 Aug 21, 2014
Latter Day Taints wrote:
<quoted text>
His argument was that nothing has been re written and so because of that and other reasons marriage equality is no big deal. Or should be no big deal.
It obviously is a big deal in social, cultural, legal and political terms regardless of statutes, etc., being re written. And I gave only the simplest counter example regarding the re writing.
But that's beside the point: Marriage equality is not trivial.
New Hampshire's marriage equality was effected in four bills, each less than one page. In bureaucratic terms, that's trivial.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Aug 21, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
New Hampshire's marriage equality was effected in four bills, each less than one page. In bureaucratic terms, that's trivial.
I bet even in NH if we were to check around there would be a lot more to it than just that, although much might be departmental forms and regs rather than laws, per se.

And NH is just one instance, anyway.

And that instance misses the actual point. The poster was trying to fashion an argument that because not many changes are need to existing marriage laws [sic] marriage equality is no big deal and should therefore simply be accepted by marriage equality opponents. That argument is not reality based, not in bureaucratic terms, not in cultural and political terms.

In fact, marriage equality marks a huge change around gender, in particular. Perhaps it shouldn't. But it does. A claim it does not mark a huge change is denial.
Skeptic

Beverly, MA

#20 Aug 21, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you REALLY need a law to keep yourself from marrying another man?
I guess pray the gay away or conversion therapy failed, so this is his last resort!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#21 Aug 21, 2014
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is that marriage equality is not a big deal in terms of laws or social mores. It is, obviously. An overdue big deal.
No, that wasn’t my point. It is not even close to my point. If that is a point you would like to make, please don’t credit it to me in order to do so.
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
His argument was that nothing has been re written and so because of that and other reasons marriage equality is no big deal. Or should be no big deal.
No, that wasn’t my argument. It is not even close. Again, I made absolutely no reference or inference as to how society is affected. I merely corrected the original poster by noting that absolutely no law has had to be rewritten. It wasn’t an “argument”, it was a statement of fact.
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster was trying to fashion an argument that because not many changes are need to existing marriage laws [sic] marriage equality is no big deal and should therefore simply be accepted by marriage equality opponents.
No, I did not try to fashion such an argument. I didn’t come close to fashioning such an argument. You might consider more comprehension and less projection.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Frankie Rizzo 60,842
News Kansas teacher moves after receiving threats fo... 6 min Frankie Rizzo 32
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 16 min NE Jade 27,997
News School textbook with gay maths problem go viral 3 hr Wondering 10
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 hr dollarsbill 19,229
News Lesbian mum told baby won't be legally register... 13 hr Murphy 1
News Federal Labor vows to crack down on gay convers... 18 hr Tre H 2
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... Apr 20 Frankie Rizzo 103