US court: Va. gay marriage ban uncons...

US court: Va. gay marriage ban unconstitutional

There are 64 comments on the News Observer story from Jul 28, 2014, titled US court: Va. gay marriage ban unconstitutional. In it, News Observer reports that:

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that state constitutional and statutory provisions barring gay marriage and denying recognition of such unions performed in other states violate the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Observer.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Jul 28, 2014
This is the case David Boies presented to the court
.
He did a fabulous job for us
.
Big Round of Applause for David Boies!
.
The LGBT crowd ROARS in VICTORY!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CijcaA9yq58/TAzcHY_...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jul 28, 2014
Ahhh, sweet victory...

Anyone else notice the ONLY remaining argument from the anti-gays is that the people voted for it? That has to be the LEAST effective of their ineffective arguments.
Qwerty

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#4 Jul 28, 2014
"Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb ... said the court 'ignored all the facts and evidence that the government's only interest in marriage is that kids, whenever possible, have a mom and a dad.'"

The irrational voice of dissent. She totally ignores the fact that there are gay couples in the world who have children, and depriving them of access to the protections and benefits of marriage is harming those couples and their children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Jul 28, 2014
And now the AG in North Carolina has said he will no longer defend the state's ban in federal court in light of the 4th circuit ruling.

Look for the judges in NC, SC, & WV to quickly rule in their respective cases.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#6 Jul 28, 2014
Qwerty wrote:
"Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb ... said the court 'ignored all the facts and evidence that the government's only interest in marriage is that kids, whenever possible, have a mom and a dad.'"
It is funny how she is telling the government what its interests are (like the government doesn't know already)
.
It is also funny how she thinks you have to show a child to prove you are a mom and dad to purchase a marriage license
.
Wouldn't a child born to unwed parents be a violation of religious superstition?
passing by

Salina, KS

#7 Jul 28, 2014
Expect Virginia and Utah, possibly with Ohio along for the arguments, to be the picks for the Supremes calendar for sometime after the election.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Jul 28, 2014
passing by wrote:
Expect Virginia and Utah, possibly with Ohio along for the arguments, to be the picks for the Supremes calendar for sometime after the election.
Why would the SCOTUS take any case when so far there isn't any controversy? Until one of the appeals courts actually rules against us, there is no reason for the SCOTUS to get involved yet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Jul 28, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
got a source for that thing about the NC AG ?
Umm, it's called the news. Maybe if you watched something other than Fux Noise you'd know that. In other headlines, slavery was banned, women can vote, and the US landed on the moon.
Robin Hood

Alpharetta, GA

#11 Jul 28, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
got a source for that thing about the NC AG ?
Here is reaction from the Carolinas
.
North Carolina surrenders and South Carolina thinks denial is a river in Egypt
http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/28/3588582/ga...
passing by

Salina, KS

#13 Jul 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Why would the SCOTUS take any case when so far there isn't any controversy? Until one of the appeals courts actually rules against us, there is no reason for the SCOTUS to get involved yet.
The primary reason is that all 31 states that still ban equal marriage have been dragged into court now and there are at least 70 cases all heading in the same direction, theirs..The Supremes created this mess by wimping out on Perry and they now have the opportunity to resolve the issue with minimal outrage. If you'd been reading the dissents that have come out of these 2-1 decisions, you'd know that there's no chance that any of these rulings will go the other way in the current climate.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Jul 28, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>The primary reason is that all 31 states that still ban equal marriage have been dragged into court now and there are at least 70 cases all heading in the same direction, theirs..The Supremes created this mess by wimping out on Perry and they now have the opportunity to resolve the issue with minimal outrage. If you'd been reading the dissents that have come out of these 2-1 decisions, you'd know that there's no chance that any of these rulings will go the other way in the current climate.
I've read the dissents, and they both come from the typical "conservative" type judges which dominate the 5th & 6th & 7th circuit appeals courts. It's quite likely we lose at least one of those cases.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Jul 28, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>The primary reason is that all 31 states that still ban equal marriage have been dragged into court now and there are at least 70 cases all heading in the same direction, theirs..The Supremes created this mess by wimping out on Perry and they now have the opportunity to resolve the issue with minimal outrage. If you'd been reading the dissents that have come out of these 2-1 decisions, you'd know that there's no chance that any of these rulings will go the other way in the current climate.
My main point is the SCOTUS is no hurry to take any of these cases, especially if there aren't any conflicting rulings. Their Prop 8 ruling was done specifically to AVOID ruling on the merits while allowing the states & lower courts to battle this out for a while yet.

It could get to the SCOTUS in 2015, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they found a way to delay it to 2016.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#16 Jul 28, 2014
the steak lives on
25-0

Another One Bites the Dust

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#17 Jul 28, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the dissents, and they both come from the typical "conservative" type judges which dominate the 5th & 6th & 7th circuit appeals courts. It's quite likely we lose at least one of those cases.
I was rather amused to seer the sensational story being run that in only 4 cases do the Judges cite animus for overturning the bans.

The conservatives are overjoyed thinking this will show they aren't bigots.

What they fail to comprehend is that in 21 out of 25 cases the Courts found enough proof that the bans violated Constitutional intent and doctrine.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#18 Jul 28, 2014
Making sexual deviant behavior illegal is a legislative and citizen issue and the continued abrogation of that appropriate delegation of power by the polluted judiciary is an insult to the rights of US citizens.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#19 Jul 28, 2014
Qwerty wrote:
"Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb ... said the court 'ignored all the facts and evidence that the government's only interest in marriage is that kids, whenever possible, have a mom and a dad.'"
The irrational voice of dissent. She totally ignores the fact that there are gay couples in the world who have children, and depriving them of access to the protections and benefits of marriage is harming those couples and their children.
It also ignores the fact that MILLIONS of children already go through life without a mother or a father because of *straight* people. Only in infinitesimally small number of children are in that position because of gay people.

And there's no reason to believe that being in that position is a bad thing to begin with. Just because a parent is present, that doesn't mean they're a good parent. Or even a fit parent.

And then, of course, there's the fact that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a child has a mother *and* a father. And it certainly is insulting to the millions of single parents out there that are knocking themselves out being awesome parents, despite doing it alone.

But what does the "Family" Foundation know about actual families? With them, it's all about pretend, fantasy families that don't really exist at all.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#20 Jul 28, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So far all the federal courts have rule din our favor. If all of the federal appeals courts rule in our favor, which I expect them to to do, then marriage equality will be the law of the land, and SCOTUS will not have to even hear a case about it. I expect that is what will happen.
There is one problem with that: So far, all the rulings striking down the state laws are stayed. Everyone expects SCOTUS to make a final decision, and nobody will lift their stay until SCOTUS decides.

Further, SCOTUS itself issued one of the stays, so only it can lift it. Of course, doing so would broadcast its comfort with turning over all the same-sex marriage bans. The lower courts would quickly lift their stays as well.

We could wait a very long time for SCOTUS to act or otherwise show its hand.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#22 Jul 28, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It also ignores the fact that MILLIONS of children already go through life without a mother or a father because of *straight* people. Only in infinitesimally small number of children are in that position because of gay people.
And there's no reason to believe that being in that position is a bad thing to begin with. Just because a parent is present, that doesn't mean they're a good parent. Or even a fit parent.
And then, of course, there's the fact that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a child has a mother *and* a father. And it certainly is insulting to the millions of single parents out there that are knocking themselves out being awesome parents, despite doing it alone.
But what does the "Family" Foundation know about actual families? With them, it's all about pretend, fantasy families that don't really exist at all.
My thoughts exactly, although I doubt I could have expressed them as clearly and eloquently as you did.

This whole "kids deserve a mom AND a dad" nonsense is an argument against allowing straight parents to divorce, and has nothing to do with marriage, same sex or otherwise.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#23 Jul 28, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
got a source for that thing about the NC AG ?
Here's a citation, Foxy.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/north-carolina-...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#24 Jul 28, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Making sexual deviant behavior illegal is a legislative and citizen issue and the continued abrogation of that appropriate delegation of power by the polluted judiciary is an insult to the rights of US citizens.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

BTW what sexual deviant behavior is being granted by activist judges to gays and lesbians that is denied to heterosexuals?

Once again you reduce your own Mom's marriage to nothing but that of a glorified breeding cow.

Well done.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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 The Case for Decriminalizing Gay Sex in Public ... 4 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 11 min Southern Charm 1,433
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min Respect71 44,021
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 20 min Imprtnrd 23,882
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 41 min Bishop Jeremy 199
News Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 56 min Cordwainer Trout 4
News Jennifer Holliday withdraws from Trump pre-inag... 1 hr Fire4908 29
More from around the web