Stay sought in ruling on Va. gay-marr...

Stay sought in ruling on Va. gay-marriage ban

There are 22 comments on the Sunherald.com story from Aug 1, 2014, titled Stay sought in ruling on Va. gay-marriage ban. In it, Sunherald.com reports that:

Attorneys for Michelle B. McQuigg, clerk of Prince William County's Circuit Court, asked for the delay while the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sunherald.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Aug 1, 2014
If the religious criminals ask for any more stays on OUR rights; we need to request a 100-year stay on THEIR religious freedom
.
Fair is fair

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Aug 1, 2014
They have no choice but to issue a stay in cases like these. It's just another way the courts have to slow things down until all the circuit courts have ruled and the SCOTUS decides which case(s) to accept in 2015.

Patience people; nothing good comes quickly or easily.
passing by

Salina, KS

#5 Aug 1, 2014
You know what would be fun, if these lower court judges start leaving all the staying that now has to be done in all of these federal cases to the Supremes. If they want the inevitable delayed, make them to blame for all of the delaying, the inevitable will happen a lot quicker.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Aug 1, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They DO have a choice. But all of the judges have decided to issue stays in these cases.
Which they shouldn't do because: "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED."
Prior to SCOTUS' ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), do you think that the lower courts should have issued stays in the cases about inter-racial marriage ? Yes or No ?
I never said they SHOULD issue stays, just that they essentially have no choice because the SCOTUS has set the precedent that these decisions will be stayed pending a SCOTUS review.

SCOTUS has set the precedent, and the lower courts are trying to get their rulings upheld by the SCOTUS. So there is no reason to intentionally antagonize the justices by not issuing a stay.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#7 Aug 1, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They DO have a choice. But all of the judges have decided to issue stays in these cases.
Which they shouldn't do because: "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED."
Prior to SCOTUS' ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), do you think that the lower courts should have issued stays in the cases about inter-racial marriage ? Yes or No ?
Sorry, Foxy, but as I told you in another thread, they do NOT have a choice. The lower courts are always bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court. In this instance, SCOTUS has indicated that it wants these rulings stayed. And that's how it must be.

A lower court may, in some ruling, show that they have misunderstood or misinterpreted a prior high court ruling, which error is then fixed by SCOTUS in its own subsequent ruling on the appeal. But in this instance there is no chance of misinterpretation. And the lower courts MUST follow.

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#8 Aug 2, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
They have no choice but to issue a stay in cases like these. It's just another way the courts have to slow things down until all the circuit courts have ruled and the SCOTUS decides which case(s) to accept in 2015.
Patience people; nothing good comes quickly or easily.
Easy to say unless you're pushing 70.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#9 Aug 2, 2014
People have the Constitutional right to protect their communities and children by defining what is vice. They have the right to define and disallow vice. This is not hard to understand. The Supreme Court should rule that all lower court decisions validating homosexual public behaviors and propaganda be reversed. The insanity besetting a nation allowing the redefining of morality by much less than 1% of the population and their imposition of constant immorality at all levels of society... that insanity should be given a cease and desist order, putting activist homosexuals in prison and mental hospitals, where they belong.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#10 Aug 2, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
People have the Constitutional right to protect their communities and children by defining what is vice. They have the right to define and disallow vice. This is not hard to understand. The Supreme Court should rule that all lower court decisions validating homosexual public behaviors and propaganda be reversed. The insanity besetting a nation allowing the redefining of morality by much less than 1% of the population and their imposition of constant immorality at all levels of society... that insanity should be given a cease and desist order, putting activist homosexuals in prison and mental hospitals, where they belong.
Thank you for your usual delusional, Nazi point of view, Coldweener.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#11 Aug 2, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
People have the Constitutional right to protect their communities and children by defining what is vice. They have the right to define and disallow vice. This is not hard to understand. The Supreme Court should rule that all lower court decisions validating homosexual public behaviors and propaganda be reversed. The insanity besetting a nation allowing the redefining of morality by much less than 1% of the population and their imposition of constant immorality at all levels of society... that insanity should be given a cease and desist order, putting activist homosexuals in prison and mental hospitals, where they belong.
Hitler sounded just like you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Aug 2, 2014
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy to say unless you're pushing 70.
There's nothing we can do to speed up the process.

It's likely to be decided in less than 22 months at the most- by Jun 2016- if not sooner.

Ironically, the thing which WOULD speed things up would be a conflicting opinion from the 6th or 7th circuits this fall. Should either or both of those very conservative appeals courts rule against marriage equality, that sets up the situation where the SCOTUS normally gets involved.

So a loss at this point wouldn't be all that bad.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Aug 2, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. At this point, a loss for us ina federal appeals court is as a good as a win.
I believe that there are two likely scenarios:
Scenario #1 : ALL federal appeals courts rule in our favor. If that happens, which I think is the most likely scenario, with no conflict between federal appeals courts on the matter, SCOTUS will not have to hear a case on the matter, and equal marriage rights will be the law of the lad in the U.S.
Scenario #2 : One or more federal appeals courts rule against us, thus establishing conflicting rulings among the federal appeals courts thus requiring SCOTUS to rule on one or ore cases involving marriage equality. And I just cannot foresee a majority of SCOTUS justices ruling against us.
If a federal appeals court rules against us, which I think is highly unlikely, it will merely mean that marriage equality across the land will be delayed a year or so.
We have won The tide turned in our favor on this a long time ago. After marriage equality is established by the courts throughout all of the U.S., my biggest worry is finding something else for us to complain about.:(
And you have President Obama to thank for providing 2 of the 5 "yes" votes on the SCOTUS.

The President you hate the most will be the one responsible for getting us marriage equality nationwide.

Gotta love the irony of that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Aug 2, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. hasn't happened yet, and may not ever happen. and many of the judges ruling for us in the federal courts so far have been Republican appointees.
Keep squirming boy...

The overwhelming majority of judges to rule in our favor have been Democrat appointees, including 2 of the 5 who voted to overturn DOMA last year.

Don't ya just HATE it when those "evil Dems" are primarily responsible for us achieving equality?!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Aug 2, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
2 of 5 ?! since when is that a majority ? Why do you ignore the 3 Republicans ? who i think outnumber the 2 Democrats.(3 outnumbers 2, rite ???)
My bad, it was FOUR out of the five justices to vote to overturn DOMA were nominated by a Democrat.

Yes Virginia, 4 out of 5 IS a majority.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Aug 2, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you obviously just make things up as you go along without regard to reality.
Justices voting to overturn DOMA:

Ginsburg
Breyer
Kagan
Sotomayor
Kennedy

4 Dem appointees & 1 Republican.

Denial- it's not just a river in Egypt...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Aug 2, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you obviously just make things up as you go along without regard to reality.
Your continued denial of basic facts you don't like is what gives you away as a Teabagger, in spite of all your claims to the contrary.
dawgs

East Bernstadt, KY

#23 Aug 3, 2014
All homosexuals will burn in hell unless they repent and turn away from their sins.
passing by

Salina, KS

#24 Aug 3, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell unless they repent and turn away from their sins.
So you pray dear, for your sake I hope God has a sense of humor.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Aug 4, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell unless they repent and turn away from their sins.
Oooh, you get me so hot when you talk like that....

Since: Jan 08

Rayong, Thailand

#27 Aug 5, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell unless they repent and turn away from their sins.
Honey, as long as it's as far away from you and your kind as I can get, I don't really care. But.... I have a feeling you'll be there first.
dawgs

Manchester, KY

#28 Aug 5, 2014
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>Honey, as long as it's as far away from you and your kind as I can get, I don't really care. But.... I have a feeling you'll be there first.
Hell is real!

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min Poof1 11,803
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Pietro Armando 36,182
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 8 min Tony Price 77 2,005
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 31 min An NFL Fan 917
News North Carolina speaker: On LGBT, Charlotte must... 38 min Rainbow Kid 7
Rose No Ho Out On Bail 1 hr Gomez 2
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 10,297
More from around the web