Virginia AG to fight state's gay marr...

Virginia AG to fight state's gay marriage ban

There are 77 comments on the WXOW-TV La Crosse story from Jan 23, 2014, titled Virginia AG to fight state's gay marriage ban. In it, WXOW-TV La Crosse reports that:

The office of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says he's concluded that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and he will no longer defend it in federal lawsuits challenging it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WXOW-TV La Crosse.

Professor Kingsfield

Sweden

#45 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Utah was the 18th state to have their marriage ban overturned, which is why over 1300 same-sex couples got legally married there.
Be patient, it's only a matter of time until the 10th circuit upholds the district court ruling.
You said Utah was 18.

Then you posted all over Oklahoma was 18.

Yesterday it was Virginia.

I can see why you were convicted like Larry Brinkin.

17 is not 18.

You're losing 33-17--it's a rout by any standard. We've won in 33 states and the entire Southern half of the country is inviolate.

Worldwide, we're winning 175-15!!!

And in the US, Justice Scalia has you locked-up in Zeno's Paradox!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#46 Jan 24, 2014
Professor Kingsfield wrote:
Yesterday the mother of homosexual marriage, Larry Brinkin, top homosexual in San Francisco, was convicted and locked-up for pedophilia.
The mother of homosexual marriage.
One man seldom represents an entire subset of the population. Is Larry Craig representative of the Republican party?

Only dimwits oversimplify in order to ineptly make their irrational case.
Professor Kingsfield

Sweden

#47 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
One man seldom represents an entire subset of the population. Is Larry Craig representative of the Republican party?
Only dimwits oversimplify in order to ineptly make their irrational case.
I can tell you're all broken up over Larry Brinkin's conviction yesterday.

I'm done responding to you--READ THE LARRY BRINKIN FACTS.

THE MOTHER OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE WAS THE DEVIL JUST LIKE POPE FRANCIS SAID.

And yeah I'm mad.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#48 Jan 24, 2014
Professor Kingsfield wrote:
You're losing 33-17--it's a rout by any standard. We've won in 33 states and the entire Southern half of the country is inviolate.
Dear moron, how many had gay marriage at the start of last year?

Do you know what acceleration and momentum mean?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#50 Jan 24, 2014
Storm Warning wrote:
and really why cant a sheep herder marry his favorite flock ?
we could call it goatback mountain i am sure there is at least one federal judge who would say its the right thing to do.
after all there will never be another ewe>
How would anything non-human sign the marriage license and give their written and verbal consent to be married ? All of those things are required for a legally valid marriage.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#51 Jan 24, 2014
Professor Kingsfield wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell you're all broken up over Larry Brinkin's conviction yesterday.
I'm done responding to you--READ THE LARRY BRINKIN FACTS.
THE MOTHER OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE WAS THE DEVIL JUST LIKE POPE FRANCIS SAID.
And yeah I'm mad.
If you are looking to marry a gay person you need a better pickup line; sugar
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#52 Jan 24, 2014
Storm Warning wrote:
and really why cant a sheep herder marry his favorite flock ?
we could call it goatback mountain i am sure there is at least one federal judge who would say its the right thing to do.
after all there will never be another ewe>
Ewes are girls. Gay guys don't do girls
.
Ewes is a straight guy thing
http://www.keithwhite.us/honeymoon.gif

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#53 Jan 24, 2014
Storm Warning wrote:
and really why cant a sheep herder marry his favorite flock ?
Because a sheep lacks the ability to legally consent or enter into a legal contract.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#54 Jan 24, 2014
Professor Kingsfield wrote:
<quoted text>
You said Utah was 18.
Then you posted all over Oklahoma was 18.
Yesterday it was Virginia.
I can see why you were convicted like Larry Brinkin.
17 is not 18.
You're losing 33-17--it's a rout by any standard. We've won in 33 states and the entire Southern half of the country is inviolate.
Worldwide, we're winning 175-15!!!
And in the US, Justice Scalia has you locked-up in Zeno's Paradox!!!
Believe what you want.

You will be the only one surprised when the next state ban is overturned.
ITIMAMOBIWW

Salisbury, MD

#55 Jan 24, 2014
Another case of enforcement de jure.
When is a law a law?
When is a law not a law?
How does any one decide when and if the omniscient overseers will enforce what's on the books?

It's difficult to be a law abiding citizen these daze.
If the law enforcers can ignore some laws, If the law enforcers can interpret laws to suite their political agendas, then precisely how is a citizen supposed to function in this bizarre wonderland of prosecutorial entrapments?

There is no right or wrong any more.
Just the ever present threat of having some twisted interpretation of statutes inflicted upon you.

It no longer matters - actions and intent... just don't get caught.

ya never know what a looney tunes Attorney General will do.
and,
whatever they do - do,,, probably isn't legal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#56 Jan 24, 2014
ITIMAMOBIWW wrote:
Another case of enforcement de jure.
When is a law a law?
When is a law not a law?
How does any one decide when and if the omniscient overseers will enforce what's on the books?
It's difficult to be a law abiding citizen these daze.
If the law enforcers can ignore some laws, If the law enforcers can interpret laws to suite their political agendas, then precisely how is a citizen supposed to function in this bizarre wonderland of prosecutorial entrapments?
There is no right or wrong any more.
Just the ever present threat of having some twisted interpretation of statutes inflicted upon you.
It no longer matters - actions and intent... just don't get caught.
ya never know what a looney tunes Attorney General will do.
and,
whatever they do - do,,, probably isn't legal.
And all the Who's down in Whoville went BOO HOO HOO!!!!

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#58 Jan 25, 2014
Yup, taking one state at a time.......marriage equality is inevitable! Coming to a state near you!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#59 Jan 25, 2014
Imprtnrd wrote:
Yup, taking one state at a time.......marriage equality is inevitable! Coming to a state near you!
At this point, I don't think a state-by-state approach is the best way to go to achieve marriage equality nationally. As the federal appeals courts cover several states each, a more efficient way to achieve marriage equality nationally is to bring cases that the federal appeals courts will decide in our favor.

As it stands now, we would have to work in 32 states to achieve marriage equality nationally.

But we really only have to convince appeals court judges in the following circuits: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th & 11th.

That means instead of fighting in 32 separate states, we would only have to fight 9 battles, or less, depending when SCOTUS agrees to hear a case from one of the federal appeals courts.

In fact, I think the BEST scenario is if we lose a case in one of the federal appeals courts. That would set up conflicting rulings from 2 or more federal appeals courts, which would make the chance of SCOTUS agreeing to settle the matter probably sooner, rather than later.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#60 Jan 25, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point, I don't think a state-by-state approach is the best way to go to achieve marriage equality nationally. As the federal appeals courts cover several states each, a more efficient way to achieve marriage equality nationally is to bring cases that the federal appeals courts will decide in our favor.
As it stands now, we would have to work in 32 states to achieve marriage equality nationally.
But we really only have to convince appeals court judges in the following circuits: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th & 11th.
That means instead of fighting in 32 separate states, we would only have to fight 9 battles, or less, depending when SCOTUS agrees to hear a case from one of the federal appeals courts.
In fact, I think the BEST scenario is if we lose a case in one of the federal appeals courts. That would set up conflicting rulings from 2 or more federal appeals courts, which would make the chance of SCOTUS agreeing to settle the matter probably sooner, rather than later.
Considering how slow the courts usually are, it will likely be years before a any case gets to the SCOTUS. No reason to just sit on our thumbs waiting around for the courts to act. And the more states we have, the more likely the courts will rule in our favor.

In addition, the work necessary to build support for a statewide referendum in OR, MI, OH, CO, NV, & AZ helps change minds, and lessens the effectiveness of the "activist judge" accusation.

Like it or not, the opinion of society makes a difference.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#61 Jan 25, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering how slow the courts usually are, it will likely be years before a any case gets to the SCOTUS. No reason to just sit on our thumbs waiting around for the courts to act. And the more states we have, the more likely the courts will rule in our favor.
In addition, the work necessary to build support for a statewide referendum in OR, MI, OH, CO, NV, & AZ helps change minds, and lessens the effectiveness of the "activist judge" accusation.
Like it or not, the opinion of society makes a difference.
I disagree with the approach, not the goal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#62 Jan 25, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with the approach, not the goal.
So you think we should just all sit around for the next decade or more waiting for the SCOTUS to act?

Good thing the rest of us weren't as short-sighted after we won in Massachusetts, otherwise we'd still be banned from marrying in 49 states. But at least we wouldn't be waiting on the SCOTUS to act, because they would have already turned us down by now with only 1 state.

Oh yeah, excellent strategy that would have been....

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#63 Jan 25, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think we should just all sit around for the next decade or more waiting for the SCOTUS to act?
Good thing the rest of us weren't as short-sighted after we won in Massachusetts, otherwise we'd still be banned from marrying in 49 states. But at least we wouldn't be waiting on the SCOTUS to act, because they would have already turned us down by now with only 1 state.
Oh yeah, excellent strategy that would have been....
I think it will be less than 3 years.
marley

Tucker, GA

#64 Jan 25, 2014
garied is gay

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#65 Jan 25, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it will be less than 3 years.
Yeah, we heard the same thing 3 years ago.....

Sorry, but I'm not willing to bet our entire strategy on what you think, especially considering your track record (remember your prediction DADT would never be repealed, and Obama ordered Reid not to bring it up for a vote, and Obama would veto it if it passed?).

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#66 Jan 25, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, we heard the same thing 3 years ago.....
Sorry, but I'm not willing to bet our entire strategy on what you think, especially considering your track record (remember your prediction DADT would never be repealed, and Obama ordered Reid not to bring it up for a vote, and Obama would veto it if it passed?).
Well, since I live in southern Arizona now (where it's 70 degrees here now, and I'm layin outside drinkin beer and using my laptop & wifi to write this), nothing is going to happen here in the near future anyways regarding equal marriage rights for us.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Beloved gay Israeli pop star dies in freak drow... 4 min aintitthetruth 2
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 21 min Tyler 10
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 32 min facts only 52,181
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 36 min God 7,009
News Canning is 1st Republican to announce run for 1... 2 hr Cops are Degenerates 1
News Charlize Theron admits to taking 'a dip in the ... 3 hr Wondering 18
News This Gay Man Wants to End Texas' War Against LG... 5 hr Tre H 27
News Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and se... 12 hr Howser 30
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 21 hr TomInElPaso 108
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... Mon Tre H 502
More from around the web