Federal judge strikes down Virginia ban on same-sex marriage

posted at 8:06 am on February 14, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Not exactly a surprise, but merely a continuation of a trend. A federal district court in Virginia struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a recent string of defeats for states wishing to define marriage:

A federal judge in Norfolk struck down as unconstitutional Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday night, saying the country has “arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen issued a sweeping 41-page opinion that mentioned at length Virginia’s past in denying interracial marriage and quoted Abraham Lincoln. She struck the constitutional amendment Virginia voters approved in 2006 that both bans same-sex marriage and forbids recognition of such unions performed elsewhere. …

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Wright Allen wrote. “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

If you think that’s a strange application of the word sacred, it fits with the sloppy and turgid prose in the rest of the opinion. Gabriel Malor highlighted the opening paragraph, and it should be an immediate contender for the annual Edward Bulwer-Lytton writing contest. All that was missing from this string of clichés was the dark and stormy night:

Not long after that, Gabriel also noticed that the judge references the Constitution’s clear language that “all men are created equal.” The only problem? That language doesn’t come from the Constitution — it’s in the Declaration of Independence. (He also notes that this model of judicial writing got a unanimous confirmation from the US Senate.)

Beyond the bad writing style, though, the judge seems to at least be in the consensus on the federal bench these days. This follows on the heels of another decision in Kentucky with somewhat more limited application, but using the same reasoning of the 14th Amendment and Lawrence v Texas, which I predicted nearly ten years ago would be used to overturn state definitions of marriage. So did Antonin Scalia in Lawrence and Windsor dissents, and whom Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern ridiculed earlier this week for, er, getting it right:

By now, an opinion like this is fairly predictable. It comes as a pleasant surprise, then, to see Heyburn channeling his inner Judge Robert Shelby and sticking his thumb directly in Scalia’s eye. In Scalia’s Windsor dissent, the justice decried overly broad, “deliberately transposable passages” expounding the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s unconstitutionality. “How easy it is,” Scalia snorted, “indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion [as the court in Windsor] with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.” Then he illustrated for the world just how easy it would be to apply Windsor’s logic to state-level gay marriage bans, indignantly substituting a few key words:

DOMA This state law tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise validmarriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence

Scalia performs this haughty exercise three times in his dissent, so intent is he to declare to the world I told you so. It’s meant to be a scornful joke—but Heyburn takes it as an invitation to do the same in applying Windsor’s holding to his own state’s law.

Actually, it wasn’t meant to be a “scornful joke,” but a warning of what was to come. And Scalia predicted it very accurately, despite an avalanche of criticism at those times for his hyperbole and supposed scare-mongering.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

So now you care about the will of the people when it comes to the popularity of your homosexual marriage. But when the will of the people decide in each state you turn a blind eye and chant “equal protection clause” as you ilk overturn the will of the people through oligarchy.

BTW, a convention of the states isn’t being called because of homosexual marriage, it’s a response to the runaway federal goverment and abuse of their power.

Never the less an amendment to define marriage between a man and woman wouldn’t be a bad ideal because it puts the power to decide back to the people.

b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Amending the Constitution is always about the will of the people. The will of a lot of the people in fact, like the overwhelming majorities it took to add the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place. There isn’t even a majority of people who want that done now when it comes to banning same sex marriage though.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

ND30, as you, I find a lot of idiots in the gay rights movement. There are no real true leaders. Your statements don’t do any good to lead the movement in the right way.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:04 PM

There isn’t even a majority of people who want that done now when it comes to banning same sex marriage though.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Speak for yourself and not them.

b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Do you think your on his side?

It was an expression.

Very good. I can copy and paste too. So where is the right to homosexual marriage in this anti slavery amendment? You are aware the 14th amendment was ratified to counter the supreme courts ruling in Dred Scott decision. The SCOTUS basicailly upheld slavery.

This is nearly identical to one of the arguments Virginia tried in 1967 in the Loving case. It didn’t work then either.

Okay then, you didn’t make a case of defining homosexual marriage out of the 14th amendment. Since the 14th doesn’t apply, the citizens of the states are free to make up their own minds.

Are you seriously completely unaware of the equal protection arguments made in every court case to date relating to marriage rights for same-sex couples?

No, I don’t see any invisible ink in the anti slavery amendment to justify homosexual marriage like its some civil rights issue.

b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Again, Virginia tried this exact argument already. But, hey, maybe you’ll have better luck with it than they did!

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

ND30, I do consider you a friend. Everyone’s life is a soap opera, mine most certainly included.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

ND30, as you, I find a lot of idiots in the gay rights movement. There are no real true leaders. Your statements don’t do any good to lead the movement in the right way.
SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Lol. So there are a lot of idiots, but you’re sitting here screaming at me and calling me unhinged?

northdallasthirty on February 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

This is nearly identical to one of the arguments Virginia tried in 1967 in the Loving case. It didn’t work then either.

We’re discussing homosexual marriage and quit comparing it to skin color. Has nothing to do with it. It’s a behaviour.

Are you seriously completely unaware of the equal protection arguments made in every court case to date relating to marriage rights for same-sex couples?

Like the federal goverment, the courts are not the “be-all and End-all” when it comes to these decisions. In reality the courts should stay out of it because they cannot legislate from the bench. The courts have been acting like mini constitutional conventions. Legislating power they never had.

SCOTUS in Dred Scott found it lawful to upheld slavery. Scotus also found it lawful to uphold japanese interment camps in WWII. They even found it lawful to uphold segregation.

So I don’t except your premise that the courts have the final say nor should they be overriding the 9th and 10th amendments.

Again, Virginia tried this exact argument already. But, hey, maybe you’ll have better luck with it than they did!

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Apparently the judge was predisposed with the decision handed down. So it didn’t matter what Virginia’s position was.

b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Lol. So there are a lot of idiots, but you’re sitting here screaming at me and calling me unhinged? -
northdallasthirty on February 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

You are gay. You only point out the faults of the gay rights movement, which I admit are many. You don’t normally disclose that you are gay on HotAir. If you were any type of leader you would point the right direction for the movement as you think that it should take.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:27 PM

ND30, even sometimes I am unhinged. I get mad. But mostly at myself.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM

We’re discussing homosexual marriage and quit comparing it to skin color. Has nothing to do with it. It’s a behaviour.

What’s a behavior? Being gay or being married?

Like the federal goverment, the courts are not the “be-all and End-all” when it comes to these decisions. In reality the courts should stay out of it because they cannot legislate from the bench. The courts have been acting like mini constitutional conventions. Legislating power they never had.

Are you rearguing Marburry v. Madison?

The courts are the arbiters charged with interpreting the law and they have been since the aforementioned decision. They are most certainly not legislating from the bench, at least not in this case. They are charged with determining whether or not a certain item brought before them is Constitutional or if it isn’t. If it is it stands and if not it has to go. That’s what happened here.

SCOTUS in Dred Scott found it lawful to upheld slavery. Scotus also found it lawful to uphold japanese interment camps in WWII. They even found it lawful to uphold segregation.

The Constitution has been amended since Dred Scott. The Japanese internment was upheld under strict scrutiny and that’s a whole other ballpark than what we’re talking about here. They did uphold segregation then saw how awful it was and reversed themselves.

So I don’t except your premise that the courts have the final say nor should they be overriding the 9th and 10th amendments.

The courts aren’t overriding the Tenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment did. The courts are just pointing it out.

Apparently the judge was predisposed with the decision handed down. So it didn’t matter what Virginia’s position was.

b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM

I was speaking about Virginia’s position in Loving that SCOTUS rejected. Sorry if there was any confusion.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM

OK, ND30, I blame this one on you. We just experienced an earthquake in South Carolina. Would you please keep them in California ……………. I am serious about the earthquake. It felt like my house was shaking back and forth and a friend just called me to say he had the same thing happen. A famous earthquake occurred in Charleston, SC around 1886. My house is one hundred miles inland from Charleston on that fault line. It has yet to be reported on the news.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:38 PM

ND30, it has just been reported that South Carolina had a 4.4 magnitude earthquake. Biggest one I have ever experienced.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 PM

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

.
Respectfully, we are in disagreement. First and foremost, “The abnormality of homosexuality is “self-evident” beyond any shadow of any doubt.” is your opinion. I will state that the government can’t dictate your personal opinion whether homosexuality is normal or not. Experts on the subject of sexuality do say that those who have same sex attraction are normal, just not in the majority.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

.
‘Charlie, you know I appreciate your willingness to be respectful and honest.

But I’m not letting go of the phrase “self-evident”, in reference to saying that “homosexuality is an abnormality”, any sooner than I would let go of it in reference to this :

“. . . . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM

ND30, it has just been reported that South Carolina had a 4.4 magnitude earthquake. Biggest one I have ever experienced.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 PM

.
Your place is intact, right ?

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Apparently the judge was predisposed with the decision handed down. So it didn’t matter what Virginia’s position was. – b1jetmech on February 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM

The judge’s ruling was flawed. Read Ed Morrissey’s article. She should not have cited the Declaration of Independence in her ruling.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Your place is intact, right ? – listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Everything is fine. Just everything shook. Now they are saying it was a A 4.1 quake. A 4.1 is nothing like they experience in major fault areas. However, in 1886, Charleston, SC did experience a major earthquake. Perhaps one of the biggest on the east coast. Buildings collapsed. Many of the old buildings in Charleston were retrofitted with steel bars that run all the way through the buildings to reinforce the buildings. The bars were threaded at each end and huge stars at both ends are on the exterior of the buildings. Sorry for the delay. I have been listening to the news.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 11:02 PM

‘Charlie, you know I appreciate your willingness to be respectful and honest.

But I’m not letting go of the phrase “self-evident”, in reference to saying that “homosexuality is an abnormality”, any sooner than I would let go of it in reference to this :

“. . . . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we are going to disagree. I can’t and don’t want to force you to change your opinion on homosexuality. Let’s just try our best to be civil.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Your place is intact, right ?

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM
.
Everything is fine. Just everything shook. Now they are saying it was a A 4.1 quake. A 4.1 is nothing like they experience in major fault areas. However, in 1886, Charleston, SC did experience a major earthquake. Perhaps one of the biggest on the east coast. Buildings collapsed. Many of the old buildings in Charleston were retrofitted with steel bars that run all the way through the buildings to reinforce the buildings. The bars were threaded at each end and huge stars at both ends are on the exterior of the buildings. Sorry for the delay. I have been listening to the news.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 11:02 PM

.
I understand full well about the delay . . . I’d rather hear from you later, than not at all.
When it comes to earthquakes, steel beams, and steel-reenforced concrete are best, but not “indestructable”.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 11:16 PM

I understand full well about the delay . . . I’d rather hear from you later, than not at all.
When it comes to earthquakes, steel beams, and steel-reenforced concrete are best, but not “indestructable”. – listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Actually single story wooden frame buildings are best, I believe. And, that is what I live in. The exterior of my house is thankfully not brick, which could crack. My sister called from Columbia and the exterior of her house is brick. She is going to have examine it tomorrow to see if the brick separated/cracked.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Misrepresent $hit? No. Misrepresent facts? Yes. Here’s another one:

The child went into foster care because the bio mom stabbed her partner.

Perhaps unwittingly, that differs from the one offered here:

The lesbian then had ANOTHER affair which resulted in her partner stabbing both her and her lover.

Which one is it? Did bio mom stab her partner or partner stab both her and her lover? Both? Neither? The correct answer is here in the event you decide to keep the case facts straight henceforth.

Which brings me back to the original point, something is wrong with this equation: JESUS = BIO FATHER = NO DUE PROCESS = NO LEGAL RIGHTS = TERMINATION OF RIGHTS = CUSTODY.

In their rush to rewrite family law, Leno, Howard and Minter were happy to use M.C. and Jesus as poster victims, but they had not bothered to follow the baby. They waved the image of a toddler languishing in foster care while a caring dad was left out in the cold — when in the real world, the court had taken care of the problem in the best interest of the child.

Perhaps unwittingly, albeit for an different reason, melle1228 did the exact same thing.

Might want to refrain from doing so henceforth.

rukiddingme on February 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM

rukiddingme on February 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM

.
Nothing really surprises me, anymore … but that doesn’t mean I don’t get PISSED-OFF like all (multiple expletives), at certain things.

M.C.’s story starts in June 2008, when “Melissa” had a relationship with a man, “Jesus.” According to court documents, when Jesus learned Melissa was pregnant, he brought her to live with his family. She lived with him for months but then returned to her former partner, “Irene.”

During the window when same-sex marriage was legal in California, Irene and Melissa wed. In March 2009, Melissa gave birth to M.C. Three or four weeks later, Melissa left with the baby. She contacted Jesus in search of money. He sent her $300.

As she pursued a divorce, Melissa took up with a new boyfriend, who, with Melissa’s complicity, stabbed Irene in the neck. While Melissa was in trouble with the law, Irene and Jesus sought custody of the baby.

Because Irene was married to Melissa when M.C. was born, the court found Irene to be the baby’s “presumed mother.” But because Irene was unemployed, receiving general relief and sleeping on an ex-girlfriend’s couch in an apartment that lacked a working refrigerator, social workers did not award her custody.
Jesus, engaged and gainfully employed in Oklahoma, seemed the most stable adult in the group, but because the court had not officially ruled any of the three adults as unfit parents, a family court ruled that all three adults were the baby’s “presumed parents.”

.
exerpt http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020110506024

.
How is it, the least qualified people end up in these “exalted” positions of civil authority/decision making ?

listens2glenn on February 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Any judge who fails to understand the distinction between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence needs to be impeached.

It didn’t help that Virginia’s newly-elected Attorney General committed – in my opinion – an ethical violation by failing to enforce the laws of the State of Virginia. It would be my hope the someone in the legislature has the stones to file a complaint with the Virginia State Bar and then seek to impeach him for malfeasance of duty.

I realize Herring THINKS he’s god, but an attorney never decides which laws he will or will not defend for the client.

Of course, Holder has already trashed the reputation of decent AGs everywhere by his behavior, but that’s a different thread.

EdmundBurke247 on February 15, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Of course the feds should respect the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And the States should respect the Fourteenth.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Except that the 14th did not repeal the 9th and 10th, no matter how much some stooge judges try to twist their rulings to make it so.

Nutstuyu on February 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 7:33 PM

FDR was widely loved and elected to four terms. Yet look how quickly the states came together to make term limits. Don’t be so ignorant to think you know what will happen.

Nutstuyu on February 15, 2014 at 7:51 PM

I should point out that, particularly with respect to the recently troubled baker in Colorado, there’s an easy workaround that would have kept him from running afoul of the law. Legally he can’t refuse services so what I would have done if I were in his position is when confronted with a gay couple say flat out “I just want to let you know that I have a personal objection to same sex marriage. I’m legally obligated to offer my services to you if you want them, and if you do hire me you will receive the best effort that I can put forward. But because of my convictions I cannot profit from this particular job. If you decide to hire me then 100% of the profits I earn on this sale will be donated to the National Organization for Marriage to fight against gay marriage in the states were it remains illegal. Now shall I bring out the samples?” Odds are the gay couple will get very upset and leave in a huff but since the baker didn’t actually refuse services then legally they would be in the clear. Just my suggestion though.
alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 7:51 PM

For once I agree with you and think that is positively brilliant.

Nutstuyu on February 15, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Doesn’t Liberalrules / JetBoy / Libfree & others like them realize that if more & more people come out as gay like recently 3rd rate actress Ellen Page did, then don’t they also realize the chances of civilization will become extinct goes up dramatically?

RightWingConservative on February 16, 2014 at 3:38 AM

Not sure if anyone is going to read this post, but I wanted to apologize for my post about that you must be a true conservative & support conservative ideas 100%, I was wrong to say that, because I know that there are conservatives on this website that have a libertarian view on other things. I shouldn’t have said that, I only said that in anger because of being called a “fake conservative’ by fishsticks. it was wrong for me to say that, however, I still believe in the conservative idea of lower taxes (flat tax or fair tax)/ smaller government / secured borders & traditional marriage. it was not my intention of offending posters like melle1228 & others like her. Again, my sincere apologies.

RightWingConservative on February 16, 2014 at 4:20 AM

Doesn’t Liberalrules / JetBoy / Libfree & others like them realize that if more & more people come out as gay like recently 3rd rate actress Ellen Page did, then don’t they also realize the chances of civilization will become extinct goes up dramatically? – RightWingConservative on February 16, 2014 at 3:38 AM

I am gay conservative/libertarian. I am fully support heterosexual marriage. But I have seen in my 62 years of life the rate of heterosexual divorce rise dramatically. Heterosexuals are the vast majority of our populations and they have made the choice to make divorce easier. in addition, stupid liberal federal government programs have made it actually financially desirable not to get married. I believe in smaller government, not larger government. I also believe that abortion is the murder of one of God’s greatest gifts, a child. And, finally, I believe that everyone should treat others as they wish to be treated. Now, can you explain to me and the rest of us, why civilization will end if the small homosexual segment of the population comes out of the closet?

SC.Charlie on February 16, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Which brings me back to the original point, something is wrong with this equation: JESUS = BIO FATHER = NO DUE PROCESS = NO LEGAL RIGHTS = TERMINATION OF RIGHTS = CUSTODY.

In their rush to rewrite family law, Leno, Howard and Minter were happy to use M.C. and Jesus as poster victims, but they had not bothered to follow the baby. They waved the image of a toddler languishing in foster care while a caring dad was left out in the cold — when in the real world, the court had taken care of the problem in the best interest of the child.

Perhaps unwittingly, albeit for an different reason, melle1228 did the exact same thing.

Might want to refrain from doing so henceforth.

rukiddingme on February 15, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Oh you got me.. The boyfriend stabbed the partner, but why do you think the bio parent went to jail?

I don’t know why you are being obtuse, and I wish I could speak really slowly for you.

If the state tells you that you have no rights to something where YOU AUTOMATICALLY HAVE RIGHTS WITHOUT A COURT TERMINATING THEM; that is the state TERMINATING YOUR RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Derp.. He has a case against the state, and if it was ANY OTHER state than California; they easily would have correct this by making him the legal parent with the bio mom.

The fact that the jacked up law eventually made the father the custodial parent is insignificant with the exception that it make the STATE even worse for terminating his rights initially.

Furthermore, whenever the state gives a third party rights to something of yours it dilutes your rights. The state had no right to presume “bio/legal” parentage to the new lesbian partner.

And you might want to refrain in the future from being a condescending douche.. but I have no hope.

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:30 AM

What did you mean by this? I read through all of your linked material and have a good understanding of the case.

melle1228 did get the stabbing fact wrong, but what was wrong with his point?

blink on February 15, 2014 at 5:03 PM

He thinks because the father eventually got custody; it negates the fact that the state originally refused him rights as a bio parent.

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Which one is it? Did bio mom stab her partner or partner stab both her and her lover? Both? Neither? The correct answer is here in the event you decide to keep the case facts straight henceforth.

But what was merely a complicated situation became a devastatingly complicated one in September 2009. Melissa’s new boyfriend attacked Irene with a knife, causing severe stabbing injuries. He fled, but Melissa was apprehended and charged as an accessory to attempted murder. Melissa admitted later that she and her new boyfriend had followed Irene, and that her boyfriend had befriended Irene with the intent to use violence to “scare her” into dropping her pursuit of custody of, or visitation with, M.C. With Melissa in jail, M.C. was removed from Melissa’s custody and placed in foster care. – See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents#sthash.81GCGEYQ.dpuf

BTW, the reason you had to go after my (insignificant to my point) stabbing error is because you can’t argue the significant parts.

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Will new traditional couples stop getting married and existing traditional couples start getting divorced as a protest? Single people pay less taxes. Liberals aren’t going to like collecting less revenue.

edrebber on February 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Prince v. Massachusetts 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.13 [emphasis supplied]

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM

In some cases, however, this Court has held that the federal constitution supersedes state law and provides even greater protection for certain formal family relationships. In those cases … the Court has emphasized the paramount interest in the welfare of children and has noted that the rights of the parents are a counterpart of the responsibilities they have assumed. Thus, the liberty of parents to control the education of their children that was vindicated in Meyer v. Nebraska … and Pierce v. Society of Sisters … was described as a “right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare the child for additional obligations” … The linkage between parental duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. Massachusetts … The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” In these cases, the Court has found that the relationship of love and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutional protection … “State intervention to terminate such a relationship … must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause” Santosky v. Kramer … [emphasis supplied]

Lehr v. Robertson, 463 US 248, 257-258 (1983)

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:51 AM

A natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her children is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state interference. As Justice White explained in his opinion of the Court in Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972) [other cites omitted]:

“The court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ Meyer v Nebraska, … ‘basic civil rights of man,’ Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US 535, 541 (1942), and ‘[r]ights far more precious … than property rights,’ May v Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1953) … The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v Nebraska, supra.” [emphasis supplied]

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 10:53 AM

RightWingConservative on February 16, 2014 at 4:20 AM

I don’t remember being offended, but if I acted like it I am sorry. I give as good as I get on these threads, so I am not bothered by getting it back..

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM

It’s not clear to me that the father has custody yet.

blink on February 16, 2014 at 1:08 PM

RUK– quoted this Townhall.com article..

I wondered what happened to little M.C., so I tracked down her legal representative, Christopher Blake, in San Diego. He told me, “She’s doing fine.” M.C. is living with Jesus, his new wife and their child in Oklahoma. Melissa, now a parolee at large, lost her parental standing, he said, whereas Irene has visitation rights.

http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2012/08/05/lenos_law_extra_parent_could_split_baby_more_ways/page/full

melle1228 on February 16, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Will new traditional couples stop getting married and existing traditional couples start getting divorced as a protest? Single people pay less taxes. Liberals aren’t going to like collecting less revenue.

edrebber on February 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Millions, no doubt.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Doesn’t Liberalrules / JetBoy / Libfree & others like them realize that if more & more people come out as gay like recently 3rd rate actress Ellen Page did, then don’t they also realize the chances of civilization will become extinct goes up dramatically?

RightWingConservative on February 16, 2014 at 3:38 AM

Can you quantify “dramatically” and say why you believe that’s going to be the case with a bit more detail?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM

FDR was widely loved and elected to four terms. Yet look how quickly the states came together to make term limits. Don’t be so ignorant to think you know what will happen.

Nutstuyu on February 15, 2014 at 7:51 PM

By 1946 the GOP had regained its footing in Congress and was doing everything it could to make sure another FDR didn’t come along and hand them their butts for another four terms, plus there was a lot of dissatisfaction with Truman so the prospect of a multiterm president sticking us with a lousy veep was a reality for people at the time the 22nd Amendment was passed. For all we know some of the support for the amendment came from New Dealers who wanted to honor FDR by making him the first, last and only president to hold the office for that long.

I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to foresee the failure of a federal marriage amendment in the state legislatures even if you got one that far. Support of same-sex marriage is the majority position of the American people that has been built slowly over time and movement is all in the pro-direction. It gets more popular every day just from generational turnover as old people less likely to support it die and are replaced by young people who are very supportive. If you think I’m reading the tea leaves incorrectly then I’d be interested in hearing where you think I screwed up. Which states that I’ve counted as likely opponents of a federal marriage amendment do you think your side is likely to win in?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Except that the 14th did not repeal the 9th and 10th, no matter how much some stooge judges try to twist their rulings to make it so.

Nutstuyu on February 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Of course the 14th Amendment didn’t repeal the 10th, it just made the list of things the states can’t do a few items longer. The Constitution already forbade the states from coining money, declaring war and entering into treaties, and the 14th adding denying due process and equal protection to the list of things they couldn’t do.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2014 at 8:38 PM

I see the plan now. First use federal judges to usurp the role of sate legislatures to condition the population to living under a dictatorship. After that is accepted most will not fight when the benevolent and protective leader assumes role of congress.

Nomas on February 17, 2014 at 8:14 AM

blink….blink………blink……………blink……………………blink. Damn my watch is on the blink. Well, it will be right two times in one 24 hour period.

SC.Charlie on February 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9