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 2 3 9

Oh jeez, another gay thread to get 1000+ posts.

Bishop?

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 8:13 AM

I guess people don’t need to vote anymore their voices mean squat unless it is alignment with the left

cmsinaz on February 14, 2014 at 8:13 AM

14th amendment has been used and abused to mean whatever the hell a judge wants it to mean.

The latest trend has been to use the 14th amendment to strike down any law a judge wants, and also nullify the 10th amendment.

There is no point in having states anymore in this country. States rights no longer exist, the federal government has gotten too big

tcufrog on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Don’t mean….

cmsinaz on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM

One single man decided this for the entire nation. I bet Kennedy comes out as gay.

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM

We criticized the notion that Scalia’s prediction was something society should be scared about, not the validity of his point. Of course Windsor produces this judicial trend. Also, how you can continue to see it for anyone who dissented on Lawrence is a mystery….

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM

One single man decided this for the entire nation. I bet Kennedy comes out as gay.

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM

I think it’s time we abolish all single-judge courtrooms. There should be no less than 7 (the perfect number!) deciding any one topic.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM

I seriously wish Falwell could have lived to see this day.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:16 AM

From the headlines thread:

… without violating the equal protection…

Funny how this can never be applied to the progressive income tax system.
anuts on February 14, 2014 at 7:59 AM

anuts on February 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM

We criticized the notion that Scalia’s prediction was something society should be scared about, not the validity of his point. Of course Windsor produces this judicial trend. Also, how you can continue to see it for anyone who dissented on Lawrence is a mystery….

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM

Gay and lesbian individuals

Why do particularly happy and joyous people get preferential treatment?

Why do people from the Island of Lesbos get preferential treatment?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM

One single man decided this for the entire nation. I bet Kennedy comes out as gay.

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM

I think it’s time we abolish all single-judge courtrooms. There should be no less than 7 (the perfect number!) deciding any one topic.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:15 AM

The poster you’re responding to was talking about the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision. The poster you’re responding to is also kind of an idiot, because it was a 5 person majority. Not a single man.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Soon there will be nowhere left to run, other than my compound, I mean.

Still have some cots available for lease, bring your own beer.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Why do particularly happy and joyous people get preferential treatment?

Many words in the English dictionary have more than one meaning. Why are you refusing to recognize that Gay and Lesbian are examples of that? It’s pretty childish.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

…of course!

KOOLAID2 on February 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM

childish.

libfreeorgan on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

…we know…

KOOLAID2 on February 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Funny how this can never be applied to the progressive income tax system.
anuts on February 14, 2014 at 7:59 AM

anuts on February 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM

Or the 2nd Amendment.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

It’s Kennedy’s irrational words and reasoning that these other judges are relying upon.

What does that kind of make you?

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM

New Democrat playbook -

If they like the law as attorney general or governor they refuse to to take it to court because they know better than the people.
If they don’t like the law they file lawsuit after lawsuit and court shop until they get it repealed… On behalf of te people… Of course.

What’s the point of having a legislature… Or democracy at this point?

Our country is lost. Long live the American Socialist State.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Many words in the English dictionary have more than one meaning. Why are you refusing to recognize that Gay and Lesbian are examples of that? It’s pretty childish.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

The Second Amendment securites the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them–the verb whose original meaning is key in this case.

So you disagree with the 9th Circuit???

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:22 AM

I’m sick of all things gay.

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:22 AM

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

So then you have no problem with changing the meaning of “adult” right?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Oh Brother…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Sodom and Gomorrah circa 2014…….

…….but with better cell phone coverage.

PappyD61 on February 14, 2014 at 8:23 AM

t’s Kennedy’s irrational words and reasoning that these other judges are relying upon.

What does that kind of make you?

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM

He just wrote the opinion. Any of the other majority justices could have done the same. The point is that his words reflect the consensus of the Court.

So you disagree with the 9th Circuit???

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:22 AM

What is ironic is that conservatives don’t see the symmetry between the 9th circuit ruling, the pro-gay marriage rulings and the legalization/decriminalization of pot. These are all moves towards a less regulatory society. And you’re winning on the big regulatory issues around corporations and capital accumulation. Gay marriage is part of the trend, deal.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:24 AM

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:16 AM

I can only hope you live long enough to see the blowback.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 8:24 AM

The poster you’re responding to is also kind of an idiot,
libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

But I hadn’t responded to you yet.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Soon there will be nowhere left to run, other than my compound, I mean.

Still have some cots available for lease, bring your own beer.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Do you snore?

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM

when We the People

Oh, the irony. One judge overrules “we the people” with a wave of her magic wand. You can be sure this judge is an activist and has an agenda when she can’t distinguish between the primary documents of her profession, but can write a clichéd, leftist-talking-point-laden “opinion” and be hailed a hero.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM

ibfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

What is LFOD doing up this early anyway?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM

I’m sick of all things gay.

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:22 AM

What about the Enola Gay?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

What is LFOD doing up this early anyway?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM

His Mom went into the basement early to do laundry

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

No matter what you do. No matter what you enact by executive or bench fiat, what you so desperately want, will never be real marriage.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

So then you have no problem with changing the meaning of “adult” right?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:23 AM

You do realize that in most states age of consent is 16, in others it is 17 and others it is 18. In some states you can be a dependent on your parents up to 21, in others it is 18. So yes, the meaning of “adult” does have different meanings depending upon which state you live in.

I believe you mean do I want to change the legal construct of “capacity,” which not only influences the legal rights and obligations of people under the age of 18, but also those with developmental disorders or suffering from alzheimers/neurological conditions in old age. And the answer to your question is; no. There are many reasons for keeping capacity as unchanged as possible.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Do you snore?

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Of course, but I also play Hendrix over the P.A. system on a loop 24/7, so you probably wouldn’t hear me.

Besides, noobs get the dog shift security watch for the first few months, you’ll be walking the perimeter or freezing in the tower while I’m cozy in my rack.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

I am just so sick of sodomites sucking the life out of everything. Go ahead and practice your perverse lifestyle but don’t expect me to embrace it. And, no, I could not care less so STFU about your sexual orientation.

And let’s be honest here. Sodomites are not seeking “equality.” They will not be happy until the Pope is forced to bless same-sex marriage at the high altar in St. Peter’s.

But all that being said, it really is a sad day for America when the will of the electorate can be upended by a illiterate judge.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM

No matter what you do. No matter what you enact by executive or bench fiat, what you so desperately want, will never be real marriage.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

If you truly believe that, then why organize a resistance to state recognition of these relationships. Sounds like you’re only stake in this fight is to offer a refusal if any gay couple invites you to their wedding. Otherwise, butt out.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

but also those with developmental disorders or suffering from alzheimers/neurological conditions in old age. And the answer to your question is; no. There are many reasons for keeping capacity as unchanged as possible.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

But but but they were born that way!!11!1!!!! I thought that was the alia causa for justifying the developmental sexual conditions of teh gheys?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Otherwise, butt out.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

There’s a joke in there somewhere.

I’ve had too much coffee and I’m feeling punchy.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

This decision is indicative of the current state of Lunacy…and here’s another example…

Here’s the gender list Facebook is now using on their social network…Moonbat sophistry at a glance…

Agender

Androgyne

Androgynous

Bigender

Cis

Cis Female

Cis Male

Cis Man

Cis Woman

Cisgender

Cisgender Female

Cisgender Male

Cisgender Man

Cisgender Woman

Female to Male

FTM

Gender Fluid

Gender Nonconforming

Gender Questioning

Gender Variant

Genderqueer

Intersex

Male to Female

MTF

Neither

Neutrois

Non-binary

Other

Pangender

Trans

Trans Female

Trans Male

Trans Man

Trans Person

Trans Woman

Trans*

Trans* Female

Trans* Male

Trans* Man

Trans* Person

Trans* Woman

Transfeminine

Transgender

Transgender Female

Transgender Male

Transgender Man

Transgender Person

Transgender Woman

Transmasculine

Transsexual

Transsexual Female

Transsexual Male

Transsexual Man

Transsexual Person

Transsexual Woman

Two-spirit – WTF?

Brave New World Folks…Step right up in it…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

I just cant believe that in 2014 we are still trying to legislate marriage, one way or the other. How as a society are we not past this?

Dump government regulation of marriage, make it a pure contractual agreement between individuals and allow religious organizations to only conduct and recognize those marriages they deem fit. Everyone is happy and we can move on.

This is an issue not because of those against gay marriage, it’s an issue because the government insists on ruling on it one way or another.

But that wouldn’t be enough for the gay lobby. For them it is all about forced acceptance, forcing the entire nation to accept their idea of what marriage should be. It’s not about “letting 2 people who love each other have legal relationship”, its not about letting gay couples be happy, its about forced acceptance and tearing down traditional marriage.

It’s the gay lobby who wants government into marriage.

tcufrog on February 14, 2014 at 8:32 AM

I am just so sick of sodomites sucking the life out of everything. Go ahead and practice your perverse lifestyle but don’t expect me to embrace it. And, no, I could not care less so STFU about your sexual orientation.

1. Most straight people are sodomites, as non-vaginal sex is damn near universal in straight couples as foreplay.

2. Sucking the life out of everything? Please. There is no way you can be a person who consumes popular culture, of any genre or time period, who hasn’t been touched by something produced by a gay or lesbian person.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:32 AM

What about the Enola Gay?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Got to tell ya even the word in that context is driving me nuts.

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

But all that being said, it really is a sad day for America when the will of the electorate can be upended by a illiterate judge.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Only if they let it continue. If only VA had a real governor, who would say to this judge to practice what she preaches and shove it up her arse.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

I don’t know what some of those even are/mean.

What the hell is Cis and Neutrois?

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

This is why I’m not on FB, unfortunately I was born all of the above and that option isn’t listed.

FB is trying to marginalize me.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

There’s a joke in there somewhere.

I’ve had too much coffee and I’m feeling punchy.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

It was intended ;)

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Got to tell ya even the word in that context is driving me nuts.

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Think of it dropping an atomic bomb on all the people who aggravate you gathered in one place.

There, see, all better now.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Also anyone who thinks the gay lobby will just die after gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and the issue will be off the table for future elections, is an idiot.

The gay lobby has become too large and is a giant leviathan now that has to continue to be fed. It won’t just end once gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

The next move will be to force all churches nationwide to do gay marriages even if its against their beliefes. And prosecuting or pulling a church’s tax exempt status if they don’t allow a gay preacher. Or pulling tax exempt status if they preach against homosexuality in their sermons.

They will find other things to rail about. This is just the beginning.

tcufrog on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

No matter what you do. No matter what you enact by executive or bench fiat, what you so desperately want, will never be real marriage.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

If you truly believe that, then why organize a resistance to state recognition of these relationships. Sounds like you’re only stake in this fight is to offer a refusal if any gay couple invites you to their wedding. Otherwise, butt out.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

So will Gay couples resist suing traditional religious institutions who refuse to marry them?

No.

Because…well it’s unfair of religious bigots to cling to their prejudicial doctrine cause well it’s unfair to deny anything to gay activists because well…They’re Gay or something…

*blech*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

Two-spirit – WTF?

Brave New World Folks…Step right up in it…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Two spirit, you ignorant hack, refers to the way many indigenous communities refer to non-heterosexual people. It is particularly common among Pacific island communities, and refers to the idea that a person can have both a man and a woman’s spirit in the body. It is not dissimilar from early 20th century scientific theories of “sexual inversion” (see Hirschfield and Havelock Ellis for more info). Our sexual taxonomies have changed a lot over the years, and there was really never a time when they were simply “man” and “woman.” But ignorance is bliss…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

Had to re check to see if AP posted this…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

So yes, the meaning of “adult” does have different meanings depending upon which state you live in.

…….And the answer to your question is; no. There are many reasons for keeping capacity as unchanged as possible.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Kinda like SSM. Just wait until an activist judge has more insight than you and declares the new age of consent to be…….oh, I dunno……14? Or is 12 better? Heck, why even have an age limitation? We’ll let the “smart ones” tell us rubes.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM

If you truly believe that, then why organize a resistance to state recognition of these relationships. Sounds like you’re only stake in this fight is to offer a refusal if any gay couple invites you to their wedding. Otherwise, butt out.
libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Some of us are genuinely concerned about this age of anti-wisdom and that childlike emoting dictates public policy.

anuts on February 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM

So will Gay couples resist suing traditional religious institutions who refuse to marry them?

Here we go:

1. The Arizona photographer
2. The church owned pier in Jersey
3. The poor aggrieved Baker of Oregon.

Before you lay out the *same tired examples* of gay overreach, let me just stop you. You have nothing left on this issue but the same, three now very old examples. The isn is played out.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:39 AM

They will find other things to rail about. This is just the beginning.

tcufrog on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

You are correct.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 8:39 AM

f you truly believe that, then why organize a resistance to state recognition of these relationships. Sounds like you’re only stake in this fight is to offer a refusal if any gay couple invites you to their wedding. Otherwise, butt out.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

No, it’s your other objectives fast on the heels of this.

Here’s this again. Why? Because the new folks might not understand Libfree and his no limits to sexual freedom crusade he advocates here. Here is a diatribe from a thread when the voice artist for Elmo had been caught in underage sexual relationships.

I don’t know. But here’s the thing (and no doubt the gay liberals will get mad at me for even saying such). But I have a hard time getting too upset about a 45 year old guy and a 16 year old guy having sex. Maybe its because when I was under 18 (17 to be exact) I had a bit of an affair with an older man (early 30s)…and it was AWESOME. Its exactly what I wanted, I pursued it, he was smoking hot, I was 17 and (as most of the male posters will attest to) extremely interested in having sex. I wasn’t abused or exploited. And there’s no question that a year earlier I would have been just fine as well. Because by 16 I was, at least in terms of my sexual desires, really, really clear what I wanted. I think most 16 year old boys are. Like…how does a “vulnerable” 16 year old find their way onto a gay sex chat-line anyway?

Note how he blamed the underaged victim.

I find the statutory rape laws in this country to be purely arbitrary. I know they are meant to protect younger kids, so they have to exist. But we really do child sexual abuse a disservice when we equate it with a legal adult having sex with a 16 or 17 year old. Those are just fundamentally different types of sexual interaction. It makes sense to criminalize child sex abuse (15 and below). But statutory rape? As a law it is asinine. If a person is raped, they are raped. If they consent, then we really need to think about where we decide capacity. Is it based upon brain development? Are there studies that have been done? Arbitrary law always concerns me.

What he would also find arbitrary is your parental rights of a like aged child,living in your home.

And it also allows us to ignore sites of exploitation in relationships between adults. When there’s a huge wealth difference for example, that produces all kinds of vulnerability, exploitation and abuse, but we kind of just assume “well who cares, they are adults.” I’ve seen adults used and abused in ways far more damaging than anything I experienced during the magical summer of 1998. Now, who knows, perhaps this is why I’ve only seriously dated older men. Perhaps I would’ve been more into guys my own age in college…I don’t know..but I don’t care, its all good. Some people just like older partners and they’ve always been into that. I just think we’re doing the wrong thing having a moral panic over a 32 year old and a 16 year old. But I know that the gay liberal movement has spoken on this question, so that’s that.

libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It’s all, “good”.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Kinda like SSM. Just wait until an activist judge has more insight than you and declares the new age of consent to be…….oh, I dunno……14? Or is 12 better? Heck, why even have an age limitation? We’ll let the “smart ones” tell us rubes.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Right…..except “has more insight” ain’t exactly the way them there judges are rationalizin’ their decisions, now is it. They’re approachin’ it from a certain kinda judicial philosophy that might just have a few different stripes than your own. Now run down to the well and tell Pa that supper’s liable to be cold as a stone, he don’t get back from the well in time.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Two spirit, you ignorant hack,

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

I thought your new sock-puppet GodlessCommie was reserved for your “aggressive” name-calling hissy fits?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:42 AM

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

This is why I’m not on FB, unfortunately I was born all of the above and that option isn’t listed.

FB is trying to marginalize me.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Indeed Bishop…They are marginalizing you and countless others who are not politically sexualized or fluid in your PC evolving politically designed sexual persona.

I suggest maybe you improve your twerking skills to cope with the malaise?

Post the video on tube and be an instastar

; )

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:42 AM

I’ve become agnostic on this issue because I’m tired of gubment intruding on our lives. I should be able to have someone else of sane adult status be my significant other in any aspect I want them to be, from medical decisions to being an heir of my estate.

That being said, private businesses and churches shouldn’t be required to recognize those unions for insurance or religious purposes if they don’t want to. If your company doesn’t provide same-sex health benefits, well then too effin bad, find another job or deal with it. If your church doesn’t do same-sex marriage ceremonies, find one that does.

BUT, the same door that opens with legalizing marijuana opens with gay marriage, once the door is opened don’t be surprised at what comes through it.

Ok those are my deep insightful thoughts which probably made you roll your eyes. Like I said, I’m wired like a mofacky right now with coffee. I need some eggs.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Also anyone who thinks the gay lobby will just die after gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and the issue will be off the table for future elections, is an idiot.

They already have the taxpayer on the hook for $2B a year paying for their drugs and insurance subsidies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_CARE_Act

$2B a year? Just for one gay disease. How much are the taxpayers going to have to cough up for their gonorrhea and syphilis drugs?

p0s3r on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

It’s all, “good”.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM

16 is the age of consent in most states. Nothing I said there advocates sexual abuse of a minor. But do please continue to waste space by posting it again and again. Everything I said there is 100% within the law in most states.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Now run down to the well and tell Pa that supper’s liable to be cold as a stone, he don’t get back from the well in time.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Let me axe you something. Are you really a college professor?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

What is ironic is that conservatives don’t see the symmetry between the 9th circuit ruling, the pro-gay marriage rulings and the legalization/decriminalization of pot. These are all moves towards a less regulatory society. And you’re winning on the big regulatory issues around corporations and capital accumulation. Gay marriage is part of the trend, deal.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:24 AM

[Mrs Krabappel] HA! [/Mrs Krabappel]

Jeddite on February 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM

It’s all, “good”.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Holy cow…

BigWyo on February 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Hey Bishop I have some Polish ‘Mocne’ beer. It’s better than any German or Czech beer. Free cot?

celtic warrior on February 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM

16 is the age of consent in most states. Nothing I said there advocates sexual abuse of a minor. But do please continue to waste space by posting it again and again. Everything I said there is 100% within the law in most states.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

You’ve alluded to advocating for 14 YO sexual freedom and have concluded the parents of Kaitlyn Hunts victim had no real parental rights.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

I don’t know what some of those even are/mean.

What the hell is Cis and Neutrois?

gophergirl on February 14, 2014 at 8:33 AM

I don’t know either…It’s confusing.

Apparently these evolving terms are exchanged based on the advocacy trends of certain groups.

For example there is a distinction between those individuals who feel transgendered at any given time and those act transgendered at any given time…and those that have transitioned to another gender (surgically or in the process of etc.)

As an artist it’s hard to keep up with a culture that is fragmenting at this rate…

The other mccain blog occasionally posts following these moon bat trends…

Two Spirits option cracked me up…I mean…What the Hell does that even mean?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Let me axe you something. Are you really a college professor?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

I’m genuinely curious why that post, where I playfully take on a rural rube dialect, would cause you to question my job. Is it that college professors aren’t supposed to engage in dialect. Frankly, I think that post shows my facility with language and is more evidence that I’m a professor.

But, again you and oldroy, and LegendHasIt and HumpBotSalvation, all have to do a lot better at not letting me get under your skin. When you want to make it personal, about my actual career and my actual life it just shows you cannot deal with whatever feelings my posts produce in you. That’s something you need to work out with your pastor/priest/shrink, and quit trying to figure out who I am, got it?

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Like…how does a “vulnerable” 16 year old find their way onto a gay sex chat-line anyway?

The same way they find themselves driving a car too fast, drinking too much, smoking too much, trying too many “experimental” drugs…science has shown people’s brains are not fully developed until mid-20s. So maybe Obamacare got something right?

On the other hand, I wish LFOD would advocate for the 97% of males who want to get it on with a much younger “woman”. I mean, OMG, my daughter’s 16yr old friends are like totally way hotter than my 40yr old wife, and like my like wife is like soooo hot for like a 40yr old. OMG OMG OMG.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

You’ve alluded to advocating for 14 YO sexual freedom and have concluded the parents of Kaitlyn Hunts victim had no real parental rights.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Lies.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Gay relationships will be the ‘equal’ of heterosexual ones when they can produce the offspring required for the next generation.

Ricard on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

The age of consent in most states is 16. I honestly don’t think conservatives know that much about the laws of this nation…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Hey Bishop I have some Polish ‘Mocne’ beer. It’s better than any German or Czech beer. Free cot?

celtic warrior on February 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Is that a type or a brand. I’m partial to Zwiec but it’s tough to get in my area, I have to hunt around for it in the city.

No freebies but I’ll give you a percentage discount for every case you bring.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Is it that college professors aren’t supposed to engage in dialect.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

No. Didn’t you see the documentary My Fair Lady?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Two-spirit – WTF?

Brave New World Folks…Step right up in it…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Two spirit, you ignorant hack, refers to the way many indigenous communities refer to non-heterosexual people. It is particularly common among Pacific island communities, and refers to the idea that a person can have both a man and a woman’s spirit in the body. It is not dissimilar from early 20th century scientific theories of “sexual inversion” (see Hirschfield and Havelock Ellis for more info). Our sexual taxonomies have changed a lot over the years, and there was really never a time when they were simply “man” and “woman.” But ignorance is bliss…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM

*snicker*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

I’m genuinely curious why that post, where I playfully take on a rural rube dialect, would cause you to question my job. Is it that college professors aren’t supposed to engage in dialect. Frankly, I think that post shows my facility with language and is more evidence that I’m a professor.

I don’t give a rat ass what you are. Even though I serious question with your writing skills that you are anything in academia. It was just a chance to add a bigoted narrow-minded speech generalization right back at you, bro.

But, again you and oldroy, and LegendHasIt and HumpBotSalvation, all have to do a lot better at not letting me get under your skin.

You mean as lib free or deathtomediahacks? Or GodlessCommie. Because none of your sock puppets get under my skin. Your crusade to date underaged boys gets under my skin. But who isn’t repulsed by that?

When you want to make it personal, about my actual career and my actual life it just shows you cannot deal with whatever feelings my posts produce in you. That’s something you need to work out with your pastor/priest/shrink, and quit trying to figure out who I am, got it?

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

I just don’t think you’re that intelligent. And FU with the making it personal stuff. I at least display all my character, good or bad, in just me. I don’t rely on sock-puppets for “angry” dray.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM

No. Didn’t you see the documentary My Fair Lady?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Oh why can’t the rightwing teach their children how to speak
Norwegians known Norweigan, the Greeks now their Greek…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM

dray = day

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

The age of consent in most states is 16. I honestly don’t think conservatives know that much about the laws of this nation…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

And yet they still can’t get married at age–without the approval of an adult guardian.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships…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.”

By this standard (and that presented in the judge’s opening paragraph), there should be no basis for not forcing the citizenry to recognize multi-partner marriages.

Ricard on February 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

The age of consent in most states is 16. I honestly don’t think conservatives know that much about the laws of this nation…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

I know of one highly-placed liberal who doesn’t seem to know much about the federal law which colloquially carries his own name.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

And FU with the making it personal stuff. I at least display all my character, good or bad, in just me. I don’t rely on sock-puppets for “angry” dray.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM

*sigh* despite your paranoid fantasies, I do not have another name I post under. I haven’t even seen a post by this GodlessCommie person. But this is where you literally are insane and can’t be reasoned with. Believe what you will.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Lies.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Nope.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Right…..except “has more insight” ain’t exactly the way them there judges are rationalizin’ their decisions, now is it. They’re approachin’ it from a certain kinda judicial philosophy that might just have a few different stripes than your own.

Yes, it’s a leftist judicial philosophy diametrically opposed to the original intent of our country’s founding. But reader response and situational ethics rule the halls of academia and now government, so Um I just gonna let them there’s smarts onez deside fer me. Theyz sooo smart like you libfree.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Oh why can’t the rightwing teach their children how to speak
Norwegians known Norweigan, the Greeks now their Greek…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Oh, why can’t perfessers teach punctuation, the use of hyphens and compound words, the proper use of verbs, and spelling?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM

The poster you’re responding to was talking about the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision. The poster you’re responding to is also kind of an idiot, because it was a 5 person majority. Not a single man.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM

You have a lot of trouble with language, don’t you? It was a 5-4 decision, thus one person deciding the case. Is there some help you also need with the following? Is that why it has taken so long to respond?

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Lies.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Nope.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Put up or shut up.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Bish, I got the last Diet Coke out of the fridge. Sorry. I get paid this afternoon, I’ll get some more.

It’s Cindy’s fault. :)

This is not an issue of “Ciil Rights”. There have been no hoses turned on homosexuals, nor dogs sicced on them.

It is a matter the use of a word to convey “normalcy”. Nohing else.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Norwegians speak Norweigan.

Huh, I would have thought they speak Norwegian.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

It’s a dark beer that tastes like a lager.There is nothing like it.

celtic warrior on February 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM

If you truly believe that, then why organize a resistance to state recognition of these relationships.
libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:30 AM

We are.

It’s called getting laws written and letting the voters decide who, more often than not, realize he truth that marriage is between a man and woman.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Diet Coke?

Man, and to think I was saving you a spot.

Buy some of that fantastic Mexican Coca Cola which uses cane sugar and I’ll reconsider.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Put up or shut up.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Was Kaitlyn Hunt’s affair with a 14 yo, sexual abuse of a child? You always duck this question.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:03 AM

I don’t know what the VA constitution says, but most state constitutions are modelled after the US Constitution. I don’t see anything in there that demands that same sex unions be allowed. I think that it should be allowed everywhere, but I don’t see it as an inalienable right.

I applaud those states that have passed laws allowing for same sex marriage and usually condemn those whose courts force it on their states.

MJBrutus on February 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Put up or shut up.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Ahem…

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Norwegians speak Norweigan.

Huh, I would have thought they speak Norwegian.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Norweigan is a little spoken dialect of Austrian.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Currently there’s a big dustup between Lesbian advocates and Trans gendered Female advocates…Because the Lesbians don’t want to date the men who transgendered or are in the process of transgendering (Still have original their packages) and the transgendered community feels…marginalized…or something…

The Lesbians say they aren’t true Females and therefore aren’t true lesbians etc…

It’s pretty funny…

Tolerance

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Was Kaitlyn Hunt’s affair with a 14 yo, sexual abuse of a child? You always duck this question.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:03 AM

You claimed I had already made statements on this case, I have not read a single thing about it. So post your proof that I said something about 14 year olds having sexual freedom or just admit you’re a liar. You are always so tracking dramatic.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM

I still can’t see the 14th Amendment tie-in with same-sex marriage. Under current law, any man and any woman — who otherwise satisfy State laws regarding age and consanguinity — may marry. There are no laws stating that gay men and lesbian woman can’t marry one another, as the Virginia Racial Purity Act, overturned in Loving vs. Virginia, forbade whites from marrying any other race.

In every conversation I’ve had on this subject, Loving vs. Virginia comes up and not one of my interlocutors has known that it was only whites banned from marrying other races. They all thought it was that blacks could not marry whites.

It’s the same with the 14th Amendment and SSM: ANY man and ANY woman can marry (subject, as I said, to State law), and NO same-sex partners may marry. They might have a point if heterosexual same-sex marriages were allowed and homosexual SSMs weren’t; or if homosexuals were prevented from marrying other homosexuals of the opposite sex. But since none of these things are true, the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.

Except that somehow, “love” has become the sine qua non of marriage, and two people — of any gender mix — may not be forbidden to marry if they are “in love.”

When did “being in love” become a driving legal requirement for anything?

JamesS on February 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9