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 4 9

Norwegians speak Norweigan.

Huh, I would have thought they speak Norwegian.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Get some culture instead of sleeping in your “rack” all day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Everything I said there is 100% within the law in most states.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Until a judge changes it.

I honestly don’t think conservatives know that much about the laws of this nation…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Says the guy who applauds a federal judge overruling unilaterally a law passed by the people of a state (this post); or a President who changes legislation on a whim to protect his political butt; or a Treasury Department who suddenly takes over healthcare; a Justice Department who cherry picks which laws to enforce based on identify politics; an Interior Department that confiscates land without authority or valid reason, other than the tenets of their AGW religion….the list goes on. Yet, you have the audacity to lecture Conservatives on law. You have chutzpah, I’ll give you that.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

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

Can’t you answer the question about Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior? Did she, or did she not commit sexual abuse on a 14 yo minor?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

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.”

More like:

We’ve arrived at a point in our history when a politically powerful minority special interest group, backed up by the will of one unelected government official, can overturn the will of the majority regarding centuries of human and social tradition in order to facilitate deviant sexual picadilloes of that minor segment of the population.

Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 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.

Ah move over Rover
And let Jimi take over

good times, good times

No Doors?

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

Been there done that. Spent 21 years in the military.

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM

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

JamesS on February 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM

The courts are destroying the rock solid foundation of what equal treatment under the law means, and it will only mean mountains of trouble as these precedences are applied to future cases.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Austrians speak Austrian.

Dongemaharu on February 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM

I respect people who believe their God deems same-sex marriage/relationship a ticket to hell but understand I’m not supposed to conform to believes of you and your God.

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Can’t you answer the question about Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior? Did she, or did she not commit sexual abuse on a 14 yo minor?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Again. You claimed that I had commented on 14 year olds having sexual freedom. Post it or admit you lied. And also, I haven’t read a single thing about Kaitlyn Hunt and do not know anything about the case.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

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

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

That’s what really ticks the sodomites off. They make the claim that their “struggle” is tantamount to the civil rights movement. The reality is that nobody gives a flip about their sexual orientation. All the passion in this issue is protecting marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman not what sodomites do in the privacy of their own homes.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 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…

Mark Steyn covered this topic in his inimitable style in one of his articles. He described what happens when two “protected” groups run head-on into one another. In his case, it was in Canada and I think it was the gay community and the Muslims. I wish I could remember which article it was, it was pure gold.

JamesS on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Should have been left to voters. No one was being oppressed. Gay men don’t seem like they’re very monogamously-inclined anyway, to put it mildly.

This is all about power, not “equality”, and is about wanting to take apart traditional society.

States should be able to do what they wish. Marriage is now meaningless. What kind of definition of marriage wouldn’t “discriminate”?

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 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

And English speakers know how to write proper English.

You sow, you reap libfreeze.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM

There is no “law” anymore; it’s now merely a matter of who holds the power.

Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Norwegians speak Norweigan.

Huh, I would have thought they speak Norwegian.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Get some culture instead of sleeping in your “rack” all day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Bishop, I award you a million points for getting the perfesser to burn himself.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Can’t you answer the question about Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior? Did she, or did she not commit sexual abuse on a 14 yo minor?
hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

I think the double-standard was more about it involving two females, not two males or a male and a female.

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

That’s what really ticks the sodomites off.

You do realize that most straight people are “sodomites” right? Oral is “sodomy” so…

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Here’s a thread where he was obsessing about minors having “boners” Discussed the age of 15 in the sense it was at one time legal. Did he stop at 15?

The problem (as always) with our laws around “protecting” children from sexual abuse is that we are unwilling to recognize that at a certain point, biologically, chemicals flood our bodies and we become sexual beings. Emotionally we may not be ready for the difficulties of love and loss, but physically we’re mature. That point happens before the arbitrary standard of 18 for 99% of human beings and there’s this wierd middle ground between 15 (previously an acceptable marrying age) and 18. There’s a whole catagory of people, 19yo who have sex with 17yo for example who have been labelled “sex offenders” because we wilfully pretend that the difference between a 17year old and a 18 year old consenting to sex is the same as when a 7 year old and an 18 year old consents to sex.

And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.

In the same thread he advocated dropping sexual predator registries. Not how he quoted “protecting” as if he scoffed at that notion.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

I respect people who believe their God deems same-sex marriage/relationship a ticket to hell but understand I’m not supposed to conform to believes of you and your God.
Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.
It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.
liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Please explain how two men sodomizing one another repeatedly constitutes a basis for “marriage”.

Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Gee, a judge that doesn’t know what the f**k she’s talking about issues a decision that overturns the wishes of a whole state via constitutional amendment.

Yeah, that’s a trend all right. It’s also social engineering. But it sure as Hell isn’t rule of law.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

I respect people who believe their God deems same-sex marriage/relationship a ticket to hell but understand I’m not supposed to conform to believes of you and your God.

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Oh look, some more stupider comments from the peanut gallery.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Stand by all of that. Try again.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Libfree, keep writing. Your implosion draws nigh.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Up Next in the struggle for civil rights…

“BARCELONA, Spain, Feb. 13 (UPI) —
A poster appearing to promote pedophilia has been removed from a bus stop display near the famous Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona, Spain, officials say.
JCDecaux, the advertising firm that maintains billboards at the bus stops, said the poster called for “abuse-free child pornography,” ThinkSpain reported Thursday.

The poster bore the word “Freedom” in large letters over the image of a semi-naked little girl. The text of the ad said, “Send us naked photos of when you were a child. For child pornography without abuse. +18 Yes to Pedophilia “ No to Abuse.”

The poster was placed inside a locked glass display case rather than taped to the outside of the case, said Alberto Carrillo, a JCDecaux spokesman.

The case can only be opened with a key available exclusively to employees of the advertising firm, Carrillo said.

A local newspaper noticed the ad and notified the city council, which asked JCDecaux to remove the poster.

Carrillo said all bus stops in the city have been checked for the ad…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/13/Spanish-bus-stop-found-with-ad-for-abuse-free-child-pornography

Because Free Love or something…

*blech*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Can’t you answer the question about Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior? Did she, or did she not commit sexual abuse on a 14 yo minor?
hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

I think the double-standard was more about it involving two females, not two males or a male and a female.

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Have you self-appointed yourself to answer question I ask to specific people? And no, moron, the question applies to the fact that libfree will not characterize Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior as child molestation by an adult.

Your pool and frog googles await you now. Off you go.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Stand by all of that. Try again.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Oh, since you’re now responding to your old comments…

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 9:17 AM

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

You stinkin’ effing hypocrite. You liberal b*stards are forever forcing your values onto others, just ask those nuns who don’t want to be forced to dispense birth control.

Admit it, you’re a two-faced liar. I’ll stop here ‘cuz I don’t wanna be banned.

307wolverine on February 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Are public restrooms now unisex? You know, since we’re blurring all lines completely.

Dongemaharu on February 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

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

Hold it. So when my girl gives me a bj that’s considered sodomy?

And there’s a joke in that second thing but I haven’t had enough coffee yet.

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

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

Unless they were born on or reside on the Island of Lesbos, none of them are Lesbians.

Country Greece
Region North Aegean
Capital Mytilene
Area
• Total 1,632.8 km2 (630.4 sq mi)
Population (2011)
• Total 86,436
• Density 53/km2 (140/sq mi)
Demonym Lesbian

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Stand by all of that. Try again.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Oh sorry, forget the time tag.

The problem (as always) with our laws around “protecting” children from sexual abuse is that we are unwilling to recognize that at a certain point, biologically, chemicals flood our bodies and we become sexual beings. Emotionally we may not be ready for the difficulties of love and loss, but physically we’re mature. That point happens before the arbitrary standard of 18 for 99% of human beings and there’s this wierd middle ground between 15 (previously an acceptable marrying age) and 18. There’s a whole catagory of people, 19yo who have sex with 17yo for example who have been labelled “sex offenders” because we wilfully pretend that the difference between a 17year old and a 18 year old consenting to sex is the same as when a 7 year old and an 18 year old consents to sex.

And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.

DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Jesus Christ, HA, quit being a prude! If you’re gonna post this as a topic, post my damned reply to libdie!

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

I think even the East German judge gives you a 10 for that performance.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

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.)

Surprisingly this is the most disturbing aspect of this…

Or maybe it shouldn’t be given the shoddy rationale of using popularism to rule on law…

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Please explain how two men sodomizing one another repeatedly constitutes a basis for “marriage”.

Cleombrotus on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

You seem to be too much concerned about what consensual adults are doing in their pursuit of happiness.

Help me out here.

How does that affect your life?

If you want to talk marriage, the concept of one man and one woman marriage is very new in terms of human evolution.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Stand by all of that. Try again.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Can you make a definitive comment in reference to the illegal behavior of Kaitlyn Hunt to “stand by”? Or do you advocate her behavior by your silence? Much of the gay community, many here, were even openly supportive of her.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

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

Because they are soooooooo oppresed. LibFreeShouldDie is overjoyed because now he might be able to get married.

RandallinHerndon on February 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Have you self-appointed yourself to answer question I ask to specific people? And no, moron, the question applies to the fact that libfree will not characterize Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior as child molestation by an adult.
Your pool and frog googles await you now. Off you go.
hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Geez, I thought this was an open discussion where all commenters can join.

Also, maybe libfree said some objectionable things about that subject somewhere else (I have no idea), but the quote you pasted did make sense.

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Jesus Christ, HA, quit being a prude! If you’re gonna post this as a topic, post my damned reply to libdie!

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Who are you talking to, Jesus or Hot Air?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

You seem to be too much concerned about what consensual adults are doing in their pursuit of happiness.

Help me out here.

How does that affect your life?

If you want to talk marriage, the concept of one man and one woman marriage is very new in terms of human evolution.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Then why the bans on smoking?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I respect people who believe their God deems same-sex marriage/relationship a ticket to hell but understand I’m not supposed to conform to believes of you and your God.

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

That same logic could be used by Muslims or certain Hindu sects who advocate child brides couldn’t it?

I mean secularism is oppressing their right to freedom of religion…Isn’t it?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Geez, I thought this was an open discussion where all commenters can join.

Also, maybe libfree said some objectionable things about that subject somewhere else (I have no idea), but the quote you pasted did make sense.

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Made sense? Can I put “you” on record as condoning Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior also?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:23 AM

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

Unless they were born on or reside on the Island of Lesbos, none of them are Lesbians.

Country Greece
Region North Aegean
Capital Mytilene
Area
• Total 1,632.8 km2 (630.4 sq mi)
Population (2011)
• Total 86,436
• Density 53/km2 (140/sq mi)
Demonym Lesbian

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Obviously…You are a patriarchal expounding archaic provincialism or something…

*snicker*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:24 AM

How does that affect your life?
liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

How do homosexuals not being allowed to marry affect your life?

Dongemaharu on February 14, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Who are you talking to, Jesus or Hot Air?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Awww nuts!

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Gee, a judge that doesn’t know what the f**k she’s talking about issues a decision that overturns the wishes of a whole state via constitutional amendment.

Yeah, that’s a trend all right. It’s also social engineering. But it sure as Hell isn’t rule of law.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Sometimes when it comes to matters of civil rights, the courts have to intervene and do what’s right.

Not everything should have put for a vote. I’m not sure all southern states would have allowed civil rights in the 60′s had there been a vote on whether a black person should use the same rest room as a white person in each state.

Heck we still have people in 2014 who disapprove of interracial marriage.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Awww nuts!

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

I see your post now. I just hope your girl doesn’t read these forums.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

lol Tom Riddle and his horcruxes.

If one character can’t take the heat switch up with a new one. Well, then, liberal rules, what do “you” being a completely different person from “lib free” (wink, wink) think of Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior. What it child molestation of a 14 yo by an adult or not?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Then why the bans on smoking?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM

You are free to smoke, just don’t smoke in my face.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

“was” it …

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Sometimes when it comes to matters of civil rights, the courts have to intervene and do what’s right.

Not everything should have put for a vote. I’m not sure all southern states would have allowed civil rights in the 60′s had there been a vote on whether a black person should use the same rest room as a white person in each state.

Heck we still have people in 2014 who disapprove of interracial marriage.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

What civil rights are gays being denied? Please be more specificer.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:27 AM

I see your post now. I just hope your girl doesn’t read these forums.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Well, this thread’s about to degenerate (no pun intended) with endless replies to a child (not libdie) so that’s the end of this.

It’s times like this I miss chump threads.

Lanceman on February 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I think even the East German judge gives you a 10 for that performance.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

And I never catch a break from the East German judges. Huzzah!

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I respect people who believe their God deems same-sex marriage/relationship a ticket to hell but understand I’m not supposed to conform to believes of you and your God.

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Tell that to your secular humanist priests who evangelize us on global warming, what to eat, how much soda we can drink, the appropriate amount of income we can earn, and acceptable speech.

Coming soon, a series on the deeper tenets of their faith: how far you can drive your car, what kind of car is acceptable, how many children you can have, and how long you can live.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Civil Rights?

Is homosexuality a race?

When was the last homosexual hung from a tree?

When was a homosexual denied the right to vote?

Please provide a picture of a “Homosexuals Only” drinking fountain.

This is all about the use of the word “marriage” to proclaim hoomosexual sex as “normal”.

Schmuck.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Made sense? Can I put “you” on record as condoning Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior also?
hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:23 AM

I don’t condone it and am only vaguely familiar with the story, but it’s not in the same category as adults molesting young children. There is a difference. Still, age of consent laws are very necessary, but an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old does not make the 18 year old a sick pervert in the same category as that guy who claimed he killed and loved Jon benet Ramsey.

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Everything I said there is 100% within the law in most states.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

No, it isn’t. In most states, age 16 is the age of consent, but only if the other person involved in the sex act is age 20 or under. It doesn’t apply to a 45 year old pervy banging a 16 year old boy or girl.

In PA, consent truly is age 18 and over. If the child is age 17, and your above that, it’s a “corruption of the morals of a minor” charge for you. If they are 16 and under, and you ain’t 17-20, then its statutory sexual assault i.e. stat rape. If they are 14 and under, enjoy 20 years in prison.

The point of your drivel is that you don’t really care about the reality of a consent age, for what it means practically – you hang your hat on a statutory age (law says X so its all good), and as you know, that “legal age” can always be lowered with enough political support or a sympathetic judge. 16 becomes 14 becomes 12, etc. Kinda like how same-sex marriage can be forced into law with enough “support”.

That’s why gays need to “get straight” on whether homosexuality (gay/lesbo) is a product of birth IN EACH AND EVERY CASE, or if it can be engaged in as an act by anyone so inclined. If it’s the former, then you can’t make a black kid white, so to speak. But if its the latter, then you can make a “straight” kid gay, and all it takes is manipulation. See any prison cell for proof of that.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Arenda L. etc. etc. Wright Allen is an ignorant dictator in a black robe:

http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-ignorant-dictator-in-black-robe.html

By the way, anyone notice that the more names a woman uses, the more likely she’s a liberal drone?

WannabeAnglican on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

lol Tom Riddle and his horcruxes.

If one character can’t take the heat switch up with a new one. Well, then, liberal rules, what do “you” being a completely different person from “lib free” (wink, wink) think of Kaitlyn Hunt’s behavior. What it child molestation of a 14 yo by an adult or not?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Ha. When the going gets tough, libfree changes his costume. Bravo libfree. You have us fooled.

conservative pilgrim on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 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.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 8:28 AM

So, you basicly just proved our point. In some states the adult age is 16, 17, or 18. When will a Federal judge rule on the discrimination that 17 and 18 year olds are enduring because 16 years olds in other states are considered adults? When my fiance and I went to the courthouse to get our marriage licence, we went to a County counthouse, and the VA State marriage license was issued by the county . Nowhere did we seek the approval of the almighty federal government to join as man and wife. This is a State issue, and the f*cking federal government needs to go the h*ll away! WE as VA citizens voted for the amendment. Put it before the people again, and we will see how it turns out.

RandallinHerndon on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

What civil rights are gays being denied? Please be more specificer.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:27 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

bluegill on February 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM

If you’re only vaguely familiar with the story, then please don’t waste my time till you get schooled up. And frankly, your opinion on the event even after some more measured research on your part still wouldn’t interest me. Your singular point is to interrupt any exchange I have with someone not doing well in said exchange. Please just stop embarrassing yourself.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM

But then what do you expect from an Obama appointee?

WannabeAnglican on February 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Stop trying to push your moral code on me.
This is not a theocracy.

It crosses the line when you make public policy based on a belief of you and your God and expect me to follow it.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Sorta like forcing photographers, bakers and florists to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.

Ricard on February 14, 2014 at 9:32 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

Beats the crap out of me. I Googled the “cis” stuff and I STILL don’t know what it means.

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

You didn’t answer my question. What civil rights are gays being denied? Try more harder.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Due process and equal protection rights accrue to the individuals. And those individuals are equal, but the unions they form are not. The union between a man and woman is unique and “more perfect”. If “same sex” unions were exactly the same and deserving of the same status as “opposite sex” unions we would be indifferent as to whom individuals chose to pair up with. Yet, we are not. It is better for society as a whole if men pair up with women.

This is where the interracial marriage argument falls apart.

monalisa on February 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Ask yourself this question…why were those benefits extended to heterosexual couples in the first place? Hint…it wasn’t because they loved each other…

Ricard on February 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Heck we still have people in 2014 who disapprove of interracial marriage.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Yes, they’re called Democrats and Liberals, and they disapprove of Clarence Thomas’s white wife.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM

What civil rights are gays being denied? Please be more specificer.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:27 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Most Heterosexual couples can also breed…usually without renting a donor sperm or uterus…

How is that fair?

Leave Britney alone….

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM

The whole gay thing has been pushed on us from the top down. It’s such a joke then when I hear how “people’s minds are changing” about homosexuality and gay marriage.

JellyToast on February 14, 2014 at 9:35 AM

The judge used the flawed analogy of comparing bans on interracial marriage to the ban on same sex marriage. We would rightly call someone prejudiced if they refused to date and possibly marry a person of a different race that they found to be compatible in interests and outlook but we give people a pass on sexual preference. If these two concepts are the same then a person who refused to date or possibly marry a person of the same sex would also be prejudiced.

Actually, the LGBT lobby would say that indeed such a person is guilty of homophobia. The Queer theory states that gender is social construct and sexual preferences are flexible. Absent “heteronormnativity” people would prefer gay over straight.

jerryofva on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

This is all about the use of the word “marriage” to proclaim hoomosexual sex as “normal”.

Schmuck.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Do you have any scientific study on what normal sex is?

On what basis did you determine what kind of sex is normal and what kind is not?

Enlighten me please.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Do you have any scientific study on what normal sex is?

On what basis did you determine what kind of sex is normal and what kind is not?

Enlighten me please.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

It’s called Biology 101. But then you’re a history perfesser, so…

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM

And there it is. Asked a straightforward question about whether or not an adult having sexual relations with a 14 year old is sexual molestation or not, libfreeordie will not even answer the question. As far as I’m concerned, his inability to answer the question is his advocacy for the behavior.

Run you coward.

And coach …

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

You didn’t answer my question. What civil rights are gays being denied? Try more harder.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

He will not answer your question as libfreeordie, what makes you think he’ll answer it as liberalrules?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I’m of the stance the government should be out of “marriage” – civil unions for all, equal protection under the law, etc etc.

But it still ticks me off to hear the activists on the left talking about “sacred personal choices” when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. But when it comes to school choice, when it comes to how taxpayer money is spent, when it comes to everything else that isn’t the pet cause in vogue right now, then we’re supposed to shut up and do what the government thinks is best, as in our “sacred personal choices” get trampled upon.

At least be consistent.

Starnick on February 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM

It’s called Biology 101. But then you’re a history perfesser, so…

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I’m not a professor…don’t confuse me with the other poster.

I work in computer engineering.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 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

Beats the crap out of me. I Googled the “cis” stuff and I STILL don’t know what it means.

bigmacdaddy on February 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Here ya go…Apparently these terms now have a wikipedia entry…Probably due to the advance of queer studies in moon bat academia…

“Julia Serano has defined cissexual as “people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned”, while cisgender is a slightly narrower term for those who do not identify as transgender (a larger cultural category than the more clinical transsexual).

For Jessica Cadwallader, cissexual is “a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex”…

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

*shrug*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Once again a ‘judge’ negates the will of “We The People”.

TfromV on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

libby and liberalnorules are the same person?

Mind blown…

/

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

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

The most fascinating thing about this statement is that absolutely none of these things are a requirement to get a marriage license.

Loving? You won’t find the word love mentioned on any application for a Marriage License. You can flat out state you don’t love each other and still get the license.

Intimate? While refusing to consummate a marriage is definitely grounds for an annulment or stopping after that is grounds for alienation of affection in a divorce it’s not grounds for refusing to issue a license. A couple can state flat out they intend to remain chaste and the state has to issue the license.

Lasting? With the current divorce rate you have to be joking right? You never hear a Justice of the Peace say the words “until death do you part”. Again, a couple can state flat out they intend to divorce in 5 years and the state will still issue the license.

What I would ask this judge is in what way does 3 people or 2 siblings not “share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships”?

Rocks on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I work in computer engineering.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Than what’s your excuse for ignoring simple logic or basic parts compatibility?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Meanwhile, back at the actual thread . . .

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.

Fascinating. In those 41 pages, did she actually mention the U.S. Constitution?

BigAlSouth on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Do you have any scientific study on what normal sex is?

On what basis did you determine what kind of sex is normal and what kind is not?

Enlighten me please.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Really? Wow, many people have more faileder you during your life.

Normal is anything that perpetuates the species. Abnormal is anything that does not. But that is irrelevant when talking about equal treatment under the law. Once again, what civil rights are gays being denied?

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

libby and liberalnorules are the same person?

Mind blown…

/

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I’m not a professor…don’t confuse me with the other poster.

I work in computer engineering.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Apparently its head voices disagree with each other.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Apparently…Neutrosis folks have their own advocacy groups and websites…because diversity…

“What is Neutrois?
Neutrois is a non-binary gender identity that falls under the genderqueer or transgender umbrellas.

Definitions:
There is no one definition of Neutrois, since each person that self-identifies as such experiences their gender differently. The most common ones are:

Neutral-gender
Null-gender
Neither male nor female
Genderless
Agender
Understand more about relevant concepts such as gender identity and gender expression, or familiarize yourself with commonly used terms such as transgender and genderqueer.

Neutrois typically experience a sense of gender dysphoria, and often have a strong desire to reflect their internal gender. Dysphoria can be physical, such as feeling in the “wrong” body; or social, from being seen, categorized, labeled and treated as a man or woman when neither of these fit.

Transition may include using an ambiguously gendered name or gender-neutral pronouns, expressing one’s gender through clothing, hairstyle, or mannerisms, and can involve the hormonal or surgical alteration of primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the body….”

http://neutrois.com

So I guess if you aren’t sure of your gender or are bored with global warming there’s a place for you…or something?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM

liberalrules

You ain’t too bright. Everybody has a moral code and any kind of legislation is rooted to some kind of moral code.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Than what’s your excuse for ignoring simple logic or basic parts compatibility?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The notion that biology determines what normal sex is….is a non starter.

A truly WEAK argument every scientist will run from.

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

He will not answer your question as libfreeordie, what makes you think he’ll answer it as liberalrules?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Doesn’t matter if they are the same person, they both fail because they don’t think logically, but emotionally. That is a liberal trait in general.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Meanwhile, back at the actual thread . . .

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.

Fascinating. In those 41 pages, did she actually mention the U.S. Constitution?

BigAlSouth on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The Constitution is only mentioned by any progressive/liberal when it is fluid

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

why are heterosexual married couples given federal/state benefits but gay couples are not afforded the same benefits?

How is that fair?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Ah, so they’re in it for the money.

Dongemaharu on February 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM

So I guess if you aren’t sure of your gender or are bored with global warming there’s a place for you…or something?

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Apparently these people are blind or don’t have access to mirrors?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM

I’ve never seen the 14th amendment equal protection argument in this issue. Sex, race, national origin, creed (mere belief)–I get.

But the conduct involved in homosexual relationships is voluntary behavior. So what if a marriage between a man and a woman receives elevated status?

Why should taxpayers be on the hook for a survivor benefit payable to a homosexual “partner” under a public-employee defined benefit pension plan?

BuckeyeSam on February 14, 2014 at 9:49 AM

liberalnorules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Now you’re throwing spaghetti. But please, keep trying.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

The notion that biology determines what normal sex is….is a non starter.

A truly WEAK argument every scientist will run from.

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Straight people also have sex with patio tables and couches on the side of the road. Does that make it normal?

Rocks on February 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Fascinating. In those 41 pages, did she actually mention the U.S. Constitution?

BigAlSouth on February 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

This black female affirmative judge mixed up the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in her ruling.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

So now you’re claiming the Spice channel is “normal”?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 9:51 AM

The notion that biology determines what normal sex is….is a non starter.

A truly WEAK argument every scientist will run from.

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

This is more funnier with every post.

OK, provide proof of what you just posted. And yes, sodomy is abnormal amongst heterosexuals since it does not lead to the perpetuation of the species.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 9:51 AM

libby and liberalnorules are the same person?

Mind blown…

/

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I dunno … he denied it here.

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

So, he never uses sock-puppets. Well, there was this exchange

Here’s a thread where he was obsessing about minors having “boners” Discussed the age of 15 in the sense it was at one time legal. Did he stop at 15?

The problem (as always) with our laws around “protecting” children from sexual abuse is that we are unwilling to recognize that at a certain point, biologically, chemicals flood our bodies and we become sexual beings. Emotionally we may not be ready for the difficulties of love and loss, but physically we’re mature. That point happens before the arbitrary standard of 18 for 99% of human beings and there’s this wierd middle ground between 15 (previously an acceptable marrying age) and 18. There’s a whole catagory of people, 19yo who have sex with 17yo for example who have been labelled “sex offenders” because we wilfully pretend that the difference between a 17year old and a 18 year old consenting to sex is the same as when a 7 year old and an 18 year old consents to sex.

And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.

In the same thread he advocated dropping sexual predator registries. Not how he quoted “protecting” as if he scoffed at that notion.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Stand by all of that. Try again.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Oh sorry, forget the time tag.

The problem (as always) with our laws around “protecting” children from sexual abuse is that we are unwilling to recognize that at a certain point, biologically, chemicals flood our bodies and we become sexual beings. Emotionally we may not be ready for the difficulties of love and loss, but physically we’re mature. That point happens before the arbitrary standard of 18 for 99% of human beings and there’s this wierd middle ground between 15 (previously an acceptable marrying age) and 18. There’s a whole catagory of people, 19yo who have sex with 17yo for example who have been labelled “sex offenders” because we wilfully pretend that the difference between a 17year old and a 18 year old consenting to sex is the same as when a 7 year old and an 18 year old consents to sex.

And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.

DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 9