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 5 6 9

I specifically used the word possibly millions of years ago for a reason.

If I was absolute. I wouldn’t have used possibility

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Humans have not even “possibility” been around for millions of years. 100,000 years tops.

Conservative4Ever on February 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

I am astounded at how ridiculous mankind has become by over-thinking and over analyzing everything in search of a justification for behavior.

Take all the Bibles, Judges, and peripheral clap trap out of it, it’s terribly simple.

Biologically, species can only survive on this rock by the act of copulation by a male and female. The fact that sex “feels good” is a great bi-product and how you choose to achieve that great feeling is a CHOICE you make, just like you make a choice to do other things that make you feel good.

Tim Zank on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I am still astounded by the liberal logic that you can’t change your sexuality, but gender is completely up for grabs. Given their argument- sex is completely genetic- so changing your gender is akin to “praying away the gay.”

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Zach, levelheaded..? He only comes on the homosexual threads to weep about his victimhood.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Very true…maybe HD was bishing?

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Human Erectus’ brain evolved a million years ago. A completely DIFFERENT GENUS. We did not evolve from Human Erectus.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Slight correction–Homo erectus. And the genus, Homo, is the same. The species is different.

Evidence suggests early hominids were a diverse group, with one lineage leading to modern Homo sapiens.

As far as I know, there is no evidence of rampant homosexuality among the hominids, much to the dismay of several posters here.

Art Vandelay on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Mornin’.
i will repeat what I’ve said before: same-sex ‘marriage’ is akin. female ‘clergy’ Neither thing is of God. Both are a perversion of God’s will and basic Judeo-Christian morality.
Society shouldn’t be legitimatizing deviancy.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Folks, anyone? Why won’t gay commenters here make a stance in reference to Kaitlyn Hunt’s child molestation. Is she really that big of a gay community hero that she’s completely off limits for comments?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Because they are still completely embarrassed by the gay community’s all out support for the little idiot. Her parents used the gay community like huge tools in that case. Their only defense is to completely ignore the issue now.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I know I’ve explained this to NotCoach before so it’s a real shame to see this argument popping up again but I can see my help is needed here.

This “They’ll abort the gay babies!” talk is nonsense.

Liberals are fine with gay people. They’re pro-choice but since they’re also fine with gay people, if it was possible for them to find out their baby is going to be gay it won’t influence them to have an abortion.

Conservatives are generally pro-life. If you’re really pro-life then finding out your daughter is going to be a lesbian shouldn’t lead you to kill her in the womb. If it would then I suggest you need to start calling yourself what you really are: pro-abortion. On a personal level, if you would check your principles at the door when suddenly they’re applied to you and you would violate them as a matter of person convenience, you’re a pretty lousy human being. Fortunately I think (hope?) that would be a very rare occurrence.

So all things considered, just based on the liberal/conservative dynamic out there and the stated principles of both sides the theoretical number of sexual orientation-selective abortions would be basically zero.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Folks, anyone? Why won’t gay commenters here make a stance in reference to Kaitlyn Hunt’s child molestation. Is she really that big of a gay community hero that she’s completely off limits for comments?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I literally have no idea who you’re talking about. And I turned around and asked marketing; they haven’t the slightest idea either.

From Google, it looks like a gay teenager that molested kids. She’s a child molester – what if anything does that have to do with her sexuality?

Are you trying to argue that straight people don’t molest kids, or something strange like that?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Slight correction–Homo erectus. And the genus, Homo, is the same. The species is different.

Evidence suggests early hominids were a diverse group, with one lineage leading to modern Homo sapiens.

As far as I know, there is no evidence of rampant homosexuality among the hominids, much to the dismay of several posters here.

Art Vandelay on February 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Thanks, animal classes were a pain in the butt in college. Probably why I went into law to avoid science and math. :)

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Folks, anyone? Why won’t gay commenters here make a stance in reference to Kaitlyn Hunt’s child molestation. Is she really that big of a gay community hero that she’s completely off limits for comments?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Because that’s one end game for the homosexual community.

As one homosexual told me about the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), “Oh, they’re just men that loves boys.”

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Have to say I take great pride and optimism in seeing how HA threads dealing with LGBXYZ advocacy has steadily moved into debating prog’s emo-based argument with science instead of theology.

Use their criteria against them. Science is their gawd. Fine, argue the science. They want to argue history, so be it. Study the history of marital rites and realize how bastardized our logic has become.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:49 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Because they are still completely embarrassed by the gay community’s all out support for the little idiot. Her parents used the gay community like huge tools in that case. Their only defense is to completely ignore the issue now.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Silence be deafening.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM

I literally have no idea who you’re talking about. And I turned around and asked marketing; they haven’t the slightest idea either.

From Google, it looks like a gay teenager that molested kids. She’s a child molester – what if anything does that have to do with her sexuality?

Are you trying to argue that straight people don’t molest kids, or something strange like that?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

It was a teenager that used the whole victim homophobia argument, and the gay community had huge fund raisers for her, because of it. Then they found out that everything she said was a huge lie including her “victim” status, and then tried to hide the huge gay community support.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Setting aside all the religious, socon, liberal, and pro-gay rights comments, what I have issue with is that one judge feels so powerful that she can substitute her opinion for that of the voting public.

Tater Salad on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Conservatives are OK with gay people who don’t try to bully others through getting “special rights”.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

On the recommendation of Senators Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, Wright Allen was nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by President Barack Obama on December 1, 2010 to a seat vacated Jerome B. Friedman, who assumed senior status on November 30, 2010.[5]

Just sayin’

Mimzey on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 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.

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Nobody is pushing conformity of anyones God on you, but you sure as hell have no problem pushing your gay religion on the rest of us.

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

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Pot calling the kettle black?

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

Nobody is making public policy based on a religious belief. When we here in Virginia voted to approve the Constitutional amendment banning gaaaaaaaaay marriage, it was not a religious movement.

RandallinHerndon on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Conservatives are OK with gay people who don’t try to bully others through getting “special rights”.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

You are correct, however it tends to be a more libertarian mindset.

Tater Salad on February 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM

And saying that conservatives would abort their kid if they knew he/she was gay?

Nice strawman…

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Another judge legislating morals from the bench…the government should not be involved with marriage at all.

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM

It was a teenager that used the whole victim homophobia argument, and the gay community had huge fund raisers for her, because of it. Then they found out that everything she said was a huge lie including her “victim” status, and then tried to hide the huge gay community support.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Oh, oh, it looks like a case of statutory rape.

Are you kidding? That’s a crime that happens at least once in just about everyone’s high school. High school jock sleeps with the cheerleader, theatre kids get each other pregnant, etc., etc.

What’s that have to do with gay people, other than it happens to gays as well as straight people?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

She’s an 18 y/old lesbian who started a relationship with a tweener. Parents found out. Cops got involved.

LGBXYZ tried to turn it into a cause celeb until the facts started rolling out showing how freakin nuts this chick is. Her actions are very manipulative, like a child abuser.

But, the Alphabet can’t disown lest upset some of their own who think it’s natural progression to a “Sex-Positive” society.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

What’s that have to do with gay people, other than it happens to gays as well as straight people?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The homosexual community was rallying for the rapist.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I literally have no idea who you’re talking about. And I turned around and asked marketing; they haven’t the slightest idea either.

From Google, it looks like a gay teenager that molested kids. She’s a child molester – what if anything does that have to do with her sexuality?

Are you trying to argue that straight people don’t molest kids, or something strange like that?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

No, my comment is simply a question to any of you. Is what that adult did, child molestation? Now that you and marketing are all read up and all.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

This “They’ll abort the gay babies!” talk is nonsense.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

No, they’ll abort the gay babies. We’re talking about the most hypocritical group of people in this country. Those who embrace life won’t bother getting the test, and so only those who embrace “choice” will bother with it. And just like Downs the majority of positive tests will result in an abortion. It’s one thing to claim to be tolerant when you have no control over it, but entirely another when an expectant mother, willing to terminate, considers the hassles of raising a gay child.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Oh, oh, it looks like a case of statutory rape.

Are you kidding? That’s a crime that happens at least once in just about everyone’s high school. High school jock sleeps with the cheerleader, theatre kids get each other pregnant, etc., etc.

What’s that have to do with gay people, other than it happens to gays as well as straight people?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Because when it happens to “straight” people; our community doesn’t claim they were victim of heterophobia, and we don’t hold huge parties or fund raisers for the statutoty rapists defense. We also don’t make the VICTIM’S parents out to be bigots in the press.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Here comes the gay gene test and the wave of supposedly gay babies killed before birth as a result.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I know I’ve explained this to NotCoach before so it’s a real shame to see this argument popping up again but I can see my help is needed here.

This “They’ll abort the gay babies!” talk is nonsense.

Liberals are fine with gay people. They’re pro-choice but since they’re also fine with gay people, if it was possible for them to find out their baby is going to be gay it won’t influence them to have an abortion.

Conservatives are generally pro-life. If you’re really pro-life then finding out your daughter is going to be a lesbian shouldn’t lead you to kill her in the womb. If it would then I suggest you need to start calling yourself what you really are: pro-abortion. On a personal level, if you would check your principles at the door when suddenly they’re applied to you and you would violate them as a matter of person convenience, you’re a pretty lousy human being. Fortunately I think (hope?) that would be a very rare occurrence.

So all things considered, just based on the liberal/conservative dynamic out there and the stated principles of both sides the theoretical number of sexual orientation-selective abortions would be basically zero.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 10:47 AM

I guess we’ll find out won’t we.

Before yesterday (article linked upthread) this was mostly a rhetorical argument since scientists doubted there was a Gay Gene.

If the recent research touted in the article is confirmed then this becomes a real concern…because most liberal/progressives are hypocrites and will selectively abort if they have the choice and might even fight for that choice because…Feminism…

Once the Gays have fulfilled their usefulness…etc. ad nauseum…

Y’know Fascist history and whatnot…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM

What’s that have to do with gay people, other than it happens to gays as well as straight people?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Well, for someone that is so in tune with your community, you’ve missed a lot. The gay community came out in strong support of her. Is Hot Air your only source for gay issues?

And do you think it would be wrong for the gay community to support this sort of behavior? An adult molesting a child?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Sodomy in the gay/lesbian community, does not lead to pregnancy in either case.

Therefore, it is an abberation of the human family unit.

What ever your sexual preference is, especially the homosexual kind, cannot will not EVER lead to bringing a child into the world.

Therefore heterosexual behaviour, has always been the normal.

Homosexual behaviour, the Abnormal.

I have no quarrel with gays/lesbians.

Just keep your private sexual relations, PRIVATE!

You have all your rights now under the law.

You gays/lesbians should not pervert the rules of heterosexual marriage for your own gains.

As for these black robed effing idiots, GFY!

Rant Off… :)

Scrumpy on February 14, 2014 at 10:58 AM

LGBXYZ tried to turn it into a cause celeb until the facts started rolling out showing how freakin nuts this chick is. Her actions are very manipulative, like a child abuser. budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

The homosexual community was rallying for the rapist.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

In my high school, it was the theatre kids “community” who rallied for the boy (he was the older one). She also go pregnant, which is how the parents found out.

I guess a couple of the theatre kids were gay … but I don’t see the difference, unless you believe that the performing arts are a “deviant community” and that musicals ought be banned too.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

What’s that have to do with gay people, other than it happens to gays as well as straight people?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

When the story first broke, she was an LGB martyr.

See, you’re doing the classic realtivism and placing it in retrospective, as if the LGBXYZ position was “always” statutory rape.

But it wasn’t. It was framed as Butchie and Juliet.

Until the facts came out. Then the advocates got real quite. But they never disowned her because members of the tribe would erupt.

So that’s what it has to do with LGB. They own her actions.

budfox on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The homosexual community was rallying for the rapist.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Evidently he missed that whole affair. Nope. Didn’t hear a word about it. Neither did marketing.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

I do not want to know who is doing who in their bedroom. It seems the homosexual community thinks we all want to know we do not…

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

If the government isn’t allowed to define things for itself, or to set up criteria by which it then distributes benefits by fear of being discriminatory, then shouldn’t everyone be getting every benefit the government offers?

I mean that’s the argument here. The government isn’t recognizing these people, but they are recognizing those, ergo it’s discrimination? But we do that all the time with, say, veterans benefits. People have to meet certain criteria to qualify for those. And that’s how it was with marriage. Certain criteria were set down, but everyone had access to meet that criteria.

How was marriage defined as between a man and a woman, and the benefits granted therein, okay for 200 years in America and then suddenly discriminatory? If this is discriminatory, then any criteria the government sets down to distribute benefits and/or recognition is discriminatory. In fact, single people ought to be the most upset about it. Why are they second class citizens for being single!?!?!

Here’s the thing, the benefits and recognition of the US government didn’t create marriage. The benefits and recognition were a response to marriage. The government saw something that benefited it (the state) and decided to incentivize it. Just as they do with veteran benefits. But sodomite marriage doesn’t benefit the government, at least not nearly the way real marriage does. Before, the rationale for incentivizing marriage was clear; the government got new taxpayers that were well taken care of and molded into model citizens. It wasn’t about the government playing matchmaker. It was about the next generation.

Now what do we have? We have a bunch of busybody politicians and judges who, apparently, care deeply about people’s love lives like little high school girls! It’s juvenile and narcissistic! Sodomite marriage does not and can never, as a result of the sexual relationship, produce what the state actually has a vested interest in. Children. So civil marriage no longer makes any sense, and has become a joke. It serves literally no purpose for the government. The government now gives incentivizing benefits to sexual relationships that it gets nothing from.

And we have these supposed educated judges pushing this on us because we’ve been discriminatory? The slippery slope of this turning into polygamy and even further devolving into bestiality and other types of disgusting sexual relationships is completely valid. There no longer exists a non-arbitrary reason to limit the marriage to two human beings. None! If it’s all about love-matchmaking and feelings, then how does not anything go?

bossmanham on February 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

It’s hard to address the question directly, isn’t it? Did that adult commit child molestation?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I guess a couple of the theatre kids were gay … but I don’t see the difference, unless you believe that the performing arts are a “deviant community” and that musicals ought be banned too.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Did the boy became a national news story like Hunt?

Did Anderson Cooper (a homosexual deviant) run nightly stories about the boy like he did with Hunt?

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:36 AM

My Texas city has the most churches of any city of its size in the nation.
WE will not submit to gay ‘marriage’. TEXAS will not submit to gay ‘marriage’.
MOLON LABE!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM

I do think the whole marriage issue is a rouse for the gay community. They really don’t want to be married it’s just their way of trying to overcome their insecurities; to be accepted. Why would you want to be married and potentially have to deal with divorce laws, if the relationship is more about sex and less about a family unit?

Tater Salad on February 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Here comes necrophilia…the slop is indeed slippery.

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Go through any thread. For any time where this woman was discussed. Find a commenter from the gay community here that was as disgusted as you or I about Kaitlyn Hunt.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

bossmanham on February 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Governance by the Twitter Mob…

Basically we are all back in 8th grade as a culture.

Progress!

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

It has been said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Marriage has always been and will forever be the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is just cohabitation, fornication, civil union, voluntary contract, or domestic partnership, whether it is called a marriage or not. Marriage predates the nation-state, the community, society, states and counties, cities and towns, governmental bodies of any kind, and even the church. If words and 6,000 years of human history mean anything, then there can be no denying the fact that marriage means only marriage in the traditional sense.

Even governments at all levels getting out of the marriage business – like they should – still wouldn’t make a same-sex marriage a marriage.

It’s the not the government’s job to say who gets married – it’s their job to passively record it when it happens. And I’m not just talking about gay marriage – if a Mormon or Moslem man wants to marry three gals, that’s their business. If thirteen Wiccan lesbians living in a commune all want to marry each other, the only thing the clerk should say is “sign here, sign here, initial here….Next!”

Same-sex couples should certainly have the right to form any kind of legal arrangement they choose whereby medical and financial decisions by one party on behalf of another could be made. But this right has nothing to do with them being a same-sex couple. It is only because any couple – gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered, or undecided – or any group of people should have the right to form any kind of legal arrangement they choose. If they want to call their arrangement a marriage, have a ceremony, and go on a honeymoon – fine. They have the freedom to do so just like they have the freedom to replace their Chevy emblems with Ford emblems and call their Camaro a Mustang. They just shouldn’t expect or demand everyone else to violate nature, language, tradition, and history and do likewise.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 14, 2014 at 11:05 AM

It is waaaaaay past time to start removing activist judges from the bench.

mcgilvra on February 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM

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

When they share the same capacity to go off into the wilderness alone with their spouse, and come back a year later with more people than they left with, I’ll agree.

End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.

Dirty Creature on February 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Do you know straight couples also practice sodomy?

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

“Woah woah, honey. What are you doing? That’s against the law!” What a fool you is.

RandallinHerndon on February 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Scrumpy on February 14, 2014 at 10:58 AM

WHAT SHE SAID!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM The homosexual community was rallying for the rapist. sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Evidently he missed that whole affair. Nope. Didn’t hear a word about it. Neither did marketing. hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM

A lot of hardcore social conservative believe “gay community” is rallying for everything evil with this world. Click over onto Redstate, and Erick Erickson (Mr. Heterosexual Conservative, himself) will tell you that we are, despite the fact he probably has never met a gay person in his life.

The most hilarious thing, is that most of us in the gay community literally haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Like I said before, I had no idea what NAMBLA was until I saw it on the conservative blogosphere. Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

No, my comment is simply a question to any of you. Is what that adult did, child molestation? Now that you and marketing are all read up and all.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Yes it is child molestation.

HonestLib on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Go through any thread. For any time where this woman was discussed. Find a commenter from the gay community here that was as disgusted as you or I about Kaitlyn Hunt.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

There was a lesbian blogger who came right out of the gate said that Katelynn Hunt was not a victim, and I can’t remember but I think Republican Gay Patriot site did too, but those were the only ones I saw. There were advocate articles celebrating their love etc. at the time. THey had huge fundraisers at gay bars. It was horrible, and I believe the community or her parents listed the minor victims name with the press.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:08 AM

A lot of hardcore social conservative believe “gay community” is rallying for everything evil with this world. Click over onto Redstate, and Erick Erickson (Mr. Heterosexual Conservative, himself) will tell you that we are, despite the fact he probably has never met a gay person in his life.

The most hilarious thing, is that most of us in the gay community literally haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Like I said before, I had no idea what NAMBLA was until I saw it on the conservative blogosphere. Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

A staff writer for the prominent progressive site Daily Kos has repudiated her support for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt, the Florida teenager whose sex crime case became a cause célèbre of the gay-rights movement in the past week. The 18-year-old on Friday rejected prosecutors’ offer of a plea bargain on charges of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 14-year-old girl, meaning the case could go to trial next month in Indian River County.

The story gained nationwide attention after Hunt’s family claimed Kaitlyn was a victim of anti-gay prejudice and launched a “Stop the Hate, Free Kate” campaign that has been supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, the gay-rights group Equality Florida, and the 501(c)3 non-profit Purpose Foundation. (See my Thursday article, “#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl.”)

http://spectator.org/blog/53885/freekate-narrative-melts-down-lies-exposed-florida-teen-sex-case

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM

A lot of hardcore social conservative believe “gay community” is rallying for everything evil with this world. Click over onto Redstate, and Erick Erickson (Mr. Heterosexual Conservative, himself) will tell you that we are, despite the fact he probably has never met a gay person in his life.

The most hilarious thing, is that most of us in the gay community literally haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Like I said before, I had no idea what NAMBLA was until I saw it on the conservative blogosphere. Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

So … yeah, that’s usually why I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, “The gay community supports ______!!!”

I haven’t actually heard or met anyone who’s on an outrageous warpath to protect some gay idiot who’s molesting children.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM

The most hilarious thing, is that most of us in the gay community literally haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Like I said before, I had no idea what NAMBLA was until I saw it on the conservative blogosphere. Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Why would liberal media run stories about NAMBLA or anything remotely anti-homosexual?

The point is that the homosexual defense of the rapist made Hunt national news.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Are trying to claim that there was no rallying for her, or are you just pretending to be stupid?

blink on February 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM

I’m sure there was a dozen lefties who came to this creep’s defense. I wouldn’t know who they are though … ?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM

However these judges need to be removed the states mad their choices and said no to homosexual marriage. I blame Kennedy’s emotional argument for starting this crap those poor minority homosexuals victimhood blah blah…

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

This entire thread is completely useless.
Since Facebook has now defined 50 different genders, there is no need for anyone to ever have “same sex” marrige or sex or relations ever again.
Just make sure the 2 or 3 or however many of you are getting together all choose different genders from the Facebook list.
Problem solved.

Next world issue to solved….

dentarthurdent on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Go through any thread. For any time where this woman was discussed. Find a commenter from the gay community here that was as disgusted as you or I about Kaitlyn Hunt.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Northdallasforty is the only one I can think of who’s gay and conservative. He’s adept at dismantling most of the gay lobbyists on these types of threads.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

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

When they share the same capacity to go off into the wilderness alone with their spouse, and come back a year later with more people than they left with, I’ll agree.

End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.

Dirty Creature on February 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM

So simply said and yet speaks volumes :)

Scrumpy on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

You might think you’re just allowing the government to define what constitutes marriage. But you’re actually allowing the elite — in this case, a bunch of unelected judges — to define what the government has to recognize as constituting marriage.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is dead. It’s now just road kill on the way to the progressive vision of government.

But I will say that this kind of high-handedness is exactly what led to the last revolution. In fact, the British government was far less offensive than our present one.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

that’s because we are 2 different people

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM

That’s what Barry Soetero and Barack Obama keep saying too.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

OOOH and Zach– here is GLAAD’S RESPONSE TO IT:

Kaitlyn Hunt, age 18, is being prosecuted for two felony counts of “lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12-16 years of age” due to her long-term, committed relationship with another teenage girl.

Kaitlyn’s parents, in Palm Bay Florida, started a petition on change.org asking Bruce Colton, Indian River County State Attorney and Brian Workman, Assistant State Attorney to drop the charges pressed by the parents of Kaitlyn’s girlfriend.

Kaitlyn and her 15 year-old girlfriend had been dating since Kaitlyn was 17. Her girlfriend’s parents, unhappy about their daughter’s relationship, waited until Kaitlyn turned 18, then pressed charges. Kaitlyn’s girlfriend has made it clear that this was a consensual relationship, however her parents blamed Kaitlyn for their daughter’s sexual orientation.

http://www.glaad.org/blog/florida-teen-facing-serious-charges-filed-her-girlfriends-anti-gay-parents

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Is gay the new black?

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I’m sure there was a dozen lefties who came to this creep’s defense. I wouldn’t know who they are though … ?

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM

I consider you a leftie. You are perfectly okay with Judge’s legislating from the bench if it fits your agenda. That is not a “rightie” principle.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Problem solved.

Next world issue to solved….

dentarthurdent on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Can we now help the poor USA winter Olympians complaining about the warm weather at a Russian summer resort?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Northdallasforty is the only one I can think of who’s gay and conservative. He’s adept at dismantling most of the gay lobbyists on these types of threads.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Southern Gent is also gay and conservative…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Wait. There is a “ban” on gay marriage? I find that unlikely.

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

http://spectator.org/blog/53885/freekate-narrative-melts-down-lies-exposed-florida-teen-sex-case

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Even when faced with the truth in black and white.

They deny.

Scrumpy on February 14, 2014 at 11:16 AM

..choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference…

A victory for smaller government advocates!

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Northdallasforty is the only one I can think of who’s gay and conservative. He’s adept at dismantling most of the gay lobbyists on these types of threads.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Southern Gent is also gay and conservative…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Thanks…Yeah he’s a good critic as well.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Is gay the new black?

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Nah…I think it’s illegals but that could change next week

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Northdallasforty is the only one I can think of who’s gay and conservative. He’s adept at dismantling most of the gay lobbyists on these types of threads.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Southern Gent is also gay and conservative…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

So is dufuq..

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference…

A victory for smaller government advocates!
verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Bull.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

..choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference…

A victory for smaller government advocates!

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

LOL– Sure the federal government telling a state what they can and can’t license is “small government.”

Extending more state licenses for the sole reason that people have sex with each other is “small government.”

I think you need to rethink what small government is. Small government is not asking to license your bedroom behavior.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Southern Gent is also gay and conservative…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Southern Gent is? I know SCCharlie is.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Ed: crack open a dictionary and take a gander at the definition of the word “ban.”

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Lol indeed it goes between gays and illegals.

sorrowen on February 14, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.
ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Funny – our conservative “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at conservatives to make us seem like crazies.

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM

A victory for smaller government advocates!

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Because the government bureaucracy is now grown with the imposition of gay marriage?

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Southern Gent is? I know SCCharlie is.

22044 on February 14, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I didn’t know that…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Typical Orwellian leftist newspeak… Peace is war, chocolate rations are up and all that.

Is it a wonder they’re not rational?

Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM

LOL– Sure the federal government telling a state what they can and can’t license is “small government.”

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

All the government did here is intrude on already legal unions (i.e., government grew). They weren’t banned – the lack of government involvement does not equal a ban!

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Wait. There is a “ban” on gay marriage? I find that unlikely.

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

It’s all in the word play. In Loving, there was a legitimate ban on interracial relationship in Virginia. The Loving married in Washington D.C. and were threatened with arrest upon moving back to Virginia. When a gay couple can point to them getting arrested for marrying in another state, then I will agree there is a “ban.”

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM

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.
– Ed

Ed,
Fair to say that it’s a subjective interpretation to take Scalia’s griping post-Lawrence as ‘scare-mongering’.
I’m sure there were ‘warnings’ and ‘scare-mongering’ from a few folks following Loving v. VA as well.
Not everyone was scared of what might logically and progressively follow Lawrence v Texas.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

You still didn’t answer that very simple question.

What you did do in that comment was try to lecture me on our fears while simultaneously proving our fears about gay movement objects towards underaged children is not unfounded at all.

Answer this question then, why was the gay community so supportive of her? She was an adult, molesting a child of 14. Contacting her against the protestations of her parents. The gay community attacked her parents? Do you condone any of that?

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM

The most hilarious thing, is that most of us in the gay community literally haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Like I said before, I had no idea what NAMBLA was until I saw it on the conservative blogosphere. Our gay communities “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at the gay community to make us seem like crazies.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

The most frightening thing, is that your “groups’” legal battles are going to eventually (and soon) create the same or similar rights in groups like NAMBLA, and it’s chilling that you don’t even realize it or even know what we are talking about. And rather than laugh it off as us being stupid, you should actually take your ignorance of the issue as deathly serious as it is and address a legal way to prevent it. Cause gays aren’t doing that now.

And, during your next gay community meeting Local 526, ask your fellows if people are “born gay” in each and every instance, and if not, what else could lead to the behavior? Cause there must be a disproportionate amount of “born” gays in prisons, then.

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Yes it is child molestation.

HonestLib on February 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I respect your honesty and quite frankly, the courage to acknowledge that.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I consider you a leftie. You are perfectly okay with Judge’s legislating from the bench if it fits your agenda. That is not a “rightie” principle.melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I’m very proud to be left OF you, melle. That doesn’t mean I vote for Democrats or liberals.

Funny – our conservative “rallies” are usually an argumentative charges thrown at conservatives to make us seem like crazies. Skywise on February 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM

I attended the Tea Party rallies for the first three years. I completely agree with that statement. You’d have thought I attended a satanic concert from how the media portrayed it.

ZachV on February 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM

The world is not 6000 years old I’m afraid.

Sorry to be the purveyor of “bad” news

liberalrules on February 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Maybe not, but recorded history is, approximately. And nowhere in that history was man+man or woman+woman considered “marriage”.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 11:29 AM

I think you need to rethink what small government is. Small government is not asking to license your bedroom behavior.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Well I don’t think getting rid of any government involvement in marriage is on the table.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Ed: crack open a dictionary and take a gander at the definition of the word “ban.”

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 11:20 AM

But that would conflict with his GOPe/RINO/FakeCatholic agenda!

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM

I’m very proud to be left OF you, melle. That doesn’t mean I vote for Democrats or liberals.

Yeah, because I am a true Conservative/Libertarian. I don’t like judges legislating from the bench EVEN if it messes with my own politics.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Well I don’t think getting rid of any government involvement in marriage is on the table.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Should be. The state can strictly be involved in Civil Partnerships or we can go to all private partnerships.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

You’re an idiot. It is possible for two different people to agree on an issue. Christ on a cracker, you’re literally the most massively dumb person to post on this board.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Have you heard of the Supremacy Clause?

RandallinHerndon on February 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM

What I find ironic is that the federal judge used the 14th Amendment as the basis for her decision, which is one of the reconstruction amendments. So she is using the 14th Amendment to trump the 10th Amendment, and using the argument that Homosexuals are a victim of the same evil as Slaves were during the civil war era. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but why is it that the people are always on the receiving end of judicial and government tyranny? They nullify our votes, destroy our economy, and shove their tolitarian based health care down our throats.

Brock Robamney on February 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM

EVEN if it messes with my own politics.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Meshes **

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Southern Gent is also gay and conservative…

OmahaConservative on February 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I’m gay and conservative too, but I enjoy having sex with my (female) wife.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Yeah, because I am a true Conservative/Libertarian.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

So you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 9