Post: #1

....and makes the entire state of Virginia get down on its knees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/fed...ml?hp&_r=0

Post: #2

Epic thread title.

I commend you.

Are you a copywriter?

Post: #3

Thanks. No, but I did spend some time trying to come up with a title.

Post: #4

Bah let them have their marriage... copyright issues aside, it was heterosexuals who killed it anyway.

Post: #5

HCE, the majority of the voters in Virginia voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And now a (female) judge has the gall to overturn this majority vote on the basis that it's "unconstitutional". The idea that the US Constitution somehow requires that gay men should be allowed to "marry" each other is an insult as far as I'm concerned. Gay "marriage" would have struck the framers of the Constitution as incomprehensible nonsense. While I understand that Constitutional interpretation is not entirely about original meaning, it still takes a special kind of impudence to take an idea that would strike the writers of a document as unthinkably grotesque, and decide that this document now mandates it.

If Americans want gay marriage to be permitted, let the voters decide so -- it should not be imposed from on high with this kind of arrogant "we know better what's good for you" judicial fiat.

Post: #6

^^ Exactly.

It's pretty much like taxation without representation.

The majority want something one way, and someone higher up decides to not give a shit what the public wants and makes the policy anyway.

This is how revolutions start.

Post: #7

Sorry, missed that was the case. I can agree with that. They should respect their constituents. At least in Croatia the Supreme Court judges were fair enough to acknowledge the will of the people (65% majority voting to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in a national referendum) and proceed to enter it into the law.

In theory, I could support judges or politicians of any rank in overturning lower-rank officials' or referendum decisions on the basis of preventing actual and direct harm. This, however, is not one of those cases.

Post: #8

Quote:“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”

The most revealing and pathetic fact from this story is that a Federal Judge doesn't know that "all men are created equal" is a line from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Then again, given the rampant disregard for the law we've seen over the past two decades, should we really be surprised these days that Federal judges are so laughably ignorant of the Constitution?

Post: #9

I could see the argument for gay marriage under the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law). However, this ruling is a slap in the face of the 10th amendment (State sovereignty). Last time I checked, marriage licenses are granted by the state, not the federal government.

Post: #10

The full faith and credit clause makes things messy. What if the voters in one state passes an amendment to their constitution banning same sex marriage and those in another state an amendment explicitly allowing it and then a couple of dudes get married in the second and move to the first?

Post: #11

(02-15-2014 03:12 PM)MattW Wrote:  The full faith and credit clause makes things messy. What if the voters in one state passes an amendment to their constitution banning same sex marriage and those in another state an amendment explicitly allowing it and then a couple of dudes get married in the second and move to the first?

I hear EU has same issue.
Personally gay marriage should be outlawed.. NOT because I am against gays. I love gays..means more women for me(no homo) but since they are not creating a family the only reason they do it is the share benefits(e.g. health insurance). That is ripping off the American people.