Skip to comments.Judge rules Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional
Posted on 02/13/2014 8:14:49 PM PST by cutofyourjib
NORFOLK, Va. (WTVR) A federal judge declared late Thursday night that Virginias ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, confirmed Michael Kelly, Director of Communications for Attorney General Mark Herring.
The update was first made on Herrings Facebook page and his Twitter account.
MT @AGMarkHerring: *ALERT* Federal judge declares state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Issues stay pending appeal. Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) February 14, 2014
Equality in Virginia took a big step forward tonight as a federal district judge declared Virginias ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, Herring wrote.
The judge issued a stay with her injunction pending appeal, meaning marriage licenses will not yet be issued to same-sex couples, but today is a great day for those who want to see all Virginians treated equally regardless of who they love.
That ruling can be read in full here: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf
A lawsuit challenging the commonwealths ban on same-sex marriage went before U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on February 4, in Norfolk.
The case of Bostic vs. Rainey argued that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, passed in 2006 by 57 percent of voters, is unconstitutional.
Tim Bostic and Tony London are the Norfolk couple who applied for a marriage license last year and were denied.
Since then they have gain the support of Virginias top brass behind them. State Attorney General Mark Herring and Governor Terry McAuliffe, both Democrats, have said they wont defend the states constitutional ban.
Herrings office issued a statement a couple of weeks ago saying they hope it will be a landmark ruling in Virginia on one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.
An excerpt from the judges conclusion reads:
The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginias Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginias gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.
Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this countrys cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.
Organizations that have worked towards marriage equality in the Commonwealth for years, like Equality Virginia, said that the ruling is historic.
The ruling finally puts Virginia on the path toward allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry the person they love here in the place they call home, James Parish, executive director for Equality Virginia said.
Our representative government is no more.
No, the dominos are falling thanks to the SCOTUS.
Why bother with having a state legislature? Just dissolve them and let Federal Judges rule the states.
It’ll stop, but not before it gets worse. The “wax(ing) worse and worse” bit is a sign of far better things to come, take note.
Well, it won’t be appealed by the sodomite governor or AG.
Get a judge, negate a vote...we are definitely NOT a representative republic...
Pack it up and go home....but where?
Not when every such judge is an Obama appointee. He could get this in all 50 states if he wanted.
I have to say this and it pains me to, but if this is forced upon the states by the courts, I will declare our rights dead and a new era of dictatorship in effect. I won’t remain in a dictatorship. I’ll have to carefully fold my flag and constitution, and make travel plans to Armenia.
Unless there is an indication that in an impending cataclysm, we can seize power at least in the red states and outlaw liberalism and arrest these judges pending public trials for sedition.
“countrys cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love”
Love is not mentioned in the Constitution once, like abortion. This is just made up.
At this point we may as well have the SCOTUS declare the constitution is unconstitutional. As far as the courts are concerned the constitution is worse than toilet paper.
I get so sick of these Judges, I WISH that a Federal judge would try this in a state where the Governor (and the Leg) actually have b*lls to stand up and tell the Judge NO (It our Constitution; and you CANNOT OVERRULE IT)!
Unelected Judges are a big part of the failure of Federalism.
Thanks to Kennedy, the weakest link to real constitutional justice.
When the bloody revolution begins, I hope to see his corpse swinging next to Holder’s. I’ll even kick out the bench.
MARK LEVIN: Its time for our state legislatures to act, to stop this tyranny
THIS is why Indiana is trying to put in in our State Constitution.
The law is already there, just needing affirmation of the voters.
From the comment sections of the news media websites in the state, you’d think that Hoosiers are 90% gay. They are scared sh!tless about this one getting to the voters.
One can hope...
What is all this “equal treatment” nonsense? Any man is free to marry any woman that will have him, and vice versa. I fail to see the discrimination. To say people should be able to marry whomever they love changes the definition of marriage and is silly.
Virginians put Democrats in control so this is what they get! Shame on them for neglecting centuries of sound policy.
> Why bother with having a state legislature? Just dissolve them and let Federal Judges rule the states.
They’d love that. Don’t give them any ideas...
Language is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional to recognize that only a man can be a husband and only a woman can be a wife.
Stupidity sits in high office and issues rulings the rest must obey.
Most of the material below is from the Kentucky thread. If the DOMA information in it is correct, then these judges have the wires crossed somewhere. Either that or they are deliberately wrongly legislating pro-gay rights from the bench.
First, as indicated in the Kentucky post below, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against gay "rights" as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
From the Kentucky thread:
Under Congress's constitutional Article IV, Section 1 authority which allows Congress to legislatively determine the extent to which one state has to respect the records of another state, the significant DOMA provision which still stands is Section 2 below.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Note that Section 3 above is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. And I agree with the Supreme Court because the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. Only the states can regulate marriage. And only the states can amend the Constitution to define marriage. The problem is that the states, including low-information state lawmakers, have been asleep at the wheel concerning such issues.
Also, probably the main reason that patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges rule in favor of the pro-gay movement is the following imo. Low information-patriots evidently do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage which this judge seems to be ignoring. So the states can actually make laws which distriminate against things like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Virginia’s ban was in their state Constitution.
Well, that's no more far fetched than the suggestion that two men can be husband and wife as well as two women, which is just what this court has ruled - the meaning of words is "unconstitutional". A court up in Maine just ruled it was unconstitutional to have gendered restrooms - men must be allowed to have access to go to the women's restroom if they so choose to do so, and women likewise must be allowed access to the men's restroom if they so choose. It's mindless stupidity.
Democrfips now run Virginia. Virginians are getting what they deserve, government promoting immorality, government removing constitutional rights, government serving globalist masters with a globalist agenda. Virginai was once a great state. Gradually, fascist progressives have pushed it down into the socialist sh!tter.
CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007Added a new section (15-A).
1) No gay or lesbian is denied the freedom to marry, i.e. enter into a committed and exclusive union with a person of the opposite sex. Unions between those of the same sex are not marriage!
2) The Constitutions says nothing about marriage.
Mutual masturbation is not equal to procreation.
Notice the abuse of language. Marriage has always been between man and woman. How can homosexuals claim the law is not being applied equally? Have men & women been prevented from marrying?
What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.
If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.
If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits. Why stop at marriage, why not include other words? If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.
Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue to advance their agenda. Dont let them get away with it.
Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act
"Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family."
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen
Time for the states to refuse to comply to such contemptible, unholy rulings.
It is part of California's constitution, but the court ruled our constitution to be unconstitutional.
These people do not want equality - they claim they have the extraordinary right to modify the meaning of words.
The U. S. Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 to confirm Arenda L. Wright Allen 85 of Norfolk, Virginia to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama late last year, Wright Allens appointment makes her the first African American female judge to serve in that district. Prior to this appointment, Wright Allen served as a federal Public Defender in Norfolk and served as an Assistant United States Attorney.
Virginia Senators Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner recommended Wright Allen to the post.
Satan rules this world.
Virginia wants to comply.
Go Indiana! This is the only time I will root for your state since it got rid of Bobby Knight, your ambassador of good will.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
57% voted to amend the Constitution of Virginia in 2006.
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. ..."
The elected officials do not want to comply.
then don’t comply
No thanks to all who did not vote in 2012. Obama can keep appointing more liberal judges in his 2nd term. Elections have consequences. No point is grumbling if you did not help defeat Obama.
Marriage was ruled an implied Constitutional right in Loving vs Virginia (striking down laws against interracial marriage). Today the judge is only following the logic of the two ridiculous Supreme Court rulings this summer which basically declared homosexuals to be a suspect class. This is all the doing of Justice Kennedy. Just think of what would have happened if Reagan did not back down and nominated another conservative after Bork was unjustly rejected. We would have a totally different nation today.
height of hypocrisy to say “unconstitutional” as a means of expediency. the constitution is silent on the issue at best while being clear about separation of powers, respecting the votes of the people, etc. 30 state constitutions and all duly voted on disenfranchised
Another thought, what are these tyrants doing issuing these orders late in the evening?
It’s eerily similar to Jesus’ trial.
Screw off Herring and do your job for once.
The world is demanding you profess a lie of they choice is truth..2+2=5.. To me gay is as irrelevant some wanting to say 2+2=5..its no skin off my nose but it still an untruth.... But that the point to make you say a lie to believe a lie so self evidently untrue..its to break you to follow whatever truth of the moment they need...and that the danger
Not until Thomas Jefferson is dancing the cha cha in his grave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.