Skip to comments.Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Posted on 07/28/2014 11:21:44 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
WASHINGTON The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held Monday that Virginias ban on same-sex couples marriages is unconstitutional. On a 2-1 vote, the appeals court joined the wave of court decisions declaring such bans unconstitutional. The decision, by Judge Henry Floyd acknowledged both the debate over such laws and, in the courts view, the clear constitutional impediment to laws banning same-sex couples from marrying.
We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable, he wrote. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.
The courts opinion is not effective immediately. According to the courts judgment in the case, the judgment will take effect after the mandate is issued in the case. The mandate, under the courts rules, will be issued 7 days after expiration of the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
All Judges have to say today is , “unconstitutional” and everything is solved ,Judges way of saying , “talk to the hand” D’oh
Three judge panel — the two judges who wrote the opinion are Dems — however one of those judges, Roger Gregory, (originally appointed by Clinton) was elevated to the Fourth Circuit by George W. Bush!!! So we have W. to thank for this. What kind of GOP President appoints liberal Democrats to appeals courts?
Short of impeachment of these judges, there is no going back to civilization.
Its past time for judicial nullification.
There is nothing in the Consitution on this subject. Ergo the Tenth Amendment is the ruling statute. Unless of course, you are going to argue that EVERYTHING cultural is human rights related. In which case the Courts are consenting to the total destruction of our society and culture.
Floyd, Henry Franklin
Born 1947 in Brevard, NC
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina
Nominated by George W. Bush on May 15, 2003, to a seat vacated by Dennis W. Shedd. Confirmed by the Senate on September 22, 2003, and received commission on September 24, 2003. Service terminated on October 6, 2011, due to appointment to another judicial position.
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Nominated by Barack Obama on January 26, 2011, to a seat vacated by Karen J. Williams. Confirmed by the Senate on October 3, 2011, and received commission on October 5, 2011.
Wofford College, B.A., 1970
University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1973
State representative, South Carolina, 1972-1978
Private practice, Pickens, South Carolina, 1973-1992
County attorney, Pickens County, South Carolina, 1986-1992
Judge, South Carolina Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 1992-2003
What ever you do, DO NOT tell the gay that he’ll go to hell if he has gay sex. The MN Viking’s coach spoke his truth, the truth, and he’s is deep water for offending Kluwee.
Why is speaking God’s truth hate speech? My 84 year old liberal mom, said that the coach should have freedom of speech.
“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable”
Really? It is an abomination, not just uncomfortable. A sofa is uncomfortable, a gross violation of the natural order of things is revolting.
Lock and load, folks. Lock and load.
Legislating thru the courts must end. Since when do 2% of the population (gays) dictate social norms? Why can’t society define marriage?
Someday someone is going to hold judges accountable for making up law (legislation) from the bench.
A constitutional amendment banning queer marriages is needed... in addition to impeaching these corrupt and traitorous judges.
They can do whatever, but that doesn’t make 2 guys or 2 girls living together into what is meant by marriage.
Right is wrong and wrong is right. . .
Sodom was a sleepy little mid eastern town...
NYC(chicago/boston) is a Sodomistic metropolis..
What could go wrong?..
2?? You think it was stay at 2?
Millions of voters said “no”. 3 judges said “yes”
Legislating thru the courts must end. Since when do 2% of the population (gays) dictate social norms? Why cant society define marriage?
Because of... Cloward-Piven Political Tactics.....
Pretty simple really...... IT’S like sugaring your Cars gas tank...
Where are all the liberals to decry legislating from the bench?
A W appointee 2003..
Is a litmus test in order?
Or maybe we could just change the country name to
The Gay States of America
How less than 3% sculpt our society and judges nod okiendokie..
How nations crumble.. The latest submission
America under a GLAAQD Obama
Unfortunately, the way the USSC decided last year, this wave of decisions was inevitable. We can blame Bush for this particular judge, but we can blame Anthony Kennedy for voting with the leftists and writing a completely terrible decision.
We can also blame Scalia for writing a dissent that made this inevitable. In Windsor, he argued that
"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,".... Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court's declaration that there is "no legitimate purpose" served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has 'the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure" the "personhood and dignity" of same-sex couples.... The majority's limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows."
Practically every judge who has struck down SSM bans since Windsor has cited Scalia -- who made their argument for them.
Regarding judges subjectively reading gay marriage into the Equal Protections Clause, please consider the following. Justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthened enumerated protections.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues, gay rights have no constitutionally-based civil rights protections regardless of 14A.
Also note that the Supreme Court has historically sternly warned against interpolating meanings from the Constitution which is what these pro-gay activist justices are doing with respect to the Equal Protections Clause imo.
3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added]. United States v. Sprague, 1931.
One possible remedy for patriots to stop activist judges from legislating special interest rights from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following in every case which deals with the Constitution. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which justify their case decisions to the satisfaction of voters. And judges who fail to do so should be minimally permanently removed from the bench, possibly serving some jail time.
And when the Constitution is silent about a given issue, judges should be required to clarify that the issue is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
2 males uniting does not equal what we mean by marriage. Is that a better way of saying it?
I still don’t get how any state/government can redefine marriage.
Can they also redefine what a ‘week’ is?
I’d imagine that if thousands upon thousands of same-sex couples were walking down the aisle, we would have heard about it by now. That all we hear is crickets chirping makes me think that it just isn’t happening.
I'm not 'uncomfortable,' deeply or otherwise.
I have the apparently now-rare ability to discern between things, people, concepts, etc. Marriage has had a definition since the dawn of man. It is based in biology, common sense, history and functionality vis-a-vis civilization. If you are religious, that's even more reinforcement, perhaps the most significant kind.
We don't enter dogs in the Kentucky Derby for a simple reason: they aren't horses.
Marriage is, was and always will be an institution wrapped around a practicality - not an impracticality designed to destroy the institution to which it claims to seek access.
Like the old saw about the most dangerous assassin being the one who doesn't know he's an assassin, gays have been taken in completely by power-hungry statists and their constant attempts to undermine free societies.
Gays are so desperate for what they mistakenly perceive to be approval, acceptance, recognition, and even praise that they will gladly participate in the destruction of that which gave them the freedom to 'be themselves' in the first place. While they rail against sodomy laws in certain states or localities they ignore the categorical bans that exist - and are rigidly enforced - in Islamic or communist nations.
Politicians and judges have abdicated their role as representatives of the people and keepers of the law, respectively. We now hear all manner of nonsense about equality - despite the self-evident inequality between real marriage and the fake version. We also hear about 'not standing in the way of love.' But have these government officials read their own document i.e. a marriage license/certificate? The word 'love' does not appear - for it's strictly a legal instrument - which means, of course, that the politicians are willingly promulgating a falsehood, having succumbed to vanity and cowardice (again).
And so, they have their pitiful, awkward, painfully forced ceremonies with confusing, pointless and derivative husband/husband and wife/wife designations. Even worse is the choice of partner/partner - empty, sterile, meaningless titles that evoke law firms and funeral homes, not marriage and family.
Why not? What could they do to me?
This goes back to the question I’ve asked for years now...
Who, in their right mind, would even want to be president and have to govern over this drain-circling country?
Which is why.. no matter how they try to paint it.. the whole concept of "gay marriage" is a false one. They can try to go through the motions and buy all the trappings.. but it will never.. EVER reach the level of a traditional event.
So these judges have just reclassified the right to exercise deeply held religious beliefs as “inertia and apprehension”.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
All the wisdom of the ages on the subject of marriage, family and the rearing of children is reduced to "inertia and apprehension." There is NO HOPE AT ALL for this country. None.
Hogwash. Tell him. Scream it from the rooftops. For God's sake, start talking, people! Start telling people you disagree with the homo agenda (and the "Green" agenda, the Common Core agenda, and everything else being pushed by the Commies), that you won't stand for it, and be ready to fight back, possibly in the literal sense.
We've gone so long being meek, compliant and quiet, that our enemies have us against the ropes. The only way to win back our Republic is to fight. Hopefully, it'll be just with words, picket signs, and maybe fists, but if it goes further, we have only ourselves to blame.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This is all about judges who have bought the myth of “born that way” to justify sexual deviance.
How many of these “pillars of virtue” are just looking to justify hedonism to cover their own indiscretions? (cheating on their wives, husbands, etc.)
When will a state secede? The 10th amendment is being stomped on.
My wife asked her sister the other day what percentage of the population is gay. She said 25%. Scary, huh.
No one did it over the imposed legality of killing unborn people in 40+ years, I doubt if it happens now over ‘gay marriage.’
The constitution does not define marriage. A state could pass a law declaring it to be ilegal to marry a man to a animal and eventually some judge would strike it down.
There is also no going back to "civilized" slavery.
IT was a 2-1 decision.
EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT: NO RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
by AUSTIN RUSE 25 Jul 2014 225 POST A COMMENT
The highest human rights court in Europe has told European LGBTs that they have no human right to same-sex marriage, in a case that also shows how complicated sexual and marital norms have become in this new transsexual world.
The case arose after a man in Finland, who was married with a child, decided he wanted to live as a woman. After a sex-change operation, he attempted to change his governmental “male identity number” to a female one. He was turned down because, according to law, he needed his wife’s consent to change their man-woman marriage to a “registered partnership”, which she had withheld.
The problem in short is that this married man and woman could no longer be considered married in Finland if he changed his sex to female because Finland does not allow same-sex marriage. The couple would be required to accept a “registered partnership”, something they objected to.
The couple sued and told the court that “a divorce would be against their religious convictions” and that a “registered partnership did not provide the same security as marriage” and that “their child would be placed in a different situation from children born within wedlock.”
Some of the claims made by the plaintiffs made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities show how complicated these matters can become. Among other things the transsexual said the courts decision -— that a “registered partnership” was appropriate for their relationship -— required that his wife had to become a lesbian and that a registered partnership would mean he could no longer be a “legal father to his child and could not be her mother either, as a child could not have two mothers.”
Lower courts repeated told the couple that a registered partnership was on par with marriage and rejected their claims, which they took to the European Court of Human Rights, which oversees the European Convention of Human Rights signed by 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which is distinct from the European Union.
The high court said there two competing rights that needed to be balanced; the “applicants right to respect for her private life by obtaining a new female identity number and the States interest in maintaining the traditional institution of intact.”
The court reiterated that nothing in the Convention on Human Rights imposed an obligation on States to allow same-sex marriage. The court said his alternatives were either a registered partnership, something that requires his wifes approval, or divorce.
The court further said “it cannot be said that there exists in any European consensus on allowing same-sex marriage” and that same-sex marriage is allowed in only ten of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
The decision flies in the face of ongoing LGBT claims that same-sex marriage is about to sweep in the world. In fact, same-sex marriage is recognized in only 18 countries out of more than 200 listed in the CIA World Fact Book or the 192 member states of the UN.
Just last month the Italian Constitutional Court rejected same-sex marriage and said civil unions were sufficient to protect same-sex couples.
The Finnish man and his wife remain defiant. On his website he said, “I will stay married after this judgment. There is nothing on earth that will get us separated. We won’t terminate our marriage. We do not call it cis or trans or whatever. It is a religious marriage as I have proven to the court.”
Judge Paul Niemeyer saw it otherwise, dissenting from the decision and writing, Because there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, just as there are rational reasons for recognizing it, I conclude that we, in the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact legislation on the subject in accordance with their political processes.
Niemeyer was born in Princeton, New Jersey. He attended Kenyon College (A.B., 1962), where he played on the school’s baseball team. He then studied at the University of Munich, before pursuing his legal education at Notre Dame Law School (J.D., 1966). Niemeyer was admitted to the Maryland bar and practiced commercial law at Piper & Marbury (now DLA Piper) in Baltimore, Maryland from 1966 to 1988. In 1984, Niemeyer co-authored the Maryland Rules Commentary, a treatise on the rules of procedure in the Maryland state courts. From 1973 to 1988, he was a member of the Maryland Court of Appeals Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. In 2006, Niemeyer published A Path Remembered: The Lives of Gerhart & Lucie Niemeyer. Niemeyer’s father, Gerhart Niemeyer (19071997), was a political philosopher and professor of government at the University of Notre Dame. Niemeyer is married and has three sons.
Niemeyer was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1987 to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to fill the seat vacated by Frank A. Kaufman. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 19, 1988, and received his commission on February 22, 1988. Niemeyer served on the district court until his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President George H. W. Bush on May 11, 1990, to fill the seat vacated by Harrison Lee Winter. Niemeyer was confirmed with the unanimous consent of the United States Senate on August 3, 1990, and received his commission on August 7, 1990. In 1993, Niemeyer became a member of the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He served as chair of the committee from 1996 through 2000. Niemeyer is a member of the American Law Institute and has taught Appellate Practice at Duke Law School. His chambers are located in Baltimore, Maryland.
On 28 July 2014, Niemeyer dissented from a 4th Circuit ruling that struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. In his dissent, he argued that under a rational basis test Virginia’s ban should be deemed constitutional.
Clerk Started Finished School (Year)
Sean Eskovitz 1995 1996
Jeffrey Klein 1997 1998 Harvard (1997)
Neil Richards 1997 1998 Virginia (1997)
Steven Warshawsky 1997 1998 Georgetown (1997)
Kevin Walsh 2002 2003 Harvard (2002)
Donald E. Childress III (Trey) 2004 2005 Duke (2004)
Paul Nathanson 2004 2005 Harvard (2004)
Karen Servidea 2004 2005 Virginia (2004)
Katie Bagley 2005 2006 Virginia (2005)
Bryan Killian 2005 2006 Harvard (2005)
Micah Schwartzman 2005 2006 Virginia (2005)
Jeffrey Davidson 2006 2007 Yale (2006)
Matthew Krueger 2006 2007 Minnesota (2006)
Michael Nemelka 2006 2007 Virginia (2006)
Brian Foster 2007 2008 Notre Dame (2007)
Ajeet Pai 2007 2008 Virginia (2007)
Keri Steffes 2007 2008 Yale (2007)
Andrew Blair-Stanek 2008 2009 Yale (2008)
Alison Buckley 2008 2009 Northwestern (2008)
Destiny Duron-Deas 2008 2009 Duke (2008)
Dave Baltmanis 2009 2010 Northwestern (2009)
Christopher DiPompeo 2009 2010 Penn (2009)
Nikki Ellington 2009 2010 Virginia (2008)
Elise Borochoff 2010 2011 Harvard (2010)
Kevin King 2010 2011 Northwestern (2010)
Kathryn Ladewski 2010 2011 Michigan (2010)
Justin Murray 2011 2012 Georgetown (2010)
Jonathan David Shaub 2011 2012 Northwestern (2011)
Luke McCloud 2011 2012 Harvard (2011)
Paul V. Niemeyer at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
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.