Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Puts Hold on Same-Sex Marriages in Virginia
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-newsalert-25043930 ^ | August 20, 2014

Posted on 08/20/2014 12:21:51 PM PDT by Steelfish

Supreme Court Puts Hold on Same-Sex Marriages in Virginia WASHINGTON — Aug 20, 2014, 3:09 PM ET

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-newsalert-25043930

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; ruling; samesexmarriage; scotus; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 08/20/2014 12:21:51 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Ruh Ro! The “gay marriage has already been decided by the Supreme Court” crowd is going to have their panties in a wad over this...
2 posted on 08/20/2014 12:25:06 PM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Surprising ...for now.


3 posted on 08/20/2014 12:25:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

As the American Thinker observes:

What’s happening in state after state is not the citizenry is giving its seal of approval to same-sex marriage — in fact, we are doing quite the opposite.

Then once a measure fails lawyers funded by activists file lawsuits and begin a legal process. If and when the first attempt fails they file an appeal and try again. And again. And again. These lawsuits run up through the court system until finally landing on the desk of a judge sympathetic to the cause.

That judge then takes the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box and with the stroke of a pen throws it out.


4 posted on 08/20/2014 12:34:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Not surprising, they have stayed several other lower courts' decisions in favor of gay marriage.

And I don't see this as portending the Court's ultimate ruling on the issue, one way or the other. It's rather basic appellate practice to maintain the status quo until the ultimate issue is decided.

5 posted on 08/20/2014 12:34:46 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS ping.


6 posted on 08/20/2014 12:35:13 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
From The American Thinker :

Justice Henry F. Floyd serves on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. He along with a colleague similarly ruled that Virginia’s constitutional provision for definition of marriage has got to go. Last month (on July 28, 2014) the two of them overturned the state’s (aka: the people’s) constitution. Virginians voted 57 to 43 percent (a thorough drubbing) in 2006 to amend the state’s constitution thus banning gay marriage. It was clearly what the people wanted. Mr. Floyd sees things differently and in essence said to the people of Virginia, “Sorry, you rubes.” If that weren’t enough, the 4th Circuit’s decision will also apply to all other states in the district (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia.)

Including the forementioned Indiana that makes six states with a combined population of approximately thirty-seven million people; the will of those people as expressed in the writing and amending of their state’s constitution has been obliterated by but three individuals.

Since the Supreme Court’s dismantling of the Defense of Marriage Act one year ago there now has been twenty consecutive federal court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage. Twenty in a row! The decision did not embolden gay-marriage activists to continually present the issue to Americans as ballot initiatives, rather it opened the floodgates to sue, sue, and sue some more. Note the headlines of the following articles, all published in 2014:

SIX COUPLES FILE LAWSUIT

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN STATES BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE

ACTIVISTS CHEER COURT RULING

Notice any commonality? None dealing with actual election results because the election results are consistent and are not something for gay-marriage proponents to applaud. None tout the idea of letting our systems of self-governance run its course. None trumpeting “We the People”. Rather all of these stories (and I could easily have posted links to dozens and dozens) have gay-marriage proponents applauding court decisions, not election results.

So don't be fooled into thinking "Americans now want same-sex marriage." The truth is, "a handful of Americans now want same-sex marriage." It so happens that some of that handful have jobs that grant them the power to simply overrule the will and desire of the masses, even if only temporarily. As it relates to this particular topic, we are not being governed according to the will of the people. We are being governed by the wills of two or three or so.

7 posted on 08/20/2014 12:36:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

RE: Supreme Court Puts Hold on Same-Sex Marriages in Virginia

1) which Supreme Court? Virginia’s Supreme Court or The United States Supreme Court?

2) If the latter, was it a 9 Justice Panel that decided to put it on hold? If so, who voted what?


8 posted on 08/20/2014 12:38:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Homos are grossly over-represented on the bench!
.


9 posted on 08/20/2014 12:40:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

10 posted on 08/20/2014 12:44:20 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Another answer to prayer.

I have been praying about this issue; I think it is of utmost importance our civilization gets back to respecting God’s law.

God’s law doesn’t SAVE us, but it does give us a standard...and our nation’s creation of a permanent underclass via dependence on government via the destruction/confiscation of private property since the 1930s, our endorsement of infanticide since 1973, and the attempt to force a celebration of perversion in this decade are terrible sins.

We must pray these notions are reversed if we are going to live or strive to live in a biblical manner.


11 posted on 08/20/2014 12:53:28 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Then once a measure fails lawyers funded by activists file lawsuits and begin a legal process. If and when the first attempt fails they file an appeal and try again. And again. And again. These lawsuits run up through the court system until finally landing on the desk of a judge sympathetic to the cause.

Which takes buckets of money.

12 posted on 08/20/2014 12:57:02 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Democrats: the Party of slavery to the immensely wealthy for over 200 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SCOTUS:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3195135/posts


13 posted on 08/20/2014 12:58:11 PM PDT by glock rocks (In DC, nobody can hear you scream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Right. It would be surprising if they overturned all the lower court decisions on gay marriage.


14 posted on 08/20/2014 12:58:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

Hardly even a speed-bump on the highway to hell.

Romans 1:32 is inevitable.


15 posted on 08/20/2014 12:59:43 PM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Lord, hear our prayers!


16 posted on 08/20/2014 1:54:47 PM PDT by HokieMom (Pacepa : Can the U.S. afford a president who can't recognize anti-Americanism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Oh REALLY.....?


17 posted on 08/20/2014 3:25:02 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

yup. if they can’t win at the ballot box they find a libtard judge/court.

except when it’s a law they love, then “it’s the law of the land” and if it falls the end of the country and all their libtard freedoms will be gone.


18 posted on 08/20/2014 3:25:03 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I worry that we can’t trust five justices at the SCOTUS to rule on the traditional side in this matter.


19 posted on 08/20/2014 3:29:26 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The fact is there is no federal question involved in a state’s decision to define marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no equal protection or due process violation. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man. The chance that the homosexual might not want to is beside the point. He has the same right.

That has always been the law in this country. If it is no longer, then a man will also have the right to marry a boy or three women in our lifetimes.


20 posted on 08/20/2014 3:36:32 PM PDT by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Supreme Court of the United States

The Virginia State Supreme Court has no power to issue a stay on any decision of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or even any federal district court for that matter.


21 posted on 08/20/2014 3:39:57 PM PDT by Tarheel25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

22 posted on 08/20/2014 3:46:25 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel25

RE: The Supreme Court of the United States

Is this a decision made by one justice or the 9 justices?

If all 9, who voted what?


23 posted on 08/20/2014 3:58:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

“I worry that we can’t trust five justices at the SCOTUS to rule on the traditional side in this matter.”
***************************************************************************************

Well, at least I hope we can trust them to correctly say that each state has a right to define marriage as its citizens see fit.


24 posted on 08/20/2014 4:01:01 PM PDT by House Atreides (ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FOR CHILDERS 2014 .... Don't reward bad GOPe behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

They’ve put a hold on other states’ “gay marriage” bans being overturned. Still not deciding one way or the other. Gonna be bigger than the O’Care decision.


25 posted on 08/20/2014 4:01:48 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

maybe they will rule that 2 grown man should not rub their junk together or hump each other because it`s immoral and the Bible refers to it as an abomination

No they wont say that, but they should!


26 posted on 08/20/2014 4:49:11 PM PDT by Friendofgeorge (Sarah Palin 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

God can as easily point to a standard by allowing controlled chaos (the old adage that one never misses the water till the well runs dry).

Living biblically is ultimately going to depend on people believing, really BELIEVING, on the Lord. And this is nothing that courts or legislatures can effect on earth.


27 posted on 08/20/2014 4:50:45 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s about time they ruled that states have decided and have constitutional amendments too.

One thing is for sure, and that is the drama queens will get their panties in a twist over this.


28 posted on 08/20/2014 5:08:28 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

They move to states like here in the south. They then go judge shopping throwing out millions of votes and constitutional amendments.


29 posted on 08/20/2014 5:10:07 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Captain Jack Aubrey

Has out side ever said that though?

I’ve been saying for years that they have the same rights as us, and we cannot marry the same sex either.

Now if they go on equality then it should be any kind of marriage which opens a whole load of crap. The homosexuals don’t want polygamy etc, but they want their kind of marriage.

No ones rights have been stripped away over marriage as we all have the same rights.


30 posted on 08/20/2014 5:12:00 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

I worry that we can’t trust five justices at the SCOTUS to rule on the traditional side in this matter.


I can practically guarantee that 5 supremes will rule that traditional marriage is discriminatory and has to go.

Anthony Kennedy has been salivating to do this for decades. And, of course, the four supremes appointed by RATS will rule that way. Kennedy wanted to do this with the California Prop 8 case but Roberts and Scalia were afraid of the bad PR for the court so they got the RATS to go along with the bogus sidestep of claiming that the defendants, who had been ratified by the CA supremes, actually did not have standing.


31 posted on 08/20/2014 5:13:26 PM PDT by fifedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
One bunch of retards in black robes (SCOTUS)is saying that Marriage is a State issue (DOMA is Unconstitutional), and another bunch of retards in black robes (CIRCUIT and STATE COURTS)is saying States can't define or regulate marriage in any way, shape, or form.

The faggots have been celebrating prematurely, because this WILL get straightened out.

Maybe the Florida idiot hack Judge from Broward County didn't read this opinion by the DC SCOTUS idiot Kennedy.

"DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages.

This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.

The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

In other words, SCOTUS has ALREADY ruled that the States have the UNQUESTIONED right to define marriage, it is not a Federal issue.

32 posted on 08/20/2014 5:24:21 PM PDT by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Elections mean nothing anymore and I dare say the corruptocrats in DC do NOT have the consent of the governed.
33 posted on 08/20/2014 5:33:02 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Is there supposed to be an article at the link, or has it been pulled?


34 posted on 08/20/2014 6:40:57 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Demonazi's are openly marching us (Jews, Christians, Conservatives) double time to Holocaust II.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

No article. It was simply a banner headline.


35 posted on 08/20/2014 6:41:35 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Thanks.


36 posted on 08/20/2014 6:42:31 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Demonazi's are openly marching us (Jews, Christians, Conservatives) double time to Holocaust II.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

FReepers, Let's go!
Everyone needs to donate!

All contributions are for the current quarter expenses.


37 posted on 08/20/2014 6:57:08 PM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

“....SCOTUS has ALREADY ruled that the States have the UNQUESTIONED right to define marriage, it is not a Federal issue. “

Yeah, it’s not. Until it is!


38 posted on 08/20/2014 7:15:07 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Another answer to prayer.

I have been praying about this issue; I think it is of utmost importance our civilization gets back to respecting God’s law.

God’s law doesn’t SAVE us, but it does give us a standard...and our nation’s creation of a permanent underclass via dependence on government via the destruction/confiscation of private property since the 1930s, our endorsement of infanticide since 1973, and the attempt to force a celebration of perversion in this decade are terrible sins.

We must pray these notions are reversed if we are going to live or strive to live in a biblical manner.


Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire[a]
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 He rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”


39 posted on 08/20/2014 7:36:49 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

for later


40 posted on 08/20/2014 9:29:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
The “gay marriage has already been decided by the Supreme Court” crowd is going to have their panties in a wad over this...
HMMM...maybe not a good choice of words when dealing with this particular demographic? ;)
41 posted on 08/20/2014 9:30:57 PM PDT by Impala64ssa (You call me an islamophobe like it's a bad thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“We must pray these notions are reversed if we are going to live or strive to live in a biblical manner.”

We still can. We always can.


42 posted on 08/21/2014 2:06:10 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

Good Biblical reminder. Thank you!


43 posted on 08/21/2014 2:31:34 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

We will see if Kennedy stays true to that comment or if he will say that the states unquestionably have the right to legitimately define marriage. . . blah blah blah. I can so see him doing this.
Time will tell.


44 posted on 08/21/2014 2:57:17 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Thank God! And God bless the thin line of virtue remaining in the ‘supreme’ Court.


45 posted on 08/21/2014 5:35:42 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Powerless? Not with the Liberty Amendments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]



FReepathon day 51.

Two percent a day keeps the 404 a way.

46 posted on 08/21/2014 5:57:34 AM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why do all those wealthy people pay for all those lawsuits? Is it because they have a “friend” who is gay? It’s not like they’re helping the masses. They’re helping a few people while harming the masses. What is their end game? To destroy Christianity?


47 posted on 08/21/2014 8:38:49 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps. And they're all stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Basically the whole court. The order references the Chief Jutice basically presenting the application for stay to the court.


48 posted on 08/21/2014 12:01:09 PM PDT by Tarheel25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel25

So all justices decided FOR this hold?

If so, I’m surprised that someone like Ruth Ginsburg would decide for it.


49 posted on 08/21/2014 12:03:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Captain Jack Aubrey

Three women at the same time, that is a fate worst than death. One is hard enough to deal with, 3 would overload my brain with drama in one day. I like women but in moderation.


50 posted on 08/21/2014 12:52:34 PM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson