Virginia’s marriage amendment declared unconstitutional

Catholic Culture ^ | february 14, 2014 | Diogenes

[NYer]

A federal district court judge has ruled that Virginia’s marriage amendment, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

Voters approved the measure by a 57%-43% margin in a 2006 referendum.

“The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” said Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the bench.

“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,” she added.

In recent weeks, the state’s bishops lamented the decision of Virginia’s new attorney general not to defend the marriage amendment in court.

Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional (AP)

• DiLorenzo and Loverde: Virginians should defend marriage (Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot)

[MrB]

Marriage is one of those institutions that is actually in the State’s interest to promote because of the stable society that it fosters.

[Toucan Dance]

Maybe someday we’ll be reading decisions like this:

“...The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s laws against adults performing sex acts with minors unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s citizens the fundamental freedom to choose their sexual partners...Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of relationship 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.”

You can make the same non-argument about any law. All laws rein some people in from doing whatever they individually want to do. I think maybe this judge has lost sight of citizens’rights to have a say in the laws that govern them and to decide what behavior they accept and what they don’t. The citizens, and not the judges, should be the deciders on issues like this.

[Amendment10]

...the fundamental freedom to choose to marry, ...”

It doesn't suprise me that an activist judge appointed by Obama is wrongly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights.

Note that the states are free to make laws which discriminate on criteria, such as against gay marriage, since such "rights" are not expressly protected by the Constitution.

But the reason that activist judges get away with these kinds of decisions, sadly, is because parents, for many generations, have not been making sure that their children are being taught the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, particularly the 10th Amendment-protected power of the states to uniquely regulate things like marriage.

[OneWingedShark]

I hope the Supreme Court takes this up as soon as possible, because if this stands then Missouri’s amendment and every other amendment passed by the other states goes out the window.

The USSC already ruled that a State's supreme court cannot certify standing; that's what the whole Propp 8 ruling (where they said the people lacked standing) really said.

[ex-snook]

Right to marry. Right to kill unborn. Rights need a new constitutional amendment.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Plop the Bill of Rights down in front of these judges and ask them what the tenth and eleventh amendments say. Then ask them why they just threw them in the trash can.

[verga]

Bunk. The People have a right to define the society they live in and "government" is supposed to implement that.

Someone needs to immediately sue for the right to engage in Polygamy, as well as marry their pit-bull, and John Deere tractor.

If they want marriage equality then ALL marriage is equal.

Take it to it's most extreme end.

[Orangedog]

Perhaps you can point out which part of article 1, section 8 authorizes the federal govermnet to sanction, regulate or subsidize marriage. Please...enlighten this misguided libertarian and let me know where we all can find that enumerated power. Little video clips are cute, but they don’t help the merits of your argument.

[opus86]

So we have the right to completely redefine social institutions that have built western society. Well that's novel. Of course I suppose the Kelo decision did redefine property rights, so none of this should surprise us.

[GreyFriar]

And now Nancy Pelosi just want’s people to “shack up” together, aka “live in sin”:

“’But I would say, you know, if you’re getting married — why are you getting married?’ Pelosi asked.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/02/14/nancy-pelosi-on-marriage-meh

[Tax-chick]

It sounds like she was drunk.

[GreyFriar]

I didn’t know that Botox was alcoholic? ;-)

[Tax-chick]

Maybe it leaked into her brain.

[rollo tomasi]

Riddle me this: The same people that ratified Article 1, Section 8 also recognized widows with the various pension benefits that EXPANDED as the US economically grew.

What were the laws of pension benefits to widows/offspring between the AOC and the newly ratified Constitution? How were benefits handled during the AOC? Where was the Constitutional crisis? Everything was State, Federal, and then State with the Federal all before 1836 (When laws expanded even more) by those who ratified Article 1 Section 8. So, again



plain logic and history are ignored by libertarian idealists.

These benefits were enshrined in basic human understanding way before Article I Section 8 by those who followed reason and the Judeo-Christian laws/customs concerning widows. (Some Founders just following reason of course). I guess the need for witnesses escapes your grasp as well as keeping a civilization stabilized as well as defended properly by a volunteer army.

[SumProVita]

Move to a higher court!

[Orangedog]

Okay, you can't site anything in article 1, section 8 that gives fedgov power to sanction or subsidize marriage. Glad you admitted it and had to try and drag the articles of confederation and acts passed before ratification of the constitution (and your cute little video clip to back you your lame argument.

[- nice thing about firefox is the ability to keep those from even loading on my screen after this]

[rollo tomasi]

Easy-peasy Orangedog, Clause 12 to 16. Marriage is intertwined into society and government. Of course you would understand that if you answered my inquiries about spousal benefits starting with the laws under the AoC and Continuing on with the Constitution, lol.

Your turn. Please show me the Constitutional crisis that occurred (Spare me your libertarian fantasies) on why widows received public expenditures through the State and Federal entities by those who ratified the Constitution.

[rollo tomasi]

"Glad you admitted it and had to try and drag the articles of confederation and acts passed before ratification of the constitution"

Not sure what you are implying here BTW. There was a transitional period where the State were relieved by the Feds. Problem with your fantasy is that the Feds continued on with those benefits and expanded them, again, by the same men who ratified the document you claimed prevents these benefits.

[bmwcyle]

Any private citizen can file a Bar complaint against the VA AG.

[Orangedog]

And still, no citation of the specific enumerated power granted to fedgov in article 1, section 8 to sanction or subsidize marriage. I know it must be hard for big government types thinking that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that means whatever you want it to mean so long as fedgov is doing you favors.