It’s Over: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Court: A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.

Slate ^ | February 14, 2014 | David S. Cohen and Dahlia Lithwick

[2ndDivisionVet]

“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring....

[Jim Robinson]

There’s nothing gay about homosexualism. These poor tortured souls are the unhappiest people on earth.

[Viennacon]

Judge Kennedy destroyed this country. May he die of some bone marrow disease.

In other news, Uganda absolutely rejected sodomy today, when the president reversed course and assented to the law preventing homosexual predation of children.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Which is why they are so nasty and hateful. They can’t bear to truly think about what they are doing, so they need to fill up their time and minds with hate-filled screeching against anyone who dares to disagree with them.

[Republican Wildcat]

We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Nope - marriage is the union of husband and wife.

The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Language and the meaning of words is not prejudice or fear - it is reality. The fact a man cannot be a wife and a woman cannot be a husband is reality.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Is there any doubt what will be needed is divine intervention?

Doesn’t have to be destruction or something like that.

I am putting all my faith in God to make it right, not man.

Definitely not man.

[P-Marlowe]

I think the answer to this is for Bible believing Christian Pastors to refuse to act as government agents in signing off on marriage licenses. We need to refer to all government issued marriage licenses as Civil Unions and pastors should simply conduct matrimonial ceremonies without certifying the union for the State.

If the couple wishes to later or earlier go to the courthouse and “make it legal” they can but that would be a secular ceremony.

The perverts have perverted the meaning of “marriage” so we need to distance ourselves from the term and Christians should not expect their pastors to conduct any official ceremony recognized by the State in their churches.

If two Christians wish to be joined in “Holy Matrimony” there is no requirement that it be recognized by the State, especially where that state also recognizes same sex unions as “marriage”. They can be joined before God without the assent of the State and if they want the benefits of the State’s recognition of their relationship, they can do it at the courthouse.

If pastors are acting as agents of the state in marriage ceremonies, then they are risking lawsuits by refusing to do those ceremonies for homosexuals and other perverts. Better not to sign the marriage license than lose a huge lawsuit for following the tenets of your faith.

[Republican Wildcat]

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.”

Interracial marriage does not contradict the definition of marriage. You can get the union of husband and wife regardless of race. Whereas two men or two women cannot join together as husband and wife. It's language - not just "tradition." This ruling is embarrassing. A judge - someone highly educated and credentialed, sitting as a judge in U.S. Federal Court - doesn't have even the most basic sense.

[Politicalkiddo]

“The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

This young person doesn’t. Loving something/someone doesn’t make you actions with/toward someone/something moral or right. Certainly doesn’t make it sane. The heart is deceitful above all else. People love animals, children, objects...having inappropriate relationships with something/someone doesn’t mean that love will make the aberrance lessen or disappear. Necrophiliacs love dead bodies. Murderers love to murder. Sadists love to torture. Rapists love to rape. A person’s “love” of something will never excuse a crime.

[ConorMacNessa]

From here, a short walk to legalized polygamy and bestiality. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) did inestimable damage to the Social Order. Justice Kennedy, IIRC, stated something to the effect that "Liberty" demanded that people be left alone in their bedrooms in smacking down the Texas Sodomy Statute. The notion of "Substantive Due Process" - long viewed in the Supreme Court with disfavor, emerged triumphant.

Of course, he totally ignored the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which could have formed a rational basis for the decision, since the Texas statute did not outlaw sodomy between male and female, but only between people of the same sex. On the same day, a decision came down on an affirmative action case that, IMO, effectively rendered the Equal Protection Clause nugatory. Read Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case - it is chillingly prescient.

America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[matt04]

They may appear happy and smiling on the outside, but are the some of the most hate filled and angry people I have ever met.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I don’t think they want polygamy ... too “favorable” to rich men, not “fair” enough for the wives and way too many babies and large families.

[RginTN]

If you can’t get gay “marriage” approved by voters its obviously not over.

[2ndDivisionVet]

The judiciary and executive now overrule voters.

[enduserindy]

Just want to point out the cake people. They just did cakes. That is my only concern. If the state closed a church, pulled tax status or who knows what. Other than that I want the rest to know this is where Libertarians have been for a long time. I think a good way to put it is..
“If two Christians wish to be joined in “Holy Matrimony” there is no requirement that it be recognized by the State,”
and
“If the couple wishes to later or earlier go to the courthouse and “make it legal” they can but that would be a secular ceremony.”

And before anyone craps on the original poster I am the one that used “that” word.

[RginTN]

Yes but it shows that gay “marriage” isn’t as approved of as the gay activists promote.

[2ndDivisionVet]

It doesn’t matter. When the elites tell you to do something, you do it. Chop-chop!

[nickcarraway]

In 2012, the voters started giving up and giving in to the courts.

[fella]

Human laws that go against nature seldom turn out well. See my tag line.

[max americana]

“and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

Well, if your father loves his daughter, so they can marry?? Now you know how sick these effing liberal bastards are.