Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

4th Circuit declares 4 states' constitutional amendments unconstitutional

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4th Circuit declares 4 states' constitutional amendments unconstitutional

    Source: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/appeals-court-panel-strikes-down-va-same-sex-marriage-ban/article_0a448216-167c-11e4-8f75-0017a43b2370.html

    RICHMOND — A federal appeals court panel today struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

    In a 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges upheld U.S. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's ruling in February that the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    The decision will not take effect immediately. It will go into effect in 21 days, unless the defendants file a motion to stay the ruling – which they are likely to do. The case will then head to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The decision's logic is simply infantile. They dramatically misapply Lawrence and overstate what the court was saying in Windsor. What the 4th effectively has said with this decision is that no state can define their own marriage restrictions if the court disagrees with that restriction. The section dismissing Virginia's federalist right to define what constitutes a legal marriage was sloppy and emotionally dismissive. Their entire argument boiled down to this:

    However, Windsor
    is actually detrimental to their position. Although the Court
    emphasized states’ traditional authority over marriage, it
    acknowledged that “[s]tate laws defining and regulating
    marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of
    persons.” Id. at 2691 (citing Loving, 388 U.S. 1); see also id.
    at 2692 (“The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
    marital relation[] [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.”).
    Windsor does not teach us that federalism principles can justify
    depriving individuals of their constitutional rights; it
    reiterates Loving’s admonition that the states must exercise
    their authority without trampling constitutional guarantees.
    Virginia’s federalism-based interest in defining marriage
    therefore cannot justify its encroachment on the fundamental
    right to marry.


    That's plain and simply a bunch of crap. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to marry anyone they choose. There have always been limits on who can legally marry, and what constitutes a legal marriage. The rights of the individual are consistently applied in Virginia's amendment, which equally provides a standard of legal marriage without unevenly curtailing the rights of the individual.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

  • #2

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #3
      What I disagree with is that no one should have any privilege given him from any government that many others don't have. In particular people who prefer to be bachelors should not be disadvantaged relative to married people--whether heterosexual or homosexual. I do not approve of homosex, but I don't think any government should ban or protect that.
      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        What I disagree with is that no one should have any privilege given him from any government that many others don't have. In particular people who prefer to be bachelors should not be disadvantaged relative to married people--whether heterosexual or homosexual. I do not approve of homosex, but I don't think any government should ban or protect that.
        You disapprove of the fact that God banned it in the government He created then?
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          You disapprove of the fact that God banned it in the government He created then?
          One must consider the fact that this government (nation) is in rebellion against God and the fact He create it is no longer relevant to the nation.
          "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

          "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
            One must consider the fact that this government (nation) is in rebellion against God and the fact He create it is no longer relevant to the nation.
            I don't understand, what does this have to do with banning homosex? Are you saying that it's worse when a government in rebellion against God does something God approved of?
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #7
              All I will do for now is to 1) cite 1 Samuel 8:7-8, 10-18. And then 2) assert that the first part of Romans 13 is possibly the most mistranslated and mis-interpreted part in the Bible.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Charles, Today, 09:40 AM
              1 response
              9 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Maranatha  
              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:34 PM
              5 responses
              35 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 07:31 PM
              3 responses
              36 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Ronson
              by Ronson
               
              Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
              43 responses
              178 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 10:59 AM
              30 responses
              155 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Starlight  
              Working...
              X