Given the polls in Virginia, where anywhere from 55-60% favor marriage equality, when will teh gays be able to marry here. Given the make-up of the State House, I don't see anything coming out of the legislator voluntarily.

I see instead a court case overturning the constitutional ban (Marshall-Newman Amendment) on SSM marriage laws. So, will it be, 2 years or 10 years?

Hey mjcc--need a butt buddy!
Attachments:

When gay men get married do they stop fucking everything that moves or is it just an awesome opportunity to plan, decorate, dance and enjoy a decadent celebration of self?

I read recently about 33% of self identified gay men are HIV positive in the San Francisco area. Maybe marriage would be a good thing for these fellas.

Given the makeup of the VA Supreme Court and the historically conservative (though somewhat less so recently) 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals, it will probably be awhile.

I highly doubt the legislature touches it again before it's struck down by the Supreme Court whenever they get around to finishing what they started in DOMA. (Kennedy's opinion telegraphs where it's going - they clearly just felt it wasn't the right time).

Gay males are 3% of the population at most, yet constitute 70% of all HIV infections.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

On topics like this, I think it's best to spread the word of God.

God really does hate fags and it's described in the holy scriptures.

What polls reflect 60% approval? Most polls are skewered anyway. A stranger calls on the phone and asks if you just love the idea of two men getting it on together. The person answering the phone doesn't want to appear politically incorrect so they answer sure why not. The truth is most of the population are revolted at two men doing the nasty.

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Fight Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban
http://vienna.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/aclu-files-lawsuit-to-fight-virginias-gay-marriage-ban_093738be

The ACLU and other groups filed suit on behalf of two same-sex Virginia couples to lift the gay marriage ban in Virginia and get out-of-state marriages recognized.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Virginia ACLU, Lambda Legal and law firm Jenner and Block filed a federal class action lawsuit Thursday challenging the Virginia ban on same-sex marriage.

The suit also challenges the Commonwealth’s refusal to recognize marriages between same-sex couples from out of state, according to The Washington Post.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Virginia couples – Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester – and seeks to represent all gay Virginia couples who want marriage rights.

Harris says in the suit that she has a medical condition and she and Duff would have to pay “lots of money” if there were ever a serious incident and Duff needed to make decisions for Harris.

Berghoff, an Air Force veteran, and Kidd were legally married in Washington, D.C. and want access to the same benefits as other married couples in Virginia.

The news comes on the same day that Minnesota and Rhode Island became the 12th and 13th states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-30th), an openly gay senator from the Alexandria area, released a statement Wednesday commending the groups filing the suit.

“The plaintiffs and thousands of other gay and lesbian couples deserve the same protections as all those Virginians whose marriages are recognized today,” Ebbin said in the statement. “They seek equal treatment under the law, nothing more and nothing less.

“I know of too many couples who have left the state due to a lack of the protections now offered to our neighbors in the District of Columbia and Maryland … It is not a question of whether marriage equality will come to Virginia, it is a question of when.”

Read the full story over at The Washington Post’s website.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/01/aclu-lambda-legal-file-suit-challenging-va-s-gay-marriage-ban/

The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gay males are 3% of the population at most, yet
> constitute 70% of all HIV infections.



Source?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Source?

CDC

_____________
We are all Eesh.

I say let them all marry and be miserable like the rest of us.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage isn't
> a right, it's a privilege.



Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v. Virginia?

New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens 'It's Gay To Smoke'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjsSVCLxcZ4

How many more Virginia tax dollars will the moronic Cuccinelli spend defending the right wing agenda?

enough already Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many more Virginia tax dollars will the
> moronic Cuccinelli spend defending the right wing
> agenda?


The Attorney General is obligated to defend the law, regardless of how moronic you (or he) may find it. This isn't a banana republic.

Don't like it? Talk to your legislators in Richmond.

Road Musings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> enough already Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How many more Virginia tax dollars will the
> > moronic Cuccinelli spend defending the right
> wing
> > agenda?
>
>
> The Attorney General is obligated to defend the
> law, regardless of how moronic you (or he) may
> find it. This isn't a banana republic.
>
> Don't like it? Talk to your legislators in
> Richmond.

I surmise that you are unaware of the many quaint laws on Virginia's books that are unenforceable due to Supreme Court rulings.

Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage
> isn't
> > a right, it's a privilege.
>
>
>
> Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> Virginia?

I was under the impression that this was a marriage between a black woman and a white man. They weren't both men were they? Heterosexual interracial marriage was made legal not gay marriage or bestial marriage or polygamy. Otherwise, you'd have a point.

Two 10 year olds can't get married because there are laws dictating the minimum age for consent to marry. State recognized marriage is certainly not a right and its definition can be decided by the state if it does not conflict with federal law.

Sorry you lose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Road Musings Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > enough already Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > How many more Virginia tax dollars will the
> > > moronic Cuccinelli spend defending the right
> > wing
> > > agenda?
> >
> >
> > The Attorney General is obligated to defend the
> > law, regardless of how moronic you (or he) may
> > find it. This isn't a banana republic.
> >
> > Don't like it? Talk to your legislators in
> > Richmond.
>
> I surmise that you are unaware of the many quaint
> laws on Virginia's books that are unenforceable
> due to Supreme Court rulings.

Has the Marhsall-Newman amendment been ruled unconstitutional? Did I miss that? It's clear the Supreme Court will get there, but while they laid the groundwork in DOMA they didn't do it yet.

Which means we're talking about two completely different things.

Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage
> isn't
> > a right, it's a privilege.
>
>
>
> Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> Virginia?

Interracial marriage is different then homosexual "marriage." By your reasoning, since I want to marry my sister, I should be legally allowed to, because marriage is a fundamental right, regardless of whom I want to mary.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

I like NEil Patrick Harris

Homosexual Agenda in Cartoons T.V Shows, Degrassi Looney Tunes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8ja4SFRw6qs
Attachments:

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage isn't
> a right, it's a privilege.

"Marriage is a fundamental right." Loving v. Virginia.

The Supreme Court deemed marriage to be a right in the 1970s, dummy.

Attorney Wapner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage
> > isn't
> > > a right, it's a privilege.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> > Virginia?
>
> I was under the impression that this was a
> marriage between a black woman and a white man.
> They weren't both men were they? Heterosexual
> interracial marriage was made legal not gay
> marriage or bestial marriage or polygamy.
> Otherwise, you'd have a point.
>
> Two 10 year olds can't get married because there
> are laws dictating the minimum age for consent to
> marry. State recognized marriage is certainly not
> a right and its definition can be decided by the
> state if it does not conflict with federal law.

The reason same-sex marriage will prevail, as interracial marriage did, is because limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is not necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest (the test for laws implicating fundamental rights).

As you said, ten-year-olds cannot consent. Nor can animals. Those are red herrings.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The ACLU can fight it all it wants. Marriage
> > isn't
> > > a right, it's a privilege.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> > Virginia?
>
> Interracial marriage is different then homosexual
> "marriage." By your reasoning, since I want to
> marry my sister, I should be legally allowed to,
> because marriage is a fundamental right,
> regardless of whom I want to mary.

That's not the reasoning. The reasoning is: absent the government having an actual reason (beyond, say, "ewww, that's yucky") to prevent you from marrying the person of your choice (issues of consanguinity and consent predominant among those), your right to marry ought not be infringed.

Incest is a red herring here.

Beyond Doubt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On topics like this, I think it's best to spread
> the word of God.
>
> God really does hate fags and it's described in
> the holy scriptures.


Where does it say that in the bible?
I hear people say that all the time but don't give a quote like other sins.
Just wondering

Need more info Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyond Doubt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > On topics like this, I think it's best to
> spread
> > the word of God.
> >
> > God really does hate fags and it's described in
> > the holy scriptures.
>
>
> Where does it say that in the bible?
> I hear people say that all the time but don't give
> a quote like other sins.
> Just wondering

Leviticus. It's mentioned twice, in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The former just says it's an abomination (which means it's a sin, because they mean an abomination in the sight of God), while the latter says it's both a sin and actually prescribes the death penalty for it.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Attorney Wapner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The ACLU can fight it all it wants.
> Marriage
> > > isn't
> > > > a right, it's a privilege.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> > > Virginia?
> >
> > I was under the impression that this was a
> > marriage between a black woman and a white man.
> > They weren't both men were they? Heterosexual
> > interracial marriage was made legal not gay
> > marriage or bestial marriage or polygamy.
> > Otherwise, you'd have a point.
> >
> > Two 10 year olds can't get married because
> there
> > are laws dictating the minimum age for consent
> to
> > marry. State recognized marriage is certainly
> not
> > a right and its definition can be decided by
> the
> > state if it does not conflict with federal law.
>
> The reason same-sex marriage will prevail, as
> interracial marriage did, is because limiting
> marriage to opposite-sex couples is not necessary
> to achieve a compelling governmental interest (the
> test for laws implicating fundamental rights).
>
> As you said, ten-year-olds cannot consent. Nor
> can animals. Those are red herrings.



What is the compelling governmental interest in a homosexual union receiving marriage benefits? The argument I always hear is, "Why should the government care what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom?". Why indeed. Maybe in interest of levying an AIDS tax, but beyond that I can't imagine.

How does marriage qualify as a fundamental right rather than a civil right?

Animals are not a red herring. Animals don't have rights. You can kill an animal and eat it... but not marry it? 9/10 animals disagree.

1) Cant be that big a deal, didn't even make the top-10.
2) Only a couple of the 10 commandments are law.
3) That whole thing about the Supreme Court ruling that states can't make laws of a religious nature.

QED
Attachments:

Beyond Doubt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On topics like this, I think it's best to spread
> the word of God.
>
> God really does hate fags and it's described in
> the holy scriptures.

> 3) That whole thing about the Supreme Court ruling
> that states can't make laws of a religious
> nature.

By "Supreme Court ruling," I think you mean "the First Amendment, as incorporated to implicate the states by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Damn, people are stupid Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The ACLU can fight it all it wants.
> Marriage
> > > isn't
> > > > a right, it's a privilege.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fucking dumbshit, ever heard of Loving v.
> > > Virginia?
> >
> > Interracial marriage is different then
> homosexual
> > "marriage." By your reasoning, since I want to
> > marry my sister, I should be legally allowed
> to,
> > because marriage is a fundamental right,
> > regardless of whom I want to mary.
>
> That's not the reasoning. The reasoning is:
> absent the government having an actual reason
> (beyond, say, "ewww, that's yucky") to prevent you
> from marrying the person of your choice (issues of
> consanguinity and consent predominant among
> those), your right to marry ought not be
> infringed.
>
> Incest is a red herring here.


How is incest a red herring? What about polygamy?

Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 3) That whole thing about the Supreme Court
> ruling
> > that states can't make laws of a religious
> > nature.
>
> By "Supreme Court ruling," I think you mean "the
> First Amendment, as incorporated to implicate the
> states by the Fourteenth Amendment."


Male infant circumcision, an act which would otherwise be considered a sexual assault resulting in gross bodily mutilation, is legal and paid for by government in many states. Is this not a law of religious nature? Obviously we wouldn't look at it that way just because there happens to be some overlap between religious and non-religious reasoning behind the law. Marriage restrictions are no different.

Incest brings about retarded children
Why would anybody care if someone wants to marry more than one person as long as all are willing participants? Does the bible say yea or na on this?

Why not Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incest brings about retarded children
> Why would anybody care if someone wants to marry
> more than one person as long as all are willing
> participants? Does the bible say yea or na on
> this?


Gay incest does not bring about ANY children. How can anyone be opposed to a marriage between two brothers?

Married brother/sister couples need not procreate anyway. If I argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry on the grounds that they can't have children, you would most likely argue that some heterosexuals get married who are infertile or otherwise have no intention of having children, therefore the children argument is irrelevant.

Miscegenation results in a higher rate of birth defects than incest. Why are you bigoted against retarded children anyway? Everyone is equal. This IS the marriage EQUALITY act after all. What If I could produce a scientific study to show that homosexual marriages were rife with AIDS? Surely that wouldn't justify taking away rights.

I like the point someone made about circumcision and I'd like to add to it. If a child can't consent to marriage, he can't consent to circumcision either. The parent has to consent on behalf of the child. Surely the parent should be able to consent to marriage on behalf of the child as well, seeing as that is far less irreversible than marriage. How can anyone be opposed to infant marriage?

VA marriage laws are all about 2 things.

#1 protection of children by the REAL parents. i don't think gays should inheirit children (and thus their land and care money) during marriage.

#2 marriage protects a spouse who takes care of dependants by need (NOT dependats who are free-loaders who seek to do nothing in the marriage)

#3 marriage is in tax law. tax rebates

#4 insurance (fraud). marriage is linked to medical because of LEGITIMATE dependancy (having to do with children or injury dependancy)

a) you should have to adopt a kid legally. gay marriage should take away a families right to care care for their own young if something goes wrong.

b) why should having gay sex give you a tax rebate? no way, jose. get in line.

c) why should get a break on medical if they are not your kids or family?

--------------------------------------

gay marriage is popular i have nothing against it. however they law needs careful review before doing it.

the laws are written to protect children and injured and etc during a marriage.

the law is easily abused by people who are having sex and claiming they are owed things they infact are not

i wouldn't say a gay marriage never involved dependancy. but it is different. not family. totally voluntary. (incidental injury and care of long held spouse aside)

--------------------------------

back to feudalsim

marriage also protects family lands and membership and access and right to sue and etc

even if the law "agrees to gay marriage" doesn't mean a family 3ill not fight the same in court if they feel gay rights do not lend credibility to claim upon family wealth

Actually the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment :)

Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 3) That whole thing about the Supreme Court
> ruling
> > that states can't make laws of a religious
> > nature.
>
> By "Supreme Court ruling," I think you mean "the
> First Amendment, as incorporated to implicate the
> states by the Fourteenth Amendment."

TheWord Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
> First Amendment :)

Well, it would be SCOTUS's interpretation of the First and Fourteenth (the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth being what incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights as against the states), but they're hardly reading things into them that aren't there:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."

This is pretty clear.

"No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."

This applies procedural and substantive due process to the states. The latter deals with the impermissibility of burdening fundamental rights, such as the right to religious freedom, which is concomitant with the prohibition in the Establishment Clause.

Finally, even if it's "only" the Supreme Court's interpretation, such interpretation is binding and has the force of law.

> Male infant circumcision, an act which would
> otherwise be considered a sexual assault resulting
> in gross bodily mutilation, is legal and paid for
> by government in many states. Is this not a law of
> religious nature? Obviously we wouldn't look at it
> that way just because there happens to be some
> overlap between religious and non-religious
> reasoning behind the law. Marriage restrictions
> are no different.

If the law mandated circumcision, that would be an impermissible establishment of religion. Here, the law is silent. Just like we don't pass a law saying that heart surgery (which, if it were not a medical procedure, would be attempted murder) is legal, we don't pass laws saying circumcision is legal. Therefore, there is no "law of religious nature" in your example, because there is no law at all. Go ahead and look at the Code of Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/000/lst/LS905654.HTM I'll wait.

Circumcision is a medical procedure, and so is paid for by insurance. In cases of indigent parents, perhaps the state assists with their medical bills, but it's not something the government particularly subsidizes. In addition, circumcision is optional and requires informed consent.

Pray tell, what is the non-religious reasoning behind preventing same-sex marriage? Can't be a consent issue, because the same age-of-consent laws would apply. Can't be a procreative issue, because we allow infertile couples to marry, and fertile couples who do not intend to have kids to marry. Can't be a tax savings issue, because protecting the fisc cannot be the sole reason for discriminatory legislation, per SCOTUS. Can't be a slippery slope issue, because that's fallacious reasoning by definition. So: what's the non-religious objection?