Federal Judge Overturns Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Posted on by Michael Minkoff, Jr. · 177 Comments

The state of Virginia, like many states in the Union, had a statewide law prohibiting same-sex marriages. Had. Today a federal judge, Arenda Wright Allen, overturned that ban. For now, same–sex marriages are still on hold in Virginia until the appeals process on the ban is completed. That appeals process will likely end at the Supreme Court, and that ruling will be a crucial moment on how the federal government will choose to regard state laws concerning same-sex marriage. Eric Holder already made it clear that the federal government would be moving toward recognizing same-sex marriages and expanding the federal rights of homosexual couples, but a Supreme Court precedent would be an entirely different matter.

If the Supreme Court upholds overturning the Virginia ban, it is likely that the same-sex marriage debate will be, for all intents and purposes, over. At that point, the only inevitable conclusion will be for the federal government to mandate the national legality of same-sex marriage—citing the Supremacy Clause to unilaterally overturn any statewide prohibitions.

For now, however, the Virginia decision is a troubling misunderstanding of Constitutional law, the nature of equality, the definition of family, and the necessity for states to have autonomous jurisdiction within their borders on issues directly affecting the lives of individuals.

Judge Allen opened her decision with these words:

A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice. Our Constitution declares that “all men” are created equal. Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary’s noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots.

Notice from the outset that she has already colored this debate with her own assumptions. There is no “spirited and controversial debate” about “who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America.” None at all. Anyone and everyone may enjoy the right to marry within the existing laws.

Of course there are restrictions, but those are the same for everyone. For instance, you may not marry your own child. You may not marry any child. You must be of adequate age, depending on the state. You may not marry an animal. Or a household appliance. But anyone and everyone is allowed to marry. There is not debate on that. Homosexuals are as free as anyone to marry within the current bounds and definitions of marriage.

So the debate is not on who can marry. It is on the very definition and nature of marriage. If “love” is all that is required, then there are a few other laws that Judge Allen needs to overturn as well—all in the interest of equality, of course.

The ban on bestiality clearly shows “unlawful prejudice,” right? Why shouldn’t the love between an animal and a human be sacredly solemnized by the church and the state? I’m sure Judge Allen is eager to hear a case on that issue. She’s also working furiously on legislation to protect the “love” of pedophiles as well, I’m sure. And let’s not forget incestuous relationships.

Ultimately, her ruling makes all limitations on marriage arbitrary. Why strike down one tenet of the definition of marriage and leave others in tact?

And, just for the record, “all men are created equal” is not in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. But I would never expect a federal judge to know that. That’s asking a bit too much, I guess. Anyway, again, this is a grave and arbitrary misunderstanding. Homosexuals are not unequal in the sight of the law. They have exactly the same right to marry that anyone else has. What they are actually asking for is unequal treatment. It would be more accurate to use the “all men are created equal” line to reject same-sex marriages than to uphold them.

Anyway, this situation is absurd. As soon as the nature and definition of marriage and the family unit becomes arbitrary and the enforcement of states’ rights becomes selective, the fabric of the law becomes tattered to the point of uselessness. God help us.

177 responses

  1. What’s funny is you racist bigots used the VERY same argument against interracial marriage. You’re ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. Gay marriage is inevitable so you might as well get use to it.

    Reply

    • While I do see it as inevitable in the future (as our morally sliding culture shows) that doesn’t mean I have to like or approve of it. Ill tolerate it, but never embrace it. And if im called a bigot for not fully embracing something I have no desire or see any good coming from it, so be it. Even if my own daughter became gay, I would still love her and acknowledge it, but never respect or embrace her decision.

      Reply

      • I’m sure your parents felt the same way about you marrying a black person as you do about your kids marrying a gay person

        Reply

        • Well they didn’t. In fact my mom always thought id marry an asian woman, which wouldve been awesome. But I did agree with you. Not understanding your non sequitur. I’m not allowed to have an opinion? Marriage, to me, has and always will be, man and woman. No exceptions

          Reply

          • You are allowed to have an opinion & if you don’t believe in gay marriage don’t marry a gay person. What our supreme court will eventually rule is that you don’t have the right to discriminate against American citizens based on your beliefs

          • I didnt say I was discriminating. I said I will never accept or embrace it. There’s a big difference. Here in AZ (and im not sure if it has passed or not) there is a bill/law that states a business can not have legal action taken against them for holding their religious beliefs. I.e. a Nazi group asking for a photo from a Jewish photographer. A catering asking for prom from a Muslim owned kitchen. And yes, a Christian baker not baking a cake for a gay wedding couple. This isn’t discrimination, thisis the upholding of ones religious rights and beliefs

          • If the law says I can refuse service based on my religious preferences for offering goods and services (not hiring and firing), then I shall. Its not discrimination, its upholding ones constitutionally given religious freedom. Go find another business if it gets your pants in a bunch.

          • Federal law trumps state law. You honestly believe that Someone who’s religious believes are that races shouldn’t mix can hang a sign out of his business that says “NO NIGG*RS”?

          • You cant read can you. Its not that someone can hang a sign saying to gays. It means if in example a Christian baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, that couple cannot purse legal action against them. Thats it.

            And speaking of federal vs state law, marijuana is legal for recreation in WA and CO because……?

          • Fighting discrimination is not ridiculous but allowing religious kooks to discriminate against gays, people that have sex that aren’t married, non virgin brides, people of other faiths, people that work on Sunday, etc, etc, etc is!

          • If its hiring firing people in a business, you’re right. If a gay couple wants to buy a birthday cake, by all means purchase it. If they want a wedding cake, I cant and won’t be a part of or support that. Go find another business

          • So if I sell beds I have the right to ask the person who’s buying it if they plan to have sex with anyone on it (other then their spouse) before I sell it to them or if it’s a non married couple refuse to sell it to them? What if my religion think it’s a sin to be fat. Can I refuse to serve them at my restaurant?

          • find me a religion that states those things and a law state or federal that says you can and go for it

          • Incorrect thinking Bob… At the end of the day the Government has no right to dictate your religious beliefs and how you care them out. Unless your belief is something like killing or harming others. That is the point of freedom of religion. Forcing a baker to go against his religious beliefs and make a cake for a gay couple is going against the constitution. The couple in theory could simple buy a cake somewhere else, or just buy a regular cake and themselves add what is needed to make it a gay wedding cake (guessing two groomsmen on top). Personal, I would never want to do business with someone who was unwilling to free-fully and happily fill my request. Think about what a baker could do to your cake that you plan to eat.

            There is no bigotry to hide. It is what the people believe. The bigotry going on is from liberals like you, claiming your making everyone is treated fair and equal, but then stepping all over another persons beliefs to do so. Oh, and before you call me a racist… my family has an inter racial couple. Thought we were going to have second one for a while, which I always enjoy his company. He was a Chef and I was hoping to learn from him. A very funny and good man. Everyone accepts the couple, no problems no issues. A good person is a good person, the reverse is true.

          • In theory a black person could have drunken from a fountain or eaten at a restaurant that didn’t say “WHITES ONLY” on it. Government isn’t trying to dictate your religious beliefs they are simply saying you cannot discriminate against people no matter what your personal beliefs are

          • Yes, they are… if the gay couple can bring legal action against you for not making their cake, then yes they are… And the reality is a business owner should be able to deny service to any one they wish. They do not need give a reason its their business. I would not recommend someone doing it very often otherwise you will have a bad reputation. Looking back at the baker example, he probably should have just said, I’m to booked that week.

          • Hey, i thought it was y’all demoncraft elites that are aginst blacks. I have nothing rong with blacks Gay rights is just a extreme version of Bobbies who have gone coo coo

          • Actually I happen to be straight but it’s bigots like you that are the true enemy of this great nation

          • Lets see if we understand this? So we are to believe someone who is so stupid as to support and believe everything his master obamao does and says when they desperately attempt to convince us they are straight?
            I think the sad lonely little scombag homo TROLL, BloBB’s reputation is sealed by his past and current proclivity towards his homoerotic shame and disgust with himself. Interesting how he is so vehement when it comes to DEFENDING his QUEER lifestyle CHOICE and is so present on this topic??

          • My stand on the gay rights debates is this: That gays are mostly. God Hating Atheists, that being gay is a sin, and could be categorized as a form of adultery. It is not good for children . Gay is only one sin. There are many sins. And for the eamples of not eating unclean foods y’all Atheists give, that was a cultural thing according to the Apostle Paul that law is not longer valid for christians to follow.

          • I don’t think those opposed to Gay Marriage even begin to comprehend how offensive their bigoted homophobia is to most of us, whether Gay or Straight. The immediacy of the fundamentalist threat to science, education and human rights starkly demonstrates that the problem of religion extends beyond its inherent irrationality.

          • Now you know why BloBB the sad lonely little scumbag liberal homo TROLL gets so excited and up in arms on this subject because he identifies so well.

            the Blobb’s writing long essays here because he is so passionate and militant about queers and perverts rights. Does he actually think anybody cares what is said from one such as he who is so stupid as to support and believe everything his god and master obamao says?

            Q: Why don’t pink wigged BloBBies in W Hollywood wear short black mini skirts?
            A: Cause his balls show!

            See that pic here of BloBB>>>>>>> http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s327/AyRABhimself/Fatguy.jpg

          • Dyslexic gay BoBB is so excited for February 14th. He thinks it’s Vaseline Day!

          • Well, I dress her up like one! I bet your boyfriend is out with another guy & you’re sitting home alone of valentines day waiting for him to cum home so you can have “sloppy seconds”!

          • I have no boyfriend i am not gay!!! I have the most beutiful girl in the whole wide world as my girlfriend a girl most boys would like love to kiss but she is mine all mine!!!

          • HA!!!! Just because he wears dress doesn’t make him a girl. Face it, You’re a teabagging closet homosexual.

          • You are the kind of dude i protect my beautiful girlfriend from you would molest her!!!!! I love her and would die for her!!!

          • Don’t you mean that you dress your men up like sluts? Is that what you did with Charles Almon? Check out his/her picture. It has Bobbie written all over it.

          • Nope, Bob don’t like women, only boys. But that’s not saying Bobs boyfriend isn’t a slut.

          • >>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
            HOW DO YOU GET A FAGGOT BOBBY TO F**CK A WOMAN??
            <<<<<<<>>>>>>
            <<<<>>>>>
            <<<<>>>>
            <<<<<>>>>>
            <<<<>>>>
            <<<>>>
            <<>>
            <>

            <>
            <<>>
            <<<>>>
            <<<<>>>>
            <<<<<>>>>
            <<<<<<<>>>>>>>
            <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

            A: TAKE A $HIT IN HER c*nt

          • FYI, ONLY closet homosexuals think it’s insulting to be called gay. I just happen to be straight. You really need to take a deep look at why your obsessed with gay sex & come out of the closet. Your life will much more fulfilling & I assure you that it will come as a surprise to nobody that you’re gay

          • Walter and that transvestite, Charles Almon seem to have genuine affection for you, Bobbie. Let me guess, a menage et trois relationship? I’ll bet your butt gets a workout every day.

    • Ahhhh, the most racist anti-gay bigot on the internet accuses others of the same . . . is that so you feel better about yourself? If so, I doubt it works for long.

      Reply

    • How many limp wristed girly boys have you been married to, Bob. I’ve heard that your nickname is “Bottom Bobbie”.

      Reply

  2. Judges making law again, no surprise.

    On a side note, and not being a wiseazz here, but is that a chick holding the sign above? Ir is that Bob?

    Reply

      • Reagan was amazing. Even the Pro-regressives reference him frequently in a positive light . . . . trying to make correlations to themselves that just don’t hold water.

        Reply

        • You dipshits would call Reagan a RINO & run him OUT of the gop!!!
          1) Reagan was a serial tax raiser.
          2) Reagan tripled the federal budget deficit
          3) Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously
          4) Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants
          5) Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
          6) Reagan did nothing to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.”
          7) Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.
          8) Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act
          9) Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden
          10) Reagan was a “peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “my dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.”

          Reply

          • Again, more nonsense from the most racist and anti-gay poster to ever grace the pages of the internet.

            Giving credit where credit due . . . the ‘Bobber’ (verb) is consistently inconsistent and pervasively dishonest . . . nothing more going for him though.

            Hey, Bob, shot any dogs lately?

          • Nonsense??? It’s ALL historic FACT. What is it with you people that you reject facts???

            1) As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.

            2) During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

            3) Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

            4) Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

            5) Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled

            6) As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

            7) Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

            8) Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

            9) Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

            10)

          • Just because Reagan did things we wouldn’t consider conservative today, doesn’t make him a bad president, nor does it mean he wasn’t the closest to a conservative president we would like to see today. Heck, I didn’t like 75% of Bush’s policies and actions, but was a heck of a lot better than Gore or Kerry.

          • I never said Reagan was a bad president. I said if Reagan was alive today the tea party would run him out of GOP as a RINO. As far as Dubya goes… He has the WORSE economic record of ANY president since Hoover. Brought the world wide financial system to the very brink of the abyss + he lied us into a war that he underestimated the cost by OVER $3 TRILLION (and put on a credit card) so it’s difficult to imagine ANYONE doing a worse job

  3. Copied from:

    THE HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO

    By Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary.”

    “The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.”

    “All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.”

    “If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your
    cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.”

    No need for me to comment, it’s self explanatory.
    There is a lot more, easy to find on the web.

    Reply

        • Oh OK then…The Congressional Record…that’s different then (giggle). I believe that was the big kettle of crazy before Al Gore invented the internet.

          Reply

          • “In 1987, the Gay Manifesto was published by Michael Swift in the Gay Community News on February 15-21, 1987. It was also interjected into the Congressional Record showing that Congress is well aware of this content.”

            Have a good life Walter, you deserve it.

          • 1987…that was a good year…but it was 27 years ago. Last time I checked, the world hadn’t ended. I suggest you find something more important to worry about. Anyway, thanks for the good wishes & take care.

          • Don’t fret, at my age there is nothing to worry about so I’ll leave the worry to you. Makes no sense to continue this conversation though, ridicule and ridiculous answers seem to be your only capable response.

            Sayonara

          • I didn’t really mean it that way. It’s just that there’s no fact-checking. The Congressional Record is just that-a record of congress proceedings. Any member can say pretty much whatever they want & it goes in there. It’s interesting but not necessarily a source of facts.

  5. I have no qualms about gays doing each other or living together however, I do believe that marriage should be reserved for a man & a woman. Some of the main reasons for marriage was to legitimize the relationship with the church, which gays cannot do, and to give a legitimate name to the children which gays, without help, cannot do.

    Reply

    • Given that the U.S.A. is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion about civil and societal laws. In order to legally marry there is absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony to be held. marriage is not a religious institution but a socio-legal one governed by the state. Religious beliefs about marriage should never be enshrined in laws in ways that restrict the freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.There are many married straight couples who cannot biologically have children or who choose not to. The procreation argument ignores the fact that people marry for a wide range of reasons unrelated to procreation, including love, friendship, and companionship.

      Reply

  6. These judges who rule by leftist agenda need to be remove from the bench. The gays do not need to be married. Two of the same sex kissing is sickening. These perverts will never be normal.

    Reply

  7. You people remind me of the Denver Broncos in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl against Seattle. The game’s over and you lost-badly. The big difference is that The Broncos lost with class & dignity.

    Reply

    • Forget it, GOD never loses. He will wait until he is sickened beyond endurance and then, everybody will know that he is GOD, HE is the CREATOR, HIS WILL, WILL BE DONE. There will be no doubts, at all. All you fools, who choose to disregard HIS WORD and belittle HIS people, will be gathered together and punished, in a very unusual way, to the world, at least. and all at once when HE delivers you to this special place; that HE made just for you, the exotic name of this place is “HELL!”.

      Reply

      • God sickened???? If God exists, then he is immutable. If God exists, then he is all-loving. An immutable being cannot be affected by events. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist BTW, when will you learn that threating an atheist with hell is like threating an adult that tooth fairy won’t give you money if you loose a tooth

        Reply

      • I believe god is sickened more when Food Stamps for children are cut by conservatives, but I won’t be drawn into a theological argument. This is about freedom, which you folks claim to love so much. This is why the blood of patriots is spilled, and the fact you are against this basic right makes a mockery of all your arguments. You are nothing but theocrats and I’m tired of the lot o’ya. But at least you amuse me.

        Reply

        • The fact that you would stand on the graves of dead hero’s to promote gay marriage is disgusting to say the least.

          Reply

          • My father was a history professor and if he knew how ignorant people like you are about history he’d be spinning like MC Hammer in his grave. You folks obviously need the basic version so here goes. Why did the Pilgrims flee Europe?…to move forward. Why did we fight for independence?…to move forward. Why did we put down the Confederate Rebellion?…to move forward. Why did we defeat Hitler & Hirohito?…you guessed it; to move forward. Ya see, America has always been about moving forward, and you folks who want to take us backwards will always be defeated. But hey, you can always move to Russia or Iran, where you will be welcomed with open arms. For a little while.

          • if you see all this as moving forward aka the destructive and degeneration of our moral society more power to you

          • I see you have drunk so much right-wing kool-aid that logic or reason no longer have effect on you. So here’s the deal. Show me one straight married couple that has been adversely affected by the allowance of gay marriage. Or show me one religious organization that’s been forced to perform a gay wedding against their wishes. Not 100 or 50 or 10 or 5…one. Do that, and I will believe you…and get off this board. Knock yourself out.

          • Places like bakeries are already getting sued for refusing to make cakes for gay weddings, so do you really think we’re that far away from churches being forced to go against their beliefs and marry gay people (even tho a gay couple could just find a liberal church)? And if you dont think that the destruction of the family unit doesn’t impact everyone, you’re in serious denial.

          • Yeah I didn’t think you could do it. And I know about the bakery deal; it’ll be an interesting test case as to whether sexual orientation is covered under the same civil right statutes as race, creed gender etc. At any rate I’m sure it will go all the way to the Supremes and take years. By that time the rest of this battle will be essentially over-with your side losing of course. And married couples will continue raising children the way they have for thousands of years despite your jeremiads about societal armageddon.
            Anyway I am off to give blood now so enjoy your weekend buckman. And do try to get out more; it’ll be good for ya. Who knows what you might learn?

          • That’s Britain dude. Last time I checked we weren’t subject to British Law. You know, that whole American Revolution thing. Not that some attention seeking doofus might not try that here. But the courts wouldn’t allow it. A religious institution as defendant would likely prevail on religious liberty grounds. As they should by the way.

          • If our administration would enforce the laws we have (DOMA), we wouldn’t have this problem.

            And for clarification since I’m askingfor law to be enforced on a rreligious issue, marriage was religious until the government intervened and made it its business.

          • http://usconservatives.about.com/od/churchstate/a/Should-The-Government-Get-Out-Of-Marriage.htm

            End Federal Involvement in Marriage?

            Conservatives usually believe that government involvement in anything tends to make matters worse. Indeed, marriage may be no exception. Once upon a time, the government had an excuse to be involved in marriage. In order to “promote the general welfare” it was believed that promoting marriage would lead to more family units and strengthen the welfare of the country. In fact, it was once more advantageous to get married and have children than to not. But as marriage becomes less and less religious-based, and as government no longer even promote the benefits of marriage, a question arises: why is the government involved in marriage at all? This is the key question. What good purpose does government serve in being involved in marriage in the first place? The original goal of promoting the family unit has long been kicked to the curb. The welfare state is so large, that it is actually disadvantageous to get married. Perhaps the best equality is leaving the issue alone.

            Require Contractual Equality

            Indeed, the most mutually-agreeable solution to the marriage debate could simply be for the government to withdraw their involvement. Instead, return the matter to religious or private institutions and allow governments to do little more than ensure that people can enter into any form of contract they want. If a church wants to set up their own guidelines for marriage, then let them. Most churches would undoubtedly be traditional in their interpretation. Others might be fine with gay marriage. Either way, removing government would remove the problem. Couples have long changed their names, owned property together, and held “marriage” ceremonies even if they weren’t sanctioned by the government. The world did not end. In fact, no one really lost sleep over it. Perhaps the governments involvement should be little more than allowing any person to enter into any contract with anyone else they want. End the subsidies and penalties and end the favoritism and special-interest bargaining.

          • Interesting idea, but totally impractical. There are too many people in all sides of the issue makin’ hay for government ever to dis involve itself. Like I said in another post, everyone loves big government when it’s promoting their agenda! It’s better to keep this discussion in the real world.

          • I never said it was practical, just a vision. But this would never have had to happen if government would have kept their position on religious freedom and separation of church and state had they not involved themselves in a religious institutions practices in the first place.

          • One thing I don’t think the founders ever planned for was the amount of money in the political system these days. You’ll never clean up the system until you get the money out of it. The way the courts are going on this issue you’d need a Constitutional Amendment that says “giving money is not free speech”. Talk about a pipe dream-that’ll never happen!

          • I don’t know how that has anything to do with what I said. I’m merely stating history and the government over stepping its bounds on its laws from the past. Merely saying that if they stuck to the laws of the founders, we wouldn’t be here today. And still shouldn’t be due to the DOMA still in effect, just the president refuses to enforce it.

          • One impossible vision deserves another is all I was trying to say. The Feds have been changing the laws of the past ever since GW (Washington, not Bush) left office. And DOMA? A mean-spirited, un American law that’s probably fully unconstitutional. It’s just that The Supremes lacked the cojones to say that. This time.

          • The only part that was ruled unconstitutional was the part where same sex unions (not marriage) didn’t receive the same federal benefits. Well, to appease the 1-2% that is gay, and those that actually do want marriage, that’s simple, especially since its dems that want more laws. Enact a law stating unions do receive the same benefits, and leave marriage to the religious institutions like it traditionally has. Both sides happy, marriage left to us, benefits to them, like they want. Is it going to happen? No, because the gay community wants to shove it down our throats and re-invent the wheel. But it’s still a proposal that could make a decent cease fire.

          • If you’re talking about changing Federal Recognition of both gay & straight marriage to something like civil unions, probably never happen. Too many piggies sloppin’ at the trough! By the time it could ever happen we will be decades down the road. Gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage and folks will be embarrassed this was ever an issue.

          • I know I won’t be embarrassed. It’s purely disrespectful. Government got it’s claws into something they lawfully shouldn’t have. It’s a trample on our religious freedom, and you applaud it as progress. And now, we look like bigots for not changing our religion to suit their desires, doesn’t work like that.

          • Not sure how allowing gays to marry in a civil society affects your religious liberty. It may offend you, but you don’t have the right not to be offended. That’s an argument the libs always make & it’s nonsensical.

          • While I commend you for admitting that I should be allowed to get offended, here is how it effects me. If you were a member of PITA, would you not see it as offending and, you might say, impacts your very way of life to see animals slaughtered and eaten and tortured, every single day in front of your face? Same thing with me. As long as our country and world continue on this slope of further disintegration of morals, sex, perversion, and corruption, then I will always continue to be offended and fight.My religion is my life, and the fact that it is being constantly pushed down, shut out, and stepped on, I will always be offended, because it does effect my every aspect of life.

          • I don’t want to put you down personally because I don’t know you. But I will say that if certain elements of the church would spend more time reflecting the light & love of Christ instead of whining about how badly you’re treated you would be better received. You want persecution? Go to the Muslim or Communist world & see real persecution. In other words, American Church, for your own good, grow up or shut up!!

          • I will admit, this worlds Christian churches, many of them don’t have the backbone to speak up. Same with many Christians. And I’m not “whining” about being persecuted. I take it as a badge of honor, I was just pointing out what it’s like. But I for one don’t go quietly, on the internet, or in public.

          • Every time the Church goes forth & does good in the community or the World, they win souls for Jesus. But every time they whine & kvetch they turn people off. Old as I am I have never seen an exception to either of these rules. By the way, are you really 21?

          • All still young. Your life is still ahead of you & you will learn & experience many things if you keep an open mind. But I’d say we already achieved the impossible: a civil discussion on last resistance.com. Have a great Sunday!

          • Or you know, the government could enforce its laws, like the DOMA. But I forgot obama and his ilk get to pick and choose

          • I seriously doubt your father had ANY idea how ignorant these people are. A professor teaches college & most of these dimwits were lucky if they made it through high school

        • No, God is sickened when lazy, commie liberals won’t get off their lazy butts and go out and work to support their children. He is sickened when he sees all of you leeching off the rest of us.

          Reply

        • It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

          Reply

  8. Ask yourself why such determinations concerning an entire nation (approximately 316 million people) are in the hands of a five Supreme Court justices? Hello!!!

    “…’There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.’ Alexis de
    Tocqueville12

    “The Supreme Court, composed of one chief justice and eight associate justices, with its power to not only judge the facts of any case but also to interpret, judge, and overrule any “law” passed by Congress (what Gary North described as “retroactive legitimacy to legislation”13 ), makes the Supreme Court the powerhouse or “big god” of this polytheistic system….

    “The power of the people of the United States of America and their representatives is subject to the Judicial Branch, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which is essentially immune from any kind of censure. The real power or sovereignty of the United States Constitutional Republic resides in a Biblically unqualified and nearly always Biblically adverse five to four majority. The United States government is ultimately under the control and direction of five lawyers. And why not? In 1787, it was predominately lawyers (thirty-four of the fifty-five delegates were lawyers) who framed the Constitution and gave ultimate power into the hands of their own trade….”

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian
    Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry and scroll down to Chapter 6.

    Reply

  9. The judge is probably a “queer,” if not, making that judgment is even worse, by knowing better, knowing that to GOD, this heinous act is an abomination. It being against GOD is reason enough for me to despise it.

    Reply

    • What’s funny is that you Jesus freaks are so homophobic when Jesus was most likely gay! Think about it…The son of God, a man that had the power to surround himself with hundreds of women choose 12 men to hang out with. 12 MALE Apostles.
      These 12 men all went by their full names. Nathaniel, Phillip, Andrew, Mathew, Thomas and so on. This is something that gay men are notorious for. If Judas was into vagina he would have gone by Jud. Mathew would have been Matt and Thomas would have been Tom.
      His first miracle of turning water into wine. Please, wine?! A straight male would have made that shit a beer and called it a day
      but Jesus had class and taste, he converted that H2O into Sauvignon Blanc Jerusalem Valley 26 AD. Poof!

      History states that he was a “craftsman” until the age of 30. Some say that this translates into a carpenter. But for the sake of my theory I am saying that a “craftsman” was really an interior designer.

      He was 30 and not married and in those days people probably got married at 15.

      He preached the importance of charity and loving one another. Powerful straight men start wars and pay for sex while their wives are at home with the kids.

      Jesus had the power to do anything that he wanted. If this man were a heterosexual male, the wrecker of everything scared he would have created a machine gun or the stock market. But the son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, used his heavenly power to heal the sick and give vision to the blind.

      Reply

    • The writing is on the wall if ONLY you morons could read!!! Since Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, a 5-0 record for gay marriage.

      Reply

  11. Looks like everyone loves big government. Libs want your wallet and Righties want to run your personal life. Guess big government is here to stay.

    Reply

  12. Even the animals know what sex they are and how to have sex. Homosexuals are un-natural, immoral and it is a sin. Every culture on the face of the earth for the last thousands of years have known this, except for a few like Sodom and Gomorrah, and liberal America.

    Reply

    • The problem with uneducated low information voters is they are misinformed experts! There are many different animals that have “gay sex’

      Reply

  13. Just another big ego Lib Judge thinking they have the right to make laws and stock it to the voters. Only thing that will stop this is getting rid of Democrats.

    Reply

Leave a Reply