Virginia AG files brief opposing same sex marriage ban-

I simply asked a question....who's liberty are we talking about? If you think that is a non sequitur or any other type of logical fallacy, I would have to conclude that you really don't understand fallacies

 

It is about Individual Liberty versus a Collective.

A collective (of any Body politic) is not Individual in Nature.

 

What is about individual liberty? Same sex marriage? Then you're for it? Jeeezzz man do I have to drag it out of you?

 

It is the topic of the thread. Only the right prefers to deny and disparage Individual Liberty for free, in the name of "morals" without any morals tests like there are drug tests.

 

OK I'll take that as an affirmation that you support same sex marriage. Have a good evening

 

Yes, I recognize Article 4, Section 2 in our supreme law of the land.

 

OK but that is a rather odd citation since it generally has to do with criminal and fugitive issues. Section one, regarding full faith and credit would be a better choice. Better yet, the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments and the equal protection clause of the 14th, since most if not all gay rights cases have turned on those citations and are likely to in the future.

 

Nope; it says what it means; unlike those of the opposing view.

 

I you say so

 

What else could it mean, but what it says?

 

It could be applicable to the marriage issue, especially if section 1, the full faith and credit clause were included. However, some legal minds think that is not the best argument and I don't know of any cases where it has been tried. Do you?

I would go with the 5th and 14th amendments. That says what it means too and more clearly. That is what has been wining the cases and will continue to win the cases to come.

 

It was ratified by the several States' in their sovereignty. It is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States.

 

So your saying that the original constitution carries more weight than the amendments? They were also ratified by the states, although in the case of the 14th it was under duress for the confederacy. Too bad. I'll go with what has been working and what continues to work. Let me know if you find a case that relied on article 4

 

We wouldn't have needed a Civil War or those amendments if our elected representatives had been more faithful in their execution of our own laws.

 

It would help if you took more time and effort to explain what you mean. Regardless, we're getting off topic . I stand by what I've said regarding SSM litigation

 

I stand by Article 4, Section 2 as a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States.

 

" Herring said his chief duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution."


I suspect most Virginians think his chief duty should be to defend the STATE constitution as the STATE'S attorney General.

 

State constitutions can't conflict with the US constitution.

 

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to delay its ruling striking down Virginia's gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.


The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court's order did not explain why it denied that request.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-wont-delay-gay-marriage-ruling

- - - Updated - - -

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to delay its ruling striking down Virginia's gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.


The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court's order did not explain why it denied that request.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-wont-delay-gay-marriage-ruling

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court turned away appeals Monday from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.

The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. No other state cases were currently pending with the high court, but the justices stopped short of resolving for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.

The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's review.

That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_5938854.html

 

30 states?.....a LONG time ago, those antipathetic to gay marriage rights told us that it would "have to be 25 states, half, or more....to see SSM become legal nation-wide".

Anybody remember that? I'll bet THEY don't want to.

 

Hey, where are all the trolls and bigots today? Under rocks and bridges I suspect.

 

Again, didn't they used to say "It has to hit 19 (or was it 25) states....otherwise it's just a fad and those states where it's legal won't be able to force the other 38 (25) states to obey it"????

 

This HAD to happen. Most people know that sexual-orientation and the associated relationships between human beings are integral aspects of human life; as such, they are weaved into the basic rights that the spirit of our Constitution protects.

And be certain that closed-minded bigots, many self-hating/down-low gays and homophobes... could/would generate any reason they could in their minds, to deny that basic right to those they wish to restrict.

I'm so happy that over the years many have shed bright and continuous LIGHT on the issue, so that things could be changed!!!

 

I don't really remember. States don't force other states to do anything. However a critical mass as we have now will turn the heat up