Skip to main content

Same-sex couple Steven Jones (C) and Jamous Lizzotte (R) pose for a photo by Doug Emerson (L) as they wait to receive marriage licenses at the City Hall in Portland, Maine December 29, 2012. REUTERS/Joel Page
Up next, Virginia.
Late Thursday night, a federal judge struck down Virginia's gay marriage ban as unconstitutional, in an eloquent rebuke to inequality:
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. [...]

Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become abroader, more diverse family than once imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen stayed her ruling while opponents of marriage equality appeal it. Those opponents will once again not include Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who decided shortly after entering office not to defend the state's marriage ban.

State bans are falling one after another; Wright Allen:

... joined a so-far unanimous group of federal judges considering a question that Supreme Court justices left unanswered in June in their first consideration of gay marriage: Does a state’s traditional role in defining marriage mean it may ban same-sex unions without violating the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians?

All have answered that the reasoning the court used to strike part of the Defense of Marriage Act-- which forbade federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in those states where it is legal--means states cannot defend the marriage bans.

Clearly this question is on its way to the Supreme Court. In that journey, the Virginia decision has special resonance since it was in Loving v. Virginia that the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967; Wright Allen began her opinion with an extended quote from Mildred Loving.

Though the decision is stayed, I think we can safely predict a wave of Valentine's Day marriage proposals.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Virginia Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Civil Marriage is considered (27+ / 0-)

    To be a Civil Right.  NM Supreme Court.

    Children deserve the right to be raised in Civil Marriages and the Free Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution demands that every State recognize All Marriages in every State.

    My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

    by NM Ray on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:37:29 AM PST

  •  Kudos to Judge Allen (15+ / 0-)

    for, as you say, an eloquent statement.  You could almost put that to music.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:37:36 AM PST

  •  It would be better if this came from legislature (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, Inland, Aunt Pat

    But with the wingnuts in control of one house, this seems unlikely.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:39:30 AM PST

    •  I don't think so. (15+ / 0-)

      Leaving up to legislatures and popular votes sends the signal that it's ok to vote on other people's rights.  These opinions eloquently explain otherwise.

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:52:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Courts can't be relied upon as sole protectors (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Pat, mconvente

        of rights, decisions which strike down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, etc. are perfectly possible.  Note that this decision was stayed -- a law passed by the legislature wouldn't be.

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:01:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  At this point, courts are all we have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mconvente

          Because of the voting in of so many Constitutional Amendments at the state level, we really have to fight this through the courts, as it will be difficult and expensive to overturn those state-by-state.

          ...joined a so-far unanimous group of federal judges considering a question that Supreme Court justices left unanswered in June in their first consideration of gay marriage: Does a state’s traditional role in defining marriage mean it may ban same-sex unions without violating the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians?
          This really the key to the Supreme Court - the unanimity of decisions in the federal courts since the Windsor decision. When that and the Prop 8 case were being decided, pundits rightly predicted the Court would punt on Prop 8 because the Court does not want to be in front of the states. We've gotten nearly all the states we can that don't have anti-gay hate amendments in their Constitutions, so these rulings from those latter states are vital to demonstrate to the Court that opinions have changed enough they can risk the big decision, which they're all but poised to make.

          A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

          by CPT Doom on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:12:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just get one of these cases to the SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

            so they can affirm that any two people can be joined in a marriage, which must then be recognized by every state.  This is not difficult; there is no reasonable argument against it.  The "we've never done it like this before, and I don't like it" is not a reasonable argument.

            "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

            by SueDe on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:48:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Laws are frequently stayed by courts (0+ / 0-)

          when challenged, as in the case of numerous abortion and voting right restrictions at this very moment. Opponents have gone around legislatures and courts to get bans on the ballot, and those measures routinely end up in court, with routinely stayed decisions. All of this is SOP for protecting minority rights, both of the good guys and the bad guys.

          We have to get all four branches of government on board in order to make a decision by any one of them stick: legislatures, administrations, courts, and especially We the People. I diaried this in The Constitution as Catch-22 last year.

          This is a plain fact, easily observed in such cases as the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act from Congress, and Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, and Griswold v. Connecticut from SCOTUS. The racists and misogynists have not given up, and so we still have to go back to Congress and the Courts over and over and over while we work on public opinion, mostly of young people who are falling away from the old hatreds by the million.

          In the case of Marriage Equality, the people moved ahead first, nationally, and administrations, legislatures, and the courts are playing catch-up.

          • The courts are lining up now, with a steady string of victories behind us since Iowa in 2009, and lawsuits demanding full Marriage Equality under way in more than 20 states. This means that SCOTUS will have to take a case on the full question at some point, and take about a year to deal with it.
          • Nationally the argument among the people is over, with our majorities continuing to increase. In 2009 Nate Silver projected that the people of Mississippi and Alabama would be the last to come aboard, perhaps by 2024. When FiveThirtyEight.com reopens, which is supposed to be fairly soon, Silver may reconsider those numbers in the light of vastly more data gathered since then. We should definitely ask him to.
          • The next time Democrats take the House, whether this year or in conjunction with the 2016 Presidential race, they can clear up a number of remaining issues, such as ordering states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states under the Full Faith and Credit standard of the Constitution. I don't know whether they will do that, but we can and should demand it. Some state legislatures will attempt to delay, obstruct, and obfuscate for a few years more. We are still fighting against HJR 3, a proposed Constitutional amendment, in Indiana.
          • The Feds are entirely on board, and moving forward on the details. Holder has just announced that DoJ will enforce Federal marriage rights in all states, regardless of state Constitutions and statutes. (A number of Federal agencies have been treating couples based on the state that they live in, not where they got married.) That leaves many questions of state-level marriage rights, and many state administrations still in opposition.

          Our Federal Representative Democratic Republic is a messy business, but it has been making considerable progress over more than two centuries so far, and looks on track to accomplish much more, if you go by the state of public opinion on all of the major issues we face. It is only the filibuster, the gerrymanders, and the frequent pseudo-Conservative SCOTUS majority that stand in the way. We know how to deal with all three.

          This is the way the GOP ends
          This is the way the GOP ends
          This is the way the GOP ends
          Not with a bang but with GOTV.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:55:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (8+ / 0-)

        This is clearly a Constitutional issue.  If we left it up to state legislatures to vote, we'd probably still have segregation.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:44:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It always is, but the USSC decision on DOMA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf

      made the litigation much quicker than legislation.  It's something of a no brainer now to the fed courts.

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:49:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Particularly since Scalia said quite plainly (0+ / 0-)

        that the logic of the DOMA decision quite clearly points to full Marriage Equality.

        You know how they say that a stopped clock is right twice a day? Well, a clock that runs backwards is right four times a day.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:57:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Full Steam Ahead to Equality (7+ / 0-)

    I can't wait to change my signature line one day soon.

    Disappointed that the decision was stayed.

    Since the State of Virginia won't defend it, why delay the inevitable?

    One by one the States are being rebuked for their divisive and unconstitutional laws...

    Hello Kansas?  Are you listening?

    Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

    by skip945 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:40:17 AM PST

    •  Stays are very nearly automatic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skip945

      on contentious issues certain to be appealed. All the opponents have to do is remember to ask in proper form. Utah forgot to ask, and got more than a thousand equal marriages before they could figure out that the trial court wouldn't issue a stay, and the appeals court couldn't, so they had to ask SCOTUS.

      Right now every stay issued is another domino set up on its end in line together. If these appeals are dealt with promptly, as some plaintiffs are requesting, with decisions in this spring, SCOTUS will be faced with decisions in multiple circuits in time for its autumn session. It will have to decide either to let those decisions stand, having effect only within the Tenth and Fourth circuits, or to take them all and decide for the whole country by June 2015. If they punt, we get Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia this year. If they take the cases, we have a good chance for equality everywhere next year, because the arguments now being made in many cases are directed precisely at Kennedy, the swing vote on SCOTUS.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:11:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hurrah for marriage equality! (12+ / 0-)

    And thanks to the new Democratic Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring, for refusing to defend the ridiculous ban.  One day Virginia, too, will become civilized. And like Massachusetts, we'll enjoy an upsurge of business--catering, florists, venues, musicians, photographers--you name it!

    Having seen what even a "small" wedding (67 guests) involves, I can only think the marriage industry in this state will be greatly enriched.

    As will the happiness of Virginia's citizens, of course. Equal "rites" for all is my motto.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:40:42 AM PST

    •  We had to go from Texas to NY to get married... (7+ / 0-)

      and we dropped a pretty penny in NY to do so.

      I would have spent even more in Texas, but the talibangelicans control everything here...

      So NY now has tens of thousands of our money when Texas could have had even more...

      Amazed that Nevada has not been fighting for marriage equality since their economy could widely benefit from it...

      Oh well... religious zealotry does weird things to people.

      Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1

      by skip945 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:44:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nevada is fighting for equality. (4+ / 0-)

        Sevick v Sandoval is before the 9th Circuit. The State won't defend its ban any longer. Last year the legislature passed the first of the bills needed to put repeal on the ballot in 2016.

      •  Well, Texas rejected the Medicaid expansion money (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Diana in NoVa, ivorybill

        Never let it be said that Teavangelical neo-Confederates ever turn down an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. It is just too bad about them shooting everybody else in the foot at the same time.

        Still, the demographic inevitabilities tell us that Texas will turn blue one year. Here is how to plant Texas bluebonnets, from an expert at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center.


        You want to have a site that has great drainage, full sun, and is not too fertile.
        Sounds like we're good.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:21:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Nominee gets it right (11+ / 0-)

    U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen was nominated by President Obama in 2010.

    This is just another reason Senate Republicans are blocking judicial nominees every step of the way. There are 117 current and future vacancies in the federal courts out of 874 total - 13%. The President needs to get these seats filled with diverse, progressive judges ASAP.

    http://judicialnominations.org/

    Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

    by bear83 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:44:43 AM PST

    •  We haven't seen a single LEGAL argument that (8+ / 0-)

      Supports these bans on gay marriage. Not from any state. All they have is superstition & hate.

      •  I've thought about this a fair amount (4+ / 0-)

        And I think that you are factually right.  The argument in favor is direct and compelling. The argument agains? I honestly don't see any legal argument that is not fundamentally (pun intended) based on a particular theological point of view. I can't find a federalism argument that makes sense, given settled law for straight marriage or child custody. There's not a viable interest of the state in controlling reproduction or insisting that marriage is linked to reproduction. There's neither an anthropological nor historical argument to be made that this is somehow something new - too many exceptions over time and a vast range of cultures.  There's no longer a feasible case to be made for moral approbation, since one can't cobble together anywhere near the consensus that same-sex relations are immoral that exists, for example, that public nudity is unacceptable.  If I were to support the other side, I'm really challenged to find a single argument.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:57:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  when this does get to the supreme court, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          I'm really curious to see which way Roberts goes. We know that Scalia and Thomas will do back flips to come up with some kind of argument. Not so sure about Roberts.

          •  Roberts may vote (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bythesea, turn Virginia blue

            for a constitutional right to marriage equality, given the emerging national consensus.  But he has a very rigid personality and I think he may well vote the other way based on an argument that communities have the right to decide what is, and is not, morally acceptable behavior... Roberts is not reflective enough to realize or accept that this is a theological argument, because of his own religious and emotional rigidity.  Scalia came right out and said it:  teh gay is creepy and people have a right to condemn it.  Roberts is more subtle, but he's probably coming from the same place. I think it will be hard for him to construct the federalism argument, so he may go with community standards of morality and even infringement of the government on religious rights.

            Roberts is a bit of a politician though.  I think he is a thoroughly despicable human being, but he also cares a lot about not discrediting the court in the eyes of the public - which is what will eventually happen if the court rules against a civil rights movement that clearly has the wind in its sails. He needs to preserve the court's credibility and legitimacy in order to pursue his corporatist agenda, which is really what he is all about.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:53:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It would be a difficult argument for Roberts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill

              to make on the infringement of religious rights since there is no argument coercing religion to approve or administer same-sex marriage rites.  I haven't come across any compelling argument that a state government has an overriding interest in the marriage equality question either.

              "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

              by SueDe on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:03:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think Roberts is terribly sympathetic (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mconvente, sfbob, ivorybill

            but wouldn't be shocked if he voted with the majority in a coming Loving level decision for his own legacy reasons. I also would be too shocked if he dissents based on "states rights."  We'll just see.

  •  LOL I was refreshing the page (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skip945, bythesea

    just as my eye noticed benuski's diary on the right margin

    wait!  i thought...  stop! stop!  what did that say?  I want to see that diary!

    as I reached for the mouse to hit the back button, I saw this at the top of the front page!

    hurray

    this ship has definitely sailed.  only the bigots refuse to recognize it

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:44:51 AM PST

  •  Surely? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, CPT Doom, ivorybill

    Just for a moment, suppose none of the circuits overturns one of these district court decisions and suppose further, that none of the circuits allow a lower court opinion supporting a state H8 law to stand, how does this issue get to the Supreme Court?  I am beginning to wonder whether Justice Kennedy's opinion in Windsor wasn't a clever way to achieve marriage equality throughout the country without having to have the Supreme Court rule on the question.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:54:10 AM PST

    •  Yes, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivorybill

      SCOTUS could deny cert if there is no conflict among the circuit courts.  Of course, the 5th Circuit hasn't weighed in yet.  But even then, one predictable circuit out of many may not be enough.

      Of course, that means only the States within a specific circuit would be affected.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:10:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK will always fight it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, mconvente

      I think we can count on the wingnuttiest state to ensure at least one of the bans gets to the SC.

      A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

      by CPT Doom on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:14:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill

        If the Circuit Courts feel bound by Windsor, I'm not sure any of them can approve any of the bans, and even if one does, what's the Supreme Court going to do if all of the other circuits support them.  When Loving came down, only 13 states had bans of one kind or another on interracial marriage.  If we get to a similar place with regard to marriage equality, with only a handful of states prohibiting it, mightn't the Supreme Court feel more comfortable striking down the remaining bans than it would have striking down bans in a solid majority of the states?  

        "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by jg6544 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:25:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  IIRC the equivalent happened in Canada. (0+ / 0-)

      They achieved nationwide equality without a nationwide ruling via all the "Circuits" agreeing.

  •  Headlines like this (5+ / 0-)

    always hit my "happy" spot. I smile and smile and smile. I don't know why it means so much to me; I'm a married heterosexual woman. But it does. You can't have equality and treat people like trash simply because of who they are and how their bodies are wired.

  •  Ken 'Cuckoo' Cuccinelli's worst nightmare (3+ / 0-)

    Welcome to the new GayVirginia, Mr. ex-Attorney General. Enjoy it.

  •  Ari Waldman has an excellent analysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, ColoTim

    ...over at Towleroad, and raises a very interesting point about what's to come:

    The Supreme Court may indeed rule on this case eventually. In fact, a ruling might be forced upon the justices. Marriage equality cases were just filed in Louisiana and Texas, both part of the deeply conservative Fifth Circuit. If a decision at that appellate court upholds marriage discrimination, then there would be a split among the circuits, assuming we also get an appellate court to reject marriage discrimination either in the Fourth Circuit or the Tenth Circuit or elsewhere. That split would basically require the Supreme Court to address the issue head on. Stay tuned.
    •  My comment below just noted the fourth (0+ / 0-)

      may be the circuit court to reject the argument and affirm the status quo.

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:16:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Appeal to Fourth Circuit, once infamous for being (0+ / 0-)

    stacked with conservative appointees, now with six Obama appointees out of sixteen, according to Wiki.  We'll see; this could set up the conflict between courts that puts it in the USSC.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:13:56 AM PST

  •  The fundie heads are already exploding (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayBat, Sandino, bythesea, ColoTim, sfbob

    "Leave us alone!" -Mike Capuano

    by Christian Dem in NC on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:27:38 AM PST

    •  Heh. The guy's right about that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CPT Doom, sfbob, BobBlueMass

      However, she did quote Scalia's dissent in the decision striking down DOMA, which is always fun.

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:39:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can't wait til Kennedy cites it (0+ / 0-)

        That will the moment of ultimate schadenfreude for those of us in the equality  movement: Kennedy saying, basically, "hey Tony, you were right!" Oh the heads that will figuratively explode at that point.

        And unlike Roe v. Wade, there will be little the rightwing can really do once marriage equality is the law of the land. Sure, they can keep finding small business people who area appalled at having to serve "that kind" and might even get a few more laws passed like one the Kansas House just passed (although even there the Senate appears to have some more rational minds), but they can't exactly protest at our weddings - that will make them pariahs even faster than they are already becoming.

        A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

        by CPT Doom on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:19:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Speak of the Devil (0+ / 0-)

          and Westboro Baptist Church appears. Well, that does rather support your point.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even Westboro doesn't picket weddings (0+ / 0-)

            Which is a bit strange, because you typically have way more warning for a wedding than a funeral, but I think even they realize how horrible they would look.

            A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

            by CPT Doom on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 01:50:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We haven't had same-sex weddings (0+ / 0-)

              in Topeka yet, but the upcoming Tenth Circuit decision will include Kansas. I don't see how WBC can resist. Their stated rationale for picketing funerals is that the deaths in question represent God's wrath. Actual "sodomites" marrying right there in town will take the work of the Devil to a whole new level.

              But it will be fine with me if they do resist the temptation.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 04:47:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I knew one of them would seize on it (0+ / 0-)

      However the preamble of the Constitution is essentially a paraphrased version without the more provocative language of the declaration of independence.

  •  A gay friend in Virginia posted on Facebook (9+ / 0-)

    this morning a long litany of why today was a good day starting with marriage equality in Virginia and ending with the fact that there were donuts in the office when he got there this morning.

    I commented with: "Donuts and marriage equality, what more could a man ask for?"

    He responded with: "That, ladies and gentlemen, is the gay agenda."

    :)

  •  Good news, to be sure (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, ThinkerT, bartcopfan, BobBlueMass

    but I'm always troubled when people who should know better confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

    It was the latter document that used the clause

    "all men are created equal"

    It's the US Constitution that guarantees "equal protection under the law."

    I know, it's a quibble, but shouldn't we expect government officials to know the difference?

    •  Exactly what I was thinking (0+ / 0-)

      That struck me as well when reading it and googled it to make sure.

      It's harmless enough, but if I know enough for that to raise a question with me, it's a bit surprising that a judge doesn't.

      "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

      by ThinkerT on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:36:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ha ha--damn! I only needed to scroll up 1 comment (0+ / 0-)

      to have seen you already made my point!  

      (Never fails--if I don't scan the comments first....Oh well, great minds, etc.)

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:00:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Loving vs Virginia (6+ / 0-)

    and once again, Loving for the win!

  •  God lord... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, VirginiaBlue, librarisingnsf

    Could you a judge do anything more beautiful than opening an Opinion on equality in Virginia than to quote Mildred Loving. Just wonderful.

  •  I'm just looking forward to "We the People" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobBlueMass, librarisingnsf

    being more important than "The consolidated corporations of the United States of America".

    Corporations are not people.  They're made of people, but those people should be the only ones able to vote, to speak and to throw dollars at politicians.  Because corporations spending money on politicians is corporations buying influence.

  •  As a Virginia resident, I am so proud! (0+ / 0-)

    Elections DO MATTER and anyone who says otherwise is absolutely clueless. I worked my butt off during these past November elections, helping to elect Gov. Terry McAuliffe (now, we will be getting Medicaid funds), Lieut. Ralph Northam (who cast the deciding vote in the Va. senate to repeal the ultrasound bill-yeah, I know it won't pass in the House but this is still sends a strong message) and now, Attorney General, Mark Herring, who has actively chosen not to defend Va.'s horrendous anti-gay "marriage amendment" in court. Mark Herring won his race by only a tiny handful of votes so to all of you folks who think elections don't matter and that your vote does not make a difference, just look at Virginia!

    There will be other votes where our Lieut. Gov. Ralph Northam will be casting deciding votes that will make or break future legislation that matters a lot to us.

    If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

    by VirginiaBlue on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40:54 AM PST

  •  Semi-minor point, but I'd hope a federal judge (0+ / 0-)
    Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal....
    would know that the Declaration of Independence--NOT the Constitution--is where that famous phrase appears.  

    If I'm going to ridicule Teabaggers, etc. for (not knowing) it, then we have to mind it, too....

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:57:39 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site