Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   4th Circuit: Virginia is for lovers, even same-sex lovers   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 100
    More: Spiffy, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 10th circuit, Defense of Marriage Act, opponents of same-sex marriage  
•       •       •

2177 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jul 2014 at 7:43 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-28 05:59:11 PM  
But some of those same-sex lovers probably aren't interested Virginias...
 
2014-07-28 06:25:36 PM  
It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.
 
2014-07-28 07:45:26 PM  
Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.
 
2014-07-28 07:46:50 PM  

Paris1127: But some of those same-sex lovers probably aren't interested inVirginias...


It wasn't that good of a joke, but it's even worse now that I had to fix it...
 
2014-07-28 07:47:44 PM  

rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.


Ha good point how many circuit courts have yet to rule on this?
 
2014-07-28 07:49:14 PM  
udge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized. "Only the union of a man and a woman has the capacity to produce children and thus to carry on the species," he wrote. Because the right to same-sex marriage is not "deeply rooted in our Nation's history," Niemeyer believes the court has erred by conflating it with "marriage" as he more narrowly defines it, noting that it could lead to recognition of other types of relationships, such as "polygamous or incestuous relationships."

You know this is pretty mostly the  same argument used against interracial marriage.

And guess what Judge I know a lesbian couple with two children and I know many hetero couples without them.

And since your not banning all people who can't have children, seem like your argument is a bit of BS.
 
2014-07-28 07:49:50 PM  

rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.


yeah it's pretty much now - So another one? Meh.
 
2014-07-28 07:51:50 PM  
I wish they'd change it back to History Lovers
 
2014-07-28 07:52:15 PM  

Corvus: udge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized. "Only the union of a man and a woman has the capacity to produce children and thus to carry on the species," he wrote. Because the right to same-sex marriage is not "deeply rooted in our Nation's history," Niemeyer believes the court has erred by conflating it with "marriage" as he more narrowly defines it, noting that it could lead to recognition of other types of relationships, such as "polygamous or incestuous relationships."

You know this is pretty mostly the  same argument used against interracial marriage.

And guess what Judge I know a lesbian couple with two children and I know many hetero couples without them.

And since your not banning all people who can't have children, seem like your argument is a bit of BS.


As Dan Savage has said on several occasions, "Nothing is impossible for God, so I'll keep inseminating my husband."
 
2014-07-28 07:54:55 PM  
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that sound you heard is the inevitable 5-4 USSC decision upholding same-sex marriage bans nationwide and all but plagiarizing Niemeyer's dissent whole-cloth to do so; and possibly also enacting a nationwide ban just to spite liberals.

/unless Alito or Scalia die before Obama leaves office
 
2014-07-28 07:55:44 PM  

Corvus: rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.

yeah it's pretty much now - So another one? Meh.


This is only the second appeals court ruling, which makes it exciting. The ruling also covers Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina.  North Carolia's attorney General is not going to fight the ruling, which also makes it exciting politically.

/I have vapors.
 
2014-07-28 07:55:47 PM  
What's amazing is that the anti- folks still cling to the same, tired arguments they always have. "Slippery slope to incest and turtles! Procreation! Argh!!"
 
2014-07-28 07:55:53 PM  

Paris1127: It wasn't that good of a joke, but it's even worse now that I had to fix it...


Most of the time with typos like this my mind fills in the word or reads the misspelled word correctly.  I didn't even notice the typo until you pointed it out, fwiw.

That's why I tell folks at the printing company I work for that, when proofing, read through the paragraph backwards.  It sometimes catches things you might not see otherwise.
 
2014-07-28 07:55:56 PM  
The majority similarly rejected the clerks' other arguments regarding history and tradition, protecting the institution of marriage, encouraging responsible procreation, and promoting the optimal childrearing environment

Because if it's one group of people who procreate irresponsibly, it's the gays.

Seriously, who makes these brain-damaged arguments?
 
2014-07-28 07:57:05 PM  

Serious Black: rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.

I'm happy that Fark appears to have completely run out of witty headlines to announce the latest ruling. This is, what, 29 in a row since Windsor?


And we haven't even gotten greens for the two Florida circuit court rulings in Monroe and Miami-Dade that are now working their way to the state supreme court.
 
2014-07-28 07:57:55 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-28 07:58:12 PM  

Prey4reign: Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.


Maybe, but I'll bet Idaho will be the very last to fall in line.
 
2014-07-28 08:00:11 PM  
And of course, there will be a stay, until the Supreme Court hears the case, meanwhile, the Supreme Court will do everything in their power to not hear the case, because some of the members are intellectually honest enough to admit that constitionally they have to vote for marriage equality, even though they don't like it, but hey, push it off for a few years, and maybe the constituion will get ammended.,
 
2014-07-28 08:00:38 PM  

pottie: Prey4reign: Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.

Maybe, but I'll bet Idaho will be the very last to fall in line.


That really makes me wonder, which state will have the honor of being the last hold out of sexual bigots?

Some say Texas, others Kansas...
 
2014-07-28 08:01:35 PM  

Some Coke Drinking Guy: And of course, there will be a stay, until the Supreme Court hears the case, meanwhile, the Supreme Court will do everything in their power to not hear the case, because some of the members are intellectually honest enough to admit that constitionally they have to vote for marriage equality, even though they don't like it, but hey, push it off for a few years, and maybe the constituion will get ammended.,


Actually, I take my own comment back, it seems more likely that there is a judge on the left, siding with the conservatives to not hear the case, because they know that so long as marriage equality remains unsettled, the Republicans will not be able to win major elections.
 
2014-07-28 08:02:05 PM  

rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.


25 in a row.
 
2014-07-28 08:03:46 PM  

Heliovdrake: pottie: Prey4reign: Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.

Maybe, but I'll bet Idaho will be the very last to fall in line.

That really makes me wonder, which state will have the honor of being the last hold out of sexual bigots?

Some say Texas, others Kansas...


All we know is...
 
2014-07-28 08:11:05 PM  
The Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage nationwide next term as a distraction from several other horrible rulings that further destroy the middle and lower class politically and economically.
 
2014-07-28 08:12:28 PM  

Heliovdrake: pottie: Prey4reign: Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.

Maybe, but I'll bet Idaho will be the very last to fall in line.

That really makes me wonder, which state will have the honor of being the last hold out of sexual bigots?

Some say Texas, others Kansas...


I honestly don't think it will be any of the states everyone expects.  By and large, these changes are coming through the judiciary, and the more hard-line a state is, the more likely a gay couple will file suit against the ban.  If the bans were being overturned by state legislatures or popular referendum, I'd bet on the extreme red states too, but as it stands, it'll probably be one of the more moderate states.
 
2014-07-28 08:21:50 PM  

King Something: Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that sound you heard is the inevitable 5-4 USSC decision upholding same-sex marriage bans nationwide and all but plagiarizing Niemeyer's dissent whole-cloth to do so; and possibly also enacting a nationwide ban just to spite liberals.

/unless Alito or Scalia die before Obama leaves office


Unlikely. This Supreme Court has followed public opinion when it comes to most social issues
 
2014-07-28 08:22:06 PM  

King Something: Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that sound you heard is the inevitable 5-4 USSC decision upholding same-sex marriage bans nationwide and all but plagiarizing Niemeyer's dissent whole-cloth to do so; and possibly also enacting a nationwide ban just to spite liberals.

/unless Alito or Scalia die before Obama leaves office


Nope. Kennedy is pro-gay rights. It's at a minimum 5-4 now. And honestly, it's the sort of thing where Roberts would bully the conservative wing into signing on to get a 9-0 opinion, because this is one that his name will be attached to for the next century.
 
2014-07-28 08:23:51 PM  

AcademGreen: The ruling also covers Maryland


not really, as Maryland legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
 
2014-07-28 08:24:45 PM  

Heliovdrake: pottie: Prey4reign: Slowly, but surely, this nation is coming to its senses.

Maybe, but I'll bet Idaho will be the very last to fall in line.

That really makes me wonder, which state will have the honor of being the last hold out of sexual bigots?

Some say Texas, others Kansas...


Last Gay Standing
 
2014-07-28 08:28:22 PM  

Corvus: udge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized. "Only the union of a man and a woman has the capacity to produce children and thus to carry on the species," he wrote. Because the right to same-sex marriage is not "deeply rooted in our Nation's history," Niemeyer believes the court has erred by conflating it with "marriage" as he more narrowly defines it, noting that it could lead to recognition of other types of relationships, such as "polygamous or incestuous relationships."

You know this is pretty mostly the  same argument used against interracial marriage.


There's another one that they haven't yet raised, but was prominent during the civil rights era - interracial children will be the victims of teasing by other children, so therefore, we have to ban marriage to keep them from existing and suffering.
 
2014-07-28 08:29:57 PM  

Theaetetus: King Something: Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that sound you heard is the inevitable 5-4 USSC decision upholding same-sex marriage bans nationwide and all but plagiarizing Niemeyer's dissent whole-cloth to do so; and possibly also enacting a nationwide ban just to spite liberals.

/unless Alito or Scalia die before Obama leaves office

Nope. Kennedy is pro-gay rights. It's at a minimum 5-4 now. And honestly, it's the sort of thing where Roberts would bully the conservative wing into signing on to get a 9-0 opinion, because this is one that his name will be attached to for the next century.


I don't think there is anything that could convince Alito and Scalia to vote in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.
 
2014-07-28 08:34:22 PM  
I wonder what the last state will be. This is more exciting than collecting those state quarters.
 
2014-07-28 08:42:20 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
This was the map as of Loving v. Virginia. Red states were forced to change as a result of the decision. Everyone else had already repealed their laws.

Here's the current same sex marriage map:
upload.wikimedia.org
Dark red have constitutional bans, red has a statutory ban. The yellow and browns have rulings abolishing the bans that are currently stayed, so, for our purposes, count them as equivalent to the red states in Loving.

So, other than Arizona, Utah, Nebraska, and the northern cattle country states, we're almost at the same map.
 
2014-07-28 08:48:52 PM  

Tax Boy: AcademGreen: The ruling also covers Maryland

not really, as Maryland legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.


True.
 
2014-07-28 08:49:56 PM  

Theaetetus: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x136]
This was the map as of Loving v. Virginia. Red states were forced to change as a result of the decision. Everyone else had already repealed their laws.

Here's the current same sex marriage map:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x247]
Dark red have constitutional bans, red has a statutory ban. The yellow and browns have rulings abolishing the bans that are currently stayed, so, for our purposes, count them as equivalent to the red states in Loving.

So, other than Arizona, Utah, Nebraska, and the northern cattle country states, we're almost at the same map.


What are the striped states in the second map, cases pending?
 
2014-07-28 08:51:29 PM  

AcademGreen: Corvus: rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.

yeah it's pretty much now - So another one? Meh.

This is only the second appeals court ruling, which makes it exciting. The ruling also covers Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina.  North Carolia's attorney General is not going to fight the ruling, which also makes it exciting politically.

/I have vapors.


I am also excited that NC won't be "last state standing" for bigotry.
/so it seems
 
Ehh
2014-07-28 08:52:02 PM  
The Freepers are still not budging. It's the downfall of America, lock and load, brimstone and pestilence...
 
2014-07-28 08:54:42 PM  
Must be a good time to be a family lawyer -- all those inheritance, property, life cycle things come a reality for more people and wills and codicils must be whipped into shape.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-07-28 08:55:37 PM  
Anyone with a GED in law care to explain whether/how this overrules NC's Amendment 1?
 
2014-07-28 08:57:19 PM  

Last Man on Earth: What are the striped states in the second map, cases pending?


Nevada is a constitutional ban + allows civil unions.
Ohio is a constitutional ban, but there's a (stayed) ruling allowing out of state gay marriages.
Wisconsin has a ban that has been declared unconstitutional, but also allows domestic partnerships with limited rights.
 
2014-07-28 09:02:38 PM  

IAmTheTagTeamChampions: Anyone with a GED in law care to explain whether/how this overrules NC's Amendment 1?


This effectively* overrules NC's Amendment 1 in that if any gay couple in NC wanted a marriage certificate and were refused, they could file a federal suit that would be bound to follow the circuit's precedent and declare the Amendment unconstitutional - i.e. if the district judge didn't find it unconstitutional, he or she would be instantly reversed on appeal and probably smacked around a bit.

*pending further appeal to SCOTUS, so really, it doesn't change anything... Said gay couple would file suit and the district judge could sit on their thumbs and stall until the appeal goes through.
 
2014-07-28 09:03:44 PM  
Given that this is Virginia, they're allowed to get married but oral and anal sex is still a no-no.
 
2014-07-28 09:04:31 PM  

Theaetetus: IAmTheTagTeamChampions: Anyone with a GED in law care to explain whether/how this overrules NC's Amendment 1?

This effectively* overrules NC's Amendment 1 in that if any gay couple in NC wanted a marriage certificate and were refused, they could file a federal suit that would be bound to follow the circuit's precedent and declare the Amendment unconstitutional - i.e. if the district judge didn't find it unconstitutional, he or she would be instantly reversed on appeal and probably smacked around a bit.


And even more so:
NC to stop defending marriage amendment
Following a federal appeals court ruling Monday that Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said his office would no longer oppose challenges to the state's constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
 
2014-07-28 09:05:59 PM  
Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, called the ruling "outrageous" and warned registers of deeds across the state that they could face criminal prosecution if they try to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"Anyone who believes that this decision in Virginia somehow strikes down North Carolina's Marriage Amendment is wrong. North Carolina's Marriage Amendment still stands, and no judge has found it unconstitutional," Fitzgerald said while attempting to roll a boulder uphill.
 
2014-07-28 09:12:20 PM  

Theaetetus: *knowledge*


Thanks!
 
2014-07-28 09:14:57 PM  

Corvus: You know this is pretty mostly the same argument used against interracial marriage.


Yeah, and what kind of backassward state would fight in the courts against interracial marriage?
 
2014-07-28 09:19:32 PM  
fabulous news
 
2014-07-28 09:36:08 PM  

tacos4jesus: AcademGreen: Corvus: rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.

yeah it's pretty much now - So another one? Meh.

This is only the second appeals court ruling, which makes it exciting. The ruling also covers Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina.  North Carolia's attorney General is not going to fight the ruling, which also makes it exciting politically.

/I have vapors.

I am also excited that NC won't be "last state standing" for bigotry.



Hunh.  I woulda put down good money on one of the Carolinas being the very last holdout.  Hey, I can still bet on Tennessee, right?
 
2014-07-28 09:37:28 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: rwhamann: It kind of makes me happy that this has become so commonplace that 4 hours after posting this (green) thread still only has one comment.

25 in a row.


In a row?

Hey, try not to legalize any gay marriages on your way to the parking lot!
 
2014-07-28 09:41:00 PM  

Theaetetus: Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, called the ruling "outrageous" and warned registers of deeds across the state that they could face criminal prosecution if they try to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"Anyone who believes that this decision in Virginia somehow strikes down North Carolina's Marriage Amendment is wrong. North Carolina's Marriage Amendment still stands, and no judge has found it unconstitutional," Fitzgerald said while attempting to roll a boulder uphill.


Did you add the Sisyphus reference at the end? If so, kudos.

I am starting to wonder why defenders of these bans think they're going to win. They must be really delusional to think Kennedy would vote against gay marriage, especially after what will probably be more than thirty consecutive rulings finding the bans are unconstitutional at that time.
 
2014-07-28 09:46:21 PM  

Serious Black: Theaetetus: King Something: Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that "same-sex marriage" is a new right separate from marriage between a man and a woman - a distinction that must be recognized.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that sound you heard is the inevitable 5-4 USSC decision upholding same-sex marriage bans nationwide and all but plagiarizing Niemeyer's dissent whole-cloth to do so; and possibly also enacting a nationwide ban just to spite liberals.

/unless Alito or Scalia die before Obama leaves office

Nope. Kennedy is pro-gay rights. It's at a minimum 5-4 now. And honestly, it's the sort of thing where Roberts would bully the conservative wing into signing on to get a 9-0 opinion, because this is one that his name will be attached to for the next century.

I don't think there is anything that could convince Alito and Scalia to vote in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.


I dunno about Alito - if he had to choose between Scalia and Roberts he could go either way. You're right about Scalia, though - the only way you'll get an aye vote out of him for gay marriage is if rigor mortis takes hold at just the right moment.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report