Virginia AG files brief opposing same sex marriage ban-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...5aa210-8431-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

Seems the formerly "Red State" Old Dominion State is going "Purple" or even "Blue" lately.

 

Have to say I was surprised when I saw this, but its another step in the right direction.

 

Excellent, indeed!!

 

Someone commented and said it nicely:

That is a fair and honest take on what the U.S. Constitution generally implies.

 

Marriages limitation to men and women has nothing to do with religion. Even in ancient Rome where homosexuality was celebrated, marriage was only between men and women.

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[53] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

That is nonsense. Religion may not be the ONLY reason behind some people's 'thinking' or 'beliefs', but it is certain that religion affects many view, laws and customs.

In America, there is an 'ongoing' discussion over how much (if any) religion should be imposed upon all; that's indisputable.

 

we have thousands of legally married same sex couples in this country, so the definition includes them now, like it or not

 

yep, when these nuts are caught they should be given the boot

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

 

Indeed and Amen!!

 

Here's where we ask dixon

"Okay, dixon, what IS the reason it is limited to men and women"

and dixon says "Procreation."

and then we say "Okay, so it should be restricted from a heterosexual couple who is infertile"

and dixon says "No"....and then comes up with another argument or changes the subject or anything rather than be able to explain why his rationale....isn't consistant.....except for he just doesn't want gays to get married and his "reasons" are just excuses.

 

Glad we got that out of the way, now we can move on

 

Appeal to tradition fallacy

 

As opposed to creating strawmen out of the religious, because you know, it is more fun for some to force others to do things, create harpy masturbatory ad campaigns, and cry to some judge-shopped justice than to make your case to the voters and avail yourself of the democratic process.

As for Virginia, the Supreme Court booted the Prop 8 case allowing for gay marriage because the state didn't defend the will of the voters. If the legislature is unsuccessful in changing the law to allow them to defend the case over the AG's refusal to honor his oath, then I expect the Obama-appointee to strike the ban, the 4th circuit court of appeals to overturn the trial judge, and the SCOTUS to not call up the case or call it up to clarify that the state law is the state law and controls in the absence of a compelling federal interest in the matter.

 

Civil rights aren't subject to majority vote.

Actually the inevitable ruling that SCOTUS will issue is nationwide legalization of same sex marriage.

 

Yes they are.

Well perhaps if Obama packs the Court with more lesbians, but otherwise I don't expect to see such a ruling in the next 15-20 years.

 

Of course they're not. That's why you keep losing in court.

I'll gladly wager any amount you can afford that scouts will strike down same sex bans in all 50 states by the end of the decade.

 

Yes they are, and I don't "keep losing in court" but if you are implying they "keep winning" then no, they really don't.

Would that be the Boy Scouts or the Girls Scouts? Can't decide if we will be wagering for popcorn or cookies.

 

Of course they're not. That's why you keep losing in court.

Scared? I would be to if I was on the losing side of history.

 

He USED to cite court cases...."oddly"...he doesn't want to cite any of the RECENT ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Not since Jim Crow got overturned.

 

Like I said in an earlier thread, the AG didn't run as being pro-gay marriage but changed his mind after winning (he voted for traditional marriage when it came up via referendum) and he has a duty to defend the state's laws, that's a big part of why we have an AG at all. He's an honorless man who won via a historically small margin of votes and he won't get re-elected.

 

I wasnt appealing to the tradition. Merely using the tradition to demonstrate the fact that the limitation to men and women isnt based upon religion.

 

You were appealing to tradition.

 

You dont comprehend the concept.

 

Course I do, that's why I keep pointing out your fallacies. Lol

 

What's it based on?

"Procreation"---dixon76710

"So you'd ban infertile heterosexual couples from marrying?"

"No, tradition allows for them to marry!"


Lather, rinse, repeat...ad infinitum.