West Virginians, who are anxious for legal guidance on the issue of same-sex marriage, should keep an eye on neighboring Virginia.   West Virginia U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers decided recently to postpone his decision in a same-sex case here pending the outcome of a legal challenge to the Commonwealth’s definition of marriage.

The Richmond-based U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals may have a decision before the end of the summer in a case where two same-sex couples challenged Virginia’s law that prevented them from marrying. The appeal comes from a decision earlier this year by U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen in Norfolk which struck down the prohibition.

Judge Allen compared the ban to an old Virginia law that blocked interracial marriage.  That was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967.

Marriage, the judge reasoned, is a basic civil right protected by the 14th Amendment, and that right is not limited to heterosexuals.   “Gay and lesbian individuals show the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Allen wrote.

Lambda Legal is representing three same-sex couples in West Virginia that now have their cases pending before Judge Chambers.  Lambda Legal attorney Beth Littrell believes what happens in Richmond will influence Chambers.

“If the 4th Circuit affirms the Virginia decision and says that same-sex couples have to have access to marriage, there is no justification, there would be no legitimate reason, that West Virginia would be able to put up an argument (against such marriages) that would hold up in court,” Littrell told me on a recent Talkline.

State laws against same-sex marriage have been falling like dominos since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the federal government must recognize them.   Just this week, A federal appeals court ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, making it the 21st consecutive case where the proponents have won in state and federal courts.

This is a meaningful change in our country where a founding principle guarantees an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness.  The courts have determined that marriage is  among those rights.  As Judge Allen wrote, people must be free from unwanted government interference to exercise that right, regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

 

bubble graphic

121

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Randy

    I agree with you Hoppy. I still want to rub your nose in the Redskins name change deal. I think you took it on the chin for that one more than any other commentary.

  • Shawn H

    Why are we even debating this? GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE! No more tax breaks for married couples. Why do we punish people for being single? Stop all gov benefits to married couples and this issue goes away. Then if you want to marry a pig and you can find a church to perform the ceremony, then have at it. The YOU live with the consequences and YOU stand before God on the day of judgement. All this is just the first step toward forcing Christian pastors to perform same sex marriages. That day is coming.

    • Neal

      Shawn, very good points. Pay no attention to JC, he likes to call people names without giving any rational points.

      Ok JC here's your cue to call me names too. Proceed.

    • Chuck Anziulewicz

      DEAR SHAWN H:

      No, Christian pastors will not be forced to to perform same-sex marriages. Muslim and Atheist and Jewish couples are allowed to marry, and churches have never been compelled in any way to provides services for them. Nothing is going to change when Gay couples tie the knot also.

      It's a moot point anyway, since (1) none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church, (2) couples have never need church approval of the church to obtain marriage licenses, and (3) there is a growing number of church who are more than willing to do the honors for Gay couples.

      • Shawn H

        To point #3, there are plenty of cake bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding, yet there was a shop in Colorado that was sued and lost.

    • J the C

      No it's not, you lamebrain.

      • Shawn H

        I know you are but what am I?

        Wow, you are really intelligent.

  • Chuck Anziulewicz

    What's the sound of several dozen talkradio fans' heads exploding?

  • Hop'sHip

    Hoppy: This is two consecutive commentaries where you have upset your "get off my grass" following. To make amends will take considerable Obama-bashing. Get to work! Or, maybe, take another vacation.

  • ???

    This should not even be an issue, marriage is between man and woman...... There should be no joining of the same sex at all, no matter what you want to call it. Yes we live in the land of the free, but there has to be laws set in place, you can not just let everyone do as they wish, look around you people we are in a mess we are dealing with stuff our own grandparents would have never even dream of. Dating+ Marriage = A Family , this only happens with one of each sex, no matter what anyone thinks a child needs both a dad and a mom to be part of their life, a man can not take a woman's place just like a woman can not take a mans place, we are different that's what makes this world such a wonderful place, you wouldn't ask a nurse to preform an operation that's why we have doctors . If we don't set some guidelines we may as we'll throw all law and order out, just let everyone do as they so please, because we are Americans, if we lived back when our forefathers lived this would not had even been an issue anyway, people would had knew better

    • J the C

      Wow, I didn't know gay couples threatened law and order. You're right, those people should "know better"...not!
      I remember about 40 years ago, Archie Bunker addressed the issue of gay rights by saying to the partner of Edith's lesbian cousin, "Why don't yous people stop that stuff."

  • Silas Lynch

    WoW! I copy and paste academic research from Yale University and you paraphrase information from Wikipedia.
    If it will convince you and you have a true desire to know the truth I will edit the Wikipedia article to be historically factual.

    Let’s make this quick—the “Barlow Translation” has nothing to do with the “treaty proper” that you are attempting to hang your hat on as proof we are not a Christian Nation. The translation was Barlow translating and entering the “receipt” into the record at which he translated wrong and it has mistakenly been printed as the “body of the treaty” for some unknown reason since 1797 ---- You know what, why bother mentioning the Italian Copy or the Spanish Copy or the even the Cathcart copy that none which of contain the quote you treat as the “holy grail” of Separation of Church and State.

    What would be the purpose of having two versions of the treaty, one for domestic consumption and the one for the belligerent party?

    • Jason412

      That information was copied from the exact same Yale University site.

      Look at you, now trying to backpedal and deflect. In your last post, you said there is no Article 11 in the Barlow translation. Your own source says there absolutely is an Article 11, in the Barlow translation, which is the official treaty on the books.


      "It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty."

      This is from literally the paragraph above what you copied.
      http:// avalon.law. yale. edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n6 (take spaces out of url)

      Second paragraph into "Barlow translation"



      How do you not understand that Barlow translated the entire Arabic treaty, and added the Article 11 in? The Barlow translation, as pointed out on your Yale University site, is THE version on the books in the US.

      Silas Lynch
      " The Barlow Translation entered into the official treaty book which would of been the text presented to both Adams and the Senate does not contain the infamous quote of"

      http://avalon. law. yale. edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp (take spaces out of url)

      This clearly shows the entire treaty, with Article 11, as translated by Barlow. Once again, that's the OFFICIAL treaty on the books in the US.

      When you thought the Barlow translation didn't include Article 11, it's all you mentioned, but now that you were wrong you want to bring up the other versions? Why do I not mention the other copies, because they are not the official treaty on the books, presented to the Senate and Adams.

      And here is a link for the James Mchenry quote

      www. forgottenbooks. com /readbook_text/Memoirs_of_the_Administrations_of_Washington_and_John_Adams_Edited_v2_1000556302/427 (take spaces out of url)

      I don't know how I could make it any clearer. I'll admit I was wrong to attribute the quote to Adam's, and wont do so again. But that doesn't change the fact Article 11 absolutely exists, absolutely was presented to the Senate and Adams, and is part of the official Treaty of Tripoli on the books in the United States.

      Sorry if this posts twice, it was moderated because of the links.

    • Jason412

      That information was copied from the exact same Yale University site.

      Look at you, now trying to backpedal and deflect. In your last post, you said there is no Article 11 in the Barlow translation. Your own source says there absolutely is an Article 11, in the Barlow translation, which is the official treaty on the books.


      "It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty."

      This is from literally the paragraph above what you copied.
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n6

      Second paragraph into "Barlow translation"



      How do you not understand that Barlow translated the entire Arabic treaty, and added the Article 11 in? The Barlow translation, as pointed out on your Yale University site, is THE version on the books in the US.

      Silas Lynch
      " The Barlow Translation entered into the official treaty book which would of been the text presented to both Adams and the Senate does not contain the infamous quote of"

      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

      This clearly shows the entire treaty, with Article 11, as translated by Barlow. Once again, that's the OFFICIAL treaty on the books in the US.

      When you thought the Barlow translation didn't include Article 11, it's all you mentioned, but now that you were wrong you want to bring up the other versions? Why do I not mention the other copies, because they are not the official treaty on the books, presented to the Senate and Adams.

      And here is a link for the James Mchenry quote
      http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Memoirs_of_the_Administrations_of_Washington_and_John_Adams_Edited_v2_1000556302/427

      I don't know how I could make it any clearer. I'll admit I was wrong to attribute the quote to Adam's, and wont do so again. But that doesn't change the fact Article 11 absolutely exists, absolutely was presented to the Senate and Adams, and is part of the official Treaty of Tripoli on the books in the United States.

  • DWM

    We are the United STATES of America. Why should the federal government be allowed to dictate to the states what state laws they can pass.

    Time for revolution and for the states to stand up.

    • J the C

      Oh, it's that pesky old constitution again. Every time the majority wants to trample the rights of some minority, some Judge brings up the Constitution.

    • Gary

      I agree with you. The states ought to be able to decide what they want. The liberal state of California voters passed 3 times that marriage is between a man and a woman only to have the liberal judges say no. The state of Va voters passed a law that marriage was between a man and a woman only to have a liberal judge throw it out. These liberal judges are now making laws and that seems illegal to me.The voters need to take the country back.

  • ?????

    Let creation answer this question for us all , go spend a day on a farm watch the cows, pigs, chickens, horses, sheep, and any other animal on this earth to see how things are to be, the answer to this augment is all around us if we open the eyes we have been given, so why drag this political party or that political party into issue all the time, why is this even a debate? I don't see cows, chickens, or pigs knocking down church house doors on Sunday mornings to get in. So there goes the religion debate that has also been drag into the issue, never seen a religious cow!!! Being humans is the whole problem here, leave it to us to screw things up

  • Cody

    My impending same sex marriage will not affect a single one of you.

    I can't believe this is even an issue. If people were so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, BAN divorces. That seems to be breaking up more marriages than allowing gays to get married.

    By the way, just an FYI... Those who make the noise and are most against it.. are often the ones sneaking out to parks to hook up with other closet cases. As can be seen by Larry Craig,George Rekers, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley and many, many more.

    So why don't all you anti-gay rights closet cases shut up and deal with your issues instead of sitting on your soap box trying to stop the rest of us who are happy and content.

    • J the C

      +1

    • Shadow

      Having been divorced, I wonder why anyone would want to bring a third party, the Government, into a good relationship. To me, it makes no sense and is just courting trouble. A good match doesn't need the Government to settle a dispute.

    • Neal

      Even though I'm not concerned about it affecting me, I am concerned about it affecting my children, grandchildren, and other loved ones in the future. The more Hollywood makes it appear as a 'normal' and accepted lifestyle then the more it will appear as a valid option to some people. I'm also concerned with the amount of violence, sex, and drug use pushed onto us by Hollywood. It's pretty easy to see what that is doing to society. Colorado.

      Nice move to label anyone who differs in opinion with you as a closet homosexual. Just because a couple dysfunctional people are in that mold most certainly doesn't mean all people are.

      • J the C

        Neal, you are misquoting Cody. Furthermore, what does Hollywood, sex, violence and drugs have to do with gay marriage. Finally, it is acceptable to most people, and what makes you think sexual preference is an "option"? Please educate yourself, or shut up!

        • Neal

          JC, it's only 'not an option' for those of you who are trying to justify your deviant lifestyle through some sort of make believe study. Ask yourself this question about your 'option': What would happen if everyone in the world took your 'option' of being a homosexual? The answer: the human race would cease to exist in about 80 years. There's your option.

      • Jason412

        Colorado is making millions and millions of dollars in tax money off something people would've been doing anyways and not paying a tax on it. What a horrible thing!

        • Fiscal Conservative

          I have read many local news articles from Colorado that say they aren't making the revenue they thought they would based on sales. Also lots of people are getting sick from hash laced food products. Also it appears most of the people outside of Denver and boulder don't much care for the legalization.

          • Jason412

            Fiscal Conservative,

            Maybe they didn't make the money they thought they would, but they made $3.5 million in marijuana tax revenue in January 2014. The first 40 million in tax revenue goes to building schools. Again I say, what a horrible thing!

        • Neal

          I'm not a fan of the theory 'they'll do it anyway so let's make it legal'. That line of thinking simply doesn't make sense. We have laws in place to protect society, not to be an enabler of a gateway drug. I predict Colorado will see a large increase in methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and other drugs.

          Just because something makes money does not make it a good thing. Prostitution makes money, would you like your daughter to go into that line of work?

          • J the C

            Yeah, and now Colorado has a law that says it's legal!

          • Aaron

            Fine bookman, I shall take your anecdotal comments as gospel. Drug use increases with legalization and marriage is a state issue.

            Now where's that eye rolling emoticon again?

          • The bookman

            Aaron,

            And as your endless back and forth with Jason412 has demonstrated in the past, the internet is full of studies that can be used to support any argument. I've read countless articles supporting both positions, each with their own set of statistics from studies performed by reputable sources. You suggested we research Portugal, specifically. I did. Nothing there to suggest in any definitive way that decriminalization reduces drug use. In fact, definitively, illicit drug use increased during the first 5 years of the decriminalization initiative. Each study supported that conclusion. After 2006, the spin on the statistics begin. Again, I don't think MJ leads specifically to other harmful drugs, but I also don't think Portugal is an example of that conclusion, as their focus was to stop incarcerating and treat substance abuse intensively.

          • Aaron

            http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

            There's also an article in Time based on this report that says, and I quote...

            "The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

            "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

            Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

            The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well."

            Perhaps my statement does not ring true but the data certainly does.

          • Aaron

            I'm not holding anything up as a model. Neal stated that legalization would lead to increased drug use my statement to him was that is simply is not the case.

            Years ago, I researched the topic for a college essay and found that by and large, legalization does not increase drug use. The only reports I could find to substantiate that claim was put out by the DEA and their numbers are sketchy at best, similar to the government numbers on Meth labs.

            Portugal, which did not legalize drugs but instead decriminalized consumption amounts 12 years ago, has not seen an overall increase of drug use and has in fact seen reductions in the use of many drugs, most notably heroin. It should be noted that Portugal provides extensive drug rehabilitation to those seeking aid, which I believe we should do in this country as well.

            What has increased is the reported use of Marijuana and Hashish, by about 3%. You may feel that invalidates my claims; I do not.

          • The bookman

            You specifically referenced Portugal. Their Decriminalization was across the board, and is being held up as the model, yet looking into the statistics drug use increases, and becomes an accepted part of society. Neal's assertion that MJ is a gateway drug to cocaine or heroin doesn't ring true to me, but neither does your assertion that Portugal's experiment has led to less drug use.

          • Aaron

            Bookman,

            I reac many articles that stated legalization increases drug use is well. Of course most of those were funded by organizations that had a stake in a continued drug war. If you look at the data collected in countries where legalization has occurred, there is no significant increase in drug use of illicit drugs.

          • Neal

            From an article on Spiegel Online's web site concerning drug use in Portugal since it was decriminalized:

            "The data show, among other things, that the number of adults in Portugal who have at some point taken illegal drugs is rising. At the same time, though, the number of teenagers who have at some point taken illegal drugs is falling. The number of drug addicts who have undergone rehab has also increased dramatically".

            That doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation for legalizing or even decriminalizing drugs to me.

          • The bookman

            Aaron,

            I've read more than one article that states it increased drug use, and that the claim of success is based on the statements of one man tied to the implementation of the program. Decriminalization of all illicit drugs cannot be a way forward here, although I have no problem with marijuana as it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both legal substances.

          • Aaron

            Research what happened in Poetugal when they decriminalized drugs.

          • Neal

            That makes absolutely zero sense. Link to the studies?

          • Aaron

            Repeated studies have shown that drug use actually decreases with legalization. Your theory has already been debunked.

      • Beekeeper

        Well Said!

    • Fiscal Conservative

      Just because I am against gay marriage, and am in favor of civil unions and taking marriage out of the federal lexicon does not make me a "closet case". To paint everyone with that broad of a brush show a lack of intellilectual effort. This issue truly doesn't effect me except its a tactic by the left to disquise other things they are doing that do effect most Americans. I don't have any gay friends, I don't have many gay acquaintances. We generally don't cross paths, or have similar interests. But to label me a homophone or closet case is wrong.

  • Neal

    Hoppy, if you're for 'marriage equaliy' then no doubt you're also ok with incestuous and polygamist people also being permitted to legally wed. Don't get me wrong, I hope marriage remains illegal for those two groups. But do you not see the hypocrisy here? Why is it ok to think that incest and polygamy are immoral and not worthy of marriage, yet if you think of homosexuality the same way then you are labelled a bigot? In my book all three are deviances whose followers should not be permitted to legally wed. Don't be surprised that in the name of tolerance incest and polygamist marriage will soon become legal, especially if Hollywood pushes it as they did homosexuality.

    • J the C

      Wow Neal, that's really some stupid garbage!

      • Neal

        JC, how about some rational logic instead of just calling something stupid. Although I'm sure it made you feel better to call me stupid. Glad I made your day.

  • WV Grad

    Whole states vote against same sex marriages and one judge can overrule the will of the people. This needs to change.

    • mntnman

      Entire states believed in separate but equal educations for the races -- judges overruled them. Entire states believed that blacks couldn't vote (or limited their ability, couldn't go to colleges with whites, etc.) Judges overruled them We have appeal processes. The ultimate decider is SCOTUS. So one judge isn't doing it. The legal system the Founders created in the Constitution is doing it.

      We the people don't get to discriminate or otherwise violate the constitution just because we vote to do so -- that's the point of the constitution -- to protect everyone from everyone else. You can't vote away some one else's constitutional rights. Example -- no state could by majority vote reinstate slavery. No state could, by majority vote, decide to have a state religion, or take peoples guns, etc,etc.

      Agree or not, judges decide what the Constitution means -- that's we way it was set up by our Founders -- its what they intended and agreed to.

      So, the majority doesn't get to decide what rights we have under the Constitution. The whole point of a Constitution is to set up rules we all have to live by. Unless, of course, we choose to amend the Constitution. But then that's another matter.

  • any major dude

    From the get-go I have thought this was a misunderstanding about the definition of marriage. It is in fact an institution of the state, and I assume there may even be some readers who were never married in a church at all. The state part involves death benefits, tax benefits etc., the church part is purely optional anyway. I agree that Republicans tend to blur the line between church and state and therefore find themselves in a bit of a conundrum about this issue, and Democrats tend to draw a bright line between the two institutions and therefore interpret marriage in an overly broad way. As a raging moderate, then, I would like to see civil unions for gays and lesbians, and leave the church decisions to the church.

  • mntnman

    A truly libertarian point of view, if ever I read one.

    My oldest brother is gay. He tells me it was never a choice for him. He tells me that it is the way he is. I remember from the earliest days (he is 3 years older than me) that he wasn't interested in girls. He had girls as friends, but I was too young to understand at the time -- in hindsight it appears that from his earliest days he was inclined to lean toward being gay. So, perhaps it is not a choice. But I don't really know either.

    My father was really old school -- he struggled with the issue -- but he never stopped loving his son. He always treated my brother with respect and love. But my brother never brought his partners around either -- I think out of love and respect for my dads struggles. Since my dad died, we have come to know his partner, and he is family, even though they never made the relationship legally binding. We care for him and treat him as a brother-in-law.

    Having said all that I have struggled too with the issue of marriage for same sex couples. Being Catholic, marriage is a sacrament -- a religious undertaking. Being an attorney, it is easy for me to look at the Constitution and understand why the rights of same sex couples are being violated. In a church, a marriage is NOT just a legal construct for two people to bind themselves to one another. On the other hand, a civil union is a legal construct. It is designed to provide not only a affirmation of the binding relationship between two people, but also give them the legal rights of a marriage. In the end, the only real difference between the two for those who are not religious may simply be a matter of semantics. There is a real difference for those of faith, though.

    While I suspect that the courts are going to eventually decide that marriage cannot be denied same sex couples, they cannot and will not require churches to sanction the marriages. So most same sex couples will get married, before a judge or other civil servant (undoubtedly some churches, limited as they may be will perform same sex marriage). And that will be that. Another step along our way.

    So what does it all mean for our society. It once again reaffirms our fealty to the principles in the Constitution, as painful as they may be to some, and as disruptive to public discourse as they may be. That is why I love my country. The right to life, liberty and happiness are not just words -- they are put into action, even when many object -- even when they appear disruptive to ordinary folks -- even when they cause us to change the way we view the world. Equal protection means just that -- freedom of religion means just that. We seem to find a way to manage both, while protecting both.

    While I may struggle with the issue, it is another day where I am proud to say I am an American -- our Constitution is not just words. It is the way we live in our society. All of us, each different. Warts and all -- even when we don't agree. And I think that's the way it was intended. And I am glad for that. And I am proud to be part of this special society.

    • Neal

      Mntnman, do you think it's ok for a brother and sister to get married? If not, then why is it not ok for me to think that two men should not get married?

      • J the C

        Neal, go to your local community college and enroll in a course that teaches logic and reason. That argument holds about as much water as a sieve.

        • Neal

          JC, see the line of reasoning above in this thread. Where are the holes in the logic? Are you saying it's ok to discriminate against some people and not others?

      • Aaron

        Genetic deformities occurr in incestuous relationships.

        • Neal

          Playing devil's advocate, if a brother and sister want to get married and are aware of the risks with their offspring, then why should you or anyone else deny them of their pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by the constitution?

          Ok, so what if the brother or sister are sterile? Will you still deny them of their constitutional rights? Hopefully you see my point. I'm only in favor of traditional marriage, but anyone who says incestuous relationships are not worthy of marriage but yet says homosexual relationships are worthy of marriage is a hypocrit.

          • Aaron

            I've been called worse.

          • Neal

            It's ok you'll get used to being called a bigot. It just takes a while.

          • Aaron

            It feels like more bunk.

          • Neal

            Still dancing and squirming I see. I bring up a valid argument and your only response is that it's 'bunk'.

            You my friend are a bigot, just like I am (apparently) since you don't think a certain group of people should be protected under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Now how does that feel?

          • Aaron

            I'm not dancing around anything other than I believe it ignorant to compare homosexuality and incest. You ask for a valid reason as to why we do not allow incestuous marriages and I gave it to you. In response, you offer up bunk. You are not against gay marriage, you are against homosexuality and I see no point in that argument.

          • Neal

            Aaron, you're doin a great job I dancing around the question because you know the answer doesn't bode well for your beliefs. I'm sure you'd make a great liberal politician!

            So strike 'pursuit of happiness' from my last post and insert 'equal protection'. Now what do you say?

          • Aaron

            Incest has been around probably longer than homosexuality and is rampant in the Bible. That's all well and good.

            As to the claim that it is constitutional, as there is no pursuit of happiness clause but it merely a part of the preamble, your argument that he is constitutional on those grounds does not hold water.

            Nice try though.

    • The bookman

      You write

      "While I suspect that the courts are going to eventually decide that marriage cannot be denied same sex couples, they cannot and will not require churches to sanction the marriages. So most same sex couples will get married, before a judge or other civil servant (undoubtedly some churches, limited as they may be will perform same sex marriage). And that will be that. Another step along our way."

      Would forcing the church to perform marriage ceremonies be a deal breaker for you? Courts are already forcing individuals to participate in ceremonies indiscriminately. I don't share the opinion that at some point in the future churches would be required to permit marriages of non traditional unions.

      • mntnman

        They won't. Freedom of Religion. Its in the Constitution.

        • Aaron

          Sadly, I disagree with that statement. I think eventually government will force churches to perform all state sanctioned marriages or perform none, which is why I favor eliminating churches being stripped of "the power vested" in performing marriages.

    • Aaron

      I agree, very well stated.

    • Renea

      Very well written! Thank you for writing it.

  • Abraham

    First you took away the stoning of those committing adultery. Now this.....

  • jay zoom

    if this Judge can't make a decision on his own what the hell is he doing in office.