RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court has struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled Monday that state constitutional and statutory provisions barring gay marriage and denying recognition of such unions performed in other states violate the U.S. Constitution. The Virginia gay marriage case is one of several that could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In February, U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban violates equal protection and due process guarantees. Lawyers for two circuit court clerks whose duties include issuing marriage licenses appealed.
The lawsuit was filed by two Norfolk men who were denied a marriage license and two Chesterfield County women whose marriage in California is not recognized by Virginia.
It looks like Virginia will be joining the 21st century in spite of its bad self and in spite of Bob Marshall and Ken Cuccinelli. That has to be good news for couples who simply want to be allowed to do what other couples can do–be legally married.
If Gay marriage is legal, why should we have government involved in marriage at all?
By this logic, ANY consenting adults, in any number and combination should be allowed to get “married.” There is no longer any societal need for government to be involved. All arbitrary societal limits are now null and void. Marriage is no longer necessary or, it seems, desirable for vast numbers of citizens to raise families, acknowledge legitimacy, relationships, or inheritance.
So…why have it? Taxes?
That would be a simple fix if we had commonsense tax laws. Either a flat tax on all individuals or a national replacement sales tax. The IRS would no longer have to worry about minor manners about marriage.
People who want to marry will. Those who don’t, won’t.
@Cargosquid
“By this logic, ANY consenting adults, in any number and combination should be allowed to get “married.” There is no longer any societal need for government to be involved. All arbitrary societal limits are now null and void. Marriage is no longer necessary or, it seems, desirable for vast numbers of citizens to raise families, acknowledge legitimacy, relationships, or inheritance.
So…why have it? Taxes?”
This began with Massachusetts, and it continues with Massachusetts:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/
I guess that polygamists feel their plural marriages are very real to them also. The first marriage is legal. The other ones are church marriages only.
Moon,
Please read the article. This marriage is quite legal, and recognized as such, via contract law. So, you have three people of the same sex, entering into a relationship that has been granted all of the legal rights granted to two people, and now one of them is expecting the “throuple’s” first child…think on that for a bit.
I guess there’s an argument that can be made that if the CDC’s recent study is accurate, the potential number of same-sex marriages that can happen are pretty low, because the numbers of gay and lesbian people in the US are low (less than 2%).
Their “specialist lawyers” have convinced them that their marriage is legal, and I suspect it wont be long before their is some test case for the governmental benefits that are supposedly tied to marriage, or better yet, a family court test case when one of the throuple decides to leave the relationship…visitation? Alimony? Child-support? SS Survivor benefits?…
I don’t see what difference it makes if they are really married or faking it. All those things could happen.
It’s a pretty steep hill to climb to defend these state marriage license grants to just certain types of people when we have an Equal Protection requirement in the Constitution. Of course, none of this has any effect on religious groups being able to define religious marriage as they see fit. That’s why I’ve always considered it kind of a yawn other than a few years back when liberals claiming to be conservatives marred the state constitution with the anti-marriage amendment. That was just gratuitous vandalism by people with no respect for either the state or the federal constitution. They had to know at the time it couldn’t be sustained legally. But it did get the “base” out for the November election. I guess the Fourth Circuit tidied things up today.
@Steve Thomas
Not sure how that could ever be verified….how many or what percent. Regardless, I don’t believe the threesome notion will survive the test of the courts. It sure hasn’t with polygamists. I see no difference in gay threesomes and polygamists. That is one step beyond what the threshold is right now. Down the road maybe. Right now, same sex marriage is still in the infancy stages. One step at a time.
Meanwhile, couples will continue to live in whatever arrangements suit them. They just probably won’t have the blessing of the state.
It is actually all sort of amazing to think that Loving vs Virginia was only decided in the late 60s.
From Wiki:
That is less than 50 years ago. Seriously folks. Before Loving, it was illegal to be married to a black person if you were white. The Lovings were married in DC if I am not mistaken. Virginia “officials” crashed down their door because they were cohabitating as man and wife. Scarey, aint it?
@Scout
That was its only basis also….to get the base out in an otherwise ho hum election. I found it offensive to both straight and gay couples.
From Don Shaw, candidate for 13th House of Delegates District (running against Bob Marshall)
*Excerpted from https://www.facebook.com/DelegateBobMarshall
“By this logic, ANY consenting adults, in any number and combination should be allowed to get “married.” ”
What “logic” is that? Society can’t set rules on marriage? I disagree. As to polygymy, we may or may not be fighting that out decades for now. But the issue ta hand has been homosexuality, and whether society accepts it as an inherent trait or wishes to discriminate against gay people, presumably to encourage them back into a closet.
“Marriage is no longer necessary or, it seems, desirable for vast numbers of citizens to raise families, acknowledge legitimacy, relationships, or inheritance.”
Right. This has already happened. Younger generations are aware of it even if older ones aren’t.
I don’t see much relevance in that threesome story. I could say that I’ve married my television; I don;t see why that would be a news story. My uptake from that story is that Child Protective Services may want to get involved. But no other aspect on what they’re doing is extraordinary or new or interesting.
My husband IS married to his TV.
I don’t see why they have relevance either.
Okay, the polygamy argument has been brought up. Now I’m waiting for the suggestion that people will want to marry their cats…
This was a good decision for Virginia.
Too bad the people of Virginia once again, had to wait for a court to decide right and wrong for them rather than making the right choice on their own.
That marriage act was an embarrassment. I wonder what impact the court decision will have against the straight people that it attacked?
I’m just pointing out that the polygamy argument is already being made, and once you open the door to changing the definition of marriage, the door is open. Do I think same-sex marriage will destroy society, such as it is? No. If the CDC study/census on homosexuality in the US is to be believed, same-sex marriage will impact less than 2% of all marriages in the states that currently provide for it. As long as the religious beliefs of certain denominations are respected, and churches aren’t forced to perform ceremonies, as long as the rights of small businesses, those bakers, videographers, dressmakers, etc. are respected, same-sex marriage will eventually achieve a level of acceptance commensurate with traditional marriage. However, I see the envelope being pushed constantly, polygamous marriages, “beta marriages”, “throuples”, individuals being married to multiple people at the same time, where a husband has multiple wives, and those wives married to multiple husbands, or wives, or husbands having husbands… Some will say “it will never happen”. 10 years ago, few thought same-sex marriage would happen either.
You know, I did think it would happen, Steve. In fact, I thought it would happen 15 years ago. I can recall getting in a rather loud argument with a gay man over this very topic.
I have always said it is really a civil rights issue.
As for forcing denominations to marry same sex couples, I agree with you. No denomination should be forced to perform a ceremony for same sex or opposite sex couples for that matter. As for all the accoutrements that go with weddings, I am not sure I can agree. Discrimination can’t be legalized. If I own a hotel and rent the ballroom out for wedding receptions, I should not be allowed to refuse rental to a gay couple any more than I should be allowed to let a black couple sit in the lobby or eat in the restaurant.
The door is theoretically open to polygymy. In fact many cultures all over the world promote polygymous marriage. I’m against it though.
The door is theoretically open to bestiality marriages. i’m against that too.
Theoretically, the door is open to pdophilic unions in future. There have been societies that promoted such unions (I believe some isolated tribes did within the last century). I’m strongly against that.
My fear of those things above is not such that i want to treat gay people differently than straight.
Polygamy is practiced all over the United States now. It is not illegal IF the participants do not try to legally marry more than once. If there is one legal marriage and the others are simply marriages recognized by a church, then no harm no foul.
The regulation is simply social regulation. Most polygamists don’t advertise their relationships outside of polygamist communities. Others frown on it.
Bigamy remains illegal.
@Censored bybvbl
Don’t forget Polyandry. Or sets of 3 or more of the same sex…….
Why the snide remark? Please tell me the limitations now on who can get married to whom.
Public policy should not interfere in marriage nor regulate other’s religious opinions about it. It is a personal/private religious matter. Society has a rational interest in defining households to simplify taxes and provide for the needs of children. We have no rational interest in regulating if households should be comprised of 2 adults or many adults. Our annual tax returns and corporate benefits plans are sufficient for declaring a person’s connection to a household. Only judgmental twits care who is having sex and how and whether it is with others inside or outside that household.
The only interest the state should have is age. I don’t think 14 year old girls being wed to 50 year old goats should be legal. I also don’t think 12 year olds same sex or opposite sex should be allowed to legally marry. I think we have to set some common sense limits here.
when I was a kid, people were always running off to some state that allowed early marriage. I hope that has all changed now. I can’t even remember where the marriage nirvanas of that era were. Becky Sue age 13 married her 16 year old cousin Tommy Joe…..you know what I am talking about.
@Cargosquid
These hypotheticals always have been used to discriminate against people in the past. Don’t let women in the service because their presence will effect unit cohesion! Don’t allow marriages between the races! Don’t let African Americans into the state university! All of this fear-mongering is usually politically based – or driven by fundamentalist religions. How many polygamist marriages do you expect? How many cats are capable of giving consent? A marriage ceremony can be both religious or civil or I don’t see churches being forced to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. Caterers might have a different problem.
Maybe the solution is to stop being such scaredy-pants and meet people who are no different than you except for what goes on in their bedrooms which is none of our business anyway if it’s consensual.
IOW, get rid of the marriage license completely. It no longer has value.
Speaking of religious interference, Virginia makes it a crime for a pastor to perform a marriage without a valid marriage license. Essentially the state regulates religious ceremonies. This seemed more restrictive on religious freedom than allowing same-sex marriages. Maybe someone can enlighten us on the dangers of allowing same sex households to register as a family. The fear that God will rain fire and brimstone down on us like Sodom and Gomorrah seems a lot less likely than global warming destroying us all.
Wish this stuff would stop ‘driving’ elections. And policiticians
I agree. Once it is settled law, perhaps it will die down. As long as politicians have the power to control who someone chooses as a life partner, there isn’t much hope for it not driving elections.
@Censored bybvbl
Discriminate?
Notice, I didn’t say that they could not or should not get married. I asked where the new line…the NEW DISCRIMINATION would be. So…again…. what is the new limit?
What is the point of a marriage license if the state has no interest in restricting it?
Proof of marriage which is critical for all sorts of things involving money now and in the future.
@Cargosquid
“Discriminate” is exactly what the DOMA did. I could marry in state. My gay and Lesbian friends had to go to California or Delaware.
If enough people want to bring up/legalize polygamy, let them make an issue of it. It should be considered rationally by an informed populace and not a bunch of demagogues who hope to profit from it by scaring the dimwits among us.
I still believe there should be an age limit for marriage just as there is for other contractual agreements and for buying liquor.
Moon, the Georgians used to run off to Alabama in order to marry younger.
Ah-ha! yea that’s it. I think you could marry at 15 if you were a Georgia girl. God only knows how young you could marry in Alabama back in the day.
It would have to be really good…
Nah. I’m gonna leave that alone..
I’ll ‘bite.’ Tell us CAT-o, what kind of cat would you marry?
The check on marrying cats and horses and dogs and sheep etc. is that almost all of these proposed feline, equine, canine, etc. brides is that they are under age.
Does anyone ever talk about “cat years?”
I think the state has right to not issue a marriage license to a guy and a cat if the cat is under 18. As long as there’s a human involved, we’ll use human years for both parties to the marriage.
@Ed Myers
“Society has a rational interest in defining households to simplify taxes and provide for the needs of children.”
That argument has been ruled null and void for purposes of marriage. When it was brought up concerning children, the gay community stated…..”oh….so only fertile heterosexuals should be allowed to get married?”
As for taxes, simplify the tax code. Or get rid if income tax and go to a national sales tax.
I’m glad Cargo returned to the point he started on this thread – tax issues. While I don’t quite see the link with state marriages that he does (I sort of see it, but it doesn’t leap right out at me), nonetheless, it’s never wrong to argue for a reform of our insane tax structure and I’m completely on board with Cargo’s idea of a flat tax or a national sales tax (assuming it replaces income taxation). Anything to make taxes simple, predictable, easy to calculate and consistent in application.
@Scout
Thanks.
One of the best features of the replacement nat’l sales tax is that it removes the intrusive powers of the IRS. Completely.
Too much equality. A national sales tax would quickly become very regressive for most of us.
@Moon-howler
Can’t have too much equality.
Income tax gives too much power to the IRS. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent in their eyes. The tax laws hurt our society and our politics.
Its worth some “regressive” taxes to take out that power.
Moon: The regressivity issue is a real one, but it can be managed by excluding foodstuffs, medicines, etc. My attraction to a national sales tax (or a flat tax) is its simplicity of administration and its focus on taxing consumption, as opposed to earnings or savings. Like everything else, it has its demerits, but the absolute joy of seeing tens of thousands of CPAs released into the world of real productivity just brings a smile to my face. In my old age, I pay almost as much to CPAs and lawyers to ensure that I am state and federal tax compliant as my starting annual salary many decades ago (part of this is because I have to pay taxes in six states). Simplicity and minimizing compliance costs are good things. I also strongly suspect that Cargo’s approaches (which I share) would result in high income/wealth individuals pay much more in taxes than they do under the current system.
What would that do to things like home improvement, dividends, and capital gains?
Flat tax would tax dividends as income, just as we do now. I’m not sure how one deals with capital gains under that system. A national sales tax would only tax consumption. OF course, this is all complicated because we have myriad taxing authorities in this country, not just federal. But, I assume Cargo’s initial comment was focussing on the federal system.
As far as a sales tax, I assume there are studies that explore whether a sales tax sufficient to raise the necessary revenue would have a depressing effect on the economy. There would necessarily be huge increases in the prices of goods.
I think we would still be taxed to death. I also think I would be worse off than I am now.
Tax policy can’t be approached from the standpoint of whether “I” would be worse off if x happens. One has to establish some principles that we can gather around. In my case the principles are fairness, simplicity, inability to game the system. The current system is absolute madness.
I was rather counting on old age allowing me to game the system. LOL
Who would vote for a candidate that offered up a tax plan that would screw you over? How would we even be able to assess that without some special calculator?
How would people who are living on 401ks and IRAS treat their “income” now? Would it be tax free? Talk about getting pinched badly…IRAs and 401Ks aren’t quite what they seem by the time you start getting nailed on taxes.
And the irony is, we had a system that worked well – had reduced the deficit down to near zero, and promoted growth. Then we the people voted (albeit by a 47.9 to 48.4 margin) to change it up, to vote in a candidate who promised to change it all up.
And everyone got tax breaks – a chicken in every pot.
And now people sit scratching their heads – Mitt Romney wonders why half of people don’t pay Federal income tax, and we all see the size of the deficit and try to invent reasons other than the obvious as to how it grew. Duh.
Have e had a major change in the tax laws in recent years?
All candidates promise change. Very few can produce it.