There comes a time in every argument where one side must
give way to the other; either out of common sense, or self-preservation. As
regards the arguments for; or against; gay marriage, that time has come.
There is a scene in the docudrama “Adams” in which David
McCullough has Benjamin Franklin stating that; in regards to the colonies being
free; the time had come to state the obvious, that these colonies were not
asking for freedom, rather they were declaring it to be a fact.
The recent decision by the Eastern District Court in Norfolk
by Judge Arenda Wright Allen; in which she stayed Virginia’s new law banning
gay marriage; going so far as to draw upon the Declaration of Independence to
arrive at her decision ignores the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not considered
law. But this seems to be of no concern to the Judge as she tramples upon the stated
wishes of the voters in her district. Which is not to say that this issue is one which should be up for a popular vote to begin with.
Let me state right here that I don’t care who marries
who; and my marriage never needed the “protections” offered by Bill Clinton’s DOMA;
an absurdity unto itself. But to celebrate; as they are in Virginia and
elsewhere; this decision, as a victory for anybody is a farce. I’ll explain.
Look at the article below, which I have reprinted from
the Associated Press. You can check it at the link below the article for
accuracy. Tell me if you find any reference to the judge’s misnomer in citing the
Declaration of Independence as a source for her decision. Then look below at
the text of her actual decision and tell me why that is not in the news reports.
And, if you don’t know why it’s important I’ll tell you.
People are celebrating a STAY of a law. This is not an
automatic win. Coming, as it does, after 57% of Virginians voted for the ban,
is inflammatory and does little to ease the divide in relation to an already
controversial issue. As a matter of fact it does the opposite.
Moreover, it distorts the very foundation of the law our
society rests upon; the United States Constitution. So, what would I
do? That’s simple. I’m with Benjamin Franklin. Rather than continuing this divisive
voting on an issue which is a Civil Right; and as such is not subject to a Popular
Vote; why not declare it what it is; a Right and be done with it?
In short, you have people celebrating a non-existent
victory over a STAY, which is founded upon a document which has no legal merit in
court, of a law approved by Voters who really have no legal basis to decide a
Civil Right. I am not making this up- and, if I did; I hope that you would not
believe it. I can hardly believe it myself.
Other than making judges appear to be fools, and voters appear
to be bigots; why not recognize that; just as you cannot vote to disenfranchise
an African-American, or a Woman from marrying the person of their choice; regardless
of color; the same right is inherent for all human beings?
The only reason I can discern is to keep us all divided
upon a social issue, and thus ensure that the power remains with those who
already hold it. I urge you to call Judge Wright Allen at her chambers in
Norfolk and ask for an explanation about that Declaration of Independence
thing. Here’s the number;
1-757-222-7013 Tell ‘em Robert at Rooftop is still
waiting for an answer.
A 1st for South:
Va. Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
NORFOLK, Va.
February 13, 2014 (AP)
By BROCK VERGAKIS
Associated Press
Associated Press
In a first for the South, Virginia's same-sex marriage
ban has been overturned, with a federal judge ruling that the voter-approved
amendment is unconstitutional and declaring the move "another moment
history when We the People becomes more inclusive."
U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen on Thursday
issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in
Virginia still won't be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved.
Lawyers for the clerks in Norfolk and Prince William County who defended the
ban are expected to file the appeal, which will be heard by the 4th Circuit
Court in Richmond. It could uphold the ban or side with Wright Allen. If the
4th Circuit sides with overturning the ban, it too could issue a stay while the
case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both sides believe the case won't
be settled until then — or until the high court rules on a similar case.
Wright Allen's decision echoes recent rulings elsewhere
in the U.S. and is the strongest foothold yet in the South for the gay-marriage
movement. On Wednesday, a judge declared that Kentucky must recognize same-sex
marriages performed in other states, but didn't rule on the constitutionality
of whether such marriages can be performed in the state.
The office of newly elected Virginia Attorney General
Mark Herring took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes
the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In her
ruling, Wright Allen agreed.
She struck down the three key arguments offered for
denying gay marriages.
"Government interests in perpetuating traditions,
shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of
parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that
ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding
love and family," Wright Allen wrote.
She also wrote: "Gay and lesbian individuals share
the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate
loving, intimate and lasting relationships."
Wright Allen's stay was requested by the Virginia
Attorney General's Office to avoid a situation like what happened in Utah when
a gay-marriage ban was declared unconstitutional. More than 1,000 couples were
married in the days after the ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
state an emergency stay, creating a cloud of uncertainty for their status. Soon
after, a federal judge also declared Oklahoma's ban unconstitutional. That
ruling also is on hold while it is appealed.
In a Valentine's Day news conference, the two couples at
the center of a Virginia case said that while the decision has been stayed, it
brings them one step closer to marriage.
"The saying here is Virginia is for lovers, and
truly we are experiencing that today in a way that we never have before,"
Carol Schall said. She and Mary Townley have been together about 30 years. They
married in California in 2008 and have a teenage daughter. The couple wants
Virginia to recognize their marriage.
Timothy Bostic — who was denied a marriage license with
Tony London by the Norfolk Circuit Court on July 1, shortly after the Supreme
Court struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — said the judge
in this case "gets it."
"She understands why we're doing this and how
important this is to us, and anyone that believes in the ideals upon which this
country was founded can't help but understand," Bostic said.
Adam Umhoefer of the American Foundation for Equal
Rights, which sponsored the challenge for the plaintiffs, emphasized the
message the ruling sent to the South. "Today in places like Birmingham and
Biloxi, Chattanooga and Charleston, gay and lesbian couples know that equality
isn't just something that happens up north," he said.
Supporters of the state ban on same-sex marriages issued
statements decrying Wright Allen's ruling.
"It appears that we have yet another example of an
arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the
General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters," said Tony Perkins,
president of the conservative Family Research Council.
Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for
Marriage, called the ruling "another example of an Obama-appointed judge
twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of
marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia."
In a movement that began with Massachusetts in 2004, 17
states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage, most of them
clustered in the Northeast. None of them is in the old Confederacy.
Opponents of the Virginia ban say the issue resonates in
Virginia in particular because of a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision
involving a Virginia couple and interracial marriage.
Mildred and Richard Loving were married in Washington,
D.C., and lived in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged
them with violating the state's Racial Integrity law. They were convicted but
prevailed before the Supreme Court.
During verbal arguments in the gay marriage case,
Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said that ban is legally
indistinguishable from the one on interracial marriage. He said the arguments
used to defend the ban now are the same ones used back then, including that
marriage between two people of the same sex has never been historically
allowed. Wright Allen concurred with that assessment in her ruling.
"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often
rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples
the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial
marriage," she wrote.
In defending the law, the attorney for the Norfolk clerk
said the issue is best left for the General Assembly and the voters to decide.
Attorney General Herring, in a news conference Friday,
said his decision not to defend the ban was "consistent with the rule of
law."
"Although this process is far from over, it remains
a great day for equality in Virginia," he said.
Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with
federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.
