Federal judge strikes down Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

A federal judge issued a landmark ruling Thursday night striking down Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and moving the Old Dominion a step closer to being the first state in the traditional South where such unions are legal.

The 41-page opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled that the constitutional amendment and “any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia’s recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional.”

The ban will remain in effect while appeals are heard.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring, who announced the opinion Thursday night via Twitter, applauded the ruling but said he expected a prompt appeal would be filed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

“The decision is a victory for the Constitution and for treating everyone equally under the law,” Mr. Herring said. “It is the latest step in a journey towards equality for all Virginians, no matter who they are or whom they love.”

4 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • milmac says:

    The United States Constitution provides no special rights for anyone. We are all equal. In gay marriage you can not make a man a woman or a woman a man, but they do have equal rights. A marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is not in the Constitution, it is not in the Constitutaion, and it would be like Indian giving to “reserve to the states and the people” and then take it away because some idiot out there did not like it.

  • milmac says:

    What would you expect from a male called Arenda. What happened to the US Constitution that provides “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Amendment X has not been amended.

    1. awegweiser says:

      The Constitution trumps efforts by States to enact and promote bigoted, ignorant and biased laws, especially when they encraoch on the rights of individuals. That’s why DOMA was dumped by SCOTUS.

      1. Roberto Enrique Benitez says:

        Evidently you completely misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. As it was, the Framers thought the purpose, to restrict the powers of the “central” government, wasn’t clear enough so they had the Bill of Rights adopted before they would ratify the Constitution. However, I take it you’ve never read this portion of the Constitution.

        “Congress OF THE United States
 begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

        THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

        RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

        ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”

        The Constitution doesn’t trump itself despite your erroneous assumption, hence it as the supreme law of the land can’t override the 10th Amendment or any of the others, although over the years none save the Third – so far – are intact, despite what some judges might desire and enforce, ultimately at the point of a gun. Of course if a State were to first use Jefferson’s concept of nullification the federal government would resort to economic blackmail.

        So, If you believe that it’s open minded and progressive to do away with what has been considered natural in all of human history because of your bigoted and biased views then it’s up to you and like believers to convince the general public of a State of your views, not to use the force of tyranny to impose it on others.

        As for DOMA, it was ruled unconstitutional because nothing in the Constitution gave the federal government the right to create that law covering all States. Now if only we had a SCOTUS honest and courageous enough to deal in a like manner with a whole host of other federal laws and programs, including federally socialized medicine. But we know that’ll never be permitted by tyrannical progressives.

        Sic Semper Tyrannis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.