The caption of this post is the headline of an article in the local Daily Press which will no doubt cause the local Bible beaters to have a near swoon and cause some to wet themselves at the mere thought that eventually Virginia might have to move towards modernity and actually have to grant religious freedom to all citizens, including the dreaded gays. Religious freedom is a concept championed by Thomas Jefferson and still set forth in Virginia's constantly ignored statute for religious freedom (one of three things Jefferson for which wanted to be remembered). In Jefferson's preamble, his words almost seem to have contemplated the leaders of the anti-gay religious forces that want civil law rights doled out based on one's conformity to a particular set of religious beliefs. His condemnation of such individuals was compete and stated in amazing language that still resonates today. *
The Virginia Supreme Court justices, Taliban Bob McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli might all do well to read Jefferson's statute again. If they see themselves in those condemned by Jefferson, perhaps that ought to send the message that it's time to set aside their own bigotry and follow the statute. I have no illusions that Virginia will voluntarily overturn religious based discrimination against gays in its law and, since 2006, constitution. The mindset behind the state of affairs found in Loving v. Virginia is still alive and well amongst the false Christians in this state. Here are highlights from the story:
*
A federal judge in California ruled the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional this week in a landmark ruling that could undermine Virginia's constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman.
*
Walker's ruling is almost certainly bound for an appeal and most scholars and advocates say the court battle won't be settled until there's a showdown at the Supreme Court, which has never issued a ruling on same-sex marriage.
*
But the unconstitutional ruling in California is the first time federal courts have weighed in on same-sex marriages and it could help unravel Virginia's similar ban on marriage, which was approved by state voters in 2006 — just two years before California voters approved the same type of ban.
*
Virginia's rules on same sex marriage are likely to stay in place until the Supreme Court opines on the ruling, according to University of Virginia Law professor Kim Forde-Mazrui. He said Virginia federal judges can look to Walker's opinion, but they only need to differ to higher court on precedent.
*
Forde-Mazrui said it's not a lock that the Supreme Court is going to immediately take on the case, rather than watching how state "laboratories" treat the issue. "The Supreme Court often lets issues percolate," said Forde-Mazrui, UVA's Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research professor. "It's almost like using the lower courts as a kind of oral argument."
*
A federal judge in California ruled the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional this week in a landmark ruling that could undermine Virginia's constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman.
*
Walker's ruling is almost certainly bound for an appeal and most scholars and advocates say the court battle won't be settled until there's a showdown at the Supreme Court, which has never issued a ruling on same-sex marriage.
*
But the unconstitutional ruling in California is the first time federal courts have weighed in on same-sex marriages and it could help unravel Virginia's similar ban on marriage, which was approved by state voters in 2006 — just two years before California voters approved the same type of ban.
*
Virginia's rules on same sex marriage are likely to stay in place until the Supreme Court opines on the ruling, according to University of Virginia Law professor Kim Forde-Mazrui. He said Virginia federal judges can look to Walker's opinion, but they only need to differ to higher court on precedent.
*
Forde-Mazrui said it's not a lock that the Supreme Court is going to immediately take on the case, rather than watching how state "laboratories" treat the issue. "The Supreme Court often lets issues percolate," said Forde-Mazrui, UVA's Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research professor. "It's almost like using the lower courts as a kind of oral argument."
*
One thing that is certain is that groups like The Family Foundation will be using the California ruling to shake down money from the bigoted and ignorant. Personally, I long for the day when folks like Victoria Cobb have to get real jobs and can no longer make a living disseminating anti-gay hate and working to subvert religious freedom for other citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment