A Good Day for Marriage

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Given my growing involvement in the grassroots effort to support the protection of marriage via the Virginia Marriage Amendment, I continue to have too little time to blog (it’s a matter of priorities I suppose). However, I did want to take a few seconds to post the news that the overwhelming will of the people of Georgia has been restored and their Marriage Amendment (which passed by 76%) has been reinstated... as well as the news that New York dodged a bullet with a 4-2 decision rejecting same-sex marriage advocates' litigation urging New York's highest court to legislate from the bench and redefine marriage to no longer mean the union of a man and woman. While it is always refreshing to see a court (particularly in the Northeast) understand its role is not to create new law/policy, there can be no doubt that those in favor of redefining marriage will continue to bring litigation challenging the definition of marriage- we will continue to be unnecessarily vulnerable even here in Virginia.

The only way we can get past the point of having to hold our breath each time a state court addresses this issue is to pass a Marriage Amendment. Thankfully we here in Virginia will have just that opportunity come November.

Via CNN:

In New York, the Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision that the state's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.
"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.


The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right" since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition."

You can read the entire ruling here (rulings 86-89).

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Good Day for Marriage.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/442


zimzo said:

I love how you try to have it both ways Sophrosyne. You fear monger us about activist judges and then when they don't do what you warned they would, you claim we "dodged a bullet." The New York judges said that the legislature is free to approve gay marriage. Do you honestly expect us to believe you would accept it if the legislature did just that?You hide behind the figleaf of preventing "judicial activism" because you don't want to say what is really behind your support of this anti-democratic amendment. Singleton gave us a hint when he said he was working against the "homosexual agenda" (whatever that is). Your slip was also showing when you equated abusive heterosexual parents and a "Mary Poppinish" gay couple as you mockingly called them by referring to a choice between them as a "Hobson's choice." Why don't you just come out of the closet and admit what is really behind your effort to amend the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights to single out gays for discrimination?: Homophobia plain and simple.

Zimzo my man, I thought I smelled blood in the water! I've been off letting my brain rest for a few days, knowing that Soph and Singleton would be spending much less time around here for the next five months and it will be up to No Relation, me and a mysterious new blogger to hold the fort in the meantime.

I can't rise to the bait you've been scattering so generously just yet, unfortunately. Friends from out of town are coming over shortly.

I will ask this: Have you read the NY Court of Appeals decision? I got through the first third or so and the explanation had me nodding my head quite a bit.

Back soon.

zimzo said:

I have not had a chance to read the decision yet, but not being one to let a challenge go unaswered, I will certainly take a look, after I have taken care of a few pressing responsibilities of my own. Meanwhile, show your friends some of that Virginia hospitality, which I must say I do miss.

David said:


You never answered my question from another thread. I'm really hoping to get an answer before you run away. You've repeatedly referred to "the two complementary parts of the human organism." Is it your belief that an individual human being is not a complete "human organism"? Are you actually saying that a person is not a complete human being unless they are "united" with another person of a different sex? You keep saying this as if it is self-evident. Please explain this seemingly bizarre belief. Thanks.

voteNOva said:

The fact that a liberal court in New York joined 3 other state courts in rejecting a state constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban drives a stake in the heart of the "judicial activism" argument on which you've relied so heavily to date.

Time to see if you can make a cogent and compelling substantive argument for the amendment (got one?) rather than continuing to cite process issues based on ludicrous comparisons of legislatively term-limited Virginia judges to lifetime Massuchusetts jurists.

Now that 4 state supreme courts from across the country,including NY, NJ, IN and AZ have refused to act affirmatively to overturn a same-sex marriage ban (vs. 3 courts that applied their STATE constitutions to do so), no Virginia voter should take seriously any claim that the Virginia Supreme Court will act affirmatively to set aside the 30 year old Virginia law prohibiting same-sex marriage. It's just not in the Virginia Supreme Court's nature or tradition.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

soph: I'm still dying to know what marital paradigm shift happened 400 years ago.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here