Delegate Bob Marshall, co author of Virginia’s marriage amendment, released the following statement yesterday in response to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to grant a stay in issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.
Circuit Court Decision Flies in the Face of SCOTUS Stay in Utah Case
The Court of Appeals refusal today to deny a stay of starting so-called same sex marriages in Virginia is lacking in moral clarity, historical precedent, social benefit and authentic constitutional grounding.
Their arrogant refusal of a stay was issued in the face of the stay that the Supreme Court has already issued in the Utah same-sex marriage case.
The two erring judges in Virginia’s marriage case failed to show that same sex marriage, a union based on immoral behavior, is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” as would be required if they were acting as jurists,
They fail to cite even one US Supreme Court decision that affirms an ostensible constitutional right to “marry the person you love.”
In fact, their novel ruling is compatible with the claim of three lesbians in Massachusetts who seek to have a threesome or “throuple” recognized as marriage.
In their radical hubris, these judges in attempting to foist same-sex “marriage” on Americans, seek to suspend the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,”
Look for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) groups to target church tax exemptions for failure to perform same sex marriages or rent church facilities for same sex marriages. The “Human Rights Campaign” is now defending teachers fired from Catholic schools after allegedly marrying same-sex partners against Catholic teaching and school policy.
Soon, pastors who refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies will be sued for hate speech. Church charities that feed, clothe, house and care for the less fortunate will suffer as these lawsuits increase.
From 1884 to 1926 over fifty constitutional amendments were proposed in Congress to give Congress authority to regulate marriages, None passed because in our federal system this has historically been a state matter, until now that is.
Why the rush to judgment? Why not wait for the US Supreme Court to make their decision on this issue?I applaud, Prince William Clerk of the Circuit Court, Michele McQuigg, for appealing to the Supreme Court to stop marriage licenses from being issued until the Supreme Court has heard the case. Even Attorney General Mark Herring has been cited as saying he thought a stay appropriate in case SCOTUS rules in favor of Virginia’s Marriage Amendment so that any same-sex marriages done between now and then will not have to be undone.
I urge intelligent Virginians to read the well-researched dissent of Judge Neimeyer.
Delegate Bob Marshall
19 comments
Marraige
Is one of the few official carrots an institution can endow. It is intended to encourage the propagation of the human race, especially those with similar tendencies to the granting institution. Institutions work very hard to find ways to influence people – that is why they exist. It is easy to find negative influence levers (sticks). Diluting the meaning of the Carrots weakens the institution to a greater degree.
In this discussion, the institution is the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia has a long history of religious freedom, and classic liberalism (as opposed to todays progressive liberalism). Now, based on an election that tipped on less than 0.1%, the institutions carrots are being washed out.
A child does best if raised by the two adults that joined to create that
child. God specifically sets high bars of behavior to challenge us.
We all fail. But His challenges, particularly regarding children, are undeniable.
Marraige is NOT a right. It meant to encourage adults to realize
Natural Law, and follow God’s command to “go forth and multiply”.
Efforts to reduce that reward by redifining rights, elevating choice to
the level of physical attributes, and ignoring biology are a
multifaceted contortion of reality. You don’t get more cows without a
bull.
Shifting our institutions to accomodate those who do not seek to meet The Almighty’s challenge makes it harder to pass those values on to our progeny. No longer will the lesser institutions that are funded by our tax dollars support our way of life. Our children will be pulled from the understanding of He Who Is and how things are designed, not only by peer pressure, but by the very authorities we rely on to survive. The entire fourth commandment is negated in this act. We are turning our backs on God. On whose authority will we rely?
Just what is the issue with allowing anyone to marry who they like regardless of gender? I would rather see the gov’t out of our personal lives in this and many other matters. It confuses me when the GOP claims they are for smaller gov’t and then turns around and wants gov’t oversight into so many individual liberties and personal decisions. I propose smaller gov’t regulation of our lives.
I can see where a stay would have made sense, but it really doesn’t matter. I think SCOTUS will void the 2006 VA amendment.
But the question that has always been there, for me, is why does anyone care what someone else does? If Bob and John want to get married, why does anyone care? It does not affect the marriage of anyone else any more than Mr. and Mrs. Johnson’s marriage affects Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s marriage.
It should be between two people, their God and NO ONE. It just seems that way too many people are not minding their own business.
I can’t wait to see that the RINO clowns are going to post here!
Like Spiker and Brian!
Then here ya go no where in the Constitution does it say anyone has the right to marry not a man and a man , a woman and a woman , a man and a woman or a man and his goat ! The Constitution says nothing about marriage the regulation of marriage is left to the states . In theory , a state could ban all marriages , or interfaith marriages , without violating anything explicitly stated in the Constitution . Equal laws must be maintained ; otherwise marriage can be restricted in many ways . The Constitution was written to define specific powers given to the federal government by the people . All other powers are left to the states and the people . The fourteenth amendment equal protection clause and the Declaration of Independence are being used by liberals for the gay marriage debate . But the liberal judges quoting the Life , Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness phrase are claiming it’s in the Constitution . Wrong it’s in the Declaration of Independence . And if they read the phrase they ‘d see that these rights are endowed by our creator , now if the federal government is your creator then you have a point . The fourteenth amendment was written because of discrimination of slaves it now includes gays . No where does it say because the gays can’t get married they are being discriminated against they could just as easily have a civil union . But I have a solution out law all marriages and that will settle that ! Before you whine Republican wrong ! And I frankly don’t give a crap if your gay what do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on ?
And we as state said no to gay marriage!
but, as the Supreme Court has said, that is unconstitutional. Either you believe in the constitution and accept their decision or you promote your own personal view over the rule of law. The choice is support the constitution or anarchy
The Supreme Court want said a black man was only three fourths of a man!
So what is your point.. They do not have the final say so of what is right and what is wrong!
No, the Constitution says that a slave is 3/5ths of a person.
No it does not!
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The 3/5ths Compromise. Google it if you need to. The Judiciary had nothing to do with it.
That’s been made void you clown
Yes, 76 years after the Constitution was written.
What’s your point though? You said it was the Judiciary that created the 3/5ths Compromise when it wasn’t.
Oh boy! Next!
Eugene, most of the time I don’t have time to monitor all the comments, but recently I’ve noticed a lot of unproductive comments from you. Please knock it off and engage on genuine substance or not at all.
Not John, you’ve always been somewhat of an ass just about every time we’ve crossed paths, but even if we didn’t agree on this particular issue, I would warn you: don’t even bother engaging with Eugene Fisher. He is a troll who just says “NAMBLA” or “KKK” over and over again.
I mean, you caught him with hard evidence that he is completely clueless about the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and he is utterly unfazed.
Don’t feed the trolls; that goes for everyone else here, too.
the Supremes have the final say of what is & what is not constitutional.
If gay marriage bothers you, then avoid going to their weddings.
You speak clownish !
Ps were have they even said that?