On 2/14/14, 7:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
Federal Judge Overturns Virginia’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By ERIK ECKHOLMFEB. 14, 2014
NY Times


A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginia’s ban on
same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal
yet of restrictive marriage amendments that exist throughout the South.

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge
Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”

The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by
Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia
must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to appeal the decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond,
and Judge Wright Allen stayed the execution of Thursday’s ruling pending the appeal.

This week, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must honor
same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but the ruling did
not address Kentucky’s own ban on such marriages.

If the Court of Appeals upholds Thursday’s decision, the repercussions in
the South could be wide. Similar amendments limiting marriage to a man
and a woman would most likely be voided in other states of the Fourth
Circuit, including North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.
(Maryland, the fifth member, approved same-sex marriage in 2012.)

If a person had been convicted of Bigamy, they should immediately file for
reversal of the conviction. The court is saying the state has no right to
say what a marriage is. Should be a lot of Southern Utah people very happy
with the court rulings.



I'm sure you must think you have some sort of logic behind your claim
that bigamy convictions should be reversed. The recent rulings address
the fact that the state has no business limiting marriage to a male and
female...it does not address the issue of whether an individual may be
married to more than one partner at a time.