Governor McAuliffe Statement on Ruling in Bostic v. Rainey Case

English: Protesters for gay marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement in response to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Bostic v. Rainey striking down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage:

“I am overjoyed by the news that, as a result of today’s ruling, Virginia will become a state where two people who love each other can get married regardless of their sexual orientation. This is a historic ruling for our Commonwealth, and its effect will affirm once again that Virginia is a state that is open and welcoming to all.

“I want to thank Attorney General Mark Herring for his leadership in this case, and all of the men and women who fought for years to make this day a reality. Progress does not always come as quickly as we hope it will, but today is yet another example of how justice, equality and the people who fight for those values will always persevere in the end.” 

Our Notes:  If you have never read a history book that explains how great civilizations were torn down and destroyed, you do not have to, it's being played out right in front of your eyes right now.

Why did the Attorney General change the Commonwealth's legal position in Bostic v. Rainey?

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a thorough and comprehensive legal analysis of precedents and recent court rulings, Attorney General Herring has determined that Virginia's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it improperly denies the fundamental right to marry, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to thousands of Virginians on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has consistently said that marriage is a fundamental right that the government cannot limit without a very strong reason. Because there is no sufficiently strong reason to  deny same-sex couples the right to marry, Attorney General Herring has concluded the Supreme Court would strike down Virginia's ban if it were presented with the case. For these reasons, he has notified the federal court deciding Bostic that he is changing Virginia's legal position to reflect his determination that the state's marriage ban is unconstitutional.

What are the legal precedents that led to this decision?

There is considerable Supreme Court precedent stating that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and rulings stating that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. There are also rulings from other federal courts striking down similar same-sex-marriage bans in other states.

• First, the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court made clear that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is violated by laws treating same-sex married couples as second-class citizens.  Justice Scalia’s dissent also made clear that the Court’s rationale would justify invalidating State bans on same-sex marriage.  I agree with that assessment.
• Second, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas made clear that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct were unconstitutional, regardless of how such activity may traditionally have been viewed.  Justice Scalia predicted then that the decision would justify invalidating laws that ban same-sex marriage.
• Finally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marriage -- not a particular kind of marriage -- is fundamental:  


• In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to interracial marriage.
• In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to prisoner inmate marriage.
• In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right of people owing child support to marry.

As a fundamental right, the right to marriage cannot be denied unless (among other things) limiting that right serves a compelling State interest.  The reasons offered in support of Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban do not meet even the most deferential legal standard of review, let alone this heightened scrutiny. 

Based on these precedents, among others, the Attorney General has concluded that if the Supreme Court were to be presented with the facts of this case, it follows that it would again uphold the right to marry and find the exercise of that fundamental right may not be denied to these loving couples based solely on their sexual orientation.   The two federal courts that have most recently considered this issue agreed, striking down the bans on same-sex-marriage in Utah and Oklahoma.

Is the Attorney General within his power to change the state's position?

Yes. The Attorney General is the sole person empowered to present the Commonwealth's position in legal matters and it is up to him or her to determine that position through rigorous legal analysis.

Doesn't the Attorney General have to defend the state's laws?

The Attorney General has a duty to support laws that are constitutional, and has just as strong a duty not to defend laws that he has concluded after careful and thorough analysis are unconstitutional. The Attorney General swears an oath to support the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. When a state law or part of the Virginia Constitution is in conflict with the United States Constitution, as Attorney General Herring has concluded in this case, the United States Constitution prevails because it is the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, the Attorney General's primary client is the people of Virginia, not just state agencies. When the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia are being violated, he has a duty to protect their interests.

Have other attorneys general done things like this before?

Yes. There is precedent for an attorney general  or executive branch official refusing to defend a law that he or she has determined is unconstitutional.

• Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli declined to defend the Opportunity Educational Institution, often referred to as Virginia's "school takeover bill," last year.
• Former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore joined with 43 other State attorneys general in 2003 to argue that an attorney general is properly carrying out his constitutional duties when he seeks to invalidate a State law that he believes, in his independent judgment, to be unconstitutional.  In that brief, Kilgore and the other attorneys general  say that when the  Attorney General believes a state law "violates the constitution, he has a paramount obligation to defend the constitution he is sworn to uphold.”
• Former Attorney General Kilgore also declined to defend a federal constitutional challenge to a provision in Virginia's constitution that prohibited the incorporation of churches and religious denominations.  That provision was struck down in the 2002 case Falwell v. Miller.
• Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that the President can resist unconstitutional laws, saying an executive has the power “to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”
• In 1989, then-acting Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, filed a friend-of-the-court brief declaring that the United States considered a particular law to be unconstitutional.
• In a 1976 election-law case, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed two contradictory briefs, one which defended the law at issue, and another, on behalf of the Attorney General and the United States, which provided a counterargument to help the Court resolve the First Amendment questions presented.

Does this mean Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is over?
No. Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage will continue to be enforced until and unless a court or the legislature acts to end its enforcement . The State Registrar of Vital Records will continue to enforce the ban, and clerks are not legally permitted to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Does this mean the case is over?

No. Before announcing the Commonwealth's change in legal position, Attorney General Herring took steps to ensure the case could continue and the court could hear both sides of the issue.  The Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County remain defendants.  Lawyers for both clerks will provide a full and capable defense for the ban in court.

Does this mean Virginia's marriage ban will be undefended in court?

No. The Circuit Court Clerks of Norfolk and Prince William County are both represented by able lawyers who will make their best possible case for the marriage ban's legality. They also have a brief filed by previous Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to assist them in their defense of the ban.

Why didn't the Attorney General appoint special counsel to defend the ban?

Special counsel is not necessary in this case because there are still two other parties  in the case, the Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County, who are vigorously defending the ban's legality.

Is Attorney General Herring just doing this because he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry?

Attorney General Herring's decision to oppose Virginia's marriage ban is based on his legal analysis of the facts in this case and relevant court rulings, especially those in recent years that address this specific issue.

Our Notes:  Did these people ever hear of God's Law? Demoralization of the population.  It has nothing to do with rights from what we see.

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 3)
• Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 2
• Virginia attorney general to fight state's same-sex marriage ban
• Is Eric Holder Right About State Gay Marriage Bans?

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Bostic v. Rainey Ruling

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement on the federal district court’s decision striking down Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples:

"I applaud the federal district court's decision to ensure all Virginians are treated equally under the law, no matter what their backgrounds are or whom they love. In order to grow our economy and attract the best businesses, entrepreneurs, and families to Virginia, we must be open and welcoming to all who call our Commonwealth home.  As this case continues through the judicial process, I will enforce the laws currently on the books, but this decision is a significant step forward in achieving greater equality for all of our citizens."

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/community-news-network/x488690923/Meet-Judge-Arenda-Wright-Allen-who-struck-down-Virginias-ban-on-same-sex-marriage

Link to more information on the Judge who made this ruling.  

Our Notes:  If this is what the founding fathers had intended, they would have made provisions for it.  They didn't as they did not accept this concept.  We can not even imagine how this woman can call herself a Christian.  Even our Russian and Chinese friends who read this site are highly offended by this.   This judge should be thrown out of the country.   And what does that say about our Governor?  In all fairness, we having nothing against the gay community.  We just do not consider it a right.  We view it as a special interest with special privileges which is a violation to both the State and Federal Constitutions from what we have reported here on this site.

  Next move?  The promotion and legalization of pedophilia?  It's coming.  Is this the price this woman had to pay for this position?  (What, you don't think this happens?)  The next probable move is the legalization of pot.  But hey, why stop there.  Legalize all of it.  Opium, LSD, Cocaine, Meth, the whole 9 yards.  Start opening casinos.  Legalize prostitution.  Get a bunch of abortion clinics into the state.  One on every corner and make them cheap and funded by the state.  DO WHAT THOU WILT is the order of the "LAW".    Babylon Returns, get used to it.

The Book of The Law from Chuck Thompson

Related articles

• Federal judge strikes down Virginia's ban on gay marriage
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on 33rd Senate District Election Results
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on 6th Senate District Election Results
• Governor McAuliffe Applauds House Passage of SOL Reform Legislation
• Governor McAuliffe Statement on the Passing of Norfolk Civic Leader Joshua P. Darden Jr.
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Virginia Adopts National Cybersecurity Framework

Gloucester, VA Chick-Fil-A Continues In The News

Chick-fil-A Kiss-Ins Divide LGBT Movement

English: Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Laredo, Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted: 08/03/2012 6:22 pm Updated: 08/03/2012 9:57 pm

Carly McGehee, 24, had been trying for months to plan a "kiss-in" to protest fried-chicken chain Chick-fil-A's long history of donating money to groups that oppose same-sex marriage and promote conversion therapy, a controversial practice intended to "cure" gay people.

But there was no real catalyst for the event until now.

This summer, the company's chief executive Dan Cathy gave a pair of interviews saying he was “guilty as charged” of supporting “the biblical definition of the family unit" and that gay marriage invites "God's judgment on our nation."

The company now sits at the center of a furious debate over same-sex marriage, gay rights and free speech while some politicians rally around it and others urge the company to stay out of their cities. McGehee, of Dallas, thought the time was right.

On Friday night, she estimates about 15,000 same-sex supporters will show up at Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide to snap photos, and hug, kiss or hold hands with someone of the same-sex. One of her main goals for the event is to give hope to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth living in the South, who hear messages condemning gay marriage more often than words of support, McGehee said.

"Tonight is for those kids that are growing up in, say, a small town in Texas, like I did, so that they can see that they're not different, that they're loved and accepted and they shouldn't be ashamed of who they are," McGehee said. She also hopes to show the world that the American people "aren't going stand for discrimination and intolerance."

Click Here for the rest of this story.

As I have said before, let those in the gay community convert to the Wicca religion or the Satanist religion.  Those are the two religions that recognize same sex marriages.  We do not need to create extra laws for minorities that are not already in existence.  I have a zero sum issue for gay rights.  Gay marriage is not a gay right according to the state.  Want to argue that on the proper end?  1st Amendment, to the bill of rights, Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion nor  prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Gay marriage is not a Christian value, therefore the need to recognize it as such does not exist.

 It is a recognized value under Wicca and Satanism.  Paganism may also recognize it as well.  Therein lies the answers to this dilemma.  The state is under no obligation whatsoever to recognize the issues and to do so is to go against the Constitution of the Untied States and also the Bill of Rights of the US.  If gay people wish to get married, then let them follow the paths where it is accepted.  No issues there.  

  Gay marriage is a privilege, not a right.  Now here is what is really going on with the protests.  It's an attempt to silence the freedom of speech made by the owner of the Chick-Fil-A franchise as well as a very blatant attack on Christianity itself.  Just because you do not like his view does not give you the right to attack him for it.  Any gay person who protests the owners right to the freedom of speech attacks themselves for the right to be gay openly.  Think about it.  

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Gloucester, VA - Chick-Fil-A A National Divide

Pictured here is local Chick-Fil-A owner John Gordon III and congressman Rob Wittman during the Grand Opening ceremonies for the Gloucester, VA location.

  Monday August 1st, the local Chick-Fil-A restaurant was jam packed with people in support of the chain, based on the franchise founder''s statements of believing in the traditional  marriages with a national interpretation of being against gay marriage.

  Our staff insisted I write a piece on the debate.  I have a lot of issues surrounding the whole thing.  I have no issues with Chick-Fil-A and it's support of traditional marriage.  This nation was founded on Christian principles and to quote John Adams, "Will support no other."  I have no issues with gay relationships.  It is not my place to make those life decisions for others.  Do I support gay marriage?  No.  Do I oppose gay marriage?  Yes, but not for the reasons that one would normally consider.

  There is nothing new under the sun.  One must study history to see if we are about to make some major serious mistakes.  Rome was destroyed from within over reasons just like this.  Gay marriage is extra privileges above and beyond what is and has been a part of normal society.  It is granting additional rights to a class of citizens that are in a minority.  I have no issues with gay rights.  No one should be harmed based on their opinions or lifestyle choices as long as it is mutually consensual and not forced on the masses.

    The issues of gay marriage are nothing more than the division of the masses of people.  No different than the abortion issues, democrats verses republicans, left verses right, and whatever other issues the mass media wants to play on us all.  It's revolting to me that people are so easily caught up in all of these issues and told how and what to think, keeping a nation always divided.

  Here is an interesting issue to consider.  In one state it was a recent headline piece that a gay couple who filed for divorce could not get one.  Reason?  There were no laws on the books of the state that allowed people brought together in a gay marriage to get a divorce.

  Another area I have a real problem with is the constant bashing of Christians.  Again, this nation was founded on Christian principles and we all see the constant attack to destroy traditional Christian values.  The local churches do a good enough job of that themselves without any outside help.  The state of our nation is because of the destruction of what was once our core values.  Ask any young adult about history and you are likely to get a blank stare or a very strange interpretation of what they think history has taught them.

  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not an educational tool for colleges to be teaching.  Keep the people confused and divided is more of the story piece.  Not who is right or wrong.  Anyone who disagrees with my own opinion about gay marriage?  I respect their right to disagree.  It's called freedom of speech.  The only two religions I am aware of that has ever supported gay marriage is the Satanic religion and also fairly recently, Wicca.   If you want to get married into a gay marriage, please join one of the two and do not ask traditional Christian religions to accept you when it is against the Christian code.  Know your history and you won't have these issues.  Gays just need to join Wicca in order to get married and leave everyone else out of it.  The other choice?  Become a Satanist.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.