Bob Marshall February 14 Edited

The decision issued by federal district Judge Wright-Allen appropriately issued in the cover of darkness is a syllabus of errors, a compendium of ineptitude, and a farce claiming authority. Legislating through the Courts against the will of the people is lawless disregard for our representative form of government. Federal Judge Arenda Wright-Allenss decision: 1. Confuses the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution (Page 2). Judge Wright-Allen took an oath to uphold the Constitution and yet she seems to be unable to even identify it; 2. Vests the judges opinion with more social and legal importance than that of the 1.329 million voters who approved the MarshallNewman Marriage Amendment; 3. Makes no clear definition of Marriage, though Judge Wright-Allen makes claims about it; 4. Provides no legal distinctions or reasoning why her version of "marriage" must be limited to only two persons; 5. Rules that denying marriage to homosexuals is the same as denying interracial marriage. Therefore race is equivalent to sexual behavior; 6. Equates the centuries long struggles of Americans of African descent in this country with the life shortening and health compromising behaviors associated with the LGBT lifestyle; 7. Tries to equate segregationist practices previously prevalent in Virginia providing for separate accommodations for hotels, restaurants and water fountains, denial of voting or educational opportunities are equivalent to the experiences of the modern LGBT community. 8. Clearly misreads the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court decision which affirms the possible procreative aspect of marriage that is only between a man and a woman; 9. Cites the Fourteenth Amendment as justification for striking down Virginias Marriage Amendment even though at the time of its ratification sodomy was illegal in all but five states; 10. Fails to explain how homosexual activity can be a predicate for so-called same sex marriage, but can disqualify such participants from donating blood; 11. Has pretentions to know more about marriage than Moses and Christ; 12. Assumes that anyone who disagrees with her is motivated solely by hate and visceral animus of the LGBT community; Judge Wright-Allen clearly lacks judicial temperament, has absolutely no sense of judicial restraint, exhibits signs of deracinated thinking and should be impeached. The natural marriage relationship of man and woman predates all religions. We recognize the importance of respecting nature when it comes to eating healthy food, drinking pure water, and protecting the natural environment for future generations. The natural design for the continuance of the human race is dependent upon the different natural attributes of males and females to have children. Same sex "marriage" discriminates against children by denying them either a mother or a father. History is replete with evidence of the harm done to children by absent fathers. Even the United Nations warns that children should not be separated from their mothers at an early age. Do we really want our children to be taught either in school or by the society at large that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage? Same sex "marriage" upends thousands of years of societal disapproval of certain sexual behavior and contradicts moral teachings of major religion's sanction against homosexual activity. To imply that one state Judge is smarter than the foundations of humanity is extreme hubris. Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior. While there is no place in society for disrespect for any human being based on their sexual orientation, this does not mean that the state must condone or promote sexual behavior that impairs people with serious illnesses and burdens our health care system. By basing her decision on a prior reversal of unjust laws which prohibited interracial marriage, Judge Allen asserts that homosexual marriage is based on civil rights. If this reasoning is upheld, then our children will be taught in school that they are guilty of illegal discrimination if they oppose homosexual marriage and that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual

marriage, that any church which denies a marriage ceremony or a business which declines to provide services to a same-sex wedding celebration is guilty of illegal discrimination. This is already occurring in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. Adoption agencies, public or private, will be forced to place children for adoption with homosexual couples and refusal will amount to illegal discrimination. This will likely result in church based adoption agencies being forced to stop doing adoption work thereby leaving hundreds of thousands of children with fewer options. Churches have assisted with adoptions for thousands of years and to force them to comply with this agenda of tolerance to the detriment of innumerable children is unconscionable. If homosexuals can marry whoever they love, then it follows that bi-sexuals should be legally allowed to marry two people, polygamists should marry several, and pedophiles should marry children. There is no logical line to draw once marriage as we have known it from the beginning of time is abolished. Judge Allen's decision does not benefit society and does not uphold the common good. This movement is not about the common good or even about tolerance but about forced submission to a world view which violates the deeply held values of many Virginians. God loves all His children regardless of the attractions they may experience. We do not judge hearts. Thankfully God reserves that role to himself. But we must measure and judge actions to benefit the common good. And we who are chosen by the people to represent their interests passed a Virginia Constitutional Amendment upholding one-man, one-woman marriage and over 1.3 million voters approved it. Legislating through the Courts against the will of Virginians is lawless disregard for our representative form of government.

23Like Share Top Comments 28 people like this.

Gail Gordon Donegan Assuming a God, and assuming further a Christian God who opposed homosexuality, why would such a God create gays? Like Reply 15 February 14 at 11:45am

o
Hide 41 Replies

o
Bob Marshall Gail, I want to be clear that am speaking for myself and not with relation to state law or on behalf of Delegate Marshall (the page won't allow me to post as myself). Christian doctrine is that original sin corrupted all of humanity. My belief is that, as a result, all people have a tendency towards certain sins but that doesn't make it right to act on them. Just because I feel like something is right doesn't make it so. Therefore, I believe that some people may have more of a tendency towards covetousness or greed or adultery or anger but doesn't mean they should act on those things. In the same way someone with same-sex

attractions does not have to act on those feelings. God allows us to go through trials to turn us towards Him so that we can learn to trust Him more. I believe same-sex attraction to be one of those trials. - staff Like February 14 at 12:09pm

o
Jen Little If you are not "Bob Marshal" then don't post as Bob Marshall! Unlike 19 February 14 at 12:13pm

o
Bob Marshall I am his staffer and as a general rule I do speak for him but I couldn't reach him to approve this post and wouldn't post it without such approval as him. Because I am an administrator on this page I literally cannot post as myself. Like February 14 at 12:17pm

o
Jen Little Two things: 1. Obviously you are a caveman like your boss, and don't know how to use facebook. 2. Please keep responding... This is like that Amy's cupcake meltdown. #rookie Like 16 February 14 at 12:21pm Edited

o
Eileen Davis key statement "my belief" - you dont have the right to force them on others- separation of church and state Like 12 February 14 at 12:31pm Edited

o
Eileen Davis if Bob Marshall were a minister and not a state legislator, your comments as a church staffer might be relevant, - your comments belong in your bible study , not the state house Like 12 February 14 at 12:31pm Edited

o
Bob Marshall Jen, First of all I'm female so cavewoman if you prefer. Eileen, The separation of church and state is not law and it was an opinion Thomas Jefferson offered which was about keeping the state out of religion not vise-versa. The Constitution protects citizens rights to practice their religion as they see fit and that does not mean leaving it at the door when the get to work. All legislators are affected by their worldview whether it be Hinduism, atheism or Christianity. Gail, asked a theological question about why God might create people with same sex attractions and I responded. As I mentioned that has nothing to do with public policy or the state's interest in marriage per se, which as we have said numerous time is primarily in procreation, which cannot occur in gay marriage and the best care of children produced as a result, which studies still show is a married mother and father.-staff Like February 14 at 12:34pm

Bob Marshall Jen, you obviously aren't the administrator of a political "fan" page. As an administrator you cannot post as yourself on the page. -staff Like February 14 at 12:35pm

o
Jen Little Now that you are mentioning that one should be married to have children, and Bob Marshall doesn't believe in a right to choose what should I have done at 17 when I was pregnant and unmarried???? I am so glad you weren't there to make the decision more difficult. Like 6 February 14 at 12:36pm

o
Bob Marshall Jen, no one said you should be married to have children - though studies show it is better for children - see the recently released Harvard study to that effect. Only, that the state's interest in marriage is in creating the best environment for raising children. Like February 14 at 12:38pm

o
Eileen Davis Wait- what!- "separation of church and state is not law and is intended to keep the state out religion and not religion out of law"?! WOW- you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts- people please start cutting and pasting tom Jefferson- what we have her is a women who appears to have a real lack of civics Like 14 February 14 at 12:41pm Edited

o
Eileen Davis to quote Thomas Jefferson: " I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents" (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808). Like 5 February 14 at 12:45pm

o
Bob Marshall Show me where in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" occur please? The first amendment does not contain them and is about not creating a state run church like England had and not imposing the state's religion onto those of faith. Nothing about supporting traditional marriage imposes a particular religion on citizens. Again, the state's interest in marriage is procreation and the best environment for raising resulting children. Like February 14 at 12:45pm

o
Eileen Davis then there is this:" No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809)." Like 3 February 14 at 12:45pm

o
Bob Marshall Exactly, Eileen, this is clearly about the state not imposing itself on religion not the other way around. Like February 14 at 12:46pm

o
Bob Marshall And it was a letter to Samuel Miller not written into any law. Like February 14 at 12:47pm

o
Eileen Davis so according to your logic an infertile women, a man who has had a vasectomy or post menopausal couple should not be allowed to marry. Also by your logic , insurance shouldnt pay for Viagra, as typically no babies come from it Like 10 February 14 at 2:02pm Edited

o
Bob Marshall Eileen, this argues against recognition of gay marriage if anything because in states where it is legal those who because of strongly held religious belief are being fined, forced out of their businesses and churches are being forced to allow gay marriages in their facilities. This is the government pushing its views on religion not the other way around. Like February 14 at 12:49pm

o
Jen Little Just so you know "Claire C. Gardner AKA Bob Marshall for the Day" I do manage political pages including my own, and I most certainly would not allow someone to manage my page and allow all this to go down. I am looking forward to seeing this on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight. Thanks so super much for the entertainment. Like 9 February 14 at 1:09pm

o
Eileen Davis Wrong Again- churches will NOT be forced to perform marriages- again separation of church and state- again you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts- churches already are free to refuse marriages and do it all the time- catholic churches refuse to marry divorced people, orthodox jews wont marry a "mixed couple", churches turn away precanna couples all the time, subjectively deciding they failed premarriage counseling or wont perform a marriage unless such precanna is done- none of these restrictions exist in civil marriage. Conversely if the church of the gays wants to hold marriages all day, every day, the government should not intervene Like 5 February 14 at 1:14pm Edited

o
Bob Marshall Churches have already been penalized for not allowing gay weddings in their facilities and several states have nothing that would prohibit a couple from suing a church who refused to do a gay wedding. Not to mention there are numerous incidences of businesses who have been fined by local governments and/or taken to court because it violates the owner's strongly held religious beliefs to participate in a gay wedding. Like February 14 at 1:15pm

o
Eileen Davis You are totally incorrect-there are no churches being penalized for refusing a gay wedding- please cite a real example of this claim (hint- it doesnt exist)- again separation of church and state prohibits this. As far as businesses, refuses service is a civil rights issue and no different than refusing to serve blacksalso at one time also rationalized by religion. Again I reitterate you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts Like 6 February 14 at 1:37pm Edited

o
Bob Marshall http://radio.foxnews.com/.../proposed-law-would-force... Like February 14 at 1:22pm

o
Bob Marshall http://www.fpiw.org/.../pastors,-are-you-ready-for-a-gay... Like February 14 at 1:22pm

o
Happy Galt people are born gay , so god made them that way, to think otherwise is just crazy. i know all my gay friends would tell you they were not "made" gay,they were born gay,,have known they were gay since about 3-4 years old,the oldest or earliest memory most of us have is about 3-4 years of age,,and my gay friends say and know they were gay then. once the world accepts that god makes gay people it will be a better world. the animal world has gay members too,its everywhere and very natural, god knew what he was doing,man does not know much! Like 4 February 14 at 1:39pm

o
Karen Gautney Bob, you gave links to propaganda sites falsely warning that churches MAY be forced to perform same sex weddings. Creating fear is not the same things as facts. Like 11 February 14 at 1:46pm

o
Jen Little Bob/Claire/Whoever you are, I didn't get married in a church, and I didn't get married by a preacher. Does this mean I am not married? The Right's arguments on these matters are so wrong, as decided by the courts late last night. Like 5 February 14 at 1:52pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove Any "facts" quoted from Fox News are completely irrelevant and most likely fiction. Like 8 February 14 at 1:54pm

o
Eileen Davis re your article- pastors are you ready for a gay wedding link is an opinion piece a " what if" piece, lacking real fact or reality- it is a "what if "scenario not fact based information- words like might," "could", "may", are opinion and scare politics, not fact based journalism- so again please cite a real example in a state that has already legalized gay marriage Like 5 February 14 at 2:01pm Edited

o
Craig Watson Dear Bob Marshall staffer: Please READ the supposed FOX story. "According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party. IOW, if a church RENTS it's facilities to the GENERAL PUBLIC, then it cannot discriminate. The church does NOT have to sanction or perform gay weddings. That is an entirely different issue. This is true of every example provided in this thread. Apparently the ENGLISH LANGUAGE is not your strong suit. Add Comments and editorials from FOX and the trouble starts. Maybe you should stick to reputable journalists and legal experts. Like 5 February 14 at 2:03pm

o
Jamie Lockhart As a fellow political staffer, I just want to let you know that you can change the settings to post as yourself. Like 32 February 14 at 2:50pm

o
Brad Boetig I've never heard of Bob Marshall until now, but now I know that I don't like him. Not him, nor his alter-egos on fb. Like 5 February 14 at 2:52pm

o
James Trout Bob, where in the Constitution does it say the words "the United States of America is a Christian nation?" It doesn't. The United States of America is NOT a Christian nation, it is NOT a theocracy though you and your supporters want it to be so. Like 5 February 14 at 2:57pm

o
Andrew Goodwin You can post as yourself... lol I run a few pages on Facebook. That is malarkey and you should be fired for making statements on behalf of the Delegate w/o clearing it by him... Just shameful work. Like 4 February 14 at 3:57pm

o
Karen Gautney I would assume that computer literacy and good research aren't prized skills in the Marshall office. One has job security if they sufficiently denigrate gay people with plentiful references to bestiality and pedophilia, while throwing in an occasional denial of animus. Just a theory. Like February 14 at 4:12pm

o
Jen Little There was House Debate on the Floor today regarding Computer Science Really being a "Science" - NOT JOKING! See for yourself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQh3my8i4L8 Like February 14 at 4:13pm

o
Chris OKennon So, you're saying you hacked the account (posting as someone else on their account without expressed permission)? Or are you saying you're committing fraud? Both are illegal in the US. Or just stupid? Which is still legal. Like 2 February 14 at 6:06pm

o
Jack Mullikin wow i guess "bob" went home for drink ....500pm on a friday rolled around and these heart felt lessons on how to protect ourselves from ourselves ...just up a disappeared ...TRULY,Bob has gone home to ...what?....have a drink and cuss out the Gay lovers under his rotten breathe? Like February 14 at 6:51pm Edited

o
Jacqueline Nantier-Hopewell I live in Bob Marshall a.k.a. the "twits" district. He uses his religion as a proxy to claim HIS divine right to interfere in the privacy of Virginia citizens such as his interference in a woman trying to honor the last wishes of her husband to die according to the wishes of his advanced medical directive. Bob Marshall is at it again, using his religion to promote the canard that gay marriage threatens his religion and hetero marriage. The biggest threat to his religion are people like him who use his religion to deny the freedoms of others claiming that freedom for gays to marry truncates Bob's freedoms to promote his hateful worldview down everyone's throats. Bob has an inability to understand what exactly a moral choice actual is (clue: it's not a moral choice if you codify your beliefs into law when you cannot convince the public of your beliefs and then tyrannically impose them by operation of law..a.k.a. Taliban. Certainly was a bunch more divorce was had before people were openly gay. No, Bob Marshall needs to either retire and go to church everyday and pray away his hate, or become a priest, or whatever, but his 15 minutes needs to expire soon and we need to elect someone who can represent all of Prince William County and not just his divine rights. Like 2 February 14 at 9:16pm Edited

o
Jacqueline Nantier-Hopewell Further, HUMAN rights should never be subject to your opinion of whether another deserves human rights. Like 3 February 14 at 9:17pm

o
Mike Davis As usual I find most of the liberal comment on this subtopic to be nothing more than ad hominem attacks. That is par for the course and seems to fit with the general state of America today. But perhaps most amusing is the assertion that the fox stories are "propaganda" while Rachel Maddow is news. Seriously, do you listen to yourself. Like 18 hours ago


Gail Gordon Donegan Fake Bob, it takes a business license to run a business. That is a privilege granted by the STATE. That means that a business owner cannot discriminate - they cannot impose their religious beliefs on customers. If someone wants to live according to a strict religious belief, they will have to forego other privileges, such as the benefits of a state license. Like Reply 5 February 14 at 1:31pm

Bob Marshall replied 20 Replies

Jen Little Claire C. Gardner A.K.A. "Bob Marshall for the Day" please stop tagging me in your posts, it is annoying. Thanks! Like Reply 2 February 14 at 1:06pm

o
Bob Marshall I'm always the person who posts to this page. Unless otherwise noted I am speaking for Delegate Marshall. I tag you so you see my response. Like February 14 at 1:30pm

o
Bob Marshall Feel free to quit responding. Like 1 February 14 at 1:30pm

o
Karen Gautney Wow. You'd like that, would you, Bob Marshall? I'm sure your day would take an upswing if we all just went away. Well, don't expect that your boss can make comments like these and not get some feedback. It's not 2005 anymore! Like 2 February 14 at 2:55pm

o
Jen Little I am not going anywhere! I am going to fight Bob Marshall's overreaching agenda every chance I can to ensure equality for all. We're here to stay! Like 5 February 14 at 3:33pm

o
Chris OKennon Tagging a person is gay. Like February 14 at 6:10pm Edited

Gail Gordon Donegan I hope someone is logging all of this... Like Reply 2 February 14 at 1:11pm

o
Bob Marshall Feel free! Like February 14 at 1:31pm

o
Karen Gautney It's interesting that the majority of shares of this thread are by people who are amused by the meltdown of Marshall and his staff. It's like a bad train wreck. Like 4 February 14 at 2:44pm

o
Keith Provost Screen capping every comment Like 2 February 14 at 2:46pm

Eileen Davis "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" Thomas Jefferson (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814). Like Reply 2 February 14 at 12:55pm

o
Bob Marshall This was a reference to the corruption in the state run church. Like February 14 at 12:56pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove Which seems to be what the republicans want these days. Like 4 February 14 at 1:10pm

o
James Trout Again where are the words "the United States is a Christian nation" in the Constitution? Like 1 February 14 at 4:14pm

Eileen Davis fact is the highest rate of STD and HIV transmission is 18-25 heterosexuals- second high risk group, people over 55 . Maybe you should restrict access to viagra sir, seems all this old people sex is a public health hazard!- signed- a public health nurse

Like Reply 21 February 14 at 11:45am Edited

o
Happy Galt someone just told me yesterday that the highest incident of venereal disease is in nursing homes :):) and these are straight old folks,not gay old folks Like 3 February 14 at 1:47pm

o
Eileen Davis you are correct Happy= Like 2 February 14 at 1:50pm

Karen Gautney Bets on how soon this thread will be deleted? Bob Marshall and his defenders are the George Wallace of today. The longer they hold on to their hateful, discriminatory ideas, the harsher history will judge them. Like Reply 10 February 14 at 1:20pm

o
Jen Little I have it captured Karen. Like 3 February 14 at 1:47pm

o
Lee Hernly George Wallace was a Liberal Democrat. Boy, you need to get educated Karen. Like February 14 at 5:08pm

o
Karen Gautney I don't care what he called himself or what his party affiliation was. Wallace was a racist hate-monger. Even though he claimed to be supported by his religion and popular opinion, he was wrong. He finally apologized for the things he said and did. The comparison to anti-gay hate mongers is valid. I hope they all live long enough to apologize just as Wallace did.

Like February 14 at 5:13pm

o
Lee Hernly Actually, Karen Gautney most Liberals/Democrats are very discriminatory and racist. In this case though, Judge Wright was wrong. Marriage is not in the Constitution and most certainly is not a right. It is a privilege. Otherwise, why do you need a license to marry? Like February 14 at 5:23pm

o
Karen Gautney On what do you base you assertion that liberals and Democrats are discriminatory and racist? I understand your opinion that Judge Wright was wrong, but I disagree. The judges in all 12 cases related to same-sex marriage since the Windsor case also disagree with you. I wouldn't expect to change your mind, or even attempt to, but I think it's pretty clear how history will record it. Like 1 February 14 at 5:40pm

o
Lee Hernly Karen Gautney - Progressive racism can be seen, paradoxically, most clearly in the way anyone straying from its premises is immediately branded as a "racist." The history of the progressive left's racism is a long history (e.g. KKK). Some of the progressive Presidents were the most racist of all (e.g. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc). I have seen it first hand from Liberals on a number of occasions. I'd be happy to have a discussion with you on this if you want to DM me. Now, as for the Windsor case and the 12 cases cited, many of them used the Loving case as a basis when Loving wasn't even about marriage. Like February 14 at 5:50pm

o
Bobbi Hoffman Where is the dislike button? Like 2 February 14 at 7:42pm

o
Karen Gautney Fun word play, Lee, and a silly attempt to link today's progressives to the KKK. The bottom line is that we know who among our leaders are in favor of our full liberty and pursuit of happiness, and who are working hard to deprive us of the privileges they enjoy. Like February 14 at 7:48pm

o
Lee Hernly Karen Gautney - today's progressives have taken a hard turn left from the KKK and are worse as the greatest threat to our kids futures comes from an all-encompassing central government that continues to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and widens the income gap further. Like 1 February 14 at 8:36pm Edited


Karen Gautney You are once again suggesting that churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings. That is absolutely a lie. Fomenting hate and fear with false information may have worked for you in the past, Mr. Marshall, but you'll come to see that it is no longer a winning strategy. Like Reply 8 February 14 at 1:48pm

Gail Gordon Donegan The ancient Greeks were as gay as four dollar bills. How can you claim that "The natural marriage relationship of man and woman predates all religions. " How do you know that? Were you there? And what does religion have to do with anything anyway? There are over 3000 active religions in the world. They can't all be right, but it is entirely possible that they are all wrong, so let's base our laws on something other than religion. Like Reply 7 February 14 at 11:42am

o
Eileen Davis fact is the bible has a long history of evolving marriage that isnt close to your reference of traditional marriage- arranged marriages- dowry's that put barter prices on young women, (actually girls for the most part) for forced marriage and sale of daughter, so I'm not understanding your reference of" the long history of traditional marriage". For example, the bible states that said girls must totally submit, regardless of how the "Marriage" was proferred and that the men should be as kind to them as you are to your sheep , camel, etc. These were marriages where women had no legal rights, no right to independent wealth or property and were themselves property of men. Those biblical laws translated into civil laws of inequality we still today have not totally removed. Jefferson was a Diest and felt strongly about separation of church and state for a reason. And in case you wish to dismiss me as against long term family structure- let me clarify I have been married for 36 yrsLike 7 February 14 at 12:23pm Edited

o
Lee Hernly Natural marriage is in the book of Genesis. Like February 14 at 4:56pm

o
Lee Hernly Eileen Davis - Except marriage has zero to do with the separation of church and state. Do you need to go to church to get married? Like February 14 at 5:10pm

o
Steve Johnson Then stop using the bible to justify why gay people shouldn't be married. If you do that, you'll see that there is no reason why they shouldn't. Like February 14 at 9:33pm

David Weintraub This is as good a place as any to offer a heartfelt thank you to Bob Marshall on behalf of myself and my husband of 31 years. Your open displays of anti-gay animus, both during the campaign for your amendment and since, such as when you said that a very qualified judge was not qualified because he "holds himself out as married," made showing the unconstitutionality of Virginias marriage laws a slam dunk. I look forward to seeing your musings included in briefs filed with the Fourth Circuit and perhaps beyond. Like Reply 6 18 hours ago

Gail Gordon Donegan Sideshow Bob Like Reply 5 February 14 at 4:06pm

o
Jen Little That is certainly what the day has turned into. Like 2 February 14 at 4:06pm

o
Karen Gautney The more he (and his staff) talks, the more ridiculous the anti-gay crowd looks and the faster they shrink. He's like the Westboro Baptist Church of Virginia. Like 2 February 14 at 4:13pm

o
Jen Little Must. Look. Away. Like February 14 at 4:17pm

o
Steve Johnson Karen Gautney, I just spit beer every where....ROFLMAO Like February 14 at 9:39pm

Jen Little As much as I love reading this meltdown, I find it necessary to let you know that you can a) post as yourself and b) provide a little social media advice - DO NOT ENGAGE! Here's an example of where you could be headed Delegate Marshall: http://www.buzzfeed.com/.../this-is-the-most-epic-brand... Like Reply 4 February 14 at 3:10pm Edited

o
Karen Gautney If they can't figure out that they've lost their battle to discriminate against gay people, and insist on being sore losers instead of moving on with some dignity, you can't really expect them to know when to quit on Facebook. Like 4 February 14 at 3:12pm

o
Jen Little Good point. Like February 14 at 3:13pm

o
Jeffrey Orcutt LMAO Like 20 hours ago

Karen Gautney Of course risky behavior contributes to a shortened lifespan, regardless of one's sexual orientation. Of course children with two parents have an advantage over children with one parent. THAT is what the research says. Right wingers misinterpret the data when they claim that "the LGBT lifestyle" is unhealthy or that one mother and one father is the ideal family configuration. This type of misinformation has been debunked, and you can't expect to keep getting away with spouting that junk, Mr. Marshall's staffer. Like Reply 4 February 14 at 2:51pm

David Weintraub My goodness. This screed certainly underlines the fact, helpfully pointed out to me by one of your allies, James Young, that "Bob Marshall is not, and never has been, an attorney." Like Reply 3 18 hours ago

Brian Pace ....and the spittle-flecked hysterical missive arrives right on time. The country has passed you by, Bob. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 7:28pm

Erika M. Cotti Gail , she did around 1:30pm yesterday. Someone asked the question about Bob going to his grave....and fake Bob's response (staffer) was " I've informed the capital police, they take these threats very seriously". Truly weird, but hey she works for Marshall. Like Reply 1 18 hours ago

Erika M. Cotti Bob Marshall, you do understand that you and your staffer have opened yourselves up for several legal issues. 1) you can't label or put in to writing defaming and derogatory comments, freedom of speech does NOT protect your from slander or liable. 2) it's obvious your intentions are to appeal...so any public communication is now fair game/fodder during discovery, interrogatories, motions etc. But most astounding is you and your staffers have failed to realize is; the LGBT community now has the voice and growing support of wife's, mom's, daughter's like myself. You sir are on the wrong side of history on this matter. Ironic because you've espoused your Chrisitan beliefs, but nearly everyone of your responses highlights just how unChristian you are. Bless your heart, Bob...I'll pray for you, that some day soon God softens your heart and he shows you how to truly live in God's image. Like Reply 1 18 hours ago

o
David Weintraub It doesn't need to rise (sink?) to the level of actionable defamation to be fair game. This is seething animus that leaves no doubt about the intent of Bob's amendment. Seething animus is not a constitutionally permissible rationale for a law that categorizes people on the basis of sexual orientation, and I'm confident that the judges on the Fourth Circuit know that. Like 1 18 hours ago


Jen Little I dedicate this song to the Fake Bob Marshall... It's the End of the World as we Know it! LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY&feature=kp Like Reply 1 February 14 at 2:23pm

Eileen Davis No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purposeThomas Jefferson (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809). Like Reply 1 February 14 at 12:53pm

Eileen Davis "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 12:52pm

o
Lee Hernly Again in a letter, NOT in the Constitution. Like February 14 at 5:53pm

Eileen Davis No it doesn't follow chad two persons Is not polygamy (you can count right?) and consenting adults are not children- your false equivalency is just desperate

Like Reply 10 hours ago

Deb Fitzgerald Isaiah 10:1-2 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. Like Reply February 14 at 3:44pm

Alicia Knight Who wrote this? The real Bob Marshall or his female impersonator? Like Reply February 14 at 4:02pm

o
Karen Gautney Whoever wrote it, the delegate himself read it before the House of Delegates this morning. It is replete with misinformation and faulty assertions designed to generate animus toward gay people. Like 2 February 14 at 4:07pm

Keith Provost The judiciary is there to make sure that the minority is protected by the rule of law. The majority in America doesn't get to vote on whether or not the minority gets to have rights. Also, very classy the way you deleted opposing view comments. Very illustrative. Like Reply 27 February 14 at 10:19am

o
Bob Marshall We have not deleted any comments. Not sure what you are talking about??? Like February 14 at 10:21am

Bob Marshall Our FB filters are set to delete obscene comments and we only delete comments when they are obscene but written in a way to get past the filters or unless they are consistently commenting on posts that have nothing to do with what they are commenting on and then we always warn posters. Like February 14 at 10:23am

o
Wilma Justus I had trouble posting a comment, and I didn't use any obscene comments; nor did I make any opposing comments. Therefore, I don't believe Delegate Marshall deleted anything. After all, why would he delete supportive comments? Like 1 February 14 at 10:31am

o
Keith Provost Fair enough. Sometimes facebook messes up comment strings. I'm al for giving the benefit of the doubt. Like 1 February 14 at 10:35am

o
Wilma Justus It took me FOREVER to get another comment posted!! Like February 14 at 11:13am

o
Bob Marshall Yes, we have also had trouble. FB must be having issues. Like February 14 at 11:13am

o
Conor Uncles Probably because facebook hates you and your hateful views. Like 9 February 14 at 11:17am

o
Sean Cannan But the right to life is instantly revocable the moment a mother wants her child beheaded in utero, right? If so, you do not support anyone's rights.. Like February 14 at 12:41pm

o
Lee Hernly That would be true Keith Provost if marriage were a right. It's not, it is a privilege. If it were a right, why do you need a license to marry? Like February 14 at 4:57pm

o
Eileen Davis same reason you need to register to vote- its about record keeping and property law and in its early days wasused to make screen people for syphlis- really! Like February 14 at 5:18pm Edited

o
Lee Hernly But, if marriage is a 'right', you see rights have been traditionally understood as inherent, or natural: Everyone is born with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which correspond to commensurate duties. Our right to liberty, for instance, means we have the duty to respect everyone elses right to liberty. If marriage is a right, however, consider the difficulty this poses: If I have a right to marriage, someone else must have the duty to marry me. But if someone has the duty to marry me, it infringes on that persons right to liberty. That's why marriage is a privilege, NOT a right. Like February 14 at 5:35pm

o
Vitaut Nestohr Also consider that a homosexual man has the same 'right' and restrictions on marriage as a heterosexual man - just because they choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean they don't have it. No difference - no discrimination. Like 1 February 14 at 7:57pm

o
Keith Provost Lee Hernly - Here are the requirements to obtain a marriage license in Virginia. One of these requirements has just been ruled unconstitutional, but the others stand. If two people meet these requirements, they must be issued a license. In other words, as long as these requirements are met, they have a right to marry in Virginia. Prohibited Marriages - A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one or both parties. - A marriage between an ancestor and or descendant; or between a brother and a sister; or between an uncle and a niece; or between an aunt and a nephew; whether the relationship is by half or the whole blood or adoption. - When either of the parties lacks capacity to consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity or infirmity. - A marriage between persons of the same gender (same sex). - "Common Law" marriages are not valid if entered into in Virginia or any other jurisdiction, which does not permit them for its residents. License Requirements - Blood Test - There is no blood test requirement for marriage in Virginia. - Where to obtain license - A license for marriage in Virginia is issued by the clerk or his/her deputy clerk of a circuit court in any county or city in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The ceremony may be performed anywhere in the State. Applicants must, under oath, furnish information required to complete the marriage record. These items are material and the applicant may be subject to prosecution for perjury for violation of the portion of the statutes which requires this information. For divorced persons, there is no statutory waiting period before marriage after the divorce is granted unless remarriage is specifically prohibited by a court. In some cases, clerks may require documentary proof of age or termination of previous marriage. Most of the offices of the clerks of court are closed on Saturdays. - Time Limitations - The marriage must be performed within sixty (60) days after the license is issued. There is no waiting period required between application and issuance of the license and a couple may be married immediately after the issuance of a license. - Fees - Any person authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage shall be permitted to charge a fee not to exceed $50, Section 20-27, Code of Virginia, Domestic Relations. This information should be confirmed with the court as we may not always be notified of changes that occur. - Virginia issued license - The marriage license issued in Virginia is for marriages to be performed in Virginia ONLY. - Marriages performed outside of Virginia - Marriages performed outside of Virginia are filed in the state or country in which the marriage was performed. You must contact the state or country you were married in to obtain a copy of the marriage record. Like 19 hours ago

Lee Hernly Keith Provost - If you had the 'right' to marry anyone you wish, why do you need a license? The license is for legal reasons but, truthfully, that can be taken care of without the license if marriage is indeed a 'right;. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. You see, homosexual access to marriage is not analogous. Homosexuals are not denied their basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution such as the right to fair trial. Nor are homosexuals being denied equal coverage by the law. Crimes committed against homosexuals are fully prosecuted. They are granted equal protection in any reasonable interpretation of the clause. The issuance of a marriage license is not such a guaranteed protection. The government has no obligation to grant a marriage license to anyone w ho wants one. For example, not everyone has access to a drivers license. Does that mean that the rights of blind citizens are being violated? There is nothing unconstitutional about selectively issuing licenses. Gay marriage isnt a legal right. Like 18 hours ago

o
Keith Provost My word, but you're pedantic. OK, I'll play your silly game. A marriage license in Virginia is granted to anyone - ANYONE - who meets the stated requirements, just as a driver's license is granted to anyone who meets the stated requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia cannot deny a driver's license to a person who is homosexual, based solely on the fact that she is homosexual. This is because being gay does not influence the quality of one's driving skills. If she can drive the course, pass the exam and other requirements, she has the right to obtain a driver's license. She cannot be denied because of who her daddy is. She cannot be denied because she's ugly. She cannot be denied because she has a girlfriend (or wife). To deny her a driver's license for any of those reasons would be a state violation of her rights. Like 18 hours ago

o
Keith Provost BTW, Lee - If you break driving laws, your "privilege" to a driver's license is revoked. However, if you get a marriage license, then cheat on your spouse, your marriage "privilege" is not revoked. In fact, you're allowed to dump that spouse and go get another marriage license. Calling a marriage license a privilege is merely your attempt at taking control over the decision of who gets to obtain one. Like 18 hours ago Edited

o
Lee Hernly Keith Provost - There is no need for silly name calling. I know Liberals just can't help themselves. Why is it, you Liberals can't have an open, honest debate without name-calling? That said, thank you for making my point that marriage is a privilege, not a right. @Ketih wrote "A marriage license in Virginia is granted to anyone - ANYONE - who meets the stated requirements, just as a driver's license is granted to anyone who meets the stated requirements. " Exactly, the state can determine who can and cannot drive a car, get married, etc. This is not a denial of anyone's rights. Just like driving a car, marriage is a privilege that can be taken away from you and I. Like 17 hours ago Edited


Houston Fisher I'm a homosexual. How is my life span shortened? Care to elaborate on that? Like Reply 11 February 14 at 10:34am

o
Houston Fisher This entire post is anti-gay and implies I'm a deviant who should be a straight Christian that reproduces in order to be considered a legitimate citizen. Like 3 February 14 at 10:36am

o
Houston Fisher Are you comparing me to polluted water, saying I'm an infertile promiscuous person who must misuse my body in a perverted manner and will most likely have health issues, diseases and a short life because of it? Are you seriously suggesting that without even knowing me? Are you trying to dictate my sex life when even though I am gay I don't have a sex life? Explain my behavior you speak of. Like 3 February 14 at 10:52am Edited

o
Bob Marshall Houston any study of the LGBT lifestyle shows higher rates of STDs and other lifestyle related illnesses.-staff Like February 14 at 10:52am

o
Bob Marshall Houston, this post in no way implies you should be anything that you are not. It is discussing the state's interest in marriage and why that should be one man, one woman. Also, Christianity is an extension of Judaism and didn't start with Rome.-staff Like February 14 at 10:54am

o
Houston Fisher I don't have any STDs or any lifestyle related illnesses. Explain to me what that has to do with the price of eggs in China. Like 3 February 14 at 11:03am Edited

o
Houston Fisher Are you saying people with STDs shouldn't be allowed to marry? Like 1 February 14 at 10:56am

Houston Fisher I find this whole post upsetting and insulting. It implies things about me that are untrue. I'm done here. Like 3 February 14 at 11:02am

o
Wilma Justus Houston, while I trust God's Word that homosexuality is a sin; I consider you a legitimate citizen. As a Virginian, I will defend your rights to anything that citizens of Virginia can enjoy under the law. As a Virginia citizen, you have the right to vote as long as you meet the requirements. You also have the right to obtain a Virginia driver's license. I have a teenage daughter that can drive as well as most people with licenses. Even though she can drive better than others, she cannot get her driver's license. Is she an illegitimate citizen, because the state of Virginia will not issue her a driver's license? If we move to South Dakota, she can get her license with no problem. However, my daughter is almost 15. Virginia law states that no one under 16 years and 3 months can be issued a driver's license. Even though she has good driving skills, she cannot get her license. Like February 14 at 11:04am

o
Wilma Justus Also, no one is trying to dictate your sex life. I and most other Virginians will defend your right to your privacy. We do NOT want to know about your sex life! Even though we do not agree with your lifestyle, we will defend your protection under law to unlawful search. I also believe that Delegate Marshall respects your property rights and your rights as a legitimate Virginia citizen. Like February 14 at 11:08am

o
Katie Daniels Bob Marshall is a bigot and refuses to understand the Establishment Clause which states the legislature, through the Fourteenth Amendment, cannot influence legislation via Biblical principles. Like 5 February 14 at 11:08am

o
Wilma Justus If you really want same sex marriage legal, why don't you go through the proper legal channels? I admit that I will oppose it, and I have the right to oppose it. However, you have the right to petition for the law to be changed. Like 1 February 14 at 11:10am

o
Houston Fisher What does that have to do with implying I must have a short life ahead of me because since I'm gay therefore I must be promiscuous and have STDs? I'm gay all the way. I don't have sex, though. Not that that's anyone's business because when I do it's with an adult. Like 3 February 14 at 11:11am

o
Bob Marshall Houston, public policy and law must by definition deal with classes of people. With regard to the public policy on gay marriage institutionalizing marriage for a group of people for which the sexual aspect of marriage leads to or directly causes health problems (not just STDs) is not good public policy. The state will shoulder some of the additional burden of the higher health costs.-staff Like February 14 at 11:13am

o
Houston Fisher I'm smoking a cigarette right now too. Guess that's gonna cause economical collapse, eh? Like 2 February 14 at 11:14am

o
Katie Daniels So now gays are diseased and the state will have to pay. Wouldn't then the promotion of gay marriage support monogamy, which would lessen the rate of STD if it does in fact exist? Your own logic doesn't support your stance. Like 8 February 14 at 11:15am

o
Wilma Justus Katie, this is not just a religious issue. An important issue is the law. The U. S. Constitution states that anything not mentioned is to be decided by the states. Virginia voters made it Virginia law. Therefore, this judge disregarded both Constitutions. As I stated above, if you disagree with the marriage law; go through the proper channels to change it. Of course, I will oppose it; and I have the right to do so. However, you have the legal right to petition for it to be changed in your favor. Like 1 February 14 at 11:19am

o
Houston Fisher Yet no apologies for abruptly insulting my character and making assumptions therefore I should be accountable by the lot of others who might be promiscuous. It's nice to know that even though I'm a decent person due to being gay I must be guilty of association. I'm off now to enjoy my peaceful life as the decent person I am. Your post and position doesn't define me. Anyone who knows me can vouch for that. Like 2 February 14 at 11:21am

o
Houston Fisher It also has nothing to do with whether or not I qualify for marriage, either. Might I add. I could have 5-10 diseases if they existed and that would not disqualify me from full and equal protection as a citizen. I'll respond no further on this post and I'm officially unfollowing you. I bet I won't be the only one after today. Like 2 February 14 at 11:23am

o
Katie Daniels The U.S. Constitution also said nothing about segregation. I'm sure we should bring back those laws as well, if we are to believe your argument. Like 5 February 14 at 12:20pm

o
Vitaut Nestohr Houston: you already had the same rights and restrictions as any other male/female in Virginia. Simply because you do not use, or even like, a right doesn't mean that you don't have it. To society marriage is about one thing: children. No government paper or decree can create love or commitment between people: that's in your heart. But the government can allocate money - as an investment - to something that is the single most important thing to allowing society to continue. Like February 14 at 12:37pm

o
Jack Mullikin You,sir, are a complete nincompoop! what complete rubbish! Like 2 February 14 at 12:39pm

o
Bob Marshall Katie race and sexual behavior cannot be equated. Like 1 February 14 at 12:41pm

o
Sean Cannan "WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child Universal Declaration of Human Rights Like February 14 at 12:42pm

o
Eileen Davis fact is the highest rate of STD and HIV transmission is 18-25 heterosexuals- second high risk group, people over 55 . Maybe you should restrict access to viagra sir, seems all this old people sex is a public health hazard!- signed- a public health nurse Like 2 February 14 at 5:08pm

o
Kevin J. Hickerson "To society marriage is about one thing: children." Really? Tell that to people who are past child bearing age that get married. Guess we can start revoking and denying their licenses! Like 1 February 14 at 5:32pm

o
Ray Rodriguez I'm getting sick and tired of YOU people saying marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. What the hell would you say to all those heterosexuals out there that have been married over and over again? It's no longer 1 man and 1 woman, but 1 man and multiple woman. Like 1 February 14 at 5:43pm Edited

o
Chris OKennon I knew a guy who caught gay from using a men's urinal. He then immediately developed AIDS from taking two hits of marijuana, and his head exploded. True story. Like 5 February 14 at 6:07pm

Keith Provost I've got the screenshot to prove you did delete comments. Like Reply 4 February 14 at 10:26am

o
Bob Marshall I have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Like February 14 at 10:27am

o
Bob Marshall As I said our obscenity filter is set very high and we only delete comments irrelevant to the post after warning the individual who posted them. Its our policy. Like February 14 at 10:28am

o
Teresa Thompson Selove There was no obscenity, so that is simply not true. Someone deleted them. Like February 14 at 1:07pm

o
Bob Marshall Apparently according to supporters as well as opponents Facebook was having some problems this morning and not all posts went through including some that we made. We do not delete comments unless the are obscene or continuously irrelevant to our post. Like February 14 at 1:10pm

o
Chris OKennon We just delete gays. And human rights. Like February 14 at 6:08pm

Leah Pellegrino "life shortening and health compromising behaviors associated with the LGBT lifestyle..." Tell that to Edy Windsor and countless other older LGBT folks, many who are personal friends of mine - and are as healthy as anyone - thank you very much! Like Reply 5 February 14 at 1:16pm

o
Bob Marshall There are numerous studies that show as a class of people those who participate in the LGBT lifestyle have higher rates of illnesses specifically associated with that lifestyle. Public policy must by definition deal with classes of people. Of course not every person will fit that but that doesn't mean that as a group it isn't true. Like February 14 at 1:19pm

o
Leah Pellegrino Which numerous studies? Like 1 February 14 at 1:20pm

o
Bob Marshall Just google it. Like February 14 at 1:20pm

o
Karen Gautney So let me understand.... you are opposed to two gay people getting married because doing so might shorten their lives? Like 2 February 14 at 1:56pm

o
Leah Pellegrino Funny how one of those studies is from the Family Research Council. Like 3 February 14 at 1:57pm

o
Leah Pellegrino Some of the studies in that piece did say that there was a correlation between risky behaviors and shortened life-span. However, that can also be said of the heterosexual community (prostitutes, drug addicts, etc.). Like 3 February 14 at 1:59pm

o
Alicia Knight Please define "LGBT Lifestyle." Not sure what you mean by this. Like 2 February 14 at 3:19pm

o
Alicia Knight I'm just confused about "LGBT Lifestyle." Please help me understand. My gay cousin and his husband are deacons in their church, they spend a lot of time in their church now that my cousin is the administrator for the church. His husband is a Capitol Hill tour guide and a history buff who loves to visit Civil War sites. My gay neighbors love NASCAR and RVing. They have every power tool known to humankind and love to help their neighbors fix things in their houses. They love to host pig roasts for the whole neighborhood. They are military veterans. My lesbian sister and her wife are semi-retired and live a quiet life near the ocean, which they love. They write poetry and stories, research genealogy, volunteer in their town and in the schools (my SIL is a retired teacher). They are lovely aunts to their nieces and nephews. Sometimes they go to visit our extended family in Ireland. I have many more LGBT friends who love to cook and invite people over, who work hard at their jobs, play board games, write books, run businesses, volunteer at their churches and the animal shelter, who are busy raising their children, or helping to raise the children of their extended families. Is this the "lifestyle" that you say is "dangerous" or "risky?" Like 4 February 14 at 3:39pm

o
Eileen Davis Alicia- its a dog whistle reference that gays are being smilted by G-d. fact is the highest rate of STD and HIV transmission is 18-25 heterosexualssecond high risk group, people over 55 . Maybe yo should restrict access to viagra Delegate, seems all this old people sex is a public health hazard!- signed- a public health nurse Like February 14 at 5:09pm Edited

o
Erick Gordon Larson Just "google" itso you really do NOT have any legitimate proof..I think you confuse LGBT with flat out irresponsible peopl e. Like 2 February 14 at 5:22pm

o
Chris OKennon Cite these "many studies" Fake Gay Bob. Like February 14 at 6:10pm


Liz Vance As a heterosexual woman (who has been married almost 20 years to the same man), and a mother of two, I find it absurd, the whole idea of someone else's relationship being a threat to mine. And I have no problem with a federal judge declaring unconstitutional a law which never should have been passed in the first place. It's distressing to live in a state that is ruled by people passing laws based on fear and biblical superstition. Like Reply 31 February 14 at 10:44am

o
Joey Drauszewski Thank you, Liz. Like 4 February 14 at 11:41am

o
Teresa Thompson Selove I agree with you, Liz! Like 1 February 14 at 2:02pm

o
Mairi E Furniss Right on Liz. Like February 14 at 2:29pm

o
Kari Wright Warren Most especially since recent polls find that 56% of Virginians do not support the gay ban--how is it that our politicians don't see that? Are they representing us--or themselves? Like February 14 at 3:32pm

o
Joe Anderson My marriage feels about as good as it did on Wednesday. I don't feel endangered. What symptoms should I look for when the homosexual agenda endangers my heteronormative marriage? Like 2 February 14 at 3:44pm


David Freiman Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame. You are on the wrong side of history. Your religious freedom is to practice your religion, not to use your religion to restrict the freedoms of others. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. BTW, every one of your arguments has been shot down. Willful disregard and ignorance is no excuse for bigotry. Like Reply 19 February 14 at 10:56am

o
Bob Marshall Practicing religion is not limited to going to church. It is part of everyday life and cannot be restricted by the Federal government. Those who purport to espouse tolerance seem to have none for anyone who doesn't agree with them. Not supporting gay marriage is not restricting the rights of others any more than not supporting polygamy, bigamy or any of the other numerous restrictions on marriage that theoretically still exist.-staff Like February 14 at 11:19am

o
David Freiman That is arguable. No one is making you DO anything for gay marrieds. If you don't like it look away. Doesn't your religion oppose war and poverty? What are you doing about those things? Your taxes pay to perpetrate horrors all around the world and I don't see you getting your panties in a twist about things that really ought to be affecting your conscience. And those are straw man, slippery slope arguments. No one buys it except fearful homophobes like yourself. You are a supreme hypocrite to haul out this "I practice my religion every day" nonsense. You don't care who you harm, do you? Like 7 February 14 at 11:24am Edited

o
Karen Gautney What, specifically, will change in your life if you are forced to "tolerate" (your word) a lesbian couple who are married to each other? What does your religion mandate that you do that you would no longer be able to do? How does it affect you one bit? I really want to understand this religion of yours that requires this lack of tolerance. Like February 14 at 3:36pm

o
Karen Avery Solon Not supporting gay marriage IS restricting the rights of gay people, as NUMEROUS legal opinions have made clear! The plaintiffs are not asking the state or the courts to change age requirements, or the number of people they are allowed to marry, or filial relationship requirements, or ANYTHING else about the marriage requirements -- except the right to marry each other! They are gay, for goodness sake! It makes NO sense to say they can marry someone -- just NOT the person they love -- when they are both consenting adults who individually meet the state's EXISTING requirements to get married! This is NOT about polygamy, bigamy, or changing anything else. It is about ENDING the HARM done to these couples and their families, by denying them the right to marry the marriage-eligible person of their choice. Like 3 February 14 at 10:30pm Edited

Jerel C. Wilmore Practice yes, establishment no. When you attempt to make your religion into a code of laws that others must live with or suffer punishment, I call that establishment. You've made it abundantly clear that the real reason Bob Marshall pursues such virulently anti-gay policies is that he wants other people to live by his religious values, and that's simply not allowed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Like 1 16 hours ago

Bettie Wootten Tussey I think Mr Marshall's next action should be better screening of his staff who manage his social media accounts. Like Reply 10 February 14 at 1:31pm

o
Bob Marshall I have worked for Delegate Marshall for 17 years and have been his spokesperson on Facebook for the entire time he's been on Facebook. Like February 14 at 1:33pm

o
Karen Gautney It sounds like you have been a very influential voice in helping him formulate his views about denying rights to gay people. Shame on you. Like 3 February 14 at 1:40pm

o
Joe Anderson And since we all have implicit trust in Bob's decision making skills, we know you're doing an A-OK job, old-timer. Like 1 February 14 at 3:47pm


Bettie Wootten Tussey If you're going to post links to back your claims, please post real news and not right wing propaganda. Like Reply 6 February 14 at 1:27pm

o
Bob Marshall You may feel its right-wing propaganda but that doesn't make it less true. Like February 14 at 1:28pm

o
Karen Gautney If you can't cite credible sources, it's because it isn't true, regardless of how much you wish it were so. Like 4 February 14 at 1:43pm

o
Eileen Davis we want a real example not an opinion- ie, church--------- in the state of------ on this date-------- refused to marry this couple- and they have been charged with this crime------ for being in violation of same sex legislation- again facts not opinions not substantiated Like 4 February 14 at 1:48pm

o
Lee Hernly Of course no one on the attack is citing credible sources either. Like February 14 at 5:12pm

Joey Drauszewskihttp://www.scribd.com/doc/207077967/Bostic-v-Rainey May I direct you to page 24-33 of the legal decision where Judge Wright Allen debunks the claims that Bob Marshall always makes. Like Reply 4 February 14 at 12:05pm

o
Bob Marshall Judge Wright-Allen's ruling is not based on any previous precedent and in fact turns all previous precedent on its head. As such it should be overturned. Like 1 February 14 at 12:59pm

o
Joey Drauszewski All the precedent is cited within the ruling, Bob Marshall. Maybe read it? Like 5 February 14 at 1:09pm

o
Karen Gautney Wow, Marshall is downright delusional now. Like February 14 at 1:30pm

o
Jerel C. Wilmore You clearly have not read the opinion. Like 16 hours ago

Keith Provost It's looking like you're going to need to find a new wedge issue to frighten and divide Virginians, Bob. How about opposing marijuana legalization? That seems like a winner Like Reply 6 February 14 at 11:59am

o
Bob Marshall This fight is far from over Keith. There is a stay on marriages until it is heard in higher court which based on past precedent should overturn it. Whether it will remains to be seen. Like February 14 at 1:01pm

o
Karen Gautney Nope. It's over. Like 3 February 14 at 1:29pm

o
Baron von Imhoof Done. stick a fork in it. your kind used to tell me I couldn't be married to my wife because she's got native-American in her. The you told me my sister sinned by marrying a non-white. Now you tell my gay friends who pay a lot more taxes than I do that they can't go in a courthouse and do what I didget married- even when it's not in a church and is performed by the clerk. You don't even pay property taxes and you have the gall to try and dictate the lives of these people? Pathetic. Like 8 February 14 at 3:19pm

o
Erick Gordon Larson Based on past precedent? The momentum is in our favor..for the love of the fictitious deity you are worshipping, please take your head out of the sand..if there is a god, it seems that his favor is aimed at us. Like February 14 at 5:24pm

o
Steve Johnson What past precedent are you referring to? Show your proof Like February 14 at 8:43pm

o
Keith Provost Past precedent for you, Bob Marshall: 1) Windsor v The United States - the Supreme Court decision ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional. 2) 18 court cases after Windsor wherein equality for LGBT couples was in question. In all 18 cases, equality won. 12 of those 18 cases directly involved marriage equality for LGBT couples. In all 12 of those cases, equality won. Virginia now joins West Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Utah in rulings that sided with marriage equality for all Americans. These cases were decided by judges all over the country, appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats. (edited for typos) Like 2 21 hours ago Edited

o
David Weintraub That's a total of 32 judges, btw. It does seem that there's been a significant doctrinal change. Justice Scalia gets it; why don't you? Like 1 18 hours ago


Ernie Braganza Honestly, in all seriousness, I am praying for you Del. Marshall. I hope the peace of Christ fills your life and casts out the fears that seem to plague you. Like Reply 8 February 14 at 11:07am

o
Bob Marshall Delegate Marshall is filled with the peace of Christ but thank you. His only fear is for Virginians who have had their right to determine how their state will be run taken from them with this decision.-staff Like 2 February 14 at 11:16am

o
Teri Dunnivant Interesting third person treatment of yourself, Mr. Marshall. Are you running your Facebook page, or have you been hacked? Like February 14 at 12:59pm

o
Eileen Davis If Del Calls himself a Christian, he should be worried about his refusal to care for the sick and weak among us and bring accessible affordable healthcare to all Virginians Matthew 25:44 - Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Jeremiah 30:17 - For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD; because they called thee an Outcast, [saying], This [is] Zion, whom no man seeketh after. Ezekiel 34:16 - I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up [that which was] broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment. Like 4 February 14 at 1:04pm

o
Happy Galt god made us all, gays are born gay,the way god intended them to be. one is not "made" gay, one is born gay Like February 14 at 1:42pm

o
Kari Wright Warren I'm more concerned about our state being taken from the people by our elected officials! Most Virginians do not support the gay marriage ban. Listen to the people! Like 2 February 14 at 3:33pm

o
Karen Avery Solon On TV news tonight, Bob Marshall seemed genuinely BAFFLED, ASTOUNDED even, that a federal court judge would have the AUDACITY to rule on whether a law passes Constitutional muster ( the one bearing his name)! Does he honestly NOT realize that it is the DUTY of the court to do exactly THAT? And that doing so IS our system of government (NOT grounds for impeachment!)? It's called our checks-and-balance system! Only a few hours short of age 70, I can recall vividly watching TV news coverage with my Oberlin college classmates in January 1963, when George Wallace infamously declared, "... segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Tonight, 51 years later, I thought of that speech, as I watched Bob Marshall, and wondered if he'd live long enough to SOMEDAY identify with George Wallace, who later renounced his segregationist views, genuinely apologized, and was forgiven by many. Does Bob Marshall not even scratch his head and wonder why SO MANY court opinions agree with the judge he wants to impeach? Does he propose we impeach ALL judges who defend the 14th Amendment? Does he bother to READ the now-many ELOQUENTLY WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS? Clearly he does NOT understand that the SIMILARITY this judge and others (like me) see so clearly, between the Loving case and this case, is NOT that "race" is like "sexual orienation"! RATHER, it is the similarity between "those who opposed equal rights" for people of color, and "those who oppose equal rights" based on sexual orientation." It is their opposition to the principle of constitutionally-guaranteed equality under law, that makes them similar. They seem to argue that "equality" should apply ONLY for those citizens who think like them, or ARE like them, or who share their particular set of values or beliefs -- most especially if religiously based. In both of these struggles for equality under law, the opponents (like Bob Marshall) fail to realize that the Constitution does NOT guarantee PRIVILGE -- ie, a " right" of a majority to trample on the rights of ANY individual or minority group, even by voting to do so. Or even by passing a state constitutional amendment to do so. And in my opinion, religious freedom means nothing IF and WHEN it is interpreted to mean the "freedom" to discriminate against citizens who belong to faith communities like mine, which value (and advocate for) EQUALITY under the law, BOTH for people of color and for lgbt people -- for ALL people. Like 1 February 14 at 9:57pm Edited

Keith Provost You seem mad. Lilbet. Like Reply 6 February 14 at 9:52am

o
Bob Marshall Not mad. Just disturbed by the blatant disregard for the law and for Virginians. Like 2 February 14 at 9:55am

o
Karen Gautney I'm disturbed by your blatant disregard for me, a Virginian. My personal life affects you none. Like 6 February 14 at 1:31pm

o
Randall Reynolds Regarding Civil Rights, the opinion of the majority is irrelevant, Bob Marshall! Like 1 February 14 at 10:47pm

Keith Provost You mad, Bob? Like Reply 4 February 14 at 9:50am

o
Bob Marshall No Delegate Marshall is not mad. Like February 14 at 9:51am

o
Thomas Daniel Hudson http://bit.ly/1jgSLMC Like 7 February 14 at 10:24am

Leah Pellegrino "any church which denies a marriage ceremony or a business which declines to provide services to a same-sex wedding celebration is guilty of illegal discrimination. This is already occurring in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized." - Oh really? Where? I'd like some facts/statistics to back this up. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 1:14pm

o
Bob Marshall Just google it.

Like February 14 at 1:31pm

o
Karen Gautney It is not true. "Just google it" is a cop out. The only "evidence" that this is happening isn't evidence at all; it's fear-mongering from the right wing. Like 4 February 14 at 1:57pm

o
Eric Kuzmack There is a VERY VERY big difference between a church not performing a ceremony (a non-profit, relgious organization, that has been granted very specific status) and a FOR PROFIT business that opens its store front where anyone can walk in, using public roads, sidewalks, government issued business licenses, special tax treatments, etc.... I have zero problems with a church refusing to perform a marriage ceremony. But a for-profit business with an open storefront that takes advantage of taxpayer funded infrastructure to be able to be in business and have customers walk in, must provide its services in a non-discriminatory manner. Like 1 February 14 at 2:03pm

o
James Head Or google "Bob Marshall" + "Hate group" Like February 14 at 3:07pm Edited

o
Alleyn Harned http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bob+marshall+idiot+bigot# Like February 14 at 4:10pm

Storm Freeman Let's say you dont; agree with "one ma, one vote, one time" Then, all of your arguments disappear under the weithg of chaning public opinion:"a poll conducted in October by Christopher Newport Universitys Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy showed 56 percent of likely voters opposed the ban on same-sex marriage, while 36 percent support it and 7 percent had no opinion." http://www.washingtontimes.com/.../federal-judge.../... Like Reply February 14 at 12:42pm

o
Bob Marshall Then people should elect representatives who agree with them and repeal the law in the appropriate way. Not legislate through the judiciary. Like 1 February 14 at 12:57pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove We're working very hard to elect better representatives of the majority of people, in spite of the deliberate gerrymandering and attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. Like 2 February 14 at 1:11pm

o
Karen Gautney Oppressive legislation SHOULD be addressed by the judiciary. Or do you think public opinion should have ruled on matters such as segregation? Like 1 February 14 at 1:27pm

o
Leslie Rubio Hard to do when they gerrymander the districts to ensure their reelection Bob! Like 1 February 14 at 1:45pm

o
Joe Anderson That's why we call them rights, we don't vote on them. Like 1 February 14 at 3:49pm

o
Chris OKennon So Fake Gay Bob, you're saying that you oppose the American way of government that many have died to preserve? Like February 14 at 6:13pm


Jack Mullikin when legislating please leave ALL of your invisible friends out of the discusion! as they can not speak for themselves and really do not need any one speaking for them ...stop it! Like Reply 2 February 14 at 12:41pm

o
Bob Marshall All legislators decisions on legislation are affected by their worldview whether they be atheist, Christian or Hindu. They don't leave their views at the door. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion. Like February 14 at 1:08pm

o
Leslie Rubio You are supposed to support the will of the people, not your own personal view/ Like 4 February 14 at 1:29pm

o
Karen Gautney That's right. And at this point, the will of the people in Virginia is in favor of marriage equality. Why is it that Delegate Marshall refused to vote for giving Virginia's citizens another chance to weigh in on this issue? Like 2 February 14 at 1:58pm

o
Kathy Giannone "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion." Wrong. Like 2 February 14 at 10:31pm

Storm Freeman Let's say that you dont; agree with "one man, one vioate, one time". Then, your arguments hold no water, given that:

Like Reply February 14 at 12:41pm

o
Bob Marshall Then law can be repealed if people elect representatives who agree with that. So far that has not happened. Like 1 February 14 at 12:58pm

o
Karen Gautney The constitutional amendment could have been repealed by a vote of Virginians, which polls suggest would have happened if Delegate Marshall and other right wingers had supported giving them a vote. Like 1 February 14 at 2:00pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove Due to gerrymandering and extremist PACs. Like 1 February 14 at 2:07pm

Nick Bukowski Thanks Bob. Very cogent argument. I don't think I am entirely in agreement with the correct way to approach this issue (I prefer less govt involvement than more) but I can definitely agree with you that this judge's actions is in complete violation of constitutional government. Judges are not supposed to write law. Complete judicial overreach. The worst part is that conservatives play within the rules to attempt to achieve their desired goals, whereas liberals subvert the rule of law to create new law that achieves their goals. And we just sit back with our hands tied and watch it all burn. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 10:13am

o
Jen Little Just so you know, this isn't really Bob Marshall! See comments above. Like 2 February 14 at 12:26pm

o
Bob Marshall Jen, as previously discussed I am Delegate Marshall's staffer and unless otherwise stated do speak for him.

Like February 14 at 1:02pm

o
Alicia Knight Who wrote the long statement at the beginning of this thread? Was that you, or the real Bob Marshall? Like 1 February 14 at 3:41pm

o
Alleyn Harned This is an example of equal protections under the law for Americans - not some liberal subversive plot.Bob Marshall, get out out of people's bedrooms and vaginas if you want to be free. Like February 14 at 4:24pm

Katie Daniels Also-the U.S. Constitution trumps state law. Mark Herring is not bound to follow a law that violates the overall law of the United States. Good luck with your bar complaint. Like Reply 9 February 14 at 11:11am

o
Bob Marshall Virginia's marriage law does not violate the U.S. Constitution. All marriage law excludes some groups and it is the rights of the states to determine which groups will be excluded not the judiciary or the Federal government. You cannot equate race to sexual behavior. Like 1 February 14 at 11:23am

o
Katie Daniels Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison. The gay marriage ban selective discriminates against gays from being allowed to marry in accordance with their sexual practices. Marriage was deemed by the Supreme Court deemed to be a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, thus by systematically discriminating against them, you are violating the Constitution. Also gay sex is protected under the right of privacy. Like 1 February 14 at 12:17pm Edited

Katie Daniels Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.[3][4] According to Bruce Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[5] Nevertheless, Bagemihl points out, this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[6] Simon Levay introduced the further caveat that "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9] The sexual behavior of non-human animals takes many different forms, even within the same species, though homosexual behavior is best known from social species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[10] The observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans, and has been used especially against the claim that it is a peccatum contra naturam ('sin against nature').[3] For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.[11] Like 1 February 14 at 12:18pm

o
Katie Daniels Homosexual behavior is natural, as is race. So yes it can be equated as race. Unless you are advocating that gays sustain from sexual behavior, which is about as effective as telling others to lighten their skin. Like 4 February 14 at 12:19pm

o
Katie Daniels The Establishment Clause prohibits state government, through the 14th Amendment, that religion cannot be established through the government. Attempting to justify laws via religion is unconstitutional. Like 1 February 14 at 12:21pm

o
Katie Daniels I would have absolutely no problem with you passing a law which stated that churches wouldn't have to perform gay marriage but that cannot be the basis for legislation. it violates the establishment clause. Like 1 February 14 at 12:25pm

o
Bob Marshall Katie, pedophiles argue exactly the same thing. Their sexual preferences do not make it okay for them to marry a child even if the child agrees, neither do the sexual preferences of those who prefer group marriage. The sexual preferences of animals have nothing to do with public policy about marriage at all. No one is arguing that those who identify as LGBT to not have the right to their sexual preference. The only argument is about the state recognizing gay marriage. The supreme court has not recognized the absolute right to marriage or all the above groups and anyone who wanted to marry their cat or their car for that matter would be able to do so. There are limitations and those limits are to be set by the states. Again, you cannot equate race with sexual behavior as you seem to be continuing to try to do. Like 1 February 14 at 12:27pm

o
Katie Daniels Now you're equating consenting sexual behaviors to children being sexually abused. Your profound ignorance of both the law and social issues is astounding. Have a wonderful day.

Like 5 February 14 at 12:28pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove They always seem to have an "excuse" to justify their blatant discrimination, bigotry, and hate. Like 3 February 14 at 1:14pm

o
Teresa Thompson Selove Perhaps it is to cover up that THEY (republicans) are the pedophiles or the real perverts? The obsession with private ADULT matters and the intrusive government interference really sounds suspicious to me. Like 1 February 14 at 1:15pm

o
Katie Daniels They're for limited government as long as its promoting their religious motivated moral beliefs on others. Like 2 February 14 at 3:07pm

o
Karen Gautney It is a bit strange that "conservatives" seem so enamored with bestiality and child molestation. It's classic projection. Also, for people who want to regulate sexual behavior, they are exceedingly ignorant about sexual orientation. Like 1 February 14 at 3:42pm

o
Lee Hernly Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. Plain and simple. Like February 14 at 5:03pm

o
Katie Daniels The Supreme Court disagrees-but thank you for trying. Like February 14 at 5:28pm

o
Lee Hernly Katie Daniels - Where in the 14th amendment does it mention marriage? Hello? Like February 14 at 5:37pm

Lee Hernly Katie Daniels wrote: "The Supreme Court disagrees-but thank you for trying." Does it mean the Supreme Court was right? Like February 14 at 5:37pm

o
Katie Daniels Loving v. Virginia-The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Like 1 February 14 at 5:38pm

o
Katie Daniels The simple point its really none of your concern. You don't have to approve gay marriage or homosexuality in general. But keep your views to yourself. Like February 14 at 5:45pm

o
Lee Hernly @Katie - If you ACTUALLY read (I know that's hard for some Liberals to do), the Loving case was not about marriage itself but, was a case of marriage being used to perpetuate segregation and racism. It had zero to do with equality. None of which was being perpetrated by the Virginia Amendment. What Judge Wright-Allen did, ruling as she did (or if she had held it to be constitutional), was to say that the people don't matter and are impudent and seized power for herself. Like February 14 at 8:22pm

o
Katie Daniels Yawn. Like 3 February 14 at 8:26pm


KA McCord Read the Constitution: AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Like Reply 5 February 14 at 11:31am

o
Bob Marshall KA, all marriage law excludes some groups of people. The equal protection clause does not mean that every law has to be applied exactly the same way to every person. If that were the case with marriage law adults could marry children, polygamy should be legal etc. You cannot for equate race to sexual behavior - which is what the judge tried to do in this case. Like 1 February 14 at 11:45am

o
KA McCord Bob Marshall -- You seem to be confused about "sexual behavior" and "who a person is." Do you really think the state has a role in legislating "sexual behavior"? Since you seem to have a basic objection to the forms of sexual behavior in which you presume homosexual couples engage, do you have the same objections to heterosexual couples who engage in the exact same sexual behaviors? Because -- and this might be news to you -- the kinds of sexual couplings that occur between same-sex couples ("insert part A into opening B") ALSO occur between opposite-sex couples. Are you proposing to legislate that behavior? Also, marriage is about much more than "sexual behavior" -- it is about bonding, emotional and financial support and mutual aid, common interests, building homes, (optionally) raising children. If your ONLY justification for not applying a law equally to adults is your objection to the sexual orientation of those adults, that is unconstitutional discrimination. Like 2 February 14 at 12:01pm

o
Peter Nuar KA- your argument is oft repeated - that some persons are being denied equal protection of law - but this would seem to be a clever twisting of the facts and law. Under the law struck down, no one of homosexual attraction was denied the right to marry, any more than anyone else was denied the right to marry. Everyone was obliged to the same restraints, no matter what your orientation or preference - man, woman, child, or chili. Each person had to follow the law and freely choose another of suitable age, with free choice, unmarried, and of the opposite gender. Whether or not there were feelings between them was irrelevant. As long as they followed the rules, they could marry. What's happened is a redefinition, based on the desires of some. A desire, a longing, an attraction, an every other feeling you can think of, has never before been the basis for redefining our understanding of a reality to make a law fit what we want. And this does not bode well as a nation of laws. Like February 14 at 3:45pm

o
KA McCord So, you would have no problem, Peter Naur, if the law specified that everyone is free to marry by freely choosing another of suitable age, with free choice, unmarried, of the opposite gender, of the same racial makeup, and of the same religious denomination?

Like February 14 at 3:52pm

o
Peter Nuar You gloss lightly over the intrinsic connection between gender and the future of society. There is a clear rational basis for legislating gender into marriage. No such connection exists with race or religion. Like February 14 at 4:05pm

o
Lee Hernly Where in the 14th amendment does it mention marriage? Hello? Like February 14 at 5:00pm

o
Lee Hernly The 14th amendment was not created to ensure that everybody is the same, everything is uniform. Like February 14 at 5:40pm

Peter Upton This whole thing seems rigged. Let's hope the appeal will show expose this judge as a hack. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 10:06am

o
Karen Gautney Rigged. Yep, it was rigged by the constitution. Marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional by the vast majority of judges (appointed by both Democrats and Republicans) who have heard the cases. Why would anyone think one more such ruling is "rigged"? Like 2 February 14 at 1:36pm

o
Bob Marshall The decisions have not been based on any previous precedent or the Constitution which leaves determining marriage law to the states.

Like February 14 at 1:37pm

o
Karen Gautney Well, precedent has to start somewhere, doesn't it. Like 3 February 14 at 1:38pm

o
Karen Gautney Like, for example, Loving v. Virginia. Like 2 February 14 at 1:39pm

o
Peter Upton It is not surprising to see people with a pro-gay agenda in favor of any ruling that promotes their cause...... Like February 14 at 1:58pm

o
Karen Gautney It is not surprising to see people with an anti-gay agenda denigrate any ruling that doesn't promote their cause... Like 3 February 14 at 3:27pm

o
Peter Upton I don't have an anti-gay agenda. I support the right of gay people to be as gay as they want. I also believe free people do not need the permission of the government to get married. The thing I have a problem with is gay people using the legal system to force people to accept something we don't agree with, and override the will of the majority of the people. Like 2 Yesterday at 8:25am

o
David Weintraub False, Fake Bob Marshall. As the judge in the Kentucky case a few days ago very clearly explained, the jurisprudence leading to this inevitable result has been developing over the last 50 years. You just don't understand or like it. Like 18 hours ago

o
Peter Upton We don't (at least I don't) go to your gay facebook pages and tell you how to live, and what you "must" respect... Like 17 hours ago

Lee Hernly Karen Gautney - If you actually READ the Loving case, Loving was not solely about marriage. Like 17 hours ago

o
Lee Hernly Peter Upton - Well said. Like 17 hours ago

Leslie Rubio Will you go to your grave espousing inequality Bob? Like Reply 3 February 14 at 1:27pm

o
Bob Marshall Delegate Marshall is not espousing inequality and if that is in any way a threat it will be reported to the Capitol Police who take these things quite seriously. Like February 14 at 1:29pm

o
Leslie Rubio No threat at all, just asking if Bob would continue to hold the opinion that not everyone receives equal treatment under the constitution for the rest of his life on earth? Like 3 February 14 at 1:31pm

o
Karen Gautney Puleeze, Bob Marshall. She asked you if you would take a belief to the grave and you threaten to report her to the Capitol Police? You made the threat. Like 11 February 14 at 2:01pm

Sally Mullikin I cry foul. Of course you are espousing inequality. I will say it. You are attempting to regulate morality with no regard for human relationships. Are you going to lead this fight forever? Is there nothing that will ever change your mind?? You are a glorious idiot if you call the Capitol Police onLeslie Rubio. I will have you know that we take the legislative aids who are paid with tax payer dollars to play around and argue on Facebook very seriously too when they attempt to threaten us because they are juvenile. You remind me of the minimum wage teller at the window at the DMV who thinks they rule the world. You must have an immature little man-woman complex to threaten the Capitol Police on us. Go ahead, and while you're at it, call them on me too. I will send you my address. And for the record, I would like to know your name too little missy. Like 3 February 14 at 7:36pm

o
Steve Johnson You are now threatening to call the Capitol Police. What happen, did the State Police tell you to stop calling them? That was who you were calling last week! Like 3 February 14 at 9:18pm

o
Jeffrey Orcutt WOW, that has to be the one of the most stupid replies to come out of his office on this thread. (minus all the reasons to hate equality) Like 20 hours ago

o
Jerel C. Wilmore Go ahead and call out the State Police SWAT Team Delegate Marshall--that worked out great for the Republican Party of Virginia on March 3, 2012. Just let me know when and where so I can be there with my video camera. Like 3 17 hours ago

Joey Drauszewski You are a sad, sad old man... Like Reply 13 February 14 at 10:06am

Thomas Daniel Hudson Bobby, Bobby, Bobby... It's the beginning of the end, man. We do not live in a Christian theocracy. Nobody's going to force you to marry a man; consenting homosexual adults who have chosen who they want to be their partner simply want to enjoy all of the rights and responsibilities that their heterosexual counterparts do. Like Reply 11 February 14 at 10:23am


Aimee Houghton And Del. Marshall's relevance continues to dwindle. Like Reply 9 February 14 at 12:01pm

Scott Mitchell This is the most fun I've had in a while. Pass the popcorn! Like Reply 7 February 14 at 3:17pm

o
Chris OKennon But make sure you don't get two pieces popped the same way, because that's gay. Like 1 February 14 at 6:04pm

Thomas Gardner Delegate Marshall might not be mad but I am and wouldn't blame him if he was. Every legal voter in Virginia, from the most conservative to the most liberal should be mad when the federal government says that your vote is unconstiutional. Every voter in Virginia should be mad when our attorney general, elected to defend and uphold the Virginia Constitution, blatantly lies about his intentions before the election and then immediately reveals his corruption afterwards and works against the voters of Virginia to do just the opposite. Like Reply 4 February 14 at 10:25am

o
Wilma Justus Well said Thomas. The U. S Constitution states that anything not mentioned in it is left for the states to decide. The voters of Virginia voted in favor of traditional marriage, and it became Virginia law. This judge has no respect for either the U. S. Constitution or the Virginia Constitution. Like 1 February 14 at 10:29am

o
Thomas Daniel Hudson The goal of a democracy, however, is to protect the minority from the majority; that's why we have a judiciary.

Like 6 February 14 at 10:34am

o
Wilma Justus Read the Constitution. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Like 3 February 14 at 10:44am

o
Wilma Justus However, you are correct in that we are to protect the minority from the majority; but this is not an issue of protection. This is an issue of "want." No matter what, our marriage laws already "discriminate." There are stipulations that ensure that the person getting married is of legal age. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. Same thing for parent/child marriages. You cannot marry more than one person at the same time. For any type of license/legal documents, there has to be stipulations. I cannot get a license to build a garage on your property; because I am not the owner. Like 3 February 14 at 10:49am

o
Lee Hernly Actually @Thomas - that is the goal of a Republic, not a Democracy. Like February 14 at 5:06pm

o
Steve Johnson The AG didn't blatantly lie about this issue before his election. He publicly stated in June that he supported every persons right to marry the person of their choosing. You weren't paying attention! Like February 14 at 9:38pm

David M Roos Hey Bob Marshall: there is a book for you. It is called the Bible. Try reading it. Focus on the New Testament. You know. When Jesus came and transformed the world? Check out Matthew. Lots of good stuff in the Good Book. Not like your crazy talk. Virginians approved of slavery. They approved of banning interracial marriage. Segregation. They approved of a lot but times change. Your vote six years ago, wouldn't pass today. Times change Bob. You had your chance to get the Cooch elected. He lost. You had a chance to get that crazy Reverend to be Lt. Governor. He lost. Even Senator Obenshain: he lost. Bob that sound you hear? It is the ship of hatred and bigotry. It has sailed. You should hop off and swim to shore. Like Reply 6 February 14 at 8:28pm


Christopher E. Sexton The end of this discussion from me: Bob, you're the whole reason why Ghandi was so moved to say, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ." You and conservatives like yourself are so busy combing the Bible for religious condemnations of homosexuality that you have missed the entire point of Christ's message - and indeed, all of what the Christian faith, regardless of denomination, teaches us of non-judgmental love and respect. Not once on this issue have you relented in your assault on the GLBT citizens of the state you claim to represent, and now you must reap the bitter fruit of defeat that you planted in earnest in 2004. Your hateful actions have been defeated, and yet your call to action is so sadly predictable: impeach the judge?! Impeach yourself, Bob. Impeach yourself for putting your religion over the best interests of the citizens of this state. Impeach yourself for making this issue such a huge priority when Virginia has plenty of other issues at hand. Impeach yourself for going down in history as the legislator on the wrong side of history, for all I care. Quite honestly, though, I don't care what you do: you are a private citizen entitled to make your own decisions at life, and yet you have used the powers given you to legislate what my private and most personal decisions must be in order to be legal. If you had just left well enough alone in the first place and been a true conservative that leaves the government out of life as much as possible, you might have earned my vote. But no...you stepped into the bedrooms of all Virginians and dictated your terms to us as to what would qualify as a marriage when the government shouldn't even be doing that sort of thing in the first place!! So once again - I do not care what you go do with yourself, so long as you recognize how wrong you've always been on this issue and that you will not be interfering with my marriage or any other gay marriage in the state of Virginia ever again. God have mercy on you, Bob, for I am a mere mortal and I will show no mercy come the next election. Like Reply 5 Yesterday at 12:46am

o
David Weintraub He won't ever recognize it because he suffers from a debilitating irrationality on this topic. But he won't be able to do a damn thing about it either. Happy Valentine's Day to you and your husband! Like 18 hours ago

Bob Marshall Those of you viewing comments to this post on a mobile device. Our comments were replies to specific previous comments and show up that way on the online version on FB. On a mobile device they may not be connected to the comment they were in response to. Delegate Marshall wrote and approved the post above. As he has a JOB as a legislator he cannot possibly respond to every comment so I as his staffer reply to all comments. The thread about not speaking for Delegate Marshall was in response to a specific theological question from an opponent in which case I did not speak for Delegate Marshall nor did I think it had relevance to this discussion. In all other comments I am discussing things from a perspective that I know Delegate Marshall agrees with and has approved. That being said this string has been taken over by trolls with nothing to add to the conversation and as such we will not respond to further comments. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 4:40pm

o
Mike Radionchenko U mad bro? Like 3 February 14 at 4:42pm

Alicia Knight Trolls? You are calling us trolls because you don't want to answer our questions? Like 2 February 14 at 4:43pm

o
Mark Thorpe Trolls...keeping it classy! Like 1 February 14 at 4:44pm

o
Alicia Knight I would like to know what Delegate Marshall means when he says "LGBT lifestyle." Could you please answer that question? Like 1 February 14 at 4:45pm

o
Kate Farr Why did you all-caps "job", there? Are you implying the rest of us don't? I'll have you know I set aside some Very Important Business this afternoon to read the opinion of Bob Marshall on theological matters, in his capacity as a legislator and via a staffer. Like 4 February 14 at 4:45pm

o
Karen Gautney Wow! Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have nothing to add. Clearly, you just don't want to hear it. Even so, I think it probably a smart political move for you to stop posting. Like 2 February 14 at 4:46pm

o
Jen Little So now those who are gay, and apparently in my case petite, are Trolls? Just because I am under 5 feet tall doesn't make me a troll! Just because I debate politics on a politicians page doesn't make me a troll. Name calling is not nice! You hurt my feelings! Like 2 February 14 at 4:48pm

o
Jen Little p.s. by the way you're the one who said this... I am no Troll! Bob Marshall: I'm always the person who posts to this page. Unless otherwise noted I am speaking for Delegate Marshall. I tag you so you see my response. 3 hours ago Bob Marshall: Feel free to quit responding. 3 hours ago Like 2 February 14 at 4:49pm

Bobbi Hoffman He has a JOB. Wow. It must be really important because you put it in uppercase. Or is it an acronym? Trying to figure out what the "J" stands for. I figured out the "OB." lol Like February 14 at 7:54pm

Baron von Imhoof "History is replete with evidence of the harm done to children by absent fathers." History is replete with insane monsters, Hitler to name one, raised in a two-parent Christian household. I know kids in two parent homes, same-sex marriage homes and traditional. Traditional produces the most drug addicts, criminals and rapists. Shall we ban straight marriage? Like Reply 5 February 14 at 3:34pm Edited

Aimee Houghton Methinks Del. Marshall would be happier in Kansas. Like Reply 5 February 14 at 12:50pm

Linda Burchfield You're going to lose, Bob. Human Rights are Human rights. Your religious beliefs -- separation of church and state -- do not trump human rights. Period. Ain't happening. It doesn't mean you have to marry someone of the same sex. It just means everybody, as a human being and a citizen of the US, gets the same rights. Like Reply 4 February 14 at 8:14pm

Tiffany Gibsonhttp://25.media.tumblr.com/.../tumblr_mirhy5eQPY1s6tut4o1... Like Reply 4 February 14 at 3:51pm

o
Katie Q. Duckett hahahaha YA BURNT. Like February 14 at 3:53pm

Rob Farinholt Happy Valentines Day Bob! Like Reply 4 February 14 at 3:05pm

Brian Reach I've never met a gay man that thinks about sodomy as much as Bob Marshall. Seriously, I don't care who you are - I don't wanna know what you're doing in bed. Get over it! Like Reply 8 February 14 at 9:07pm

Kathy Stewart Shupe #lovewhoyoulove. Equal rights for ALL Virginians not just some Virginians. Like Reply 3 16 hours ago

Christopher E. Sexton Sorry about your luck, Bob: check...and mate. Actually, I'm not sorry in the slightest. The judiciary exists to make sure that bigoted legislation does not take precedent over justice for ALL of the citizens of yours state. You did not represent my voice when you codified your ridiculous marriage amendments and HR 751. You didn't represent my husband's voice either. We are both native-born Virginians, and we assure you we will be here long after you decide to leave public office and get as far away from our fair Commonwealth as you can. Your time of dictating terms to me and husband is OVER. Your time of bigoted legislation is OVER. Your time of preferring religious doctrine over what's right for the state is OVER. Get the message, Bob? Your ideas are no longer welcome in my home state. Either play nicely or suffer the consequences in the next election - you barely won that last one, and I daresay you won't survive the next one without a change of heart. Get over the ruling pretty quick, Bob. When you start acting like a Delegate of my state, I will address you as such. But until then, you are merely a carpetbagger named Bob who has ruined my state and beloved Commonwealth for far too long. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 10:41pm

Brian Kalish Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban What a great day to be a Virginian and an American! http://huff.to/LYSx0W Like Reply 3 February 14 at 7:38pm


Kate Farr "I am his staffer and as a general rule I do speak for him but I couldn't reach him to approve this post"... is the point where I stop reading all but the gifs.http://31.media.tumblr.com/.../tumblr_mrq16u6kY11s89mq8o1... Like Reply 3 February 14 at 4:22pm

Baron von Imhoof "Adoption agencies, public or private, will be forced to place children for adoption with homosexual couples and refusal will amount to illegal discrimination." Yes. as it should. Grow up and cope. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 3:20pm

Baron von Imhoof I'll take you a little more seriously when you expend this amount of concern/hatred/lunacy against divorced people because Jesus talked a lot more about divorce than He did gay marriage. Mind, I didn't say I'd actually and completely take you seriously. That's just not gonna happen while you lie about history, claim that to allow gay marriage logically leads to pedophelia (know who believes that? pedophiles.), and pretend you have any moral authority whatsoever to decide what God does and doesn't want. Gosh,another stuffed suit who wants to tell me what God wants and enforce God's "will" as interpreted (of course) by said stuffed suit. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 3:16pm

o
Lee Hernly Actually God talked more about gay marriage than Jesus did. Like February 14 at 4:59pm

Mike Kro Guess who's not getting elected the next cycle? Like Reply 3 February 14 at 3:01pm


Tom Stine You do realize that the vast majority of "deviant" behaviors and sexual acts that you oppose are conducted by straight people? 40% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, for example, which dwarfs the number of gay men who do by a huge amount. Plus, the very research you like to trumpet in your post and comments indicates that it is MONOGAMOUS long term relationships that reduce the number of STD's, etc. What better way to reduce "life-shortening" diseases than by encouraging people of every orientation to live in stable, long term monogamous relationships!! Surely GOD would approve. So, good for the Judge Allen in promoting the conservative agenda and God's plan!!! Like Reply 3 February 14 at 2:45pm

Keith Provost Hey, Bob's ghostwriter - if the US Supreme Court agrees with this ruling, will you agree that the fight is over? I mean, how high up on the judiciary does this have to go before you allow that the judiciary is a legitimate branch of government? Like Reply 3 February 14 at 2:23pm

o
Lee Hernly As if the Supreme Court has never made a bad decision (e.g. Dred Scott)? Like February 14 at 5:56pm

Sarah Richardson That's not how bisexuality works. It's not about having two people at once. The ignorance in this post is staggering. A whole bunch of people in politics should really educate themselves about sexuality. That requires more than consulting the Bible. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 2:04pm

Craig Liddell Pure Entertainment. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 1:27pm

Thomas Gardner No, the judiciary exists to uphold the laws enacted by the legislature. In this case the Amendment to Virginia's Constitution, created by the Legislature at the behest of Virginia's citizens and voted on by those same citizens in a free election. The judiciary cannot create law, at least they are not supposed to. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 10:46am

o
Leslie Rubio They have to uphold the constitution and when a state makes their own state amendments that violate the US constitution and someone challenges it, then it is heard in federal court. Virginia created a law to discriminate against gay people...come to find out they can't do that! Like 1 February 14 at 1:56pm

o
Joe Anderson Tom, you understand the difference between a state and federal court, right? Like February 14 at 3:52pm

o
Lee Hernly Virginians voted on the law and Virginians could vote down the law as well. One federal court judge should not overrule the millions of Virginians. I'm sure if it were put up for repeal, it would be. Like 1 February 14 at 5:05pm

o
Steve Johnson Lee, a bill was brought forward this year to have the issue voted on again and the Republicans led by Bob Marshall wouldn't let it come out of committee! Like February 14 at 9:57pm

Martha Cooley Such a great summary of the key points related to this important issue. Marriage is already falling apart today, now we are in danger of finishing it off. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 9:50am


Wilma Justus There is more to this than a religious issue. The U. S. Constitution states that anything not mentioned in it is to be decided by the states. Virginia voters voted for traditional marriage, and it became Virginia law. This judge totally disregarded both Constitutions. Constitutions that she swore to uphold. The legal and appropriate thing to do would be to put the issue back on the ballot for Virginia voters. Any law can be changed, as long as it goes through the proper channels. As Attorney General, Mark Herring should know enough about law to understand the proper procedures; and as Attorney General, his job is to uphold and enforce Virginia law. It is not the duty of the Attorney General to change law or pick and choose those that he will enforce. If this judge can change any law that she wants, what other laws will she change? Like Reply 4 February 14 at 10:43am

o
Leslie Rubio He didn't change the law and just like his predeccessor the Cooch...he can interpret the law and enforce the law as he sees just as AG. Ken decided that abortion clinics should be treated like hospitals in his interpretation of VA law...and worked hard to shut them all down. You can't go against the US constitution no matter how hard you try. Like February 14 at 1:59pm

o
Karen Gautney The fact is, the majority of courts that have looked at same-sex marriage have ruled that bans against it are unconstitutional per the US Constitution. It wouldn't have mattered if Herring had defending the unconstitutional Virginia laws. They are still unconstitutional. And, by the way, Wilma, several Democratic legislators have asked for another statewide referendum on same sex marriages and Marshall and other right wingers voted against doing that. Finally, you are mistaken to suggest that a judge can change any law they want. They rule on cases that come before them. Like 1 February 14 at 3:47pm

o
Lee Hernly Wilma Justus - You are absolutely right. Marriage is no where to be found in the Constitution and why Judge Wright should have stayed out of the case. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Like February 14 at 5:19pm

o
Steve Johnson a bill was brought forward this year to have the issue voted on again and the Republicans led by Bob Marshall wouldn't let it come out of committee! Like 1 February 14 at 9:58pm


Christopher E. Sexton Peter: That's because we've already been told whom we must love. We've been beaten up for whom we love. We've been killed for whom we love. We've been fired from jobs for whom we love. We've been told we're horrible people for whom we love. We've been denied equal treatment for whom we love. You've already gone to our "gay Facebook pages" and told us how to live: telling us through legislation and through societal shunning of varying degrees that the only acceptable way of living is heterosexual-only. You've done EXACTLY what you claim you haven't done - how brassy of you to say that. Don't dare delude yourself for one second in thinking you haven't been a hypocrite. Like Reply 2 17 hours ago Edited

Gail Gordon Donegan Did Fake Bob the woman post somewhere on here that she was going to call the capitol police? What was that all about? Like Reply 2 18 hours ago

Sally Mullikin After reading this thread and your post, it seems that you are more concerned about legislating morality than understanding relationships. Two human beings can have a relationship and love each other and actually not have sex and still request to get married and share their lives together. It is the request for a legal contract, just like the ones that a black man and white woman requested many years ago. You are saying that their love for each other is not for the common good and the same medical rights, insurance and right of survivorship should not be afforded because it's a sin, right? And furthermore if you stand behind your Marshall-Newman Amendment, then why don't you send it back in front of the voters now and see how far it gets. Virginia is changing, the world is changing, and you are becoming the minority. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 7:51pm

Linda Burchfield Separation of church and state. PERIOD. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 6:21pm

Mark Thorpe You shall do realize that this guy is just a state delegate and the staffer posing as him is probably just an unpaid intern, right? Like Reply 2 February 14 at 6:08pm

Mark Thorpe You're hilarious...if you keep this up, you might be able to get a job with Chris Christie! He's probably looking for staffers. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 4:50pm

Bob Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org In Internet slang, a troll (/trol/, /trl/) is a person who sows discord on t ...See More Like Reply February 14 at 4:46pm

o
Mike Radionchenko Yeah u mad Like 3 February 14 at 4:52pm

o
Karen Gautney This pretty much guarantees that the Marshall meltdown will make national news. He issues a brimstone rant about same sex marriage, filled with debunked assertions. His staffer, using his name, engages in a social media debate in which she repeatedly compares same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality. She also promotes religious beliefs over human rights. After significant pushback, Bob Marshall calls everyone trolls and exists the conversation. Like 4 February 14 at 5:02pm

o
Jen Little Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for citations. Like 2 February 14 at 5:06pm

o
Chris OKennon http://weknowmemes.com/.../zoidberg-you-should-feel-bad.jpg Like February 14 at 6:03pm

o
Daniel Kalbacher Wikipedia? Really??? Like 1 February 14 at 6:09pm

o
Mike Davis Funny that wikipedia, which is the essence of democracy, is attacked by those who supposedly believe in democracy. Perhaps they would prefer a source that is more closed and used to silence those that they disagree with rather than one that let's everyone have a voice. Like February 14 at 10:02pm

o
Mike Davis By the way it seems the only references to Bestiality come from Karen Gautney and Eileen Davis. In other words they brought up red herrings to attack those who opposed them. Hmmm. Like February 14 at 10:07pm

o
Jeffrey Orcutt OMG, am I seeing that Bob Marshall office is now calling all people that disagree with him "TROLLS". Love it. I thought the main reason for politicians to have FB pages is to get feedback on their actions. Actions that you have done poorly executing, I must say. Still trying to figure out how he is in office. must of paid a lot to have his boundaries drawn up to his likings Like 1 20 hours ago

o
David Weintraub Yeah, there's no animus here at all.. Like 19 hours ago

Katie Murphy As to sex being strictly for procreation, really? So you, Bob Marshall, and the rest of y'all who follow this biblical pronouncement, you don't have sex other than to procreate? I'm thinking y'all DO have sex, and you DO remarry in your golden years after divorce or death of a spouse. Tsk, tsk, ye without sin cast the first stone... Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:49pm

Joe Anderson Staffer: Now is a great time to pull the rip cord.

Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:44pm

Baron von Imhoof OKAY. Let's cut to the chase because, quite frankly, you bore me with this claptrap. Here are your words: "The natural design for the continuance of the human race is dependent upon the different natural attributes of males and females to have children." I think you danced a little close to your actual agenda with all this when you made that statement. I suspect you to be on the same wavelength as Santorum on this, so I'll ask a really simple question: Given the context of this thread and what you advocate, is it your position that sex is only to be engaged in for procreation or do you acknowledge that it is okay for consenting adults to do it for pure pleasure alone, with no procreation intended. Don't wait for the translation, just answer the question. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:32pm

Baron von Imhoof "Same sex "marriage" upends thousands of years of societal disapproval of certain sexual behavior and contradicts moral teachings of major religion's sanction against homosexual activity. To imply that one state Judge is smarter than the foundations of humanity is extreme hubris." To make a statement so bereft of historical knowledge and context in public shows more. There have been homosexuals in positions of power and honor throughout history. Western civilization began in Greece. Does that not make an impact? Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:32pm Edited

Baron von Imhoof "If this reasoning is upheld, then our children will be taught in school that they are guilty of illegal discrimination if they oppose homosexual marriage and that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, that any church which denies a marriage ceremony or a business which declines to provide services to a same-sex wedding celebration is guilty of illegal discrimination." 1- other than the "illegal" nonsense, that's what they should be taught. 2- the government doesn't force churches to marry anyone. There are churches now that won't marry whites to non-whites. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:33pm Edited

Keith Provost I screen captured as much of this astounding facebook post and resulting comments as I could, for posterity and ... potential mental health hearing evidence? Please share widely. http://imgur.com/a/uG7Xb Like Reply 2 February 14 at 3:04pm

Mark Thorpe Hey Nimrod...our 14th Amendment trumps your Bible every time. Sorry. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 2:43pm

Bettie Wootten Tussey Well shame on him for that too. Like Reply 2 February 14 at 1:34pm

Eric Kuzmack Your "slippery slope" arguments that marriage equality between two consenting adults somehow leads to polygamy (though polygamy is certainly "biblical marriage"), or pedophiles being able to marry children is rediculous. The entire phrase "TWO CONSENTING ADULTS" answers that question. As for "marriage as we have known it from the beginning of time" - you certainly don't know your history, do you. Polygamy has been around MUCH longer than your definition of marriage... Like Reply 2 February 14 at 1:32pm

o
Karen Gautney I chuckle when I hear the polygamy/incest/bestiality argument, because it's always the supposedly straight men who bring it up. Like 2 February 14 at 1:37pm

o
Peter Nuar Isn't "Two" kinda arbitrary?? Why stop with two? Why not a triad? Like February 14 at 4:13pm

o
Lee Hernly Actually @Eric Karen Gautney How quickly Liberals forget that while polygamy is described in several Old Testament texts, you ignore that it never turns out well with jealousy and divisions resulting and that by the time of the New Testament it is rejected as an option. Like February 14 at 6:08pm

o
Eric Kuzmack How quickly Christians forget that they are not the only religion in the world. I'm Jewish, and your New Testament means nothing to my religion. Which is exactly why government and religion should never mix. Because my religion is the only right one, and the rest of the world is wrong. Like 21 hours ago

o
David Weintraub Hey Peter, you know the difference between a class of person and a right, don't you? Tell me, where in the U.S. is there a legal right to plural marriage? Nowhere? Yeah. So there's no class of person being denied that right while other classes enjoy it. So there's no equal protection claim to be made. That's why. Like 18 hours ago


KA McCord By "marriage as we have known it from the beginning of time," do you mean ONLY the (current) Christian definition of marriage, or do you mean marriage as defined by ALL cultures and ALL religions for the past, say, 5000 years? Here is some interesting reading on the topic of "marriage as defined in the bible" -"The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory. ... [A] primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, ... various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../biblical-marriage-iowa... Like Reply 5 February 14 at 11:21am

Steven Moshlak Let's clear the fog. Judge Wright-Allen an Obama appointee. Like Reply 3 February 14 at 9:50am

o
Karen Gautney How do you feel about the numerous cases where a similar conclusion was reached by Republican appointees? Like 3 February 14 at 1:51pm

o
Steven Moshlak I strongly disagree with Vaughn Walker, opening up the flood gates. Like February 14 at 2:53pm

o
Karen Gautney And the Bush appointee who ruled two days ago that the Kentucky ban is unconstitutional? Like 2 February 14 at 3:01pm

o
Alicia Knight More fog -- This case was argued by Ted Olson - President Bush's Solicitor General.

Like 1 February 14 at 3:52pm

o
Lee Hernly Vaughn Walker should have recused himself. Like February 14 at 5:55pm

o
Karen Gautney In that case, ever heterosexual judge should recuse him/herself as well. Like 2 February 14 at 6:38pm

o
Lee Hernly If the heterosexual judge had a pre-determined bias or a conflict of interest in the case, then yes they should. Like 17 hours ago

Susan Maddux-Anderson Blah, blah, blah. You lost! You are on the wrong side of history. In 1967 you would have been cursing the SCOTUS for allowing interracial marriage. Like Reply 1 11 hours ago

Kathy Stewart Shupe African Americans and Caucasian Americans could not marry at one time in Virginia. Who would think to say no now? Like Reply 1 16 hours ago

Christopher E. Sexton All the proponents of the M-N Amendment are just simply bitter because their magnum opus - the crowning achievement of Virginia's anti-gay laws - came up for judicial review and failed to pass the test. You lost. Get over it. Checkmate. You get nothing, sir. You LOSE. Good day, sir. If you don't like what's happened, then get out of my state, please. Pack your bags and move to Uganda where your worldview on gay people will be much more readily accepted.

Like Reply 1 17 hours ago

Chad Parker If homosexuals can marry whoever they love, then it follows that bi-sexuals should be legally allowed to marry two people, polygamists should marry several, and pedophiles should marry children. There is no logical line to draw once marriage as we have kn own it from the beginning of time is abolished. There are 2 components to marriage: contractual and spiritual. The government has no business promoting or hindering any religious or spiritual component. If you want to become spiritually connected to one or more individuals, regardless of gender that's between you, your partner, and your church. The government's involvement comes in the contractual component. So long as all parties agree, to the same contract--regardless of number or gender--of their own free will and without coercion, I fully support it. I have no problem with polygamy. Pedophilia is another story. Just as an underage individual cannot enter into any other contract, a child cannot enter into a marriage contract. J Thats the logical line. Thats small government. Like Reply 1 21 hours ago

Jack Mullikin further Mr. Marshall, try reading and understanding ALL of human nature! try the World view,try to get off your high horse to understand how the rest of us live and deal with LIFE in general ....i challenge you to read this and understand the deeper meanings of Marriage the entirety of it all ......and good day to you ,sir, please do not bother the real people with your triffling logic ...again ....or really forever till you understand what i sent you !.....My 89 -year-old mother-in-law Norma Adams died two weeks ago and last weekend my 90-year-old father-in-law, Philip Adams, stood up at her graveside funeral and gave the most magnificent tribute to his wife of 66 years. For those of you who are struggling with the modern definition of marriage, or for those who are trying to understand the meaning of marriage, take five minutes and read this eulogy of love and faith so eloquently delivered by a 90-year-old widower who just jotted down a few words minutes before he spoke them in front of family and friends. During a class which I attended at Catholic University many, many years ago, the professor, a priest, strayed off the subject and asked, What is the primary purpose of marriage? We all looked at each other puzzled and gave the standard answers to have children, companionship, etc. The professor answered, No, the primary purpose is for the spouses to help save each others souls. At the time I was sort of puzzled because, first of all, I was not sure a soul existed, and the concept of being saved was somewhat foreign to me. But now that I am sure what saving a soul means, I am ever more sure that if any person helped me in saving my soul it was Norma in a thousand and one ways and occasions for which I shall be eternally grateful. And speaking of gratitude, and my being in such great debt to Norma, I am reminded of something I read years ago where a widower went to his therapist to try to get some relief from the inconsolable pain of bereavement he felt from the recent loss of his wife. The doctor asked him, If he had been the first to die would his widow have suffered? The patient said, most assuredly because we were very close. Well the doctor replied, Just think of the sorrow you have saved your wife by taking on the burden of mourning for her. So I, who owe so much to Norma, take some solace in making a small recompense for the tremendous debt I owe her. As Jesus said, Unless you become as little children you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. So Norma, who was childlike not childish in her love for people especially her family is surely in the mansion that God has prepared for those who love Him. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 6:07pm Edited

Erick Gordon Larson Go lick your wounds Bob.my partner and our two beautiful children are thankful that you do not get the final say. We do not seek your approval, nor do we seek the approval of those who would deny it to us. We do not seek the approval of any church. I will say this however, it is people like you who have helped me decide to raise my children without any religion. Like Reply 1 22 hours ago Edited

Lindsey Wallace At the end of the day, you're wrong. You represent an outdated and bigoted mindset, and you will be looked upon like the grandparents who still use racial slurs, even though it's wrong, because that's "just how they grew up". Like Reply 1 February 14 at 4:56pm


Chris OKennon Wow. What a moron. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 4:31pm

Suzanne Keller Times have changed Bob. You are the last gasp of patriarchy, may you walk in love as Christ taught and give up lust for power. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 4:10pm

Melody A. Thomas Time for you to retire. Your opinions do not reflect those of a MAJORITY of Virginians. I hope in the end that you find yourself on the right side of history. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 3:51pm

o
Melody A. Thomas Also, your "staff" would do well to stop responding to people. They're making you look even more foolish than you've made yourself look. Like 1 February 14 at 4:06pm

Joshua Marlar You guys are whacked. It must feel horrible to wake up with hate in your heart every day. #SameLove Like Reply 1 February 14 at 3:36pm

Baron von Imhoof "This will likely result in church based adoption agencies being forced to stop doing adoption work thereby leaving hundreds of thousands of children with fewer options."

Not my worry pal. It isn't for me to consider if a church can make a profit using property it pays no taxes on while indoctrinating kids with hatred and homophobia. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 3:24pm

Gail Gordon Donegan Who keeps deleting my gif? Like Reply 1 February 14 at 2:52pm

John Peters He should move to Moscow to be with his brethren. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 2:12pm

Will Alibrandi "Life shortening and health compromising behavior"?? Wow. Just... wow. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 1:56pm

Mike Radionchenko TL;DR Like Reply 3 February 14 at 3:40pm

Eileen Davis Erica I have the whole stream captured Like Reply 10 hours ago

Sally Mullikin Where are the gay Facebook pages? Are they stopping the straights from their civil rights? Like Reply 17 hours ago

Sally Mullikin Mike Davis. You be funny!

Like Reply 17 hours ago

Paul Roche I am a Republican who believes Bob Marshall (and his suurogate) is not only on the wrong side of the issue, but the wrong side of history. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Get out of people's bedrooms! You embarrass moderates like me and MOST Republicans... Like Reply 17 hours ago

Mike Davis Hmm, I wonder if Karen thinks that ABC is propaganda too. They are noting that the judge confused the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the ruling. Where did I hear that before? http://abcnews.go.com/.../oops-va-judge-confuses.../ Like Reply 17 hours ago

Christopher E. Sexton A majority of citizens whose minds have changed since 2004. Live in the present, please. Like Reply 17 hours ago

Garrett Epps Sir, you are a pretentious, semi-literate boob--what H.L. Mencken would have called a tinpot Paul bawling from the housetops. Like Reply 20 hours ago

Linda Swaney Butcher You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch! Like Reply Yesterday at 6:40am

Christopher E. Sexton Dave Briggman doesn't know the clause of the 1st Amendment that refuses to recognize an official federal or state religion...who's your advisor? Christine O'Donnell, I guess? Like Reply Yesterday at 12:25am

Tami Chapman Bob Marshall, you need to get rid of this admin.

Like Reply February 14 at 6:59pm

Erick Gordon Larson It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. Samuel Adams Like Reply February 14 at 5:29pm

John Fitzgerald Weaver I thought you said you were done responding? Like Reply February 14 at 4:47pm

Lisa Kirby VA is for lovers, after all it is our state motto, get over it Like Reply February 14 at 3:31pm

John Fitzgerald Weaver It's ok that you're a moron Like Reply February 14 at 3:31pm

Gail Gordon Donegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-bob.png Like Reply February 14 at 2:52pm

Gail Gordon Donegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-bob.png Like Reply February 14 at 2:51pm

Jeremy Sallee What are you planning to do to challenge this misuse of authority? Like Reply February 14 at 2:51pm


Scott Bell I hope you condemn single pregnant women just as strongly. After all, they've obviously committed adultery. But you say marriage predates religion so you should take all religious statements out of your defense. How about you make smoking illegal, that burdens our health care system too. You do a pretty good job where you're at, but this is where you and I will not agree. Like Reply February 14 at 2:33pm

Gail Gordon Donegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-bob.png Like Reply February 14 at 2:03pm

Will Alibrandi Just as unsurprising that those opposing equality would be up in arms over the same decision. Like Reply February 14 at 2:02pm

Dave Prelosky Taking what will surely be an unpopular view, why marriage? The argument is that an arrangement created to codify ownership of property and legitimize offspring is based on religion. Why are the two related? Are faith and property rights equivalent in the eye of God? Like Reply February 14 at 1:51pm

o
Peter Nuar To take a somewhat opposite view: why religion/faith? The connection between marriage and offspring (and the related property ownership) is obvious, but what's religion have to do with it? Just say the right previously reserved to the married are now open to all and any group. Why insist that it's the same thing as marriage? Like February 14 at 4:20pm


Thomas Gardner Tommy Danny Hudson, his name is Delegate Marshall, or Mr. Marshall, or just Bob. Don't be a punk. Like Reply February 14 at 10:26am

o
Thomas Daniel Hudson http://bit.ly/JFjnKw Like 4 February 14 at 10:30am

o
Karen Gautney Seriously? "Mr. Marshall" has gone off the deep end and you are concerned that someone called him Bobby? Like 3 February 14 at 1:34pm

Unicron Case Mr Marshall, and staffers. I was linked to this thread as it would seem that you, or your staffers, had a problem with the ruling and as such, may have made a few social media stumbles. and while ive had a few laughs reading this thread, i now must make a serious comment. I can agree that it is saddening that a federal judge confused the declaration and the constitution, this shows either an absentmindedness or failing on the part of our school and legal system. this judge was certainly socially motivated, and could possibly be construed as an 'activist judge'. On these points i can agree with you to an extent. However, citing the constitution i must include this... "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Are gays not citizens? people? I'm pretty sure they are. the ones i know are. So by allowing the government into our personal and love lives, we have created a case that the government must apply that law equally to everyone under its domain, including gays. we are not a theocracy. so theocratic concerns cannot play a part in our laws.at all. our legislative and legal system needs to be apathetic to the concerns of yours and anyones religion in order to maintain that. Does that mean that this ruling will force your local parish to hold gay weddings? no, your faith leader will most likely still have the right to refuse to violate his beliefs, and until he doesnt, i will not stand with you to decry this ruling. should there be a precedent or law passed that forces this on people, then i will gladly sign up to argue against it, as that would most certainly be an infringement upon your religious rights. however, due to the interference of government in our private lives, a marriage is two parts. there is a legal component, which is the one your amendment sought to restrict, which allows for what is essentially a bulk packaging of various contract law,

incorporation rules and powers of attorney, that grants spouses various legal rights. This is the component gays and folks of various sexualities, have sought to attain, because short of spending several thousand dollars on a lawyer and carrying these documents with them, they are denied this, and as it is a law, it should be meted out equally to them, per our constitution. and then there is the spiritual component, where upon receiving your paperwork from the government you and your church have a ceremony to celebrate your devotion and relationship with your spouse. This is currently not being tampered with, so calm down. For many of these people, who dont share your rules of faith, this is inconsequential to them, many are athetists, many participate in denominations that do not frown upon their relationships. but most of all, this has no legal bearing on what contracts they should be allowed to enter into. This all being very simply to grasp, i leave you with one more point, your party has been getting routinely spanked over this issue, as well as a few other social issues which are tied to your faith. Now im not saying to abandon your faith, that would patently wrong, what I am asking is that you recognize our nations separation of church and state. If the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility are important to you ad your party, defend them, fight for them, and leave the religious social enforcement at home. There is a new generation of voters today, ones who care more about their social choices and personal lives more than they do a solvent national economy and limited government. In order for you and your party to remain competitive you will need to adapt to this demand of the people, and start acting for the people as we would wish you to do so. Let this issue go away, so that you and your party mates can focus on real problems, like our floundering economy, the seemingly endless war over seas, and the growth of the surveillance state. You say youre for limited government, so start limiting the government you work within. Like Reply 1 21 hours ago

Randall Reynolds Your god does not exist, Bob Marshall. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 10:45pm

Beth Gordy The rule of law in this country no longer exists. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 5:14pm

Mike Davis This is why rights should not be legislated. When they are they become privileges. Rights are not granted by government and the pre-exist government. However, what is also true is that the will of the people passed the act in question. It is ironic that many of the same people who argue for democracy don't like it when "democracy" proves itself to be flawed. The founders saw this and that is why this nation is a republic and not a democracy. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 4:27pm

Bobbi Hoffman You're a dinosaur, Bob. It is past time for you to slink back to your cave and become extinct. You don't speak for the majority of Virginians, even though you would like to think you do. Buh-bye. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 3:31pm

Dave Briggman And if marriage is some universal right, not codified as a right in any governing document, is my right to keep and bear arms, which is codified into law, also universal so my right is also good in every state in the country? Understanding that my carrying of a concealed handgun doesn't affect any of you. Like Reply 1 February 14 at 6:43pm Edited