A Virginia Court Has Struck Down the State’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The federal appeals decision upholds a February ruling that found the ban violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

RICHMOND, VA - MAY 13: A same-sex marriage supporter wears a rainbow cape behind 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a court hearing May 13, 2014 in Richmond, Virginia. Three judges from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides of the case that seeks to determine whether Virginia's same sex marriage ban is constitutional. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
Emma Roller
Add to Briefcase
Emma Roller
July 28, 2014, 9:56 a.m.

The U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the 4th Cir­cuit in Vir­gin­ia has struck down that state’s same-sex mar­riage ban as un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, by a 2-1 vote.

The de­cision Monday up­held a rul­ing by U.S. Judge Aren­da L. Wright Al­len in Feb­ru­ary that found the ban vi­ol­ates the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion’s equal pro­tec­tion clause. In 2006, Vir­gin­ia passed an amend­ment to the state Con­sti­tu­tion de­clar­ing mar­riage to be between a man and a wo­man.

Here is the key por­tion of Judge Henry F. Floyd’s rul­ing:

We re­cog­nize that same-sex mar­riage makes some people deeply un­com­fort­able. However, in­er­tia and ap­pre­hen­sion are not le­git­im­ate bases for deny­ing same-sex couples due pro­cess and equal pro­tec­tion of the laws. Civil mar­riage is one of the corner­stones of our way of life. It al­lows in­di­vidu­als to cel­eb­rate and pub­licly de­clare their in­ten­tions to form lifelong part­ner­ships, which provide un­par­alleled in­tim­acy, com­pan­ion­ship, emo­tion­al sup­port, and se­cur­ity. The choice of wheth­er and whom to marry is an in­tensely per­son­al de­cision that al­ters the course of an in­di­vidu­al’s life. Deny­ing same-sex couples this choice pro­hib­its them from par­ti­cip­at­ing fully in our so­ci­ety, which is pre­cisely the type of se­greg­a­tion that the Four­teenth Amend­ment can­not coun­ten­ance.

Fed­er­al judges in oth­er states such as Col­or­ado, Nevada, Utah, and Wis­con­sin have struck down sim­il­ar state bans in the past year, with vary­ing suc­cess. In Utah’s case, the state ban could go all the way to the U.S. Su­preme Court.

Cor­rec­tion: A pre­vi­ous ver­sion of this post misid­en­ti­fied a por­tion of the court’s opin­ion.

What We're Following See More »
CEOS HAVE BEEN FLEEING FOR THE EXITS
Trump to End Business Councils
14 hours ago
THE LATEST
FROM STATEMENT
McConnell: “No Good Neo-Nazis”
17 hours ago
THE LATEST
NO FORMAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORT
CBC Members Call for Removal of Confederate Statues from Capitol
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are reviving calls to remove Confederate statues from the Capitol following the violence at a white nationalist rally in Virginia." Rep. Cedric Richmond, the group's chair, told ABC News that "we will never solve America's race problem if we continue to honor traitors who fought against the United States." And Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson said, “Confederate memorabilia have no place in this country and especially not in the United States Capitol." But a CBC spokesperson said no formal legislative effort is afoot.

Source:
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
Baltimore Removes Confederate Monuments
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Confederate statues in Baltimore were removed from their bases overnight, as crews using heavy machinery loaded them onto flat bed trucks and hauled them away, an end to more than a year of indecision surrounding what to do with the memorials. The action comes after Baltimore City Council approved a plan Monday night to remove four statues linked to the Confederacy from public spaces in the city."

Source:
“TOLERATES BIGOTRY”
AFL-CIO Head Trumka Quits Council
1 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login