The legal team that overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage is targeting Virginia to launch another challenge aimed at convincing the Supreme Court that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry no matter where they live.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights — with its attention-getting political odd couple of conservative Republican lawyer Theodore Olson and liberal Democrat David Boies — will announce Monday it is joining a lawsuit against what the lawyers called Virginia’s “draconian” laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, the recognition of such marriages performed where they are legal, and civil unions.
It is one of dozens of lawsuits filed across the nation by same-sex marriage activists who say they feel emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decisions in June that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbade recognition of same-sex marriages and separately allowed such unions to resume in California.
Despite the victories, the justices stopped short of finding that the Constitution requires that gays and lesbians be allowed to marry and left the matter, for now, to the states.
There are dozens of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 18 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and on Friday, a state judge in New Jersey ruled same-sex marriages must be allowed there. Gov. Chris Christie (R) is appealing.
But the ultimate goal is the recognition of a constitutional right, such as when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.
The addition of Olson and Boies to a case in Norfolk will probably bring more attention to the challenges to Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages. The state’s voters in 2006 amended the state constitution to ban such marriages, as well as civil unions, and to forbid recognition of unions performed elsewhere. Thirteen states, including Maryland, plus the District of Columbia, allow gay marriage.
Del. Bob Marshall is probably clutching his chest at the moment since he is the Marshall in the Marshall-Newman Amendment that was ratified by the voters of Virginia on Nov. 7, 2006 with 57% of the votes.
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Many of us see this as a civil rights issue. Had integration been put to a referendum back in the late 50’s, I feel confident it would have lost. 2006 was midterm elections and I suspect that amendment was strategically placed on the ballot to bring out a conservative crowd, especially the religious conservatives who see this issue as a bibilical issue. I also think the amendment is negative about unmarried individuals in a way that makes them less than equal to married couples. In short, it is discriminatory.
May the force be with Olson and Boies. I find it ironic that people still bash gays for living a compromised life style (aka promiscuous) and at the same time gays are prohibited from forming legal relationships. The criticism makes no sense. It also makes no sense to not allow people who love each other to marry if that is what they want to do. It makes no sense that one group, heterosexuals, are allowed to marry and another group, homosexuals, are not entitled to the same privileges.
I believe that the Virginia amendment will be overturned by the courts as a civil rights case. Am I wrong?
I would imagine that Bob Marshall is loosing his deodorent about now.
I thought of that when I posted the thread.
From a civil rights point of view, I can’t see how the VA amendment could survive when viewed under a civil rights microscope.
As an intellectual query…what do you think of the idea that, if the Amendment is overturned and same sex marriage is allowed….. that marriage between three or more people are then lawful?
The “arbitrary” limit will have been defeated. So what would be the new limit?
@Cargosquid
Why is it that every time gay marriage is brought up, someone has to bring up polygamy? Why wasn’t it brought up ten or twenty years ago? What’s next? Bestiality? Those soundbites are such a big yawn…
@Censored bybvbl
Why is it that the idea of polygamy is objectionable? Why not bring it up since any limit is arbitrary?
It wasn’t a soundbite. Notice..I didn’t disapprove. I don’t really care one way or another. I really want to know if and why it might be objectionable to those supporting same sex marriage.
So…I should put you down for NO for group marriage. May I ask why 3 people getting married is objectionable?
@Cargosquid
If you think marriage is a contract between two people, don’t discriminate against any two people – who aren’t minors – entering into it. If three peeps want to enter into a contract, let them form a corporation.
@Censored bybvbl
So…why do you support the arbitrary limit of only two people? I ask…because I truly don’t understand the logic? What’s the difference if the original, apparently arbitrary, limit was removed?
If its all about contracts and not religion, why can’t 3+ people get married? I actually see no problem, if we’re stating that.
Fundamentalist Mormons already do that. 1 civil marriage and any subsequent marriages are simply church marriages and not recognized by the state. Why doesn’t that work if the only ones married are adults?
To use your argument, why aren’t 12 year old girls married off to 60 year old men? Why an age limit? Why not allow 8 year old boys to be married to some nasty old 55 year old pervert?
The Virginia constitutional amendment was an electioneering gizmo used by Rs to drive turnout in general elections. It was in the playbook in those days and used in several other jurisdictions. It was clearly bit of constitutional vandalism, but there was (and perhaps still is) in Republican circles at that time was not one of respect for either the national or even the venerable Virginia constitution.
The amendment was always constitutionally suspect. With the Supreme Court decisions of last term it is now ripe for being euthanized.
last sentence of the first graph above is unintelligible. Should read, “It was clearly a bit of constitutional vandalism, but there was (and perhaps still is) in Republican circles at that time little respect for either the national or even the venerable Virginia constitution.”
Yet think how many drag out that pocket constitution.
This past week illustrates how little the constitution is really revered.