Like most states where anti-gay marriage amendments were passed between 2004 and 2006, in Virginia the main proponents of such anti-gay discrimination were "family values" and "Christian" organizations motivated by pure anti-gay animus. The prime motivation had nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with harming gays and seeking to forever keep us inferior citizens. In Virginia this effort was lead by The Family Foundation, which has affiliations with Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, which pushed for passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment with a campaign of lies and scare tactics. In striking down Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor, the U. S. Supreme Court held that anti-gay animus could not sustain the constitutionality of anti-gay laws. Given the clear track record behind the 2006 campaign to pass Virginia's anti-gay amendment, the reasoning in Windsor should spell the death knell for the Marshall Newman Amendment. At least that is the view of Theodore Olson and David Boies who are joining the team legal representing gay plaintiffs in Bostic, et al, pending in federal district court in Norfolk. Here are details from the Virginian Pilot:
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 today it is joining a lawsuit by two Norfolk residents 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.[T]he 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.Olson said The American Foundation for Equal Rights was invited to join the case by attorneys for the plaintiffs, Norfolk residents Timothy Bostic and Tony London, whose marriage application was turned down, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who have a 15-year-old daughter and whose marriage in California is not recognized by the commonwealth.Virginia is an "attractive target," said Olson, who lives in the state, because its rejection of same-sex marriage and civil unions is so complete.This Virginia case is also attractive because it is moving quickly, at the state's request. A second challenge, filed in the Western District of Virginia, is on a slower track.Although Virginia's constitutional amendment was easily approved, recent polling shows a majority of residents favor legalizing same-sex marriage. But Republicans who control the state's political leadership and legislature are opposed, and removing the constitutional amendment would be difficult.The Norfolk complaint makes extensive use of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion that DOMA "places same-sex couples in an untenable position" and "humiliates" the children raised by such couples.The lawsuit compares the Virginia ban with Kennedy's finding that "DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."
This is a most welcomed development and obviously isn't good news for Ken Cuccinelli who is defending Virginia's animus based amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment