Is Federal Judge Ready to Rule in Virginia Marriage Equality Case?

As noted on this blog earlier in the week, in the wake of Mark Herring's decision that the Virginia Attorney General's office would not defend Virginia's gay marriage ban, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen (pictured at left) issued an order in Bostic v. Rainey indicating (i) that she was taking all pending Motions for Summary Judgment, including that of the four plaintiffs, under advisement, (ii) asking the various counsel to indicate whether or not oral arguments scheduled for January 30, 2014 at 9:00AM were still necessary, and (iii) directing the defendant Circuit Court clerks to file a reply to the Attorney General's filing not later than tomorrow. Some are speculating that Judge Wright Allen has decided how she will rule and will be working on her opinion.  Here's part of the take on the situation via Gay City News:

Responding to the January 23 announcement that the Commonwealth of Virginia will no longer defend that state’s constitutional and statutory ban on marriage equality, the federal district court judge presiding over one of two pending challenges there has indicated she is prepared to rule based on written briefs that have been submitted in the case.

Following Attorney General Mark Herring’s announcement that his office has concluded the state’s policy on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment rights of same-sex couples, District Judge Arenda Allen, citing “the compelling Notice from the Office of the Attorney General,” notified parties that she now longer sees a need for oral arguments scheduled for January 30.

She directed all parties to respond as to whether they believe oral arguments are necessary or “whether the Court should instead rule promptly on the briefs without a hearing.” The clear suggestion is that argument would be appropriate only to articulate points not already made in the written briefs.

Responses to Allen’s notice are due on January 27, suggesting a ruling could come quickly.

While it is possible that Judge Wright Allen may rule quickly, it is also possible that she will take her time to draft a detailed and well reasoned opinion knowing that no matter how she rules, the ruling will likely be appealed.  A mixed option is that she states her ruling and the opinion follows later.    Should Judge Wright Allen decide to strike down the Marshall-Newman Amendment and its statutory parallel's Mark Herring's memorandum of law as well as the opinions issued by the U.S. District Courts in Utah and Oklahoma have provided her with an excellent blueprint.  In addition, the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey have done a superb job documenting that anti-gay animus - something condemned by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor - is the only real motivation behind Virginia's gay marriage bans.