This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-to-hear-arguments-on-virginia-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/05/12/38b64ada-da13-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Appeals court judges seem sharply divided over Virginia ban on same-sex marriage Appeals court judges seem sharply divided over Virginia ban on same-sex marriage
(about 5 hours later)
RICHMOND — Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions got an emotional hearing before a federal appeals court Tuesday, even as one of the judges described the court’s deliberations as a likely “way station” on a journey to the Supreme Court. RICHMOND — A panel of judges sharply disagreed Tuesday over whether Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, trading pointed questions at an emotional appeals court hearing that previewed the legal issues likely to eventually land before the Supreme Court.
Two judges with distinctly different views dominated questioning at the hearing on whether Virginia has a right to ban same-sex unions or whether marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution that must be offered regardless of sexual orientation. At the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, two judges with distinctly different views dominated the questioning over whether marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution, that must be offered regardless of sexual orientation.
( The three-judge panel was reviewing the February decision by a Norfolk federal district judge that Virginia’s ban — which also bars recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, along with any legal arrangement that resembles marriage, such as civil unions — violates guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Read more about the arguments today on Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban. Five lawyers took turns at the podium, but the focus was on the veteran judicial panel. The sharply opposing viewpoints of two of the jurists suggested that the third, independent-minded Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd, might hold the deciding vote.
) A former Democratic state legislator from South Carolina, Floyd has shown a bipartisan appeal. He was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush and elevated to the 4th Circuit by President Obama. He is said to be a friend of both Democratic Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.) and the state’s Republican senior senator, Lindsey O. Graham.
The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was reviewing a February decision of a Norfolk federal district judge that Virginia’s comprehensive ban — it also bars recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal and any legal arrangement that resembles marriage — violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. As a district judge, Floyd was perhaps best known for ruling that Bush did not have the power to detain a U.S. citizen, José Padilla, as an “enemy combatant.” The 4th Circuit later overturned the decision, but Padilla was charged in a civilian court and convicted of terrorism-related crimes.
Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory seemed to strongly agree and continually compared the case to Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. However the panel rules — a decision could come before the end of the summer — the judges acknowledged that the work they and other appeals court judges around the country are doing is probably just teeing up the issue for the Supreme Court.
Presiding Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer joked that the court was a “way station” as the issue moved up I-95 to Washington.
“Maybe we should just say, ‘We pass,’ and let the case go on,” Niemeyer said deep into more than an hour of often-heated arguments.
He clearly appeared to be on one side of the issue. He resisted the arguments of Washington lawyer Theodore B. Olson, on behalf of couples challenging the ban, that the Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right on 14 occasions. And fundamental rights, Olson said, cannot be withheld from “one class of people” that the state creates.
Niemeyer said that the vision of marriage the justices found fundamental was the “union of a husband and wife.” The state has an interest in marriage, he said, because of the capability of heterosexual couples to produce children, something same-sex couples cannot do on their own.
“It doesn’t work biologically,” Niemeyer said.
Legally recognized same-sex unions are a “brand new” kind of relationship that states may be free to sanction or prohibit, but they are not the same as marriage, he said.
Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory was firmly on the other side. He continually compared the case to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case in which the Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage.
“The essence of marriage,” Gregory told a lawyer representing the two circuit court clerks who are defending Virginia’s restrictions, “is the individual’s choice to marry the person they choose.”“The essence of marriage,” Gregory told a lawyer representing the two circuit court clerks who are defending Virginia’s restrictions, “is the individual’s choice to marry the person they choose.”
The interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving needed a landmark 1967 ruling to live openly in Virginia, Gregory said. “How long do same-sex couples have to wait?” he asked. The interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving needed the landmark ruling to live openly in Virginia, Gregory said. “How long do same-sex couples have to wait?” he asked.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, on the other hand, said that the fundamental right to marriage that the Supreme Court has recognized as constitutionally protected is that of a “union of husband and wife.” Floyd largely withheld his view, but his questions generally seemed to favor those seeking to overturn the Virginia restrictions. He asked, for instance, why Virginia would not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.
Same-sex relationships, he said, are different because they are unable to produce children. “It doesn’t work biologically,” he said. The commonwealth is not required to recognize unions that are “inconsistent with its public policy,” said David Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing one of the circuit court clerks.
Legally recognized same-sex couples make up a kind of “brand new” relationship that states may be free to welcome or prohibit, but which are not the same as marriage, he said. Niemeyer was nominated to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, and Gregory was a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton in 2000 who was subsequently nominated by President George W. Bush. Floyd was named to the district court in 2003 and elevated to the 4th Circuit in 2011.
The third judge on the randomly assigned panel was Henry F. Floyd, who largely stayed out of the fray. His questions generally seemed to favor those seeking to overturn the Virginia restrictions, and he asked why Virginia may prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal. The review makes the 4th Circuit just the second appeals court to consider whether state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional since the Supreme Court handed a pair of historic victories to gay rights groups in June. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver has heard arguments about, but has not ruled on, district court rulings that struck down bans in Utah and Oklahoma.)
The commonwealth is not required to recognize unions that are “inconsistent with its public policy,” said David Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing one of the circuit court clerks defending the laws. A divided Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California last year after dismissing a challenge on procedural grounds, and it struck down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where they are legal.
The arguments ran longer than the scheduled hour. The Supreme Court did not determine whether there was a constitutional right to marriage that must include gays.
The 4th Circuit, once considered one of the nation’s most conservative courts, now has a majority of judges nominated by Democratic presidents. Its jurisdiction covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. But since June, federal judges have used the court’s reasoning in the DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor, to strike down bans in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan. Additionally, judges in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio have said those states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. And state courts in New Jersey, New Mexico and, last week, Arkansas, have held that same-sex marriages must be allowed.
Niemeyer was nominated to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush; Gregory was a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton in 2000 who was subsequently nominated by President George W. Bush; and Floyd was nominated as a district judge by George W. Bush in 2003 and named to the appeals court by President Obama in 2011. The Virginia case is unusual because state Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced shortly after taking office this year that he agreed with the challengers that the state’s restrictions are unconstitutional.
The review makes the 4th Circuit the second appeals court to consider whether state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver already has heard arguments about, but not ruled on, district court rulings that struck down bans in Utah and Oklahoma. The laws are being defended by Norfolk circuit clerk George Schaefer III, who denied a marriage license to two of the challengers, and Prince William circuit clerk Michele McQuigg, who is being represented by Nimocks’s group, which also is defending other state bans.
The court decisions followed twin decisions by the Supreme Court last June that provided historic victories for gay rights groups in the court’s first consideration of same-sex marriage. Like their counterparts on the 10th Circuit, the judges in Tuesday’s hearing struggled with how to decode the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor.
The divided court allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California after dismissing a challenge on procedural grounds, and struck part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where they are legal. On one hand, the decision said that defining marriage is a power traditionally held by the states and that the federal government cannot impose its own definition. But it also said that state restrictions must not violate constitutional protections.
Since those rulings, federal judges have used the court’s reasoning in the DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor, to strike bans in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan. Additionally, judges in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio have said those states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Gregory pointed to language in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Windsor case that talked about the humiliation felt by children in same-sex families who see the state withholding official recognition of the relationships.
And state courts in New Jersey, New Mexico and, last week, Arkansas, have held that same-sex marriages must be allowed. Because the Virginia decision was stayed, the Arkansas ruling meant that for the first time, same-sex couples were allowed to marry in one of the former states of the Confederacy.
The Virginia case is unusual because Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced shortly after taking office this year that he agreed with challengers that the state’s restrictions are unconstitutional.
The laws are being defended by Norfolk circuit clerk George Schaefer III, who denied a marriage license to two of the challengers, and Prince William circuit clerk Michel McQuigg, who is being represented by Nimocks’ group, which also is defending other state bans.
Like their colleagues on the 10th Circuit, the judges in Tuesday’s hearing struggled with how to decode the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor, which did not decide if there was a fundamental right to marriage that must be extended to all.
On one hand, it said that defining marriage is a power traditionally held by the states and that the federal government could not impose its own definition. But it also said that state restrictions must not violate constitutional protections.
Gregory pointed to language in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion that talked about the humiliation felt by children in same-sex families who see the state withholding official recognition of their relationships.
“Why do you want to deny [children] all these warm and wholesome things about marriage?” he asked Nimocks. “You think the child loves these parents any less because they are same-sex parents?”“Why do you want to deny [children] all these warm and wholesome things about marriage?” he asked Nimocks. “You think the child loves these parents any less because they are same-sex parents?”
At one point he demanded of Nimocks: “Answer my question!” On the other side, Niemeyer mixed it up with Olson, so much that Olson had little time to speak.
Niemeyer mixed it up with Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two of the couples, so much that Olson had little time to speak. Niemeyer told Olson at one point that the lawyer’s arguments for blessing same-sex unions sounded like “good policy arguments” that should be made to a legislature considering the issue.
When Olson said the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the fundamental right of marriage was based on individual “liberty,” Niemeyer asked whether that would free a man to marry six wives, or his daughter. Olson reminded him that it should not be up to a class of people to assert their rights from state to state but that it is the court’s job to “protect fundamental rights and equal protection.”
Olson said government had good reason to discourage such marriages.
Niemeyer told Olson at one point his reasoning sounded like “good policy arguments” that should be made to a legislature deciding whether to legalize same-sex unions. Olson reminded him that it was the court’s job to “protect fundamental rights and equal protection.
“Maybe we should just say, ‘We pass,’ and let the case go on” to the Supreme Court, Niemeyer said later.
James D. Esseks, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, told the judges that there were “enormous similarities” between DOMA and the Virginia restrictions.James D. Esseks, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, told the judges that there were “enormous similarities” between DOMA and the Virginia restrictions.
Niemeyer replied that he took the main lesson of Windsor to be that the federal government should not intervene in state matters. Virginia Solicitor General Stuart A. Raphael told the court that the reason marriage traditionally has been a union of husband and wife is because the legal rights of gays have been recognized only recently.
Floyd was more circumspect, but his questions went mainly to the lawyers defending the state’s ban. He said he felt the Windsor decision gave “short shrift” to federalism and asked the lawyers whether they agreed marriage was a fundamental right.
Virginia Solicitor General Stuart A. Raphael picked up on that. He told the court that the plaintiffs were not seeking a right to same-sex marriage, but only that the fundamental right be available to them.
The reason marriage traditionally has been one of husband and wife, he said, is because it is only recently that the legal rights of gays have been recognized.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of two Virginia couples. Timothy Bostic and Tony London have lived together for more than 20 years and were denied a marriage license last summer by Schaefer. Mary Townley and Carol Schall of Chesterfield County were married in California and have a teenage daughter. They want Virginia to recognize their marriage.The lawsuit was brought on behalf of two Virginia couples. Timothy Bostic and Tony London have lived together for more than 20 years and were denied a marriage license last summer by Schaefer. Mary Townley and Carol Schall of Chesterfield County were married in California and have a teenage daughter. They want Virginia to recognize their marriage.
Their cause was joined last fall by lawyers Olson and David Boies. Along with the American Foundation for Equal Rights, those lawyers challenged California’s ban on same-sex marriage and pressed the Supreme Court to recognize a fundamental right to marriage that states may not prohibit. The argument was mostly serious, but there were unusual moments.
They joined the case in hopes that quick rulings in Virginia courts might get the issue before the high court again. To emphasize his point that Virginia has always considered marriage to be between a man and a woman, but did not always discriminate against mixed marriages, lawyer David Oakley, representing one of the clerks, brought up the 1614 union of Pocahontas and John Rolfe.
Also challenging the ban is the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal. They brought suit in Harrisonburg on behalf of two lesbian couples who represent Virginia’s same-sex couples who might want to marry, and those who have married elsewhere and whose marriages are not recognized. No one challenged that wedding, Oakley said.
Jenna Portnoy and Laura Vozzella contributed to this report.