Quantcast
Home / The VLW Blog / Same-sex marriages could begin by next week in Virginia

Same-sex marriages could begin by next week in Virginia

(AP) A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to delay its ruling striking down Virginia’s gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.

The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court’s order did not explain why it denied that request.

While clerks in other states within the 4th Circuit — West Virginia and the Carolinas — wouldn’t technically have to begin issuing licenses as well, federal courts in the state would likely make them if they don’t, said Nancy Leong, a law professor at the University of Denver. Maryland, another state in the circuit, already allows same-sex marriages.

The 4th Circuit decision “shows that there’s no longer a justification to keep same-sex couples from marrying,” Leong said. “Given how many different judges in so many different parts of the country … have reached the same result, it seems highly likely that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits, and I think that, in turn, explains why the 4th Circuit was not willing to grant a stay.”

Ken Connelly, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele B. McQuigg in the case, said the group will seek an emergency stay from the nation’s highest court “as soon as possible.” That request will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for the 4th Circuit.

Connelly said he expects the stay to be granted, “given that there isn’t any substantive difference” between the Virginia case and a federal case in Utah, in which the Supreme Court has twice granted delays in the state’s fight to keep its same-sex marriage ban.

But Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which argued against Virginia’s gay marriage ban, said “Virginia’s loving, committed gay and lesbian couples and their children should not be asked to wait one more day for their fundamental right to marry.”

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 that banned gay marriage and prohibited the recognition of such marriages performed in other states. The appeals court ruling overturning that ban was the third such ruling by a federal appeals court and the first in the South.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring — who has said he will not defend the state’s ban and believes the courts ruled correctly in striking it down — asked the Supreme Court last week to review a lower court’s decision striking down the state’s ban.

Herring said he believes the case will prove compelling to the high court because of the “stringent, discriminatory nature of Virginia’s marriage ban” and other factors.

A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last week considered arguments regarding six cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Some observers have said the 6th Circuit may be the first to uphold statewide gay marriage bans after more than 20 consecutive rulings in the past eight months striking them down.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

One comment

  1. In my view, perhaps the most important part of this story is the phrase, “assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.” As an appellate attorney, it is eminently foreseeable to me that a justice on the high Court will stay the Fourth Circuit’s judgment pending resolution of at least the cert petition. SCOTUS Rule 23 expressly provides for review by a single justice, and the appellants here should be able to persuade one of the justices to stay the enforcement of the judgment long enough to permit the appeal to wend its way through the cert process. That rule also provides that the Court can require a supersedeas bond, but I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that such a bond would be required, given the issues in this case and the public-sector positions of the appellants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top