海角大神

A divided federal appeals court ruled Monday that Virginia鈥檚 ban on same-sex marriages violates a fundamental right to marry without regard to sexual orientation.

The decision marks the third time in recent weeks that a federal appeals court has struck down a state-imposed ban on marriages of gay men and lesbians. The Denver-based Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed two similar rulings invalidating bans in Utah and Oklahoma.

Monday鈥檚 decision from the Fourth US Circuit in Richmond increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will take up the issue of same-sex marriage, perhaps as early as next term.

Two other appeals courts are set to hear multiple cases involving state marriage restrictions in August. Those courts will examine measures struck down in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee

In Monday鈥檚 decision in Virginia, the appeals court panel voted 2-1 to affirm a decision in February by a US district judge who struck down Virginia鈥檚 marriage statutes and a state constitutional amendment that restricted marriage to a union between one man and one woman.

In affirming that decision, the appeals court said the Constitution protects a broad conception of freedom that embraces an individual鈥檚 ability to choose whom to marry.

鈥淭he choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual鈥檚 life,鈥� Judge Henry Floyd wrote for the two-judge majority.

鈥淒enying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance,鈥� he said in a 63-page decision joined by Judge Roger Gregory.

In a dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer said the court鈥檚 decision was 鈥渇undamentally flawed,鈥� relying on linguistic manipulation rather than rigorous constitutional analysis.

If the majority is correct that there is a fundamental right to marry enjoyed by everyone and anyone, he said, then the Constitution must also encompass 鈥渢he 鈥榬ight鈥� of a father to marry his daughter or the 鈥榬ight鈥� of any person to marry multiple partners.鈥�

Instead, Judge Niemeyer said, there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

For such a right to exist, he said, same-sex marriage would have to be deeply rooted in the nation鈥檚 history and tradition. Under the existing legal test, Niemeyer said, the recognition of same-sex marriages must be 鈥渋mplicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.鈥�

The majority opinion sidesteps Niemeyer鈥檚 approach.

鈥淲e do not dispute that states have refused to permit same-sex marriages for most of our country鈥檚 history,鈥� Floyd wrote.

But he said the case was not about establishing a new fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Rather, he said, it was a recognition that the existing right to marry is broad and extends beyond traditional definitions of marriage.

鈥淥ver the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms,鈥� the majority said.

Floyd rejected efforts by Virginia officials to justify the state鈥檚 policy choice of maintaining the existing definition of marriage.

The justifications included an effort to uphold tradition, to encourage responsible procreation, and foster optimal child rearing by encouraging biological parents to raise their own children within an intact family unit.

Floyd ridiculed Virginia鈥檚 argument as essentially claiming to safeguard children 鈥渂y preventing same-sex couples from marrying and starting inferior families.鈥�

He noted that Virginia marriage laws were actually harming the children being raised by same-sex couples 鈥渂y stigmatizing their families and robbing them of the stability, economic security, and togetherness that marriage fosters.鈥�

Some 2,500 same-sex couples in Virginia are currently raising more than 4,000 children, he said.

The majority also rejected arguments that federalism and the state鈥檚 traditional authority to regulate marriage should apply.聽聽 聽聽

In 2006, the state General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That measure also won the support of 57 percent of voters.

The appeals court said such democratic processes could not trump fundamental rights. 鈥淎mericans鈥� ability to speak with their votes is essential to our democracy,鈥� Floyd said. 鈥淏ut the people鈥檚 will is not an independent compelling interest that warrants depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry.鈥�

In his dissent, Niemeyer said that since same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, Virginia and its voters retain the authority to decide for themselves how to define marriage.

It is a decision, he said, that should be made by the voters and the political branches of a state government, not judges.

鈥淲e, in the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact legislation on the subject in accordance with their political processes,鈥� Niemeyer wrote. 鈥淭he US Constitution does not, in my judgment, restrict the States鈥� policy choices on this issue.鈥�

He added that nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from embracing a broad definition of marriage that would fully recognize marriages by same-sex couples.

Currently 19 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, while 31 states have statutes or constitutional amendments that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

In the year since the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed seeking to have the bans declared unconstitutional in all 31 states.

So far, 19 lower court judges at both the federal and state level have struck down marriage bans. And two state supreme courts have invalidated bans in their states. No trial judge has upheld a ban in the past year.

鈥淭his is truly a joyous and historic day for our Commonwealth,鈥� Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement.

鈥淲hen our children study the fight for equality, they will know that Virginia was on the right side of the law and the right side of history,鈥� he said.

Byron Babione, an attorney with the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, viewed the decision as a step closer to Supreme Court review.

鈥淯ltimately, the question whether the people are free to affirm marriage as a man-woman union will be decided by the US Supreme Court,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淚f the high court remains consistent 鈥� the states will ultimately be free to preserve man-woman marriage should they choose to do so.鈥�

Evan Wolfson, president of the gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, praised the decision but said his work is not done.

鈥淓very day of denial is a day of injustice and tangible harms,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time for the Supreme Court to bring the country to national resolution and secure the freedom to marry for all.鈥�

The case is Bostic v. Schaefer (14-1167).聽