Another Judge Rejects Religious Arguments Against Marriage Equality

[rug]

February 14, 2014
9:57AM
Post by Sarah Posner

Last last night, federal district court judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, an Obama appointee to the bench, struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, in Bostic v. Rainey. Judge Allen opened her opinion with a lengthy quote from Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia's law barring interracial marriage, on the 40th anniversary of that decision:

The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. . . . Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others.

In her opinion, which she stayed pending appeal, Judge Allen, like Judge Heyburn in Kentucky did earlier this week, and a federal judge in Oklahoma did last month, rejected the argument that the religious beliefs of some citizens are a justification for depriving others of their constitutionally-protected rights. Judge Allen recognized that although Virginia's laws on marriage "are endowed with this faith-enriched heritage, the laws have nevertheless evolved into a civil and secular institution sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia."

Judge Allen rejected many of the standard arguments of the religious right against same-sex marriage: that it will demean the institution of marriage, damage children, and upend centuries of tradition. Bans on same-sex marriage, the court held, must withstand constitutional muster, despite the deeply held beliefs about religion and tradition that animated them. "Laws that fail that scrutiny," she concluded, "must fall despite the depth and legitimacy of the laws' religious heritage."

The opinion recites, and then rejects, the parade of horribles that has become de rigueur in arguments against marriage equality: "Concerns that schools might be compelled 'to teach that "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage"' should be 'equivalent to traditional marriage' and that 'churches whose teachings[do] not accept homosexual behavior as moral will lose their tax exempt status,' fueled the proposed legislation," she noted.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7595/another_judge_rejects_religious_arguments_against_marriage_equality/

The article links to the 41 page decision.

[cbayer]

1. She is doing a great job of covering these.

Two days ago she wrote about the Kentucky ruling.

This represents a very positive trend.

[Zambero]

2. A religious "right" to pursue denying the rights of others?

Not a compelling argument. Almost a contradiction in terms. Almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. WRT that gay marriage "will demean the institution of marriage"

I have asked several opponents of gay marriage how it would affect any marriage -- specifically, my marriage. They say that it wouldn't do anything to an individual marriage, it was just bad for marriage in general. So I respond that they are saying that gay marriage will affect all marriages and no marriages simultaneously. This is illogical.