Federal District Judge Arenda Wright Allen made history on Thursday by striking down a Virginia law banning same-sex marriage in the state. It is the first state in the Deep South to follow the rising trend toward greater acceptance of gay marriage rights in the United States.
The order will not go into effect until after any appeals are heard. But the societal effects are already quite clear: Even the Deep South is now feeling the heat to move into the 21st century on the issue of Gay Rights.
Proponents of the ban on gay marriage have cited their reasons, but the judge found no credible reason among them for retaining the ban. The issue is really quite clear. It pits the equal protection and due process rights of individuals against three categories of States' rights doctrinal interpretation:
1. The right to interpret and implement conformity to the heritage and traditions of a majority of the state's citizens;
2. The right to continue the state's will on the subject of domestic relations law; and
3. The right to endorse "responsible procreation" as a defining characteristic of marriage.
The judge would have none of that, citing these reasons as having "no rational link" with the Virginia marriage laws that are being challenged by Gay Rights proponents. In other words, the individual's right to equal protection and due process automatically trump any calls to tradition and heritage, any appeal to define marriage in terms of procreation, or any laws dictating marriage in terms of the will of state government.
In her ruling Judge Wright Allen said the state's current statute serves to specifically limit the individual rights of certain citizens "without furthering any legitimate state purpose.” So it seems as if honeymooning in those comfortable VA Beach hotels is not meant for only heterosexual couples anymore.
Wright Allen justly compared this new rights war with the legal Civil Rights struggle of the past century, where Virginia law was overturned in favor of federal law. Those who advocate for States' Rights frequently forget that these rights are given to States by the federal government in the Constitution. They are not inherently controlled by the states, themselves, unless specifically condoned as such by federal law. Where federal law and state law conflict, there is no alternative but to accept federal authority as the supreme law of the land. End of story.
Well, not quite. The judicial system does offer an extensive appeal process, and it surely will be availed in this instance. But the writing is on the wall for Gay marriage bans, for States' Rights proponents who can't figure out what federal law is, and for even the deep Red conservatism that perpetrates a frequently rampant homophobia, which our culture has somehow still allowed to exist at this late stage in our nation's development.