- Associated Press - Tuesday, May 13, 2014

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Federal appeals court judges aggressively questioned lawyers on both sides of Virginia’s potentially landmark gay marriage case Tuesday while hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse, holding signs and shouting competing slogans.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hinted at varying stances as they grilled attorneys for four couples challenging the state’s same-sex marriage prohibition and lawyers for two circuit court clerks defending it. A decision is expected in a few weeks on an issue that both sides believe ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled in February that Virginia’s constitutional amendment and laws barring gay marriage and denying recognition of such unions performed in other states violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees.

On Tuesday, 4th Circuit Judge Roger Gregory vigorously challenged lawyers defending the ban on their assertion that the state has a right to limit marriage to people who can procreate. Same-sex couples can have children too, Gregory said.

“Not the same way,” said Austin Nimocks, attorney for one of the clerks.

Gregory shot back: “As long as they get to have families, what difference does it make?”

Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, however, described marriage as a fundamental right that historically has focused on preserving stable families.

“It seems to me a state might be able to latch onto that and say we want to continue that,” Niemeyer said.

Judge Henry F. Floyd asked fewer questions than his colleagues, but did inquire why Virginia would want to deny recognition of same-sex marriages in other states. Nimocks said requiring such recognition would amount to “an end run” around the public policy behind the ban.

Virginia voters in 2006 voted 57 percent to 43 percent to approve the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“Marriage is a fundamental right, but Virginia voters have spoken. They’ve decided not to extend that right to same-sex couples,” said David B. Oakley, attorney for the other clerk.

Attorneys for the same-sex couples argued that legally adopted provisions still must fall if they violate the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia’s marriage laws single out for discrimination a class of Virginians based on the sexual orientation and gender of the person they love,” said Theodore Olson, attorney for two of the couples.

Attorneys for the two sides also disagreed on whether the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage bans in 1967, provided the basis for also invalidating prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Allen relied heavily on that case in her ruling.

Outside the courthouse, supporters of the gay marriage ban outnumbered opponents by a wide margin. They carried signs saying “Every Child Deserves a Mom & a Dad” and chanted “one woman, one man.”

Story Continues →