Welcome to LoudounTimes.com
Loudoun Times-Mirror

10 excerpts from Judge Wright Allen’s same-sex marriage ruling

U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen in Norfolk Thursday ruled same-sex couples in Virginia have been denied their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, essentially striking down the commonwealth's ban on same-sex marriage. Here are 10 excerpts from Ms. Wright Allen's opinion:


1.) Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined.

2.) The right to marry is inseparable from our rights to privacy and intimate association.

3.) In April 2012, [Plaintiffs] Ms. Schall and Ms.Townley sought to renew [their daughter's] passport, a process that requests the consent of both parents. When Ms. Schall and Ms. Townley presented the passport renewal forms on behalf of their daughter, a civil servant at a United States Post Office in Virginia told Ms. Schall that "You're nobody, you don't matter."

4.) Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed.

5.) A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant.

6.) Virginia's former Attorney General directed colleges and universities in the Commonwealth to eliminate protections that had been in place regarding '"sexual orientation,' 'gender identity,' 'gender expression,' or like classification" from the institutions' non-discrimination policies ... This record alone gives rise to suspicions of prejudice sufficient to decline to defer to the state on this matter.

7.) Virginia's Marriage Laws fail to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, and so must be viewed as constitutionally in firm under even the least onerous level of scrutiny. Accordingly, this Court need not address Plaintiffs' compelling arguments that the Laws should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

8.) Plaintiffs Schall and Townley suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation. This stigmatic harm flows directly from current state law.

9.) The inescapable conclusion regarding the Commonwealth's interest in tradition is that an adherence to a historical definition of traditional marriage is desired to avoid "radical changes" that would result in the diminishing one common, long-held view of what marriage means. The Supreme Court has rejected the assertion that a prevailing moral conviction can, alone, justify upholding a constitutionally infirm law: '"the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.'" Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577-78 (2003)

10.) Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us.



I see another Obama appointee has decided to overrule the people of Virginia who voted to define what constitutes a legal marriage. The 10th Amendment has just been violated.


I see another conservative who does not understand you cannot vote away equality as the 14A states clearly.

“What else in her opinion is incorrect?” Apparently no one has been able to find anything. Perhaps because not a single one of the 32 federal judges who have considered the issue since Windsor have come to a different conclusion on the constitutionality of such laws.

Marshall-Newman was unconstitutional the day it was enacted, and it’s unconstitutional now.

The point is that the judge’s quote is incorrect.  What else in her opinion is incorrect?

“Our Constitution declares that “all men” are created equal. Surely this means all of us.”

Judge Allenda L. Wright Allen doesn’t know the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution (has she actually read either document?).  Not knowing the fundamental document from which your job was created is just ignorant.

In order to properly cite the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, judges would be required to read them to know what’s in them. This might be too much to ask in a country where the Chief Executive only requires a pen and a phone to ignore, butcher, or postpone any law he chooses.

There may not be a Constitutional reason for a state to ban gay marriage, but the issue isn’t going to be decided by citing the Declaration of Independence.

Jack wagon judge doesn’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Ind.

Correct, Thomas Jefferson penned it in the Declaration of Independence and is very much appropriate in this discussion about rights. Such profound words that has held true to its meaning for 241 years.

I see another Obama appointee has decided to overrule the people of Virginia who voted to define what constitutes a legal marriage. The 10th Amendment has just been violated.

...powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, [are reserved to the States or the people]

Obviously the Federal Government has decided to stomp on the rights of the State and the People who overwhelmingly voted this law into existence.


10.) Our Constitution declares that “all men” are created equal.
Not from the US Constitution!

Post a comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at ltmeditor@loudountimes.com.

More News

The Loudoun Times-Mirror

is an interactive, digital replica
of the printed newspaper.
Click here for all e-editions.