A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.
...Paul V. Niemeyer dissented and called the ruling “fundamentally flawed.”
“It fails to take into account that the ‘marriage’ that has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right is distinct from the newly proposed relationship of a ‘same-sex marriage,’ ” he wrote.
Niemeyer said the case was not analogous to Loving, which held that race could not be the basis of a marriage restriction. “To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized,” he wrote.
“Virginia’s laws have always rightly reflected the true and complementary nature of marriage,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia. “It’s unfortunate that the court rejected the right of Virginians to define marriage consistent with their concern with what’s best for children and society as a whole.”
“Marriage has survived for countless generations because it uniquely benefits the common good by recognizing the union of two different but complementary individuals — that is a man and a woman — who, by their union, may create a family,” Bishops Paul S. Loverde of Arlington and Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond said in a joint statement.
Let me also add that contrary to the view of some who sit on the US Supreme Court, animus is irrelevant. The question is whether homosex is healthy or not. Whether anyone who thinks it is not healthy is also hostile has nothing to do with the legal question. Whether anyone who furthered a law against homosexual marriage or for heterosexual marriage only was, or is, also hostile is completely irrelevant.