Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 135 Filed 02/13/14 Page 12 of 41 PageID# 1054
Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that if the Court declines to grant summary judgment, it
should issue a preliminary injunction compelling Defendants to cease enforcement of Virginia's
Marriage Laws as against these Plaintiffs pending a final judgment.
The Proponents oppose these motions, and defend the constitutionality of Virginia's Marriage Laws.
They maintain that the Commonwealth has the right to define marriage
according to the judgment of its citizens. A. Preliminary Challenges
Before turning to the more substantive arguments, the Court first addresses two
preliminary challenges advanced by Defendant Schaefer and Intervenor-Defendant McQuigg. The first challenge asks whether Plaintiffs have standing to maintain this action. The second
challenge pertains to whether sufficient doctrinal developments regarding the questions presented have evolved to overcome the possibly precedential impact of the Supreme Court's 1972 summary dismissal of a constitutional challenge to a state's same-sex marriage laws. 1.
Plaintiffs have standing
Defendant Schaefer argues that Plaintiffs Bostic and London lack standing to bring this
suit against him because they failed to submit an application to obtain a marriage license. Therefore, Defendant Schaefer contends, Plaintiffs Bostic and London suffered no injury for the
purposes of standing as provided by Article III of the United States Constitution. Br. Supp. Def. Schaefer's Mot. Summ. J. 6, ECF No. 41.
Defendant Schaefer also argues that Ms. Schall and Ms. Townley "have not alleged any
injury created by[,] or tangentially related to[,] any act or omission by him." Id. at 7. Defendant Schaefer argues that the relief requested would not correct the harms alleged by Plaintiffs Schall
and Townley. Id. Defendant Schaeffer contends that Ms. Schall and Ms. Townley have sought
12