Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 135 Filed 02/13/14 Page 21 of 41 PageID# 1063
Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486.
The parties before this Court appreciate the sacred principles embodied in our fundamental right to marry.
Each party cherishes the commitment demonstrated in the
celebration of marriage; each party embraces the Supreme Court's characterization of marriage
as "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."
Maynard, 125 U.S. at 205, 211.
Regrettably, the Proponents and the Opponents of Virginia's Marriage Laws part ways despite this shared reverence for marriage. They part over a dispute regarding who among Virginia's
citizenry may exercise the fundamental right to marry. b.
The Plaintiffs seek to exercise afundamental right
Just as there can be no question that marriage is a fundamental right, there is also no
dispute that under Virginia's Marriage Laws, Plaintiffs and Virginia citizens similar to Plaintiffs
are deprived of that right to marry. The Proponents' insistence that Plaintiffs have embarked upon a quest to create and exercise a new (and some suggest threatening) right must be considered, but, ultimately, put aside.
The reality that marriage rights in states across the country have begun to be extended to
more individuals fails to transform such a fundamental right into some "new" creation.8 Plaintiffs ask for nothing more than to exercise a right that is enjoyed by the vast majority of Virginia's adult citizens.
They seek "simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by
heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and 8Nor should this doctrinal development be construed as any dilution of the sanctity of marriage. Similar fears were voiced and ultimately quieted after Virginia unsuccessfully defended its anti-miscegenation laws by referring to a need '"to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride'. . . ." Loving, 388 U.S. at 7 (quoting Nairn v. Nairn, 87 S.E.2d 749, 756 (Va. 1955)).
21