IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIANORFOLK DIVISION
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC,
, ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00395)JANET M. RAINEY,
, ))Defendants. )
DEFENDANT JANET M. RAINEY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
The right to ask the judicial branch to coercively alter a State's traditional definition of marriage was recognized nowhere in this country until 2003
and then only under the constitutionof a single state. It has never been recognized under the United States Constitution by anyappellate court or federal district court from which an appeal lay.
,704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010),
aff'd on other grounds
, 671 F.3d 1052(9th Cir. 2012),
vacated for want of jurisdiction
, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).Furthermore, unless and until
, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), is overturned, a claim thatmaintaining the traditional definition of marriage under state law violates either the EqualProtection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment fails to present a substantialfederal question. Finally, Virginia's definition of marriage survives constitutional scrutiny under established doctrine.
DEFENDANT RAINEY'S RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED LEGISLATIVE FACTS
Denied. Since 1607, Virginia law has defined the institution of marriage as aunion between a man and a woman. Virginia Code § 20-45.2 speaks for itself.
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 57 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 416