Gay Marriage | News | Virginia

Virginia Lawyer Argues That Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Marriage Between Two Brothers

On Friday, the lawyer defending Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage filed the first in what is expected to be a series of briefs arguing against District Judge Arenda Wright Allen's recent ruling declaring the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The attorney, David B. Oakley, also claims that implementing marriage equality in Virginia will lead to unions "between persons of close kinship."

An article from The Virginian-Pilot includes an excerpt of the brief:


"For example, if the definition of marriage is no longer based on procreation or the ability to procreate naturally, then what is the purpose in prohibiting marriage between persons of close kinship? Would it then be unconstitutional for two brothers who are confirmed bachelors and live together to marry so that they could reown property as tenants by the entireties, file joint tax returns, qualify for health benefits, and obtain better insurance rates?"

According to the AP, Oakley's brief also criticizes Allen's reference in her ruling to a previous landmark case:

He also said Allen missed the mark in citing Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that struck down the state's interracial marriage ban, as a basis for invalidating Virginia's statutes and constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

"Unlike infringing on the right to marry based on invidious racial laws, the decision to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite sex is not based on any suspect or irrational classifications," Oakley wrote. Allen put her decision on hold while it is appealed, which means gay couples in Virginia remain unable to marry until the case is ultimately resolved.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court will hear oral arguments in May.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'm pretty sure that secretly all conservative Republican evangelical fundamentalists want to be able to screw their younger brothers.

    Posted by: Brothers' Keepers, Losers Weepers | Mar 30, 2014 12:02:17 PM

  2. My god they are obsessed with where people stick their dicks. They've now rattled off every inanimate object, animal, and blood relation. Are they done yet? Gross.

    Posted by: Tigernan | Mar 30, 2014 12:03:23 PM

  3. My god they are obsessed with where people stick their dicks. They've now rattled off every inanimate object, animal, and blood relation. Are they done yet? Gross.

    Posted by: Tigernan | Mar 30, 2014 12:03:24 PM

  4. Of course, since the definition of marriage has NEVER been "based on procreation or the ability to procreate naturally," he should be able to answer that question now. What's keeping people from marrying their siblings now?

    Why, the law that says they can't. If there's no valid reason for it, it should be reviewed. If there is a valid reason for it, it should stand alone, not on the shoulders of unrelated gay people who wish to marry.

    Posted by: Lymis | Mar 30, 2014 12:09:27 PM

  5. Are they serious? Who would want to marry his brother? Gross!

    Posted by: John Freeman | Mar 30, 2014 12:09:31 PM

  6. yes, just like legalizing interracial marriage will lead to interracial siblings marrying each other... and legalizing traditional marriage will lead to traditional siblings marrying each other.

    Posted by: Andy | Mar 30, 2014 12:17:46 PM

  7. It's virginia, I thought marrying kin was the norm

    Posted by: Scott | Mar 30, 2014 12:18:35 PM

  8. ...well,well,well....this lawyer is practicing in the right state...where it is still legal to marry a cousin. (correct me if I am wrong there)..but the point is these people are literally OBSESSED with "abnormal sex" aren't they? And why is that?... do they understand all too well what goes on in some families there? Sure they do. Molestation of family members, mostly female, is very popular.,,and widespread. They don't won't any focus of THAT issue that's for they go after us "homos" thinking that we want to marry our is clear they are
    mentally unbalanced themselves. Shame on them.Trolls

    Posted by: thom | Mar 30, 2014 12:19:50 PM

  9.'re saying that two heterosexual brothers will totally have no qualms in risking public shame by....marrying each other? just for some fiscal/property benefits?

    i kinda love how all the "arguments" against allowing gay couples to marry literally make no sense at all.

    what's UP with Virginia? whatshisface wants to criminalize oral sex (no doubt so he can give his wife an excuse for never going down on her....) and then this leap from procreation to the bogus non-argument that family members are going to marry?

    it ain't about procreation - if it were then fertility tests would be mandatory before any and all marriage licenses are granted. DUH.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Mar 30, 2014 12:20:14 PM

  10. With all of the go-to icky fantasies that Republicans are able to whip up in two seconds, I have to conclude that there is something very wrong going on in many conservative households across the country.

    Posted by: Tigernan | Mar 30, 2014 12:23:37 PM

  11. Virginia: where Earl can marry his cousin Bertha but not his cousin Merle.

    Posted by: Bart | Mar 30, 2014 12:24:29 PM

  12. Well, Virginia was kind of right when they argued that allowing interracial marriage would lead to gay marriage. So who's to say?

    Posted by: Gregory in Seattle | Mar 30, 2014 12:46:15 PM

  13. only if they're hot.

    Posted by: whatthefuck | Mar 30, 2014 12:48:43 PM

  14. Sounds to me like Brother Oakley is trying to lose the case and then appeal based on incompetent representation: If brothers or sisters want to marry, so what? There's certainly no risk of giving birth to 2-headed children.

    Posted by: Onnyjay | Mar 30, 2014 1:02:10 PM

  15. Where's the evidence for this assertion ?

    Or is this assertion of 'brothers wanting to marry' the same as the assertion of the Limbo concept, the Original Sin Concept,the Immaculate Conception, the Nine Choirs of Angels, Trans substantiation, and all the other amateur dramatics which the right wingers invent to keep people from their rights ?
    Where is the evidence ?
    Ignorant bald assertions of waffle don't count in law, Mr. Lawyer.

    This guy/lawyer tosses off a bit of jargon and thinks we will all run scared.I believe we have far more high powered advocates/lawyers in out bring it on.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Mar 30, 2014 1:02:53 PM

  16. Ample evidence of this NOT HAPPENING is readily available in Canada and other countries that have had SSM for years. There is more evidence for UFO abduction pregnancies than this scare tactic idiocy.

    Posted by: Rolf | Mar 30, 2014 1:08:03 PM

  17. Virginia Lawyer argues that same-sex marriage will lead to PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER. OH NO!!!!

    Posted by: Iam | Mar 30, 2014 1:10:54 PM

  18. yes, just as heterosexual marriage has lead to brothers and sisters marrying. LOL.

    Posted by: ian | Mar 30, 2014 1:18:54 PM

  19. @SCOTT - LOL! It IS the norm in Virginia!

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Mar 30, 2014 1:59:48 PM

  20. "...unions between persons of close kinship."

    I'm pretty sure that's West Virginia.

    Posted by: Ninong | Mar 30, 2014 2:14:23 PM

  21. Well, why should romantic partnerships have a particular tax status reserved for them?

    Find true love: pay less taxes. Why?

    Orientation aside, why is that even a thing?

    Posted by: distinguetraces | Mar 30, 2014 2:40:18 PM

  22. Are we sterile? Why do these people keep saying we can't "naturally reproduce"?

    Posted by: elwoodl | Mar 30, 2014 2:40:41 PM

  23. if this is the best Mr. Oakley can do, HE in trouble.......his idiotic defense of two relatives marrying is not only stupid, irrational, illogical, but is against the law in some states and in marrying relatives of the opposite sex, against medical, I guess his stupidity is good for us.........hope the judge doesn't laugh too loud at him

    Posted by: Bernie | Mar 30, 2014 2:52:19 PM

  24. Minor hurdles, every single one of his arguments will be shot down. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money, but let them go through the motions if they must.

    The final ruling will still be Marriage Equality Wins because it's constitutional.

    Posted by: | Mar 30, 2014 3:01:24 PM

  25. Oh sweet Jesus! Marrying one's brother! Oh, no no no no no! What next??

    Oh, wait! What does it really matter, other than pushing the envelope? It's not as if they're going to spawn offspring that look like Flipper.. why should the State care, other than they have a history of caring about things they shouldn't..

    Posted by: Burt | Mar 30, 2014 3:05:03 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Justice Department Launches Nationwide Transgender Education Training for Police Stations« «