The suit was filed by attorneys Robert Ruloff, Thomas Shuttleworth, Charles Lustig, Andrew M. Hendrick, and Erik Porcaro on behalf of Tim Bostic and Tony London.

[3] A lesbian couple, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California and parents of a teenager, joined the case as plaintiffs.

[4] On September 30, the American Foundation for Equal Rights attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies joined the plaintiffs' legal team.

[7] Judge Arenda Wright Allen heard oral arguments on February 4, 2014, with attorneys for the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk defending the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

[8] On February 13, Judge Wright Allen ruled that Virginia's statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp.

On March 10, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the couples in another case, Harris v. McDonnell, represented by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to intervene in Bostic.

However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement.'"

As for the second couple, who was legally married in California but did not seek a license, the court finds standing as well, in two ways: First, in equal protection cases—such as this case—[w]hen the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, ... [t]he injury in fact ... is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier[.]

Noting Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley the majority states: "Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms.

As to the first argument, and citing Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the state notes that Virginia voters have the right to determine what marriage is.

The majority counters with the reasoning that "the people's will is not an independent compelling interest that warrants depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry," and goes on to cite West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:[15] The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.

Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.It also states: "If Virginia sought to ensure responsible procreation via the [same-sex marriage ban], the laws are woefully underinclusive.

Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and ignoring their out-of-state marriages does not serve Virginia's goal of preventing out-of-wedlock births.

It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security.

Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.Circuit Judge Niemeyer dissented from the ruling.

"[25] On the day of the Fourth Circuit decision, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced he would no longer defend his state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Simply put, it's time to stop making arguments we will lose and instead move forward knowing the ultimate resolution will likely come from the United States Supreme Court.

"[26] Ralph Reed, chair of the Faith and Freedom Coalition said Cooper's position "violates his solemn obligation to protect and defend the constitution and the laws of the state".

"[27] A spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would continue to defend his state ban on same-sex marriage and that "Ultimately, this will be a decision for the U.S. Supreme Court.

[28] On October 9, 2014, West Virginia Governor Ray Tomblin announced he was ordering state agencies to act in compliance with the Bostic ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court had just refused to take up.