Federal District Judge Says Obergefell Does Not Bind Puerto Rico

In Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, (D PR, March 8, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court held that the recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges  does not bind Puerto Rico until further action by the Supreme Court or Congress.  Relying on the so-called Insular Cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, the court said "jurisprudence, tradition and logic teach us that Puerto Rico is not treated as the functional equivalent of a State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment...."  The court concluded:

It is in light of the particular condition of Puerto Rico in relation to the Federal Constitution, with due consideration of the underlying cultural, social and political currents that have shaped over five centuries of Puerto Rican history, that the court examines the effect of Obergefell in the instant case. The court’s analysis, therefore, does not end with the incorporation of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the States. Generally, the question of whether a constitutional guarantee applies to Puerto Rico is subject to determination by Supreme Court of the United States.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has more on the decision.

Fired Gay Music Director Sues Chicago Archdiocese for Discrimination

Following an EEOC complaint filed last year (see prior posting), the former music director of a suburban Chicago Catholic parish has now filed an employment discrimination suit in federal district court against the parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday on the lawsuit by Colin Collette against the Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness and the Archdiocese, alleging violations of the federal Civil Rights Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.  Collette was fired last July after he announced that he was engaged to be married to his longtime partner Will Nifong.  Collette says church leaders knew he was gay long before he posted his engagement notice on Facebook, and his subsequent marriage to his partner.  Collette is seeking damages, back pay and reinstatement.

Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 4, 2016), issued a per curiam order dismissing all pending motions and petitions in a suit that sought to require Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However the Order also generated six separate opinions from the 9 justices spanning 170 pages. Three of the opinions were particularly defiant of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to hand down its Obergefell decision.

Chief Justice Roy Moore who has been in the lead in resisting same-sex marriage in Alabama (see prior posting) wrote the longest and most defiant opinion.  He actually submitted two opinions totaling 106 pages-- one an opinion on why he now decided not to recuse himself, even though he had done so at earlier stages of the case, and the second longer opinion attacking the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Explaining why he was willing to concur in the dismissal of the suit, Moore said:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional.

In perhaps his most radical attack, Moore said (at pp. 87-88):

The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as "the law of the land" is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as "the rule of law" confuses the law itself -- the Constitution -- with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

Article VI, by its plain terms, binds "the judges in every state" to obedience to the Constitution itself, not to unconstitutional and illegitimate opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale pointed out that the Emperor, contrary to the assertions of his courtiers, was actually stark naked, so also the "judges in every state" are entitled to examine Supreme Court opinions to see if they are clothed in the majesty of the law of the Constitution itself rather than in naked propositions of men with no cognizable covering from that document.

Moore also emphasized religious liberty in his attack on the Obergefell majority, saying in part (at pg. 58):

The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the "essential and historic significance" of the connection between religious liberty and "supreme allegiance to the will of God," failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God.

Justices Parker and Murdock also wrote defiant concurring opinions, while Justice Shaw's concurring opinion was highly critical of Chief Justice Moore's approach.

Justice Bolin's somewhat temperate concurrence is of particular interest. He said in part:

Although I have many times not agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court for that matter, I have never criticized an opinion from any court in the manner in which I regrettably do so today. I am, however, able to count to five--and I know that five votes trump four; and, although that does not make it right, it does make it a majority opinion....

The foregoing being said, I am further compelled to concur specially to express my concern, which remains to be determined in future cases, that the Obergefell decision may have emasculated this State's entire statutory licensing scheme governing "marriage" to the point of rendering it incapable of being enforced prospectively.

Al.com reports at length on the decision.

Georgia's Republican Governor Opposes "Religious Freedom" Bill on Biblical Grounds

As a number of state legislatures consider enacting religious freedom bills to protect opponents of same-sex marriage, one of the most contentious of the bills has been Georgia's HB 757 which among other things would bar government from taking any adverse action against any person or faith-based organization based wholly or in part on the person or organization believing, speaking or acting in accordance with their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and sexual relations should be reserved to such a union.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that Georgia's Republican Governor Nathan Deal took a surprisingly strong stand against the legislation:

Amid a growing outcry from powerful corporations over Georgia’s “religious liberty” proposal, Gov. Nathan Deal issued his strongest warning yet to lawmakers who are debating controversial legislation seen as a conservative answer to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling....

Standing in the lobby of a government building after a ribbon-cutting ceremony, he laid out a lengthy condemnation of the measure from a biblical perspective, first noting that he is a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”

Court Says Enforcement Motion Against Kim Davis Is Moot

A decision by a Kentucky federal district court yesterday may have nearly ended the ongoing legal saga of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who, until court intervention, refused to allow her office to issue any marriage licenses once same-sex marriage was legalized in the state. (See prior posting.)  As recounted by the court:

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt.... After remanding Davis to the custody of the United States Marshal’s Service, five of six Rowan County Deputy Clerks told the Court that they would issue marriage licenses in her absence. The next day, multiple same-sex and opposite-sex couples obtained marriage licenses.... Because Davis’ Office issued these licenses, the Court found that she had purged herself of the contempt and ordered her release from custody on September 8, 2015.

However when Davis returned to work, she insisted on modifying the license forms being issued. At that point plaintiffs asked to court to order the deputy clerks to go back to issuing licenses in the original form.  In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Feb. 9, 2016), the court held:

Since Plaintiffs filed this Motion, the Court has received numerous Status reports [indicating] ... that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is issuing marriage licenses to individuals eligible to marry as needed.... There has been no indication that Davis has continued to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses since September 20, 2015.... Moreover, there is every reason to believe that any altered licenses issued between September 14 ... and September 20 ... would be recognized as valid under Kentucky law.... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for relief is now moot. The Court will continue to monitor Davis and the Rowan County Clerk’s Office to ensure compliance with its Orders.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the decision.

Suit In Nation of Georgia Seeks Marriage Equality

According to yesterday's EurasiaNet, in the Caucasus nation of Georgia for the first time a lawsuit has been filed seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.  Plaintiff Giorgi Tatishvili filed suit in the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a Georgian law that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The country's influential Orthodox Church which opposes same-sex marriage nevertheless on Sunday called for the government to provide Tatishvili protection, saying that violence against him is likely for bringing the suit. Minority rights activists in Georgia have not supported the lawsuit, fearing that it will increase hostility against and marginalization of the country's LGBT community. Pro-Russian groups have used the specter of legalized same-sex marriage in their opposition to Georgia joining the European Union.

Commission Recommends Removal of State Judge On Various Grounds Including Resisting Same-Sex Weddings

In an opinion issued on Monday (full text), the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability recommended to the Oregon Supreme Court that Marion County Judge Vance Day be removed from office for violations of ten rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Judge Day gained notice when he ordered his staff to screen wedding applicants to assure that any same-sex couples were directed to other judges.  The Commission found that this practice violated three separate rules of conduct.  In addition the Commission found that Judge Day violated Judicial Conduct Rules in connection with his interaction with individuals officiating at his son's soccer games; facilitating the handling of a firearm by a convicted felon who was on supervised probation, as well as personal out-of-court contacts with the felon who had been a Navy SEAL and awarded a Bronze Star; and by soliciting funds from attorneys to acquire military art to be hung in and around his Veterans Treatment Court.  Here is the written closing arguments submitted by Judge Day. Reuters reported on the Commission's opinion. (See prior related posting.)

States In Total Liable For Over $13.6M In Lawyers' Fees In Same-Sex Marriage Case Losses

National Law Journal yesterday reported on its compilation of legal fees that 26 states which unsuccessfully defended same-sex marriage bans have agreed to pay or been ordered by courts to pay to successful plaintiffs.  They total more than $13.6 million (including the later-reported $100,000 settlement with Montana)-- with 6 states each being required to pay over $1 million.  The NLJ also published a chart showing the award or settlement amount by case. Fee petitions are still pending in three states.

NY Appeals Court Upholds Penalty On Wedding Venue That Refused To Host Same-Sex Ceremony

In Matter of Gifford v. McCarthy, (NY App. Div., Jan. 14, 2016), a New York state intermediate appellate court upheld a decision by the State Division of Human Rights imposing compensatory damages of $3000 and a civil fine of $10,000 on a for-profit wedding venue for refusing to host a same-sex marriage ceremony.  Liberty Ridge Farm rents space for, among other things, religious and secular wedding ceremonies and receptions.  One of the farm's owners told Melissa McCarthy that the farm did not host same-sex marriage ceremonies, though apparently it would have been willing to host the reception.  The court held that Liberty Ridge's wedding facilities are a "place of public accommodation" under the NY Human Rights Law and that discrimination against same-sex weddings is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The court went on to reject respondents federal and state free exercise claims, as well as their First Amendment compelled speech and expressive association defenses. It found the Human Rights Law to be a neutral law of general applicability.  The New York state constitution's free exercise clause requires a balancing of interests.  The court said:

While we recognize that the burden placed on the Giffords' right to freely exercise their religion is not inconsequential, it cannot be overlooked that SDHR's determination does not require them to participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple. Indeed, the Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so. To be weighed against the Giffords' interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith is New York's long-recognized, substantial interest in eradicating discrimination....  Balancing these competing interests, we conclude that petitioners failed to show that SDHR's determination constituted an unreasonable interference with the Giffords' religious freedom.

Rejecting respondents' First Amendment compelled speech argument, the court said:

Here, SDHR's determination does not compel the Giffords to endorse, espouse or promote same-sex marriages, nor does it require them to recite or display any message at all. The Giffords remain free to express whatever views they may have on the issue of same-sex marriage. The determination simply requires them to abide by the law and offer the same goods and services to same-sex couples that they offer to other couples. Despite the Giffords' assertion that their direct participation in same-sex wedding ceremonies would "broadcast to all who pass by the Farm" their support for same-sex marriage, reasonable observers would not perceive the Giffords' provision of a venue and services for a same-sex wedding ceremony as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

The Blaze reports on the decision.

First Same-Sex Marriage Case In China Moves Forward

In China's Hunan Province, a court has accepted jurisdiction for the first time in a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  According to a Reuters report yesterday, plaintiff Sun Wenlin says that last June an official in the Furong district civil affairs bureau rejected his application to marry his same-sex partner. Wenlin argues that China's marriage law protects the freedom to marry and provides for gender equality.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

Bakery Owners Pay Judgment To Pursue Appeal In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The Willamette Week reported Monday that the Oregon bakery that had been ordered by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries to pay $135,000 in damages for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, in order to appeal the ruling, paid the judgment (plus interest) on Monday. The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa decided to pay the $136,927 now due, instead of securing an appeal bond for the amount of the judgment. (See prior related posting.)  Supporters of the bakery owners have contributed at least $517,000 to them through crowdsourcing websites.

Kentucky's New Governor Eliminates County Clerks' Names From Marriage License Forms

Kentucky's new Republican governor, Matt Bevin, fulfilled a campaign promise yesterday (press release) by issuing Executive Order 2015-048 instructing the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to distribute to all County Clerks a marriage license form that no longer includes the name of the County Clerk on it. Instead the form merely calls for the name and title of the issuing official-- who might be a deputy clerk.  The change was in response to the widely-followed resistance of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to allow her office to authorize same-sex marriage licenses. (See prior posting.) In a press release, Liberty Counsel call the new form "a clear, simple accommodation on behalf of Kim Davis and all Kentucky clerks."

Slovenia Rejects Same-Sex Marriage In Referendum

In a referendum in the central European nation of Slovenia yesterday, voters by a margin of 63% to 37% rejected same-sex marriage.  Politco reports that the overall voter turnout for the referendum was only 35.6%.  This defeat of a bill passed by Parliament last March returns the country to its old rules that allow civil partnership but not adoption of children by same-sex couples. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

Catholic School Violates Mass. Law By Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Is In A Same-Sex Marriage

In Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, (MA Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a Massachusetts state trial court held that a Catholic women's preparatory school unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in violation of 21 MGL Chap. 151B when it withdrew an offer of employment as Food Services Director to Matthew Barrett after it discovered he was a spouse in a same-sex marriage.  The school said that same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  In finding a statutory violation, the court rejected the school's argument that it came within the statutory exemption for religious organizations in Sec. 1(5) of the statute, because that exemption is limited to organizations that limit membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of the same religion. The court held that this limitation takes precedence over seemingly broader exemptive language for religious organizations in Sec. 4(18).  It also held that imposing these anti-discrimination provisions on the school did not violate the school's right of expressive association.  Finally the court rejected the school's reliance on the "ministerial exception" doctrine, concluding that Barrett would not be considered a minister "under any version of this doctrine." The Advocate reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Non-Discrimination Fix To Indiana's RFRA ; Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Indiana yesterday, two pro-family advocacy groups filed suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of this year's anti-discrimination "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The suit also challenges the legality of two local anti-discrimination ordinances-- one adopted by the city of Carmel and one by Indianapolis-Marion County.  The 178-paragraph complaint (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 12/10/2015), says that plaintiff organizations believe in the Biblical teaching that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and that sexual relations must be within that marriage context.  They want to follow these teachings in their employment decisions and their programs.  They contend that the challenged laws preclude this, and in doing so violate a variety of state and federal constitutional provisions.  In a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, plaintiffs' attorneys said in part:

RFRA originally protected all religious viewpoints and insured a high level of protection for peoples' free exercise of religion.  The 'fix,' however, stripped that protection based on a person's particular religious view, such as, opposition to same-sex marriage.  This pits some religions that the government protects against other religions that will suffer government punishment if they don't fall in line.  We believe this discrimination between religious views is unconstitutional...

Indianapolis Star reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: In January 2016 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Bloomington and Columbus, Indiana as defendants.

Suit Challenges North Carolina Law Allowing Officials To Opt Out of Same-Sex Marriage Duties

As previously reported, last June the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the governor's veto to pass to pass Senate Bill 2 that gives individual magistrates have the right to recuse themselves from performing marriages based on any sincerely held religious belief and gives individual register of deeds personnel the right to opt out of issuing marriage licenses on similar grounds. (See prior related posting.) Yesterday three couples filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.  One of the couples is already in a same-sex marriage; a second same-sex couple acting as plaintiffs are engaged to be married; and the third are a blind, heterosexual interracial couple who in 1976 had to sue in order to marry because two North Carolina magistrates refused to perform the ceremony on religious grounds.

The complaint (full text) in Ansley v. State of North Carolina, (WD NC, filed 12/9/2015) contends that Senate Bill 2 violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause.  WNCN News reports on the filing of the lawsuit.  Rev. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League called the lawsuit "an effort by gay activism to run people of faith completely out of the public sector."  On the other side, Rev. Jamine Beach-Ferrara of the Campaign for Southern Equality argued that the bill "distorts the true meaning of religious freedom."

Another County Clerk's Religious Response To Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The latest kerfuffle over marriage equality has surfaced in Kiowa, Colorado where the Ebert County Clerk-- responsible for marriage licenses-- has hung a controversial poster above the desks where marriage licenses are issued. According to Denver7 News, the poster, made specifically in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, shows a bride and groom along with a Biblical quotation (I Corinthians 7:2) reading "...each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."  County Clerk Dallas Schroeder explained in an e-mail to other county clerks:

My thought process is that they [same-sex couples] have to see the poster, and if they choose to violate God’s written Word, then that is on their head.

Restrictions On Anti-Gay Marriage Protester Upheld

In Braun v. Terry, (ED WI, Nov. 30, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected claims by an anti-gay marriage protester that his free speech, equal protection and due process rights were infringed when authorities restricted the area in which he could carry his signs.  The events at issue occurred on the first day that same-sex marriage licenses were issued and marriages were conducted at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.  Plaintiff complains that he was not permitted to enter the courthouse to protest, and that the area in the park outside the courthouse where he could protest was restricted. The court found the restrictions imposed reasonable, non-discriminatory and narrowly tailored.

Kim Davis' Case Continues to Defy Finality

The controversy surrounding Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage license to same-sex couples is not over.  As previously reported, after being released from custody on contempt charges, Davis allowed others in her office to issue licenses, but only with revised wording. On Nov. 13, outgoing Governor Steven Beshear filed a response (full text) with the federal district court that had held Davis in contempt stating that:

those altered licenses are not fully consistent with Kentucky statute, but such deviations do not render the marriages ineffective.  Thus, the Third-Party Defendants have and will continue  to  recognize  as  valid  those  marriages  solemnized  pursuant  to  the  altered licenses for purposes of the governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities conveyed by the Executive Branch agencies over which Governor Beshear exercises supervisory control.

This led the ACLU to file a motion (full text) on Nov. 20 urging to court to require licenses to be issued in their original unaltered form, stating:

As Governor Beshear has now recognized, Davis’ actions have created considerable uncertainty regarding the legality of the altered marriage licenses.  They impose significant and ongoing harm on Rowan County couples who are legally eligible to marry but now face doubt and fear that a marriage solemnized pursuant to an altered marriage license could be held invalid at some unknown time in the future. And Davis’ actions effectively brand the altered licenses with a stamp of animus against gay people. This Court can and should eliminate the uncertainty and harm by enforcing its prior orders....

Meanwhile, accordidng to the Nov. 6 International Business Times, Republican Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin says that when he is sworn in on Dec. 8, he will issue an executive order removing county clerks' names from state marriage licenses, hoping that this will resolve the problem.