New Poll Shows Americans Favor Same-Sex Marriages, But Want To Protect Religious Objectors

Yesterday AP-GfK announced the release of their latest poll (full poll results) which asks respondents about their views on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In the poll, 35% favor same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose. Respondents are divided 48% to 48% on how the Supreme Court should rule in its pending same-sex marriage cases. By 50% to 46%, respondents favor religious exemptions to the requirement to issue same-sex marriage licences for officials who object to doing so.  By 57% to 39%, respondents favor exemptions for wedding related businesses who object to providing services for same-sex couples. Finally poll showed a 51% to 45% margin favoring legalized abortion in most or all cases.

Alabama Asks Supreme Court For Stay of Same-Sex Marriage Injunction

As reported by Jurist, Tuesday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay beyond the current Feb. 9 effective date of a district court order in Searcy v. Strange invalidating Alabama's bans on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The state immediately filed an application for a stay of the injunction (full text) with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has the option of ruling on the application himself or referring it to the full court. SCOTUSblog also reports on developments.

Administrative Law Judge Finds Bakery's Refusal To Furnish Same-Sex Wedding Cake Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In In re Melissa Klein, (OR BOLI, Jan. 29, 2015), an Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Administrative Law Judge, in a 52-page opinion, held that Aaron Klein, a co-owner of the bakery "Sweetcakes by Melissa", discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the public accommodation provisions of ORS 695A.403.  The case grew out of the refusal on religious grounds to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The court held that co-owner Melissa Klein will be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded. The ALJ rejected free exercise and compelled speech defenses put forward by respondents, concluding that the state's anti-discrimination law is a neutral law of general applicability.

The administrative agency issued a press release announcing the Interim Order, saying:

The Interim Order finds that the undisputed material facts support charges of unlawful discrimination under the Oregon Equality Act. An administrative hearing scheduled for March will focus on damages for the same-sex couple.

The Oregonian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Mennonite Couple Stops Hosting All Weddings To Settle Sexual Orientation Discrimination Complaint

As previously reported, last year a Mennonite couple filed suit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to prevent it from moving ahead on a complaint that the couple refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony in their art gallery in violation of the ban on discrimination in public accommodations. AP reported yesterday that the couple-- Betty and Richard Odgaard-- have settled the complaint filed with the Civil Rights Commission by the two men whose wedding was refused.  The Odgaards paid $5000 in damages, dropped their suit against the Commission and agreed not to discriminate in the future on the basis of sexual orientation.  In order to comply with that agreement, the Odgaards have totally stopped hosting wedding ceremonies of any kind at their gallery even though that has been a major part of their business.

Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Developments: A Second Decision and Defiance

As previously reported, on Jan. 23 an Alabama federal district court invalidated Alabama statutory and constitutional provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriages. The court however imposed a 14-day stay on its order to allow an appeal. (See prior posting),  Three days later, the same judge decided a second case, Strawser v. Strange, (SD AL, Jan. 26, 2015), reaching the same result, this time in a suit by plaintiffs seeking to marry in Alabama, rather than have their out-of-state marriage recognized in the state. The court again granted a 14-day stay to give an opportunity for an appeal.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 27 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to the state's governor urging defiance of the federal court's decisions. In his letter (full text) to Gov. Robert Bentley, Moore said in part:

I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them.  I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and Constitution of Alabama.  Moreover, I note that "United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this Court."...  As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

... Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.

According to AL.com, the governor issued a statement after the release of Moore's letter, saying in part:

The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.

In 2003, Roy Moore ,in his first term as Alabama Chief Justice, gained national attention by his fight against removal of a large Ten Commandments monument that he had place in the Alabama Judicial Building.

District Court Invalidates Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Bans

In Searcy v. Strange, (SD AL, Jan. 23, 2015), an Alabama federal district court invalidated Alabama statutory and constitutonal provisions that bar same-sex marriage.  The court found that the provisions are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.  This makes Alabama the 37th state in which same-sex marriage is legal.  According to the Christian Science Monitor, Alabama's Attorney General has filed a motion asking the court to stay its ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court decides cases it has agreed to review on same-sex marraige.

UPDATE: In an opinion (full text) issued on Jan. 25, the district court denied an indefinite stay of its ruling, but granted a 14-day stay so the 11th Circuit can decide if a further stay is warranted. The court also said that before the expiration of its 14-day stay, it will issue an additional order addressing plaintiffs' request for a clarification of its injunction order.

Civil Rights Complaint With A Twist-- Baker Refuses To Add Anti-Gay Message To Cake

AP today reports on a complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against bakery owner Marjorie Silva by a customer who wanted her to create a cake with an anti-gay marriage message on it.  Silva agreed to bake a Bible-shaped cake for customer Bill Jack, but refused his request to put hateful anti-gay words on the cake along with two men holding hands with an X over them. Silva told Jack that she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself.  This did not satisfy Jack, and he filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against based on his creed. The complaint comes as Republicans in the Colorado legislature are looking at legislative changes to protect business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Supreme Court Grants Review In 6th Circuit Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in four same-sex marriage cases from the Sixth Circuit: Obergefell v. James (Ohio); Tanco v. Haslam  (Tennessee); DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan); and Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). (Order List). In a consolidated opinion, the 6th Circuit in a 2-1 decision upheld the same-sex marriage bans in the four states. (See prior posting.) In granting review, the Supreme Court defined the questions to be argued:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Michigan Must Recognize Same-Sex Mariages Entered Before Stay of District Court's Order

In Caspar v. Snyder, (ED MI, Jan 15, 2015), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Michigan to recognize some 300 same-sex marriages of couples who married in the less 24 hours between a district court's striking down of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban and the 6th Circuit's stay of the order. In a 47-page opinion, the court held that:

once a marriage has been solemnized pursuant to a validly issued marriage license, the authorizing state cannot withdraw the status that it has awarded, even if the couples had no right to demand to be married in the first place.

The court however stayed the effectiveness of its injunction for 21 days to allow an appeal to the 6th Circuit. Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Minister Sues Michigan For Right To Perform Same-Sex and Polygamous Marriages

In Michigan, a Detroit minister filed a federal court lawsuit on Monday against the state's governor and attorney general alleging that the state is violating his religious freedom by barring him from performing same-sex and polygamous marriages.  According to the Detroit News, in the suit plaintiff Rev. Neil Patrick Carrick alleges that he has declined requests to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies because under Michigan law it is a crime punishable by up to a $500 fine to knowingly do so.

Developments In Marriage Equality Cases: Louisiana and South Dakota

There were two developments yesterday in the array of cases challenging same-sex marriage bans.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for direct review of a trial court decision in Robicheaux v. Devin, (Docket No. 14-596, cert. before judgment denied, Jan. 12, 2015) (Order List). The district court upheld Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban and the 5th Circuit last week heard oral arguments in the case. (See prior posting.)

Also yesterday in Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, (D SD, Jan. 12, 2015), a federal district court held that  South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  However, the court stayed its injunction pending appeal to the 8th Circuit. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog reporting on the decision said:

Although most of Judge Schreier’s reasons for nullifying the South Dakota ban on Monday were familiar from other decisions, she was among the first to reject what has been a more recent claim by state officials: that is, that marriage is a domestic relations matter, and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over such matters.  There is such an exception, the Sioux Falls judge found, but that it does not go so far as to bar new constitutional claims against same-sex marriage bans.

Following the district court's decision, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley reacted in a press release, saying in part: "It remains the State’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts."

Over Strong Dissent, 9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Marriage Equality Decisions

In Latta v. Otter, (9th Cir., Jan. 9, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant en banc review of a 3-judge panel's decision striking down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. (See prior posting.) Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Rawlinson and Bea, filed a 25-page dissent to the denial of review, saying in part:

Nothing about the issue of same-sex marriage exempts it from the general principle that it is the right of the people to decide for themselves important issues of social policy.

SCOTUSBlog reports on the 9th Circuit's action, calling Judge O'Scannlain's opinion "one of the strongest dissenting statements yet ... on same-sex marriages."

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Yesterday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in three same-sex marriage cases.  The cases argued were Robicheaux v. Caldwell, in which a district court upheld Louisiana's ban (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments); DeLeon v. Perry, in which a district court struck down the Texas bans (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments); and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, in which a district court found Mississippi's ban unconstitutional (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments). The Washington Times reports that supporters of marriage equality were encouraged by the questions from two of the three judges on the panel.

South Carolina Issues Final Tax Rulings On Treatment of Same-Sex Marriages

As reported by BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required], on Dec. 31 the South Carolina Department of Revenue issued final versions of two revenue rulings dealing with tax treatment of same-sex marriages. Revenue Ruling #14-8  makes it clear that "same-sex marriages that are recognized for federal income tax purposes will now be recognized for South Carolina income tax purposes."  Revenue Ruling #14-9  provides that "same-sex couples who are legally married under any state law will now be treated as married for all South Carolina tax purposes...." and sets out examples relating to property taxes and deed recording fees.

Court Denies Motions To Dismiss Suits In Shop's Refusal To Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding

AP reports that a Washington state trial court judge yesterday denied two motions to dismiss in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers in which the state and individual plaintiffs are suing over a flower shop's refusal to sell floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)  One motion (full text) contended that the state attorney general lacked authority to bring a Consumer Protection Act case without the discrimination charges first going through the state Human Rights Commission administratively.  The second motion (full text) that was denied contended that the owner-officer of the incorporated flower shop could not be held liable personally. Additional motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are still pending. ADF has links to other pleadings in the case.

Florida Extends Health and Retirement Benefits To Same-Sex Spouses of State Employees

The Miami Herald reports that Florida officials have decided same-sex spouses of state employees will now be eligible for health insurance and retirement benefits. The rulings in memos from the Department of Management Services and from the State Retirement Director come after court decisions resulted in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Florida as of January 6. (See prior posting.)

Florida District Court Judge Attempts To Clarify Injunction In Same-Sex Marriage Case

A Florida federal district court has ruled on a motion to clarify a preliminary injunction it previously issued in a suit challenging Florida's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior related posting.) At issue was whether the court's ruling did more than require a marriage license be issued to the specific couple who filed suit. In Brenner v. Scott, (ND FL, Jan. 1, 2015), the court said:

Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds. There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

The Clerk has acknowledged that the preliminary injunction requires her to issue a marriage license to the two unmarried plaintiffs. The Clerk has said she will do so. In the absence of any request by any other plaintiff for a license, and in the absence of a certified class, no plaintiff now in this case has standing to seek a preliminary injunction requiring the Clerk to issue other licenses. The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the preliminary injunction.

As reported by SCOTUSblog, immediately following this decision the law firm advising court clerks changed the advice it had previously given and said:

Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge's ruling for all marriage-license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle.

However, apparently Judge Hinkle's opinion still left some ambiguity.  Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday stating in part:

Nearly all media outlets... are grossly mischaracterizing the effect of the ruling....The error is likely the result of the order's condescending lecture to clerks on why they should bow to the August injunction even though they are not bound by it. Judge Hinkle’s lecture, however, has no force of law, and only invites lawlessness throughout the state.

Supreme Court Denies Stay of Florida Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court late yesterday afternoon denied an application for a stay in a Florida same-sex marriage case while the decision is on appeal to the 11th Circuit.  The Supreme Court's order (full text) in Armstrong v. Brenner, (Dec. 19, 2014) results in a district court decision handed down in August taking effect on January 5. (See prior related posting.)  Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the Court's action.  SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's action.

Westboro Baptist Attempt To Intervene In Same-Sex Marriage Case Again Rejected

In Marie v. Moser, (D KA, Dec. 18, 2014), a Kansas federal district court for a second time (see prior posting) refused to allow Westboro Baptist Church to intervene as a party in a lawsuit challenging the Kansas ban on same-sex marriage. The court said that WBC's arguments were based on speculation about future possible claims by same-sex couples.  WBC was allowed to continue to file amicus briefs to assert arguments it would like the court to consider.

Hawaii Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Challenge To Marriage Equality Law

Yesterday the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a case challenging the state legislature's authority to enact the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013. The Court, on its website, summarizes the issues:

Respondents argue, inter alia, that the Hawai`i Marriage Equality Act is unconstitutional because in 1998, the people of Hawai`i voted to amend article 1, section 23 of the Hawai`i Constitution to state that “the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Respondents argue that the intent of this amendment was to constitutionally reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, so the legislature was not authorized to pass the Hawai`i Marriage Equality Act. In response, Petitioners argue that article 1, section 23 allows the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, but does not require it to do so. Petitioners also argue that Respondents lacked standing to bring this lawsuit.

An audio recording of the full oral arguments is available from the Court's website. AP reports further on the case.