District Court Invalidates Michigan Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; 6th Circuit Stays Order

In DeBoer v. Snyder, (ED MI, March 21, 2014), a Michigan federal district court held that Michigan's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.  The case began as a constitutional challenge to Michigan's adoption laws which only allow single persons or married couples to adopt.  Plaintiffs were a same-sex couple who were precluded from marrying under Michigan law.  The court invited plaintiffs to amend their complaint to challenge the Michigan Marriage Amendment which the court saw as the underlying reason plaintiffs could not jointly adopt children. Plaintiffs did so, and the court held a two-week trial, largely devoted to expert testimony about whether children raised by heterosexual parents did better than those raised by same-sex couples. The court's opinion discusses the expert testimony at length, ultimately concluding that the state has no rational basis for preventing same-sex couples from marrying. ACLU of Michigan issued a press release announcing the decision.

Ten minutes after the district court's March 21 opinion was handed down, Michigan state attorney general Bill Schuette filed an emergency motion asking the 6th Circuit to stay the district court's order, pending appeal. (Detroit Free Press.) On March 22, the 6th Circuit issued an order directing plaintiffs to respond by March 25, and a second order temporarily staying the district court's judgment until March 26 "to allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion."

Meanwhile, clerk's offices in four Michigan counties opened Saturday morning to allow same-sex couples to obtain licenses, and, according to AP, over 300 licenses were issued before the 6th Circuit called a halt to their issuance by its stay.  The attorney general's office declined to say whether the state would recognize these marriages, saying "the courts will have to sort it out."

Court Grants Stay Pending Appeal In Kentucky Same-Sex Marriage Case

In Love v. Beshear, (WD KY, March 19, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court granted a stay pending appeal to the 6th Circuit of its prior decision requiring recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed in other states. Previously the court had stayed its order only until March 20. (See prior posting.)  The state argued that failure to extend the stay would result in "chaos."  In granting the further stay pending appeal, the court found persuasive arguments on both sides, but said that it was strongly influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court's action in granting a stay in the Utah same-sex marriage case.  The district court said in part:

Perhaps it is difficult for Plaintiffs to understand how rights won can be delayed. It is a truth that our judicial system can act with stunning quickness, as this Court has; and then with sometimes maddening slowness. One judge may decide a case, but ultimately others have a final say. It is the entire process, however, which gives our judicial system and our judges such high credibility and acceptance.... It is best that these momentous changes occur upon full review, rather than risk premature implementation or confusing changes. That does not serve anyone well.

Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

South Carolina Divorce Action Challenges Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

A suit filed last week in Family Court in Greenville, South Carolina could be the vehicle for testing the constitutionality of South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. According to WYFF News, Cathy Swicegood is seeking a divorce from her same-sex partner of 13 years, claiming that the pair should be treated as married under South Carolina's statute that recognizes common law marriages entered prior to 2011. (Background.) In order to succeed, Swicegood will need the court to declare that South Carolina laws treating same-sex marriages as void are unconstitutional. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Narrow Injunction Requires Tennessee To Recognize Marriages of 3 Same-Sex Couples

As reported by SCOTUSblog, on Friday a Tennessee federal district court issued a narrow preliminary injunction requiring Tennessee to recognize the same-sex marriages of the three couples who are plaintiffs in the case and who were married in states where such marriages are legal.  In Tanco v. Haslam, (MD TN, March 14, 2014), the court said in part:

Currently, all relevant federal authority indicates that the plaintiffs in this case are indeed likely to prevail on their claims that the Anti-Recognition Laws are unconstitutional. That said, by the time that this court is asked to render a final judgment, it may be that other federal courts will have reached a different interpretation that favors the defendants’ position. By the same token, it may be that federal courts will continue uniformly to strike down anti-recognition laws, state same-sex marriage bans, and other laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. The impact of future decisions, which are forthcoming as the result of continuing litigation in other federal trial and appellate courts across the country, will inevitably influence the ultimate disposition of this case.

Suit Seeks Florida Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

In Florida on Wednesday, eight same-sex couples who were married in other states filed a federal lawsuit seeking to require Florida to recognize their marriages. The complaint (full text) in Grimsley and Albu v. Scott, (ND FL, filed 3/12/2014) contends that the refusal to do so violates the due process and equal protection clauses. ACLU announced the filing of the lawsuit. A state court lawsuit seeking to require Florida to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is already pending. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The Indianapolis Star reports that last Friday a lawsuit was filed in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriages and on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. In a press release, state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said:

As Indiana's Attorney General I will represent our state and defend our statute now and on any appeal to the best of my skill and ability, as I swore an oath to do.  As state government’s lawyer, I must defend the state’s authority to define marriage at the state level within Indiana’s borders.  People of goodwill have sincere differences of opinion on the marriage definition, but I hope Hoosiers can remain civil to each other as this legal question is litigated in the federal court.

Meanwhile the state legislature effectively delayed until at least 2016 any vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Fired Gay Catholic School Vice-Principal Sues

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Seattle, Washington by a former Catholic high school vice-principal Mark Zmuda who was fired after he married his same-sex partner last December.  According to The Guardian, the suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference.  The Guardian reports:

Zmuda does not dispute that he signed an employment contract that required him to uphold Catholic teachings. However, his complaint claims that the school misrepresented its employment environment as being one of inclusion and anti-discrimination both on its website and in its employee handbook.

The school's president, Sister Mary Tracey knew earlier on that Zmuda is gay. He complied with her request not to bring his partner to school events. After the marriage, Sister Mary told Zmuda that if he would divorce his husband, the school would pay the costs of a commitment ceremony in place of a wedding, and would allow him to keep his job. The school is seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of its 1st Amendment right to make its own decisions on matters of faith and doctrine.

Suit Challenges Wyoming Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

National Center for Lesbian Rights announced yesterday that it has filed a state court lawsuit challenging Wyoming's statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Unlike a number of other states, Wyoming's same-sex marriage ban is found only in state statutes, and is not embodied in the state constitution.  Also the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions is merely a practice that is not supported by specific statutory provisions.   The complaint (full text) in Courage v. Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., filed 3/5/2014), alleges that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the practice of refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Wyoming state Constitution.  It also alleges that the practice of refusing to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages violates Wyoming statutory provision (Sec. 20-1-111) that provides: "All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state." Unlike suits filed recently in other states, this lawsuit does not contain claims that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Kentucky To Hire Outside Counsel To Defend Its Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages, Over AG's Dissent

As previously reported, last month a federal district court ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The state quickly however filed a motion asking for a stay while it considered its options, and last Friday the court granted a stay until March 20. (Louisville Courier Journal). As reported by AP, yesterday Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway announced that he will not appeal the decision or seek further stays. In a statement (full text) posted on the Attorney General's website, he said that the federal court's decision was correct and that he should not be wasting state resources on a case the state is unlikely to win.  He added that he "came to the inescapable conclusion" that defending Kentucky's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage would be defending discrimination. However moments after the Attorney General's announcement, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced (full text) that the state will hire other counsel to seek a further stay and pursue an appeal to the 6th Circuit in order to "bring certainty and finality to this important matter." [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Issues Final Order On Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages In Kentucky; Intervenors Pursuing Additional Relief

As previously reported, earlier this month a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion holding unconstitutional Kentucky provisions that deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. As reported by the Louisville Courier Journal and Insider Louisville, after a hearing on Tuesday, the court issued its final order (full text) implementing the decision (Bourke v. Beshear,  (WD KY, Feb. 27, 2014)). At the hearing, the deputy attorney general told the court that he did not have authority at that time to ask for a stay of the decision, and the court's final order thus did not contain a stay pending appeal. However the state subsequently quickly filed a motion (full text) asking for a 90-day stay to "give Defendants time to determine if they will appeal the order, and the Executive Branch time to determine what actions must be taken to implement this Court’s Order if no appeal is taken."

Meanwhile, the court yesterday also allowed (full text of order) two other couples to intervene in the case to pursue their claims (full text of intervenors' complaint) that Kentucky laws banning the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples are also unconstitutional. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Arizona Governor Vetoes Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Bill

As reported by the Arizona Daily Star, yesterday Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed H.B. 1062, the controversial amendments to the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would, among other things, have allowed businesses to invoke religious freedom claims to refuse to serve gays and lesbians, particularly in the context of same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Announcing her decision at a news conference (full text of remarks), Brewer said that the bill is unneeded and "could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want." In her formal Veto Letter (full text), Brewer said in part:

Senate Bill 1062 ... does not seek to address a specific and present concern related to Arizona businesses.  The out-of-state examples cited by proponents of the bill, while concerning, are issues not currently existing in Arizona.  Furthermore, the bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.  The legislation seeks to protect businesses, yet the business community overwhelmingly opposes the proposed law.  Moreover, some legislators that voted for the bill have reconsidered their votes and now do not want this legislation to become law.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday in De Leon v. Perry, (WD TX, Feb. 26, 2014), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional Texas' statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages and their prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Granting a preliminary injunction, the court said:

[T]oday's Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor).

Applying the United States Constitution and the legal principles binding on this Court by Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and corresponding provisions of the Texas Family Code are unconstitutional. These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex. The Court finds this denial violates Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The court however stayed the execution of the preliminary injunction pending final disposition of any appeal to the 5th Circuit. According to the Dallas Morning News , state attorney general Greg Abbott says the state will appeal.  Washington Post places the decision in a broader context. Texas Gov. Rick Perry yesterday issued a statement (full text) reacting to the decision, saying in part:

it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box.

Missouri County Treasurer Will Accept Same-Sex Marriages From Other States In Unclaimed Property Claims

According to Monday's Columbia Daily Tribune, in Boone County, Missouri (which includes Columbia) County Treasurer Nicole Galloway has announced she will recognized same-sex marriages from out of state. This means that after the death of a spouse, a surviving same-sex spouse can obtain unclaimed property of the deceased being held by the county. The county treasurer took the step despite the provision in Sec. 33 of the Missouri Constitution that provides: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman." Galloway said: "In Boone County and in my office, we accept legal documents from every state in America, and this is just an extension of that." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Court Rules That Illinois Same Sex Couples Can Wed Immediately In Cook County

In Lee v. Orr, (ND IL, Feb. 21, 2014), an Illinois federal district court, in a 4-page opinion, held that Illinois statutes barring same-sex marriages violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  Illinois has already enacted a law allowing same-sex marriages, but that law does not take effect until June 1. (See prior posting.) In this decision, however, the court ruled that same-sex couples need not wait for June:

There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.

However because the suit was filed only against the Cook County Clerk, the court's decision applies only to marriage licenses issued by Cook County. The Chicago Tribune reports that same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses within an hour after the ruling was issued.

Arizona Legislature Passes RFRA Amendments To Allow Businesses To Refuse To Serve Gays On Religious Grounds

The Arizona legislature on Thursday passed and sent to the governor SB 1062 which amends the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to extend its coverage to the exercise of religion by corporations and other business organizations. The bill also provides that its protections may be asserted in lawsuits even if the government is not a party. (Background form Arizona Center for Policy.) The controversial bill is designed to permit businesses that oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage on religious grounds to refuse to provide goods or services if it violates their religious beliefs. ABC News reports that Gov. Jan Brewer is still deciding whether or not to sign the bill. Some suggest that if the controversial bill becomes law, it could lead to boycotts in connection with the Super Bowl scheduled for Arizona next year. AP reports further on the legislation.

Oregon Will Not Defend Its Same-Sex Marriage Ban In Pending Litigation

In its answer filed yesterday in Geiger v. Kitzhaber, a suit challenging Oregon's same-sex marriage ban, Oregon officials notified the federal district court:

State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed last October. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on Oregon's decision not to defend its ban.

Church of England Issues Pastoral Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage

In Britain last week, the House of Bishops of the Church of England issued Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage (full text) in response to Parliament's enactment of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. (See prior posting.) The Bishop's statement says in part [emphasis in original]:

12.  When the Act comes into force in March it will continue not to be legally possible for two persons of the same sex to marry according to the rites of the Church of England. In addition the Act makes clear that any rights and duties which currently exist in relation to being married in church of England churches do not extend to same sex couples....

18.  We recognise the many reasons why couples wish their relationships to have a formal status. These include the joys of exclusive commitment and also extend to the importance of legal recognition of the relationship. To that end, civil partnership continues to be available for same sex couples. Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments....

20.   The 2005 pastoral statement said that it would not be right to produce an authorized public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships and that clergy should not provide services of blessing for those who registered civil partnerships. The House did not wish, however,  to interfere with the clergy's pastoral discretion about when more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of the circumstances....

21.  The same approach ,,, should therefore apply to couples who enter same-sex marriage, on the assumption that any prayer will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church's teaching and their reasons for departing from it. Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways....

27.  The House is not, therefore, willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry. In addition it considers that it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church's teaching in their lives.

Law & Religion UK blog has more on the Bishop's statement.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Virginia's Ban on Same-Sex Marriages; Delays Injunction To Allow Appeal

Yesterday in Bostic v. Rainey, (ED VA, Feb. 13, 2014), a Virginia federal district court concluded that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions that bar same-sex marriage and prohibit recognition of lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.  Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.

The court began its opinion with a quotation from Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia that struck down Virginia's laws barring interracial marriage and established the modern doctrine of marriage as a "fundamental right." However the court yesterday also stayed the effectiveness of its preliminary injunction to give the parties time to appeal its decision to the 4th Circuit. Washington Post reports on yesterday's decision.

UPDATE: An amended opinion (full text) was issued on Feb. 14 correcting a reference in the first paragraph of Judge Allen's opinion.  The sentence that originally read: "Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created
equal." was corrected to read: "Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that "all men" are created equal." Politico reports on the change. [Thanks to Mirror of Justice for the lead.]

Suits Challenge Missouri's and Louisiana's Refusals To Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages

Yesterday, the ACLU announced that has filed a state court lawsuit on behalf of 8 Missouri same-sex couples challenging Missouri's statutory and state constitutional provisions that deny recognition to plaintiffs' marriages that were legally entered into in other jurisdictions. The complaint (full text) in Barrier v. Vasterling, (MO Cir. Ct. Jackson County, filed 2/12/2014) contends:

Missouri’s exclusion of married same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities of marriage violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This discriminatory treatment is subject to heightened scrutiny because it burdens the fundamental right to marry and because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation. But it cannot stand under any level of scrutiny because Missouri’s refusal to recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples does not rationally further any legitimate government interest. It serves only to disparage and injure same-sex couples and their families.

Reporting on the lawsuit, the Columbia Missourian notes:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon drew criticism from gay marriage opponents in November when he directed the state Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couple who are legally married in other states.... The directive prompted a lawsuit filed by same-sex marriage opponents, and led a Republican lawmaker last week to file articles of impeachment against the Democratic governor.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana an organization that advocates for LGBT equality filed a federal court lawsuit challenging Louisiana's statutory and state constitutional provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. The complaint (full text) in Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc. v. Barfield, (ED LA, filed 2/12/2014), in claiming that the Louisiana Anti-Recognition Laws violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights, focuses particularly on the state's refusal to accept joint tax returns from married same-sex couples and its refusal to issue birth certificates naming same-sex couples as parents of a child.  The New Orleans Times Picayune reports on the lawsuit.

Court Says Kentucky Must Recognize Valid Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

In Bourke v. Beshear, (WD KY, Feb. 12, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court struck down Kentucky's state constitutional and statutory provisions that deny recognition to valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The court held that "denial of recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review."  Explaining its decision, the court said in part:

Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused—even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. 

Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.

The court added that while it was not presented with the question of the validity of Kentucky's ban on issuing marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state, "there is no doubt that Windsor and this Court’s analysis suggest a possible result to that question."  WFPL News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]