Suit Asks Ohio To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages On Birth Certificates

A suit was filed by three couples on Monday in an Ohio federal district court to require state officials to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere when issuing birth certificates. The complaint (full text) in Henry v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, filed 2/10/2014) alleges that state and local health department officials will permit only one parent from married same-sex couples to be listed on the birth certificate of their children. It continues:

Plaintiffs challenge this unequal treatment as unconstitutional. These same Defendants were recently ordered to recognize valid out-of state marriages between same-sex couples on death certificates..... The reasoning from that case compels recognition of same-sex marriages on birth certificates.

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Developments In Utah Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in the 10th Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert, the appeal of the Utah federal district court's decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage in Utah. Of particular interest is the amicus brief (full text) filed yesterday by major religious organizations urging reversal of the district court. The brief, filed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod argues:

Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband-wife definition can secure. The result will be more mothers and fathers concluding that the highest end of marriage is not the welfare of their children but the advancement of their own life choices. We know, from personal experience over numerous decades of ministering to families and children, that more focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children.

The Salt Lake Tribune has a summary of the over 20 briefs filed in support of Utah's position, and reports at more length on the brief filed by religious organizations.

Meanwhile, last month the ACLU filed a lawsuit (press release) seeking to require Utah to recognize as valid the more than 1000 same-sex marriages performed in the state after the district court struck down the ban and before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision.  The complaint (full text) in Evans v. State of Utah, (UT 3d Dist. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), argues that by not fully recognizing the marriages, the state has deprived couples of liberty and property interests protected by the due process clause of the Utah constitution and by 42 USC Sec. 1983:

By placing recognition of their marriages “on hold,” the State of Utah has placed the legal status of all same-sex married couples, including Plaintiffs and their families and children, in legal limbo and created uncertainty as to their rights and status in virtually all areas of their lives.

The ACLU provides links to other documents and items relating to the case.

Justice Department Will Give Nation-Wide Recognition To Lawful Same-Sex Marriages

In a speech (full text) to the Human Rights Campaign dinner last night, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department will issue a new policy memorandum on Monday to formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition in carrying out Justice Department activities in all states.

This means that same-sex spouses will be able to refuse to testify against their spouses in federal court proceedings, even in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages will be treated the same as heterosexual marriages in bankruptcy proceedings, allowing same-sex couples to file jointly for bankruptcy and making alimony owed to a former same-sex spouse generally non-dischargeable. Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will have the same spousal visitation, furlough, correspondence and compassionate release rights as opposite-sex spouses. Same -sex spouses will be recognized in various benefit programs administered by the Department of Justice-- the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program; the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund; and the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program.

HRC issued a press release reacting to Holder's remarks, saying: "Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all."

UPDATE: Here is the Memorandum issued by the Attorney General.

Court Upholds Hawaii Law Permitting Same-Sex Marriage

A news release from Hawaii's Department of Attorney General reports that on Jan. 29 a state trial court judge upheld the constitutionality under both the state and federal constitutions of Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act of 2013:

In his ruling from the bench, Judge Sakamoto noted the importance of marriage under the federal constitution, drawing an analogy to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark United States Supreme Court case that struck down state laws banning inter-racial marriage. He concluded that the Marriage Equality Act is consistent with Article I, section 23 of the Hawaii State Constitution, and that “same-sex marriage is legal.”

Article I, Sec. 23 of Hawaii's constitution provides: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."

Administrative Complaint Charges Catholic School With Discrimination For Terminating Employee In Same-Sex Marriage

The Boston Globe reports on the employment discrimination complaint  (full text) filed yesterday with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination by Matthew Barrett who was hired as food services director at a Catholic school. Three days after he accepted the position with Fontbonne Academy, the school terminated his employment because it learned from paperwork he had filled out that he was gay and had a same-sex spouse.

The Massachusetts law against discrimination (MGL Title XXI, Ch. 151B, Sec. 1(5)) provides:

[N]othing herein shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for ... educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and which limits membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion, from... taking any action with respect to matters of employment, discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law which are calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.

In its press release on the case, GLAD says: "Our laws carefully balance the important values of religious liberty and non-discrimination.  When Fontbonne Academy fired Matt from a job that has nothing to do with religion, they came down on the wrong side of the law."

Orthodox Patriarch Warns Russian Parliament About Same-Sex Marriage

According to ITAR-TASS News Agency, on Tuesday Patriarch Krill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, spoke at the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia's parliament) to warn against the legalization of same-sex marriage and to lament marital infidelity. He said that if a person is unfaithful to his family, he may be unfaithful to his homeland.  After Krill's presentation, the Federation Council and religious leaders adopted a joint statement which reads in part: "Preservation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on love and mutual understanding and birth of beloved children are a precondition for survival of humankind."

Virginia's Attorney General Will Not Defend State's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In an NPR interview, Virginia's newly-elected Attorney General, Mark Herring, says that his office will no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. He has concluded that the ban violates the federal equal protection clause. The state's solicitor general will tell a federal court next week that the state is joining the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey, a case challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban. According to the Washington Post, defendants in the case include two county clerks who are represented by separate counsel, so there will still be a defense of the Virginia law presented.

Suit Challenges Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Equality Florida Institute and six same-sex couples who were denied Florida marriage licences in Miami-Dade County filed suit in state court in Florida challenging state constitutional and statutory provisions that prevent same-sex couples from marrying in the state.  The complaint (full text) in Pareto v. Ruvin, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), contends that these restrictions violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Equality Florida Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a press release announcing the planned filing of the lawsuit. Liberty Counsel in a press release said it would help defend the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment which "affirms the natural created order of marriage...."

Oregon Agency Says Bakery Discriminated In Refusing To Furnish Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

The Oregonian reports that last Friday the state of Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found substantial evidence that a Gresham, Oregon bakery-- Sweet Cakes by Melissa-- violated Oregon's public accommodations anti-discrimination law (ORS 659A.403) when the bakery refused a year ago to furnish a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.  The bakery owners said doing so would violate their Christian religious beliefs.  Under Oregon law, the finding leads to an informal conciliation process. If that does not result in a settlement, the state agency can bring charges before an administrative law judge. (See prior related posting.)

Nigerian President Quietly Signs Controversial Anti-Gay Law

AP reported yesterday that in Nigeria, President Goodluck Jonathan signed the controversial Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill on Jan. 7 without any public announcement that he had done so. (See prior related posting.) The new law imposes up to 14 years in prison for entering a same-sex marriage or civil union.  It also provides: "A person who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies or organizations, or directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offense and is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years." U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement (full text) yesterday criticizing the new law, saying that " it is inconsistent with Nigeria’s international legal obligations."

U.S. and Utah Clarify Status of Same Sex Marriages That Were Performed In Utah Before Supreme Court Stay

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today issued a statement (full text) confirming that the federal government will recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Utah in the two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay stopping them while an appeal to the 10th Circuit is pending. Describing the Supreme Court's action as "an administrative step," Holder said in part:

for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages.  These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds.

Meanwhile yesterday Utah's Attorney General distributed a letter (full text) to all County Attorneys and County Clerks in the state advising that they should send marriage certificates to same-sex couples whose marriage ceremonies took place between Dec. 20 and Jan. 6. The letter advises in part:

Based on our analysis of Utah law, the marriages were recognized at the time the ceremony was completed.

While the validity of the marriages in question must ultimately be decided by the legal appeals process ..., the act of completing and providing a marriage certificate for all couples whose marriage was performed prior to the morning of January 6, 2014, is administrative and consistent with Utah law.  Therefore, it is recommended that county clerks provide marriage certificates to all persons whose marriages were solemnized during this period as an administrative function and not a legal function. This would allow ... couples ... to have proper documentation in states that recognize same-sex marriage.

Advocacy Group Asks U.S. and 18 States To Recognize 1300 Utah Same-Sex Marriages

Given the uncertainty surrounding the status of some 1300 same-sex marriages that were solemnized in Utah between December 20 (when a district court legalized them) and Jan. 6 (when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the district court order), Human Rights Campaign yesterday wrote the attorneys general in the 18 states that recognize same-sex marriages, asking them to recognize these marriages for any couples that travel through or relocate in their states. (Full text of letter.) (Press release.) The letter asks the AGs to issue advisory opinions declaring that they will do so. Reuters reports that Human Rights Campaign yesterday also wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking that the federal government extend recognition to these marriages so that the couples will be eligible for federal benefits due to married couples.

Utah Will Deny New Benefits To Same-Sex Couples While Appeals Are Pending

As previously reported, on Dec. 20 a federal district court in Utah struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.  However on January 6 the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed the district court's order while an appeal is working its way through the 10th Circuit.  This left Utah authorities to figure out the status of some 1000 same-sex couples who were married in the state between Dec. 20 and January 6.  Yesterday Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued an Official Statement on how those marriages will be treated for now:

... We are unable to reach a legal conclusion as to the ultimate validity of marriage  between persons of the same sex who completed their marriage ceremony in Utah between Dec 20, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014. That question remains unanswered and the answer will depend on the result of the appeal process.

The Office of the Attorney General has advised the Governor in this case and will continue to work with the Governor and the individual agencies as they evaluate the application of specific policies and benefits within their agencies. A review team has been established to advise on a case-by-case basis.....

While the ultimate validity of such marriages is subject to the decision of a higher court, it is clear that the State is bound by law to limit any benefits attaching after the stay.

CNN reports that the governor's office has advised all state cabinet officials that "state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice."

Utah AG Studying Status of Same-Sex Marriages Already Performed In the State

Following yesterday's Supreme Court order that halts same-sex marriages in Utah while the appeal in Herbert v. Kitchen makes its way through the 10th Circuit, the status of same-sex couples who have married since the Dec. 20 district court decision allowing them is uncertain.  Yesterday the Utah Attorney General's Office issued an Official Statement  saying that it "is carefully evaluating the legal status of the marriages that were performed since the District Court’s decision and will not rush to a decision that impacts Utah citizens so personally." It explained:

There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation. This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the District Court for a stay immediately after its decision.  It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo.

Noah Feldman has an interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's action at Bloomberg Opinion.

Supreme Court Grants Stay Blocking Further Same-Sex Marriages In Utah While Appeal Is Pending

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued a stay (full text)  pending completion of a pending expedited appeal to the 10th Circuit in Herbert v. Kitchen, (Docket No. 13A687). In the case, a Utah federal district court issued an injunction allowing same-sex marriages in Utah. (See prior posting.) The application for a stay was initially made to Justice Sotomayor (see prior posting) who referred it to the full court. SCOTUSblog has more on the Supreme Court's action.

Unauthorized Class Action Sought Millions For Denial of Religious Freedom and Right To Marry By Utah and LDS Church

Last Friday, a class action was filed in federal district court in Utah against the state of Utah and the LDS Church on behalf of "all persons denied freedom of religion and the right to marry"-- at least 500 people according to the complaint.  The complaint (full text) in Winburn v. State of Utah, (D UT, filed Dec. 27, 2013), describes the LDS Church as "an entity of defendant State of Utah," and alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act, the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks damages of at least $25,000 for each class member. Yesterday, the lead plaintiffs in the case filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" (full text). The plaintiffs, Pidge Winburn and Amy Fowler-- a same-sex couple who were married on Dec. 23 after a federal court invalidated Utah's ban on same-sex marriage-- say they did not authorize the lawsuit, never spoke to the attorney who filed it, and learned of it only through a phone call from a reporter.  Apparently attorney E. Craig Smay who filed the suit learned of Winburn and Fowler through a feature article about them in the Dec. 26 Salt Lake Tribune.  According to yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune, Fowler says she plans to file a formal bar complaint against the attorney.

Utah Seeks Stay From U.S. Supreme Court of District Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decision

As reported by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, yesterday the state of Utah filed an Application (full text) seeking an immediate stay pending appeal of the Dec. 20 federal district court decision in Kitchen v. Herbert which barred Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.  The district court and 10th Circuit have both denied stays. As required by Supreme Court rule, the stay application was filed with Justice Sotomayor, the Justice assigned to the 10th Circuit.  Late yesterday afternoon, Justice Sotomayor asked for a response from respondents by noon on Friday.  It appears that Utah's governor and attorney general have retained an outside law firm to handle the attempt to obtain Supreme Court review.  A Boise, Idaho firm is listed as petitioners' counsel, with counsel of record being the firm's senior partner Monte Neil Stewart who was a law clerk for Chief Justice Warren Burger and is the founder of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Utah's application for a stay argues that it is likely that the district court will be reversed on appeal, and if that happens without a stay the state will be faced with the problem of whether and how to unwind the many marriages that will have occurred in the interim. AP reports on Utah's efforts.

Same-Sex Marriages Move Ahead In Utah As State Continues Seeking Stay

The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday on the flurry of motions being filed by the state of Utah seeking to obtain a stay of the federal district court's decision handed down Friday (see prior posting) legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. On Friday morning, the district court denied a stay, and the state quickly filed its third motion with the 10th Circuit seeking a stay while it appeals the district court ruling.  The 10th Circuit had previously denied an emergency stay pending a decision by the district court on granting a stay, as well as denying an anticipatory request to stay the expected district court's refusal of a stay. (Full text of order.)  Meanwhile, according to yesterday's Deseret News, approximately 700 same-sex marriage licenses have been issued across the state since Friday.  Some county clerks, however, are still refusing to issue same-sex licenses, and a lawsuit has been filed by a same-sex couple against the Utah County clerk's office to force them to issue a license.  Cache County officials closed the Clerk's office completely, stopping issuing traditional marriage licenses as well.

UPDATE: The Salt Lake Tribune reports that around 6 p.m., Dec. 24, the 10th Circuit again denied the state's motion for a stay of the district court's order. A spokesman for the Utah attorney general's office said that any county clerks that continue to refuse to issue licences to same-sex couples risk being held in contempt of court. Here is the full text of the order denying a stay during appeal, and which also directs expedited consideration of the appeal of the district court decision. ScotusBlog reports that Utah will file an appeal of the denial of a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday.

Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Spouses On Death Certificates

In Obergefell v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, Dec. 23, 2013), an Ohio federal district court today in a 50-page opinion held that despite its statutory and constitutional provisions to the contrary, Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in other states for purposes of indicating on an Ohio death certificate the deceased's marital status and the identity of the surviving spouse. The court said in part:

... [U]nder the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages. 

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.... 

The court's decision does not invalidate Ohio's refusal to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state.  The court says that there is a possibility the state's concerns about same-sex marriage are more compelling in the context of marriage creation than in the context of marriage recognition. Reporting on today's opinion, AP says that Ohio will appeal the decision.

Indiana Appeals Court: Sex Change of Spouse Does Not Invalidate Marriage Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In In re Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers, (IN App., Dec. 20, 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a marriage between a man and a woman that is valid when  entered does not become void when one of the spouses is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has his or her birth certificate amended to reflect a change in gender.  Even though Indiana law bars same-sex marriage, this ban does not apply to a marriage that is valid in Indiana when entered. [Thanks to William Baude at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]