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.

Florist Counter-Sues State AG Over Right To Refuse To Create Floral Arrangements For Same-Sex Wedding

As previously reported, last month the Washington state attorney filed a consumer protection lawsuit in state court against a retail florist for refusing, because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, to furnish floral arrangements for a customer's same-sex wedding. Now defendants Arlene's Flowers, Inc. and its owner Barronelle Stutzman, have not merely filed an answer, but at the same time filed a third-party complaint, counter-suing the state attorney general for violating the shop owner's free speech and free exercise rights under the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. The third party complaint (full text) in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers Inc., (WA Super Ct., filed 5/16/2013) alleges in part:

Barronelle  is being sued, and she fears future suits by the Attorney General, for following her conscience in her work, which has resulted in a chilling effect in the exercise of her constitutional rights and a chill in the exercise of constitutional rights by other small business owners in Washington.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the filing of the counter-suit.

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

With Approval By Lords, Britain Moves Close To Final Approval of Same Sex Marriage Bill

The Telegraph reports that in Britain yesterday the House of Lords approved the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.  The transcript of all the House of Lords debates on the bill, along with links to other information on it, are available on Parliament's website.  The bill passed the House of Commons in May. (Report on House of Commons debates.)  The bill now goes back to Commons for approval of amendments that were made in the House of Lords. According to The Telegraph, unless unexpected objections arise in Commons, it is expected that the bill will receive Royal Assent within days, opening the way for the first same-sex marriages in England and Wales by next summer.

Report on Tax Implications of Same-Sex Marriage

On July 30, the Congressional Research Service issued a report titled The Federal Tax Treatment of Married Same-Sex Couples. The report details the various tax code provisions that will lead to tax differences between filing as two single taxpayers and filing as a married couple.  The report concluded that while for some same-sex couples, federal recognition of their marriage will lead to lower taxes, for other it will lead to taxes higher than if filing as two single individuals. Several studies have reached different estimates on the overall impact on tax revenues.

Tennessee Judge Says Obergefell Ended State Jurisdiction Over Contested Divorces

A Tennessee Chancery Court Judge, in what can only be described as a fit of judicial pique, last week used a divorce case in which he had substantial doubt about the parties' credibility to launch a verbal attack on the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision and develop a rather far-fetched theory of the decision's impact.  In Bumgardner v. Bumgardner, (TN Chan., Aug. 31, 2015), the court said in part:

With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee' s judiciary must now await the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage. The majority' s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land....

Thus, it appears there may now be, at minimum ... concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts with regard to marriage/divorce litigation. Perhaps even more troubling, however, is that there may also now be a new or enhanced field of jurisprudence— federal preemption by " judicial fiat." ...

[R]egardless of the states' traditional regulation of the area of marriage and divorce..., what actually appears to be the intent and ( more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/ divorce litigation altogether. ...

The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans, corporately, have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/ central institutions such as marriage and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces. Consequently, since only our federal courts are wise enough to address the issues of marriage— and therefore contested divorces— it only follows that this Court' s jurisdiction has been preempted. ...

Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism, implementation of this apparently new "super -federal -judicial" form of benign and benevolent government, termed " krytocracy" by some and " judi-idiocracy" by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court. In any event, it should be noted that the victory of personal rights and liberty over the intrusion of state government provided by the majority opinion in Obergefell is held by this Court only to have divested subject matter jurisdiction from this Court when a divorce is contested.

Huffington Post reports on the decision.

Bulgaria Violates European Convention by Failing to Recognize Same-Sex Married Couple

In Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Sept 5, 2023) (full text of decision in French) (Court's English Summary of decision), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Respect for private and family life) by failing to have a procedure for recognizing or registering a same-sex marriage entered in another country. According to the English language summary of the decision, the Court said in part:

... [I]n the absence of official recognition, same-sex couples were nothing more than de facto unions for the purposes of national law, even where a marriage had been validly contracted abroad. The partners were unable to regulate fundamental aspects of life as a couple such as those concerning property, family matters and inheritance, except as private individuals entering into contracts under the ordinary law, where possible, rather than as an officially recognised couple. They were not able to rely on the existence of their relationship in dealings with the judicial or administrative authorities or with third parties. Even assuming that national law had allowed the applicants to apply to the domestic courts for protection of their basic needs as a couple, the necessity of taking such a step would have constituted in itself a hindrance to respect for their private and family life.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Catholic Bishops React To Biden's Officiating At Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the Washington Post, last Monday Vice President Joe Biden officiated at the same-sex wedding ceremony of two White House staffers.  In a blog post yesterday, three prominent members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (including its president) reacted to Biden's action, without referring to him by name.  They said in part:

When a prominent Catholic politician publicly and voluntarily officiates at a ceremony to solemnize the relationship of two people of the same-sex, confusion arises regarding Catholic teaching on marriage and the corresponding moral obligations of Catholics. What we see is a counter witness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth....

Faithful witness can be challenging—and it will only grow more challenging in the years to come—but it is also the joy and responsibility of all Catholics, especially those who have embraced positions of leadership and public service. 

Procedural Wrangling Tries To Delay Same-Sex Marriages In California

In its widely reported decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. SCOTUS remanded the case and ordered the 9th Circuit to dismiss the appeal from the district court. However it will be at least 25 days from the decision date until the Supreme Court formally certifies a copy of its judgment to the 9th Circuit.  Nevertheless, acting quickly, yesterday the 9th Circuit issued an Order (full text) dissolving the stay it had previously entered. That stay was the last impediment to same-sex marriage in California. Today, as same-sex marriages were being performed in the state, the proponents of Proposition 8 filed a motion (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to vacate yesterday's 9th Circuit order on the ground that the 9th Circuit has no jurisdiction to act until the Supreme Court formally issues a certified copy of its judgment to it. Proponents argued that the premature termination of the stay deprives them of a meaningful opportunity to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing. The Los Angeles Times and SCOTUS Blog report on this latest procedural wrangling.

UPDATE: AP reports that on June 30, Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the motion to vacate the 9th Circuit's order. Kennedy is the Justice assigned to receive motions regarding 9th Circuit cases.

Backers of Prop 8 Seek To Have Ruling Invalidating It Vacated Because of Judge's Same-Sex Relationship

In Perry v. Brown, the California federal court challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8-- California's ban on same-sex marriage-- defendant-intervenors yesterday filed a motion (full text) to vacate the decision handed down by federal district judge Vaughn Walker last summer. Walker held that the state ban violates the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.)  The new motion argues:

The district judge who issued this judgment, retired Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, has now disclosed to the press on April 6, 2011, that he is gay and that he has been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years....The published reports of former Chief Judge Walker’s statements to the press note that he had heretofore refused to comment on these issues when asked by the press.... The published reports do not address the question whether former Chief Judge Walker and his partner have, or have had, any interest in marriage should the injunction he issued be upheld on appeal.

Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced), it is clear that his “impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned” from the outset. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). He therefore had, at a minimum, a waivable conflict and was obligated either to recuse himself or to provide “full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification,” id, § 445(e), so that the parties could consider and decide, before the case proceeded further, whether to request his recusal.

AP reports on these developments.

Town Clerk Resigns Over New York Same-Sex Marriages

In the town of Barker, New York, 56-year old Laura Fotusky has become the first town clerk in the state to resign over the recently enacted same-sex marriage bill.  According to the International Business Times, Fotusky says that her religious beliefs preclude her from signing a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple. The full text of Fotusky's resignation letter is included in a posting on the website of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.  In the letter, which was presented to the Town Board on July 11, she says: "I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure."

NYT: Same-Sex Married Couples Face Continuing Unequal Treatment In Military

A front-page article in today's New York Times explores the continuing unequal treatment of married same-sex couples in the military.  Despite the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act still bars recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of various benefits. There is also less formal discrimination. At a military retreat at Ft. Bragg designed to help couples cope with the pressures of deployments and relocations, a same-sex couple was asked to leave because they were making others uncomfortable. The retreat was organized by military chaplains, and the lesbian couple had been told in advance that they were welcome. The chaplains now say that was erroneous advice.

Texas Supreme Court Keeps Life In Challenge To City's Same-Sex Couple Benefits

In a complex opinion, the Texas Supreme court has given two Houston taxpayer-voters another chance to challenge the legality of the city's extending spousal benefits to same-sex married couples.  At issue in Pidgeon v. Turner, (TX Sup. Ct., June 30, 2017), is the instructions on remand given by a state appeals court in reversing a trial court's temporary injunction against the city's action.  Plaintiffs' suit is based on the contention that Texas' Defense of Marriage Act still has residual effect and that the state appeals court incorrectly indicated to the trial court that the 5th Circuit's DeLeon decision invalidating the state's DOMA is binding on it.  The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the appeals court was incorrect in telling the trial court to proceed "consistent with" DeLeon:

We agree with Pidgeon that De Leon does not bind the trial court in this case and the court of appeals should not have instructed the trial court to conduct further proceedings “consistent with” De Leon. Penrod Drilling, 868 S.W.2d at 296.17 That does not mean, however, that the trial court should not consider De Leon when resolving Pidgeon’s claims. Fifth Circuit decisions, particularly those regarding federal constitutional questions, can certainly be helpful and may be persuasive for Texas trial courts. Moreover, De Leon could potentially affect the relief the trial court might provide on remand, since De Leon has enjoined the Governor from enforcing the Texas DOMAs and the State of Texas is thus providing benefits to state employees’ same-sex spouses. The trial court should certainly proceed on remand “in light of” De Leon, but it is not required to proceed “consistent with” it.

The Texas Supreme Court refused to reach another argument by plaintiffs that they have standing to seek a clawback of payments the city made to same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  Plaintiff's cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, contending that as taxpayers they have been injured by the payments "because they are devout Christians who have been compelled by the mayor’s unlawful edict to subsidize homosexual relationships that they regard as immoral and sinful."  NPR reports on the decision.

Denmark Approves Full Wedding Ceremonies For Same-Sex Couples

AP and RT report that on Thursday, Denmark's parliament, by a vote of 85-24, approved a change to the country's marriage law that permits same-sex couples to be married in formal church weddings by the Church of Denmark. According to the Copenhagen Post, bishops will quickly develop a separate ceremony for such marriages. The change becomes effective June 15.  Previously, under a 1997 law, the state's Lutheran Church could only marry same-sex couples in a special short blessing ceremony at the end of a regular church service. Under the new law, any minister can refuse to conduct a same-sex ceremony, but the local bishop is then required to arrange for a replacement to do so. Also the new legislation automatically recognizes the 4,100 couples in registered civil partnerships as married.

Louisiana AG Opinion Says ABA Model Rule Barring Discrimination Is Unconstitutional

The Louisiana State Bar Association is considering adopting an amendment to its Rules of Professional Conduct that would define professional misconduct as including:

conduct in connection with the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know involves discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability.  This rule does not prohibit legitimate advocacy when race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability are issues,nor does it limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

This is a narrower version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which the ABA House of Delegates adopted in 2016.  Last week, the Louisiana Attorney General's Office issued Attorney General's Opinion 17-0114 which concludes that the ABA version of the Model Rule is likely unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that while Louisiana's proposed version seeks to avoid many of the constitutional problems, it still suffers from some of the same vagueness and overbreadth issues as does the ABA rule.

In addition to finding that the ABA Model Rule is overbroad and vague, the Opinion also concluded that it violates associational and religious liberty protections, saying in part:

Lawyers participate in a wide variety of associations that engage in expressive conduct which could run afoul of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), including faith-based legal organizations and activist organizations that promote a specific political or social platform....

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) could also result in lawyers being punished for practicing their religion.  The United States Supreme Court specifically noted in Obergefell v. Hodges that "those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."  However this type of advocacy appears to be prohibited by ABA Model Rule 8.4(g).... Under Rule 8.4(g), a lawyer who acts as a legal advisor on the board of their church would be engaging in professional misconduct if they participated in a march against same-sex marriage or taught a class at their religious institution against divorce....

AP reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

British Appeals Court Refuses To Extend Civil Partnerships To Heterosexual Couples

In Steinfeld & Keidan v Secretary of State for Education, (EWCA, Feb. 21, 2017), Britain's Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a challenge to British law that allows same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, to enter civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage.  The differential treatment was challenged as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition on discrimination (Article 14) and right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). As explained in the Court's Summary of the decision, all of the judges agreed that the ban on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples creates a potential violation of Articles 14 and 8.  However two of the three judges concluded that the limitation is permissible because it is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and is proportionate.  The Secretary of State is taking further time to assess whether, since the introduction of same-sex marriage, civil partnership should be phased out or should instead be extended to opposite-sex couples. CNN reports on the decision.

Same-Sex Couple's Newest Battle Is With Catholic Cemetery

NewNowNext and Advocate reported yesterday that Greg Bourke and Michael De Leon, a same-sex couple who were among the plaintiffs in one of the same-sex marriage cases decided by the Supreme Court along with Obergefell v. Hodges, are now at odds with a Catholic cemetery in Louisville, Kentucky. The couple, who have been together for 34 years and members of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish for 28 years purchased a joint burial plot in Saint Michael Cemetery. However the cemetery has refused to approve the headstone design which the couple submitted.  It features their names, interlocking wedding bands, a cross and a depiction of the U.S. Supreme Court building.  A letter from the cemetery informed the couple that it could not approve depictions of wedding rings and the Supreme Court on the headstone because this conflicts with teachings of the Church. In 2015, National Catholic Reporter named Bourke and De Leon "persons of the year" for "their historic roles as plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges and for their faithful public witness as gay Catholics."

Arizona Supreme Court Backs Wedding Invitation Artists In Their Free Speech Claim

In Brush & Nib. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Sup Ct., Sept. 16, 2019), the Arizona Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that Phoenix's public accommodation law cannot be applied to force owners of a wedding and event supply business to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex ceremonies when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The several opinions generated span 78 pages.  The majority opinion of Justice Gould, focusing largely on the compelled speech doctrine, said in part:

[Plaintiffs] have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.... Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’ creation of custom wedding invitations that are materially similar to those contained in the record.... We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations. Likewise, we do not, on jurisprudential grounds, reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ creation of other wedding products may be exempt from the Ordinance....

 Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations, and the creation of those invitations, constitute pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection....

Here, Plaintiffs’ objection is based on neither a customer’s sexual orientation nor the sexual conduct that defines certain customers as a class. Plaintiffs will make custom artwork for any customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, but will not, regardless of the customer, make custom wedding invitations celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. Thus, although Plaintiffs’ refusal may ... primarily impact same sex couples, their decision is protected because it is not based on a customer’s sexual orientation.

Justice Bolick filed a concurring opinion. Three dissenting opinions were filed, one joined by all three dissenters. The primary dissent written by Justice Bales said in part:

Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as “pure speech” on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.

Arizona Republic 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.

Norway's State Church Approves Same-Sex Marriage

According to Fox News, Norway's state church-- the Evangelical Lutheran Church-- voted on Monday to approve same-sex marriages.  It will adopt procedures to implement the decision at next year's church synod. While 88 of the synod's 115 members voted in favor of the proposal, the resolution also allows objecting clergy to refrain from performing same-sex ceremonies.