Kentucky County Clerk Files Third-Party Complaint Against Governor In Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

As previously reported, in July the Kentucky ACLU filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. On Tuesday, Davis responded by filing a third-party complaint in the suit against Kentucky Governor Steven Beshear as well as the state official responsible for marriage license forms.  Her third-party complaint (full text) in Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 8/4/2015) alleges in part:

The Commonwealth of Kentucky, acting through Governor Beshear, has deprived Davis of her religious conscience rights guaranteed by the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and laws, by insisting that Davis issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples contrary to her conscience, based on her sincerely held religious beliefs. Because of Governor Beshear’s open declaration that Davis has no such rights, Governor Beshear has exposed Davis to the Plaintiffs’ underlying lawsuit, in which the Plaintiffs claim a constitutional right to a Kentucky marriage license issued specifically by Davis. Governor Beshear is not only liable to Davis for Plaintiffs’ claims, but is also obligated to effect Kentucky marriage licensing policies that uphold Davis’s rights of religious conscience.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the complaint. AP reports on the filing.

Sportscaster Sues Fox Sports Claiming Religious Discrimination

Yesterday former NFL player and sportscaster Craig James filed suit in a Texas state court against Fox Sports and various of its affiliates claiming religious discrimination in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and breach of contract.  The complaint (redacted full text) in James v. Fox Sports, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/3/2015), claims that James' firing in September 2013, just days after he was hired by Fox, was "due to a short Christianity-focused statement" opposing same-sex marriage on Biblical grounds that he made during a political debate when he ran unsuccessfully for United States Senate some 18 months earlier. Liberty Institute has more information on the case along with links to depositions, the demand letter and media coverage.  According to The Wrap yesterday, Fox Sports issued a statement saying in part:

... Craig James is a polarizing figure in the college sports community and the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda.  The decision had nothing to do with Mr. James’ religious beliefs and we did not discriminate against Mr. James in any way.

James, in 2009 while at ESPN, was involved in a controversy stemming from his comments about the Texas Tech coach Mike Leach's treatment of James' son. (Background.) James resigned from ESPN in Dec. 2011 to run for the U.S. Senate. [This paragraph has been corrected. An earlier more cryptic version gave an incorrect impression.]

IRS Commissioner Says No Non-Profit Revocations In His Term For Colleges That Oppose Gay Marriage

At a July 29 hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts (video and testimony at hearing), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) had a lengthy exchange with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over whether the IRS would revoke the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities that remain opposed to same-sex marriage.  According to the Christian Post, Koskinen pledged:

that he will commit to making sure that the IRS does not punish religious schools for not adopting policies to accommodate gay marriage — such as allowing married same-sex couples to live in married student housing — as long as he is in charge of the IRS..... However, Koskinen did leave the door wide open for tax-exempt statuses to be a problem for Christian schools in the future....

All we do is follow whatever the public policy is that is set by other organizations," Koskinen argued. "At this point other actions would have to take place before the IRS can consider issuing a regulation, which would give people notices to what we think the public policy was and then cases and exams would be conducted under that.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

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.

Pennsylvania Court Retroactively Validates Same-Sex Marriage After Death of One Spouse

In what is apparently the first case of its kind, on Wednesday a Bucks County, Pennsylvania trial court retroactively validated a same-sex common law marriage.  As reported by the Doylestown Intelligencer, the decision allows the widowed Dr. Sabrina Maurer to recover spousal survivor benefits under two separate insurance policies, and allows her an inheritance tax refund.  Maurer and Dr. Kimberly Underwood were married in a 2001 Episcopal religious ceremony, even though same-sex marriages were not then recognized in Pennsylvania.  However common law marriages were recognized if they took place before 2005. Underwood died in 2013.  Same-sex marriages became legal in Pennsylvania in 2014.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John R. Morss, The International Legal Status of the Vatican/Holy See Complex, (Forthcoming, European Journal of International Law).
• Rex Ahdar, Solemnisation of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom, (Ecclesiastical Law Journal / Volume 16 / Issue 03 / September 2014, pp 283 - 305).
• Richard Moon, Conscientious Objections by Civil Servants: The Case of Marriage Commissioners and Same Sex Civil Marriages, (June 30, 2015).
• Stephen D, Sugarman, Is It Unconstitutional to Prohibit Faith-Based Schools from Becoming Charter Schools?, (July 21, 2015).
• Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Secularism as Proto-Multiculturalism: The Case of Australia, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/56, July 2015).
• Nadia N. Sawicki, Mandating Disclosure of Religious Limitations on Medical Practice, (Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-016 (July 2015)).
• Harlan Grant Cohen, Zivotofsky II's Two Visions for Foreign Relations Law, (109 AJIL Unbound 10 (2015)).
• C. Christine Fair, Sharia, Piety and Maslak: Support for Sectarian Violence in Pakistan, (July 20, 2015).

Indiana Deputy Clerk, Fired For Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licences, Sues [UPDATED]

Linda Summers, a former deputy clerk in the Harrison County, Indiana Superior Court Clerk's Office, last week filed a federal court lawsuit alleging violation of her First Amendment free exercise rights. religious discrimination in employment.  The Louisville Courier Journal reports that after the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a case from Indiana upholding marriage equality, County Clerk Sally Whitis sent an e-mail to all employees telling them that even if it conflicted with their religious beliefs, they were required to process licenses for same-sex couples. Summers responded with a hand-delivered letter asking that she not be required to do so based on her religious beliefs.  She was fired for insubordination. The lawsuit seeks damages and a change in employment practices.

UPDATE: Despite the Courier Journal's quote from plaintiff's counsel that the lawsuit is "just a generic First Amendment free exercise case", now that I have a copy of the complaint it appears that the suit is based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Here is the full text of the complaint in Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, (filed 7/17/2015).  [Thanks to Greg Lipper for the copy of the complaint.]

European Court Holds Italy Gives Inadequate Protection To Same-Sex Couples

In a Chamber judgment in Oliari and Others v. Italy, (ECHR, July 21, 2015), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment awarded damages to three same-sex couples whose relationships were not adequately protected by Italian law.  While the award was unanimous, 3 concurring judges thought that the case could be decided on narrower grounds than did the 4-judge majority opinion.  The Court's press release describes the majority opinion in part as follows:

In previous cases, the Court had already found that the relationship of a cohabitating same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership fell within the notion of “family life” within the meaning of Article 8. It had also acknowledged that same-sex couples were in need of legal recognition and protection of their relationship....

The Court considered that the legal protection currently available in Italy to same-sex couples ... not only failed to provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable committed relationship, but it was also not sufficiently reliable. Where registration of same-sex unions with the local authorities was possible – only in a small share of municipalities in Italy – this had merely symbolic value, as it did not confer any rights on same-sex couples. 

As regards the possibility, since December 2013, to enter into “cohabitation agreements”, such contracts were limited in scope. They failed to provide for some basic needs ... such as mutual material support, maintenance obligations and inheritance rights. The fact that cohabitation agreements were open to any set of people who were cohabiting, such as friends, flatmates or carers, showed that those agreements did not primarily aim to protect couples. Furthermore, such a contract required the couple concerned to be cohabiting, whereas the Court had already accepted that the existence of a stable union between partners was independent of cohabitation, given that many couples – whether married or in a registered partnership – experienced periods during which they conducted their relationship at long distance, for example for professional reasons.

Among the authorities cited by the majority was the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Obergefell decision. A Chamber judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Frontiers Media reporting on the decision points out that Italy is the only major Western European country that does not provide either civil partnerships or same-sex marriage.

Marriage Equality Group Will Celebrate Victory By Going Out of Business

The advocacy group Freedom To Marry, founded in 2001 to push for legalization of same-sex marriage, is taking the rare step of going out of business now that its goal has been accomplished.  Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported that unlike many other non-profits that find a new cause to promote, Freedom To Marry will help its staff find other positions, will make certain that its records are archived, and then will close down completely by February. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Same-Sex Spouse Constitutes "Sex" Discrimination

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, many commentators noted that same-sex couples may still face discrimination because sexual orientation discrimination is not explicitly prohibited under federal law nor under the law of a number of states.  Yesterday in a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, a Wal-Mart employee is seeking a ruling that discrimination against a same-sex spouse is discrimination on the basis of "sex", a classification that is covered by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue is Wal-Mart's policy of denying spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of eligible employees.  If the theory is successful, it could lay the groundwork for public accommodation suits, as well as employment discrimination ones.

The complaint (full text) in Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (D MA, filed 7/14/2015), alleges that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, finding that the refusal to add plaintiff's same-sex spouse to her health insurance policy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex since such coverage would have been provided if she were married to a man rather than another woman. The suit alleges that denial of benefits violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law because benefits would have been provided if plaintiff were married to someone of the opposite sex or if she were a different sex than her spouse. National Law Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Second Suit Filed Against Kentucky Clerk Who Is Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

As previously reported, earlier this month the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against  Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Davis, who is represented by by the advocacy group Liberty Counsel, did not appear in court at yesterday's scheduled hearing because she has not yet been served with a summons.  Meanwhile a second suit was filed against Davis last Friday by a same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license.  The complaint (full text) in Ermold v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/10/2015), alleges that plaintiffs were denied a marriage license  by Davis' office based upon Davis' "understanding of Adam, Eve, and the origins of man as set forth in the Old Testament." The couple's video of their attempt to apply for a license, posted on YouTube, has been viewed over 1.7 million times. The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Bunning who is also hearing the ACLU challenge.  Bunning says he will probably consolidate the two cases. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

AG Says U.S. Government Benefit Programs Will Recognize Same-Sex Spouses In All States

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision will be applied across the federal government.  She said in part:

[C]ritical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide....  Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood.  With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territorie

Kansas Governor Shields Clergy and Religious Social Service Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued Executive Order 15-05 (full text) protecting clergy, religious leaders and religious organizations that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from adverse action by the state. It prohibits the state government from taking any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader who declines on religious or moral grounds to perform, solemnize, or facilitate a same-sex marriage.  It similarly bars discriminatory action against any religious organization that refuses to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any same-sex marriage.

Finally the Executive Order provides that the state may not take discriminatory action against a religious organization that provides social services or charitable services because the organization acts upon sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Discriminatory action includes denial of tax exemptions or benefits, denial of state grants or contracts, and denial of licensing or accreditation.

The governor issued a press release announcing the Executive Order. Washington Post reports on the governor's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Conscience Rights of Clerks and Judges Become An Issue After Supreme Court's Marriage Equality Ruling

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, issues continue to arise regarding the right of state and county officials to refuse on personal religious grounds to issue licenses or perform weddings.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that in Hood County, Texas, County Clerk Katie Lang last week initially refused to issue a marriage license to Joe Stapleton and Jim Cato. On Monday the couple filed a federal lawsuit and less than two hours later Lang's office agreed to issue the couple a marriage license.  However the couple's lawyer says the lawsuit will proceed unless Lang agrees to issue licenses in the future to all couples, gay and straight.

According to the Toledo Blade, in Toledo, Ohio on Monday a same-sex couple who were issued a marriage license ran into delays when they went to the office of the judge on duty to perform marriages for that day.  Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told them that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." However, after a 45-minute wait, another judge, William M. Connelly, Jr., performed the ceremony for them.

In Kentucky, court clerk Casey Davis who objects on religious grounds to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has come up with a creative suggestion. Davis wants state law amended so couples can obtain marriage licenses online.  AP reports that Davis has asked Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the legislature to amend the law to allow the online procedure.  According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Beshear for cost reasons has rejected the idea of a special legislative session on marriage issues, even though House Speaker Greg Stumbo favors it.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Randall Lesaffer, The Nature and Sources of Europe's Classical Law of Nations,(June 25, 2015).
• Asim Jusic, Actionable Pluralism and Toleration in Religiously Diverse Societies: For Whom and for What?, (CEDAR Occasional Paper No.7, 2014).
• Matthew S. Erie, Muslim Mandarins in Chinese Courts: Dispute Resolution, Islamic Law, and the Secular State in Northwest China, (Law and Social Inquiry, Forthcoming).
• Dr. Harunrashid Kadri, Rights of Muslim Woman with Special Reference to Matrimonial Causes - A Human Rights Perspective, (Fiat Justicia, Volume No.: 3, April, 2015).
• Jennifer Carr, Complicity and Collection: Religious Freedom and Tax, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 183, Spring 2014).
• Robert D. Goldstein, The Structural Wall of Separation and the Erroneous Claim of Anti-Catholic Discrimination, (13 Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal 173 (2014)).
• Ronnie Lippens, Escape from Evil? Notes on Capacity, Tragedy, Coding and Non-Destructive Immortality Projects, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2015).

From SSRN (Same-sex marriage):

• Michael J. Perry, Obergefell v. Hodges: An Imagined Opinion, Concurring in the Judgment, (Emory Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-356 (June 27, 2015)).
• Adam Lamparello, Justice Kennedy's Decision in Obergefell: A Sad Day for the Judiciary, (July 2, 2015).
• Susannah William Pollvogt,  Obergefell v. Hodges: Framing Fundamental Rights, (June 29, 2015).

New Books:

• Kevin Vallier, Liberal Politics and Public Faith--Beyond Separation,  (Routledge, June 2014), (podcast with author).
• Anthony M. Petro, After the Wrath of God-- AIDS, Sexuality, and American Religion, (Oxford Univ. Press, July 2015).
• Jean L. Cohen and Cécile Laborde (eds.), Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Democracy, (Columbia University Press, Jam. 2016).

ACLU Sues Kentucky Clerk Who Is Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

Yesterday the Kentucky ACLU filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. (ACLU press release). The complaint (full text) in Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/2/2015) alleges that Davis' refusal "constitutes a substantial, direct and continuous infringement upon Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry," as well as amounting to a violation of the Establishment Clause. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Courts Move To Finalize Compliance With Obergefell, With Scattered Resistance

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued opinions in three same-sex marriage cases pending on appeal, ordering federal district courts in Mississippi (Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant), Louisiana (Robichearx v. Caldwell) and Texas (DeLeon v. Abbott) to enter final judgments for plaintiffs challenging same-sex marriage bans by July 17. In the Louisiana case, the court noted that speedy action was particularly necessary because of the declining health of one of the plaintiffs.

In Alabama, a federal district court judge issued an opinion yesterday in Strawser v. Strange, clarifying that the court's preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Alabama laws barring same-sex marriage is now in effect.  Meanwhile, AP reports scattered resistance to the Supreme Court's decision, with a a few judges and clerks in Alabama, Kentucky and Texas deciding to stop issuing any marriage licenses to anyone.

Texas AG, Critical of Obergefell, Issues Opinion On Religious Accommodation For Clerks and Judges

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a strong statement (full text) on Friday criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on same sex marriage, saying in part:

Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution.

What is most disturbing is the extent to which this opinion is yet another assault on the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself....  The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage.

Then on Sunday, Paxton issued an Attorney General's Opiinion (full text) on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. His statement (full text) accompanying the issuance of the opinion is a good deal more strident than the full opinion itself.  Paxton's statement says in part:

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty

Paxton's opinion itself carefully provides that religious accommodation "may" be permitted:

A county clerk has a statutory right to delegate a duty to a deputy clerk, including theissuance of same-sex marriage licenses that would violate the county clerk's sincerely held religious beliefs. Regarding deputy clerks and other employees, state and federal employment laws allow them to seek reasonable accommodation for a religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, deputy clerks and other employees may have a claim that forcing the employee to issue same-sex marriage licenses over their religious objections is not the government's least restrictive means of ensuring a marriage license is issued, particularly when available alternatives would not impose an undue burden on the individuals seeking a license.... Importantly, the strength of any claim under employment laws or the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts depends on the particular facts of each case....

Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution.

If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications.

Moving then to the question of whether judges and justices of the peace may refuse on religious grounds to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, Paxton says in part:

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, justices of the peace and judges may claim that the government forcing them to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony over their religious objection, when other authorized individuals have no objection, is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring that the ceremonies occur, assuming that is compelling governmental interest. Again, the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts.

The Houston Chronicle reports on developments.

Commentary: Justice Kennedy's Equal Protection Analysis In Obergefell

One of the most interesting and least-commented upon aspects of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion (see prior posting) in Obergefell v. Hodges , last Friday's marriage equality decision, is his treatment of appellants' equal protection arguments.  The traditional approach-- and that used by most lower courts in their same-sex marriage decisions--is to determine the level of scrutiny that should be given to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  Do such classifications deserve "strict" scrutiny, "heightened" scrutiny or does there merely need to be a "rational basis" for use of the classification?  Past Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights have been particularly opaque on this question.

Early in his opinion, Justice Kennedy laid groundwork that might have been used to flesh out a decision on the appropriate level of scrutiny.  He reviewed the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians-- one of the factors that traditionally figures into a determination of whether heightened scrutiny is called for.  However when he gets to the discussion of equal protection, Justice Kennedy largely ignores that groundwork, mentiioning the history of discrimination only in passing. Instead he treats the equal protection clause as a provision that primarily serves to emphasize the correctness of the fundamental-right-to-marriage conclusion that he has already reached.  That is, unlke most past cases in which substantive due process arguments were made largely to emphasize the severity of the denial of equal protection, here the roles of the two clauses are reversed. Justice Kennedy says in part:

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.  The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right....

The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry reflect this dynamic. In Loving the Court invalidated a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause....

Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged....

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.  And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.

Justice Kennedy thus muddies the water even more as to the test for when discrimination against gays and lesbians, outside the context of marriage, violates the equal protection clause.    He also implicitly suggests that future governmental action burdening in some fashion the right to same-sex marriage should be tested primarily under the due process clause.  Thus if states enact laws permitting business owners with religious objections to refuse to provide goods or services for a same-sex marriage, it would seem that the provision's constitutionality should now be tested not by whether the government has a compelling interest to treat same-sex marriages differently than other marriages, but rather by whether the governmental action places a substantial obstacle or undue burden on the liberty interest of the marriage partners.

The Dissents In Today's Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Following up my earlier posting on Justice Kennedy's majority opinion today in Obergefell v. Hodges (the Supreme Court's decision deciding that states must permit and recognize same-sex marriage), here is a summary of the four dissents:

Chief Justice Roberts dissent (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) argued that the majority opinion was a return to the long-rejected judicial policy-making symbolized by the Lochner case:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ...

The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition....

The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry.... In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policy making that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.... Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society....

Emphasizing his central theme, the Chief Justice ended his dissent with the following paragraph:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Justice Scalia's dissent (joined by Justice Thomas) makes a similar point in somewhat more strident language:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. ...

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.

In making his point, Justice Scalia pointed out the unrepresentative character of the Supreme Court:

nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.

Justice Thomas' dissent (joined by Justice Scalia) included a lengthy historical critique of the majority's understanding of the term "liberty" in the due process clause, saying in part:

Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it. 

Justice Alito's dissent (which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined) included a more direct discussion than did the other opinions of the position of those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage:

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected.... We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

.... If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.