Minnesota Trial Court Upholds State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

On Monday, a Hennepin County, Minnesota state court judge rejected a constitutional challenge to Minnesota's law that bars same-sex marriage. Tuesday's Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the trial court relied on a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court decision-- Baker v. Nelson -- which rejected a similar challenge, and also relied on Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act. The case decided this week was brought by three same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses. It claimed that denial of marriage to same-sex couples violated their due process, equal protection, religious freedom and free association rights.

Maryland Senate Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The Maryland state Senate yesterday passed the Civil Marriage Protection Act (SB 116), by a vote of 25-21. The bill authorizes same-sex marriage in the state, and provides that clergy may not be required to solemnize marriages in violation of their free exercise of religion.  The bill also exempts religious organizations from provisions calling for non-discrimination in public accommodations and insurance when they refuse on religious grounds to provide facilities, services or benefits for same-sex marriages. The bill now goes to the House of Delegates where, according to yesterday's Washington Post, its prospects for passage are uncertain. Opposition to the bill has come particularly from the Maryland Catholic Conference and from members of the state's black churches.

California High Court Accepts Certified Question On Standing In Prop 8 Challenge

Last month in Perry v. Schwarzenneger -- the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that bars same-sex marriage-- the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether under California law "official proponents of an initiative measure" have, under state law, a sufficient interest to give them standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative when the public officials refuse to do so. (See prior posting.) Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted the certification request. AP reports that the Court may hear oral arguments as early as September.

Top French Constitutional Court Rejects Challenge To Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

In Mme Corinne C. et autre, (Conseil Const., Jan. 28, 2011) [in French], France's Constitutional Council held that provisions in French law barring same-sex marriage violate neither Constitutional equal protection principles,  nor the protected right to lead a normal family life. C-Fam summarized the ruling as follows:

The Council ruled last Friday that because of the difference of situations between same-sex and heterosexual couples, the difference in treatment in family laws is justified and not in violation of the principle of equality. As for the right to a normal family life, the court found that the pacte civil de solidarité, a form of civil union that accords a plethora of legal, fiscal, and official benefits, is sufficient for a "normal family life."

C-Fam also reported that France's Socialist Party plans to call for a vote in Parliament on same-sex marriage this summer and that activists may appeal this decision to the European Court of Human Rights. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mike Madden, Second Among Equals? Understanding the Short Shrift that Freedom of Religion is Receiving in Canadian Jurisprudence, (Journal of Law and Equality, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 55-86, 2011).
• Lucia Ann Silecchia, Reflections on the Link between Faith and Intellect, (CUA Columbus School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-2, Jan. 18, 2011).
• Faisal Kutty, The Myth and Reality of 'Shari'a' Courts in Canada: A Delayed Opportunity for the Indigenization of Islamic Legal Rulings, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 7, 2010).
• Brian Leiter, The Law of Religious Liberty in a Tolerant Society, (January 25, 2011).
• Mark Rienzi, The Constitutional Right to Refuse: Roe, Casey, and the Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Healthcare Providers, (January 27, 2011).
• Gregory Brazeal, Webs of Faith as a Source of Reasonable Disagreement, (January 1, 2011).
• Michael C. Dorf, Same-Sex Marriage, Second-Class Citizenship, and Law’s Social Meanings, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-03, Jan. 28, 2011).
• Wilson Ray Huhn, A Higher Law: Abraham Lincoln's Use of Biblical Imagery, (U of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-1, Jan. 24, 2011).

Recent Books:

• Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, The Islamic World in the New Century: The Organisation of Islamic Conference, 1969-2009, (Columbia Univ. Press, Nov. 2010), reviewed in Today's Zaman.
• S. Sayyid and AbdoolKarim Vakil (eds.), Thinking Through Islamophobia: Global Perspectives, (Columbia Univ. Press, Feb. 2011).
• John M. Owen IV and J. Judd Owen (eds.), Religion, the Enlightenment, and the New Global Order, (Columbia Univ. Press, Feb. 2011).
• American Foreign Policy Council, The World Almanac of Islamism 2010, (Rowman & Littlefield, Jan. 2011).

Challenge To DOMA's Impact on Tax Treatment of Long Term Care Policies Moves Ahead

In Dragovich v. U.S. Department of Treasury, (ND CA, Jan 18, 2011), a California federal district court allowed three California public employees and their same-sex spouses to proceed with a lawsuit challenging Sec. 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Sec. 7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code which interfere with plaintiffs' ability to participate in a state-maintained long term care insurance program.  Taken together, the challenged provisions deny favorable federal tax treatment to state employee long-term care plans that cover same-sex spouses. Finding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the provisions, the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' equal protection and substantive due process claims, holding:

Section three of the DOMA ...  impairs the states’ authority to define marriage, by robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law.... Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim that section three of the DOMA bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. The section does not preserve the status quo of the states’ authority to define marriage because it instead impairs their customary and historic authority in the realm of domestic relations.

The Silicon Valley Mercury News yesterday reported on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Cert In D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections, (Docket No. 10-511, certiorari denied 1/18/2011). (Order List.) In the case, D.C.'s highest appellate court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld election officials' refusal to accept a petition seeking an initiative vote to bar D.C. from recognizing same sex marriages. (See prior posting.) CNN reports on the denial of cert.

Justice Department Files Appellate Brief Defending DOMA

On Thursday, the federal government filed its much anticipated appellate brief (full text) in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a companion case defending the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, even though President Obama supports repeal of the law. A Massachusetts federal district court struck down the law last July, and the government appealed. (See prior posting.) The brief in the 1st Circuit appeal explains:

The Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here. This longstanding and bipartisan tradition accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government and helps ensure that the Executive Branch will faithfully defend laws with which an Administration may disagree on policy grounds.

CBS News reports that the Justice Department consulted with gay rights groups to avoid arguments in its brief that are particularly offensive to gays and lesbians. The brief argues that DOMA "is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests" of maintaining a uniform status quo at the national level while states experiment with different approaches to same-sex marriage.

Catholic Bishop At Odds With Rhode Island's New Governor

Tension seems to be developing already between Providence, Rhode Island Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin and Rhode Island's newly-inaugurated governor, Lincoln Chafee. According to the Providence Journal, last week, for the first time in at least 20 years, no Catholic bishop offered a prayer at the governor's inauguration ceremony.  In a column published two days later in The Rhode Island Catholic, Bishop Tobin took issue with the reason for Chaffee's decision not to begin inauguration day with a public prayer service. Chaffee's spokesman said that the decision was made out of respect for the principle of separation of church and state. Bishop Tobin complained:

The point is this: religion has an important, indeed a unique contribution to make to the governance of our society. Can we, once and for all then, put to rest the bogus interpretations of the “separation of church and state” so often cited these days?

The Governor's spokesman later said that had misspoken.  He meant to say that the governor believed individuals should pray in their own ways instead of in a prayer service organized by the governor's office. Within days, Bishop Tobin again criticized Gov. Chaffee, this time for his support for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. According to the Providence Journal, a gay-marriage bill supported by the governor was introduced in the legislature last Friday.  Tobin called the bill morally wrong and divisive.

Canadian Court Rejects Exemption for Marriage Commissioners from Performing Same-Sex Unions

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has held that it would be unconstitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the provincial legislature to accommodate the religious beliefs of government marriage commissioners by exempting those who object from solemnizing same-sex marriages.  The decision came in Marriage Commissioner's Reference, (Ct. App. SK, Jan. 10, 2011), a request of the Saskatchewan government to pass on the validity of two possible amendments to the Marriage Act. Here is a summary of the court's holding as set out in the court's case summary:

The reasoning of the Court is grounded in section 15(1) of the Charter.. prohibit[ing] discrimination based on various characteristics including sexual orientation.... [A] law empowering marriage commissioners to deny their services to gay and lesbian individuals would clearly violate section 15(1) as it would treat them differently than other people and would do so in a discriminatory fashion based on their sexual orientation.

... [T]he Court held that accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners could not justify discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.... [M]arriage commissioners act as government officials, not private individuals, when they perform marriage ceremonies.... [T]he obligation to solemnize same-sex marriages does not affect or interfere with the core elements of a commissioner’s religious freedom: the freedom to hold beliefs and the freedom to worship.... [A]llowing marriage commissioners to withhold their services because of personal religious convictions would undercut the fundamental principle that government services must be provided to all members of the public on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.

CTV News reports on the decision. Toronto Globe and Mail reports that Saskatchewan will not appeal the ruling.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:
      U.S. Law:

• Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, The Forms and Limits of Religious Accommodation: The Case of RLUIPA, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, 2011).
• Lloyd H. Mayer, Charities and Lobbying: Institutional Rights in the Wake of Citizens United, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 10-39, Jan. 4, 2011).

       Same-Sex Marriage:

• Mark Strasser, On Same-Sex Marriage and Matters of Conscience, (William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 17, pp. 1-36, 2010).
• Mark Strasser, Tribal Marriages, Same-Sex Unions, and an Interstate Recognition Conundrum, (Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 207-37, 2010).
• Mark Strasser, Interstate Marriage Recognition and the Right to Travel, (Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-34, Spring 2010).
• William E. Thro, The Heart of the Constitutional Enterprise: Affirming Equality and Freedom in Public Education, (Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2011).

      Non-U.S. Law:

• Tanya Kateri Hernandez, Hate Speech and The Language of Racism in Latin America: A Lens for Reconsidering Global Hate Speech Restrictions and Legislation Models, (University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Forthcoming).
• Avishalom Westreich, The Right to Divorce in Jewish Law: Between Politics and Ideology, (International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family, 2011).
• Prakash Shah, A Reflection on the Shari'a Debate in Britain, (Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego (Studies of Ecclesiastical Law), Vol. 13, pp. 71-98, 2010).
• Germano Schwartz, The Representation of the Sacred and the Insufficient Functional Differentiation of the Legal System in Brazil, (January 3, 2011).

      Jurisprudential Concerns:

• Barbara P. Billauer, Optimal Justice: Education, Rehabilitation, Forgiveness - Or How Joseph Ends Sibling Rivalry and Becomes a Saint, (November 2, 2010).
• Ian C. Bartrum, Nonpublic Reasons and Political Paradigm Change, (St. John's Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Robert T. Miller, Review of Permutations of Order: Religion and Law as Contested Sovereignties, (Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 25, No. 3, p. 471, 2010).
• Howard Lesnick, Can Liberal Religion Ground Moral Imperatives?, (U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 11-1, Dec. 22, 2010).

New Books:

• Brian T. Kaylor, Presidential Campaign Rhetoric in an Age of Confessional Politics, (Lexington Books, Dec. 2010).
• George C. Rable, God's Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of the American Civil War, (Univ. of North Carolina Press, Nov. 2010), reviewed at Physorg.
• Paul Horwitz, The Agnostic Age: Law, Religion and the Constitution, (Oxford Univ. Press, Jan. 2011), text of Introduction at SSRN.

New Mexico's Attorney General Says Out-of-State Gay Marriages Are Valid In State

New Mexico's Attorney General, in Opinion No. 11-01 (Jan. 4, 2011), has ruled that same-sex marriages which are valid under the law of the state or country where the marriage was consummated are likewise valid in New Mexico. Attorney General Gary King reasoned that while the federal Defense of Marriage Act permits states to prohibit recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, New Mexico has not enacted a prohibition on their recognition. Therefore principles of comity codified in New Mexico law, that call for recognition of marriages validly performed elsewhere, control. Even though same-sex marriages cannot be performed in New Mexico, that is not enough to bring them within the exception to the comity principle that applies when a marriage is contrary to the state's public policy. Yesterday's Santa Fe New Mexican reports on the Opinion. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

9th Circuit Issues Opinions on Standing, Recusal In Proposition 8 Challenge

Yesterday in Perry v. Schwarzenneger -- the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that bars same-sex marriage-- the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued two opinions relating to standing of various intervenors. Judge Reinhardt filed a concurrence.  Rinehardt separately filed an opinion explaining his earlier decision to refuse to recuse himself in the case.

In the first per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit found that that Imperial County, its Board of Supervisors and a Deputy Clerk all lacked standing to appeal the district court's order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  In the second per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether under California law "official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."

Judge Reinhardt's concurrence attempted to explain why standing was a problem in the case, and expressed his frustration with the posture of the case. It said in part:

There can be little doubt that when the Plaintiffs filed this action their purpose was to establish that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, and to do so by obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court to that effect. Yet ... the complaint they filed and the injunction they obtained determines only that Proposition 8 may not be enforced in two of California’s fifty-eight counties.... [I]t is clear that ... Plaintiffs could have obtained a statewide injunction had they filed an action against a broader set of defendants.... Why preeminent counsel and the major law firms of which they are a part failed to do that is a matter on which I will not speculate.

Next, the problem of standing would have been eliminated had the Governor or the Attorney General defended the initiative, as is ordinarily their obligation. Because they believed Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, they did not do so here. Whether their decision not to defend the initiative was proper is a matter of some debate, although I sympathize with their view that in extraordinary circumstances they possess that right....

Imperial County, one of the counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8, sought to intervene, but for some unknown reason attempted to do so through a deputy clerk who asserted her own rights instead of through the Clerk.... Again, this was a most puzzling legal decision. While we have not ruled as to whether the Clerk would have had standing, we have held that a deputy clerk does not. There are forty-two counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8. Surely [proponents]... could have found a Clerk who would have presented the issue whether a Clerk rather than a deputy has standing.

Finally Judge Reinhardt filed a Memorandum explaining his earlier refusal to recuse himself. (See prior posting.) Reinhardt's wife is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8. Also the ACLU joined in two amicus briefs filed at the district court level in the case. Reinhardt said in part:

Proponents' contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife's opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses.... [H]er views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them....

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decisions.

Top Ten 2010 Religious Liberty/ Church-State Developments

Here are my nominations for the 2010 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments. The choices are based on the long-range implications of the developments on legal doctrines and on relations between government and religion. Most of these top ten were reflected in a number of Religion Clause postings over the year. I have linked to representative postings on each issue.

• (1) Ground Zero Mosque becomes national political issue while opponents of Tennessee mosque argue that Islam is not entitled to protection as a religion.
  
• (2) California federal district court invalidates Proposition 8, the California initiative that bars same-sex marriage.
  
• (3) Oklahoma voters approve anti-Shariah state constitutional amendment; court enjoins certification of results.
  
• (4) France bans wearing of burqa in public.
  
• (5) Leaders of women's Catholic religious orders split with bishops over health care reform proposals.
  
• (6)  Florida church creates international furor by proposing "Burn a Qur'an Day" for 9-11 anniversary. Eventually event is cancelled.
  
• (7) Military chaplains oppose repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
  
• (8) Supreme Court upholds Hastings College of Law policy of requiring student religious groups to accept anyone as member in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.
  
• (9) Federal district court declares that federal statute designating National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
  
• (10) 9th Circuit upholds pledge of allegiance, and "in God We Trust" on coins and currency, against Establishment Clause challenges.

Religion Newswriters Association and Huffington Post have their own Top Ten lists of religion stories.

Australian Anti-Discrimination Law Exempts Religious Foster Care Agency

In OW and OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council, (NSWADT, Dec. 10, 2010), the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of the Australian state of New South Wales held that the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act does not require a religiously-sponsored social service organization to approve same-sex couples as foster care providers. Section 56 of the Act exempts any act or practice of a religious body "that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion." Here, Wesley Mission believed that a monogamous heterosexual partnership in marriage should be the role model for children for whom it provides foster care. Sydney's Daily Telegraph today reports on the decision.

New Minnesota Judge Pick Represented Conservative Christian Groups

The Minnesota Independent reports that on Tuesday, Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty appointed attorney Jamie L. Anderson to a vacancy created by a retirement on the state's 4th District (Hennepin County) Court. Anderson is the wife of the Governor's chief of staff and has represented conservative religious groups in high profile cases.  She represented the Minnesota Family Council in its effort to intervene as a defendant in a case challenging Minnesota's ban on same-sex marriage. In 2009, she was one of the lawyers who represented the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota in a case in which it was seeking an equal right with secular groups to to send Christian literature home with students. In 2007, Anderson was a lobbyist for born-again-Christian Frank Vennes who was a large donor to evangelical groups. However Anderson's primary areas of practice are business law, wills and trusts, probate and real estate. In appointing Anderson, Gov. Pawlenty bypassed the state's Commission on Judicial Selection which makes recommendations to the governor.  Legally governors may bypass the Commission and others have also done so.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Omar Salah, Structuring Sukuk Al-Ijarah in the Netherlands, (TISCO Working Paper Series on Banking, Finance, and Services 08/2010, Nov. 26, 2010).
• Stephen Copp, A Theology of Incorporation with Limited Liability, (October 20, 2010).
• Christian J. De Ocejo, War Against God: How Iran Violates Islamic Law and What Human Rights Organizations Should Do About It, (December 3, 2010).
• Hassan Ahmad, Investigating Secondary Source Usage by Hanafi Jurists to Enhance Contemporary Relations in Muslim Minority Societies, (April 12, 2010).
• Pamela S. Karlan, Marriage, Method, and the Supreme Court, (Supreme Court Review, Forthcoming).
• Todd E. Pettys, Sodom's Shadow: The Uncertain Line Between Public and Private Morality, (Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 61, p. 1161, 2010).
• Jeremy Waldron, Secularism and the Limits of Community, (December 9, 2010).
• Todd E. Pettys, Letter from Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage and the Ouster of Three Justices, (Kansas Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Paul E. McGreal, The Making of the Supreme Court's Free Exercise Clause Jurisprudence: Lessons from the Blackmun and Powell Papers in Bowen v. Roy, 34 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 469-532 (2010).
• Religious Legal Theory: The State of the Field. Articles by Robert K. Vischer, Mark L. Movsesian, John F. Coverdale, Michael V. Hernandez, Samuel J. Levine, Amelia J. Uelmen and David S. Caudill. 40 Seton Hall Law Review 845-990 (2010).

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To California's Proposition 8

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 that barred same-sex marriage. A video recording of the two hours of argument-- the first half on standing, the second on the merits-- is available from the court's website. Silicon Valley Mercury News reports on the oral arguments, saying that the court "appeared generally inclined to support the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. But how the judges reach that historic conclusion remains quite unpredictable." Scotus blog has an excellent summary of the oral arguments.

Meanwhile leaders of 26 religious groups across the country yesterday issued a letter titled "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment," in which they affirm their "shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."  Among the groups endorsing the letter are the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the Orthodox Church in America and the World Sikh Council. (Backgrounder on letter from Catholic Bishops.)

Supporters of Prop 8 Seek Recusal of 9th Circuit Judge

As the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moves to hear arguments next week in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, supporters of Prop 8 have filed papers seeking to have one of the judges on the appellate panel disqualify himself.  AP reports that in a filing with the court, appellants say that Judge Stephen Reinhardt's impartiality is open to question. The judge's wife, Ramona Ripston, is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8.  Also the ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of plaintiffs who are challenging the law. Reinhardt has recused himself in past cases involving the Southern California ACLU.  In August a federal district court held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: The Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that on Thursday, Judge Reinhardt refused to disqualify himself from hearing the case, saying: "I will be able to rule impartially in this appeal, and I will do so." Backers of Prop 8 will not challenge that ruling. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Traditional Marriage Group Cannot Intervene In DOMA Challenge

In Benson v. Alverson, (MN Dist Ct., Nov. 24, 2010), a Minnesota state trial court denied a motion filed by the Minnesota Family Council seeking leave to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Minnesota' Defense of Marriage Act.  Plaintiffs in the case are three same-sex couples and the minor children of one of the couples. The Council is organized to defend traditional marriage, based on Judeo-Christian principles. The court concluded that lobbying for a law does not give an organization a sufficient interest to be entitled to intervention as of right.  In addition, the court concluded that the Council lacks standing to intervene in the case:

[A]lthough the Council attempts to cloak its interest in the nomenclature of organizational injuries and interest, the alleged interest is simply the expression of a desire that the DOMA as written be obeyed. The Council believes that same-sex marriage would harm society, but the Court finds no precedent equating societal non-economic harm to a private organization's injury-in-fact.

The Council had argued that if DOMA is struck down, it will have to divert resources to a campaign to restore a ban on same-sex marriage.  Yesterday's Minnesota Independent reported on the decision.