Connecticut Law Implements Same-Sex Marriage Ruling With Exemptions For Religious Organziations

Yesterday Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed S.B. No. 899, a bill to implement the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision validating same-sex marriages. (AP). The bill also recognizes same-sex civil unions from other states and merges Connecticut civil unions into marriages. On Wednesday, the Senate and House both adopted amendments granting extensive religious exemptions. Those exemptions provide:

[A] religious organization ... or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization ..., shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request for [them]... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith....

... The marriage laws of this state shall not ... shall not require a fraternal benefit society ... which is operated, supervised or controlled by ... a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state.

Nothing in this act shall be deemed or construed to affect the manner in which a religious organization may provide adoption, foster care or social services if such religious organization does not receive state or federal funds for that specific program or purpose.

The bill also provides that no member of the clergy shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion and no church shall be required to participate in solemnizing a marriage in violation of its religious beliefs.

Yesterday's edition of The Edge reports on the amendments adopted Wednesday. Yesterday's Hartford Courant, reporting on the bill, points out that the state legislature rejected broader proposals that would have exempted objecting individuals and businesses from having to provide services in connection with same-sex marriages.

Court Employee Sues Under Title VII When Fired For Refusing To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licences

A Title VII lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a Florida federal district court by an employee of the Broward County, Florida clerk's office who was fired because she refused to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Forman, (SD FL, filed 9/9/2016), contends that plaintiff Yanicka Parker, as a Christian, has a sincere religious belief "that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages."  The complaint asserts:

There were many other clerks available, willing and able to perform same sex marriages.

... Given that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was a miniscule part of the clerk’s job and overall responsibilities, and Ms. Parker was willing and able to perform all other aspects of her job, Defendant ... could have easily accommodated her religious beliefs.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages for defendants' refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs. Christian Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Irish Referendum On Same-Sex Marriage Will Be Held Friday

In Ireland on Friday voters will cast ballots in a referendum to approve same-sex marriage. (Referendum Commission Voters Guide). Voters will be asked to approve a Constitutional amendment which reads:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Sunday's Globe and Mail reports that polls show 70% favor the proposal, even though it is strongly opposed by the Catholic Church. 84% of Irish identify ans Catholic, and almost half go to mass every Sunday. According to yesterday's Irish Independent, Irish bishops are warning that passage of the amendment could threaten the Church's ability to teach children about traditional marriage. However Communications Minister Alex White rejected that claim, saying: "There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for any suggestion that the Church ...would be constricted or constrained in any way,... A specific provision in the legislation we're going to bring in if and when the referendum is passed would mean a Catholic priest, for example, will not be required to solemnise for example, the marriage of a same-sex couple."

Meanwhile, each side in the referendum issue is accusing the other of accepting improper campaign donations.  According to Saturday's Guardian, supporters of the referendum accuse opponents of receiving funding from conservative Christian groups in the United States. Ireland’s Standards in Public Office Commission rules bar foreign donations in the campaign.  A website operated by the US-based National Organization for Marriage is campaigning for a "no" vote, but NOM says it has not funneled any money to groups in Ireland.  Some on the "no" side claim that supporters have been funded by Irish-American multimillionaire Chuck Feeney and his Atlantic Philanthropies agency

Pennsylvania Health Department Sues To Stop County From Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

As previously reported, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (suburban Philadelphia), the county's Register of Wills, D. Bruce Hanes, last week began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the legal ban on such marriages in the state. Now, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the state Department of Health on Tuesday filed suit in Commonwealth Court seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the county from issuing more licenses or accepting marriage certificates from same-sex couples. The suit claims that the county's actions are leading couples to erroneously believe that they have entered a valid marriage.  In response, County Solicitor Ray McGarry issued a statement saying:

While it comes as no surprise that the Corbett Administration has filed an action seeking to enjoin marriage equality in Montgomery County, the petition filed today in Commonwealth Court by the state Department of Health has serious flaws. Montgomery County will be filing a response shortly. In the meantime, the Register of Wills office will continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

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.

Developments In Utah Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington State Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill With Protections For Religious Organizations

The Washington state legislature yesterday gave final passage, and sent to the governor for her signature, SB 6239 legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 55-43, after the state Senate passed it last week by a vote of 28-21. (See prior related posting.)  CNN reports that Gov. Christine Gregoire will sign the bill that will go into effect in June at the end of the legislative session-- unless opponents place it on the November ballot to seek voter disapproval. The bill contains a number of provisions to protect churches, religious organizations and clergy. No member of the clergy is required to perform or recognized a same-sex marriage. No religious organization or religiously affiliated educational institution is required to provide accommodations, facilities (including campus chapels), goods or services related to the solemnization of a marriage. The bill also provides that:

No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section.

 The bill defines "religious organization" to include faith-based social service organizations even if they offer services to the broader community.

Suit In Nation of Georgia Seeks Marriage Equality

According to yesterday's EurasiaNet, in the Caucasus nation of Georgia for the first time a lawsuit has been filed seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.  Plaintiff Giorgi Tatishvili filed suit in the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a Georgian law that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The country's influential Orthodox Church which opposes same-sex marriage nevertheless on Sunday called for the government to provide Tatishvili protection, saying that violence against him is likely for bringing the suit. Minority rights activists in Georgia have not supported the lawsuit, fearing that it will increase hostility against and marginalization of the country's LGBT community. Pro-Russian groups have used the specter of legalized same-sex marriage in their opposition to Georgia joining the European Union.

TRO Requires Indiana To Recognize One Couple's Same-Sex Marriage

According to the Huffington Post, yesterday in Baskin v. Bogan, (SD IN, April 10, 2014) an Indiana federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the state of Indiana to immediately recognize the same-sex marriage of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler.  The TRO was granted because Quasney has stage 4 ovarian cancer, and recognition of the marriage that took place in Massachusetts is needed so Sandler can handle her spouse's affairs after her death and access benefits available for a surviving spouse and children of the marriage (who were born to Sandler through reproductive technology). The order comes as part of a case that more broadly challenges Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. (Links to pleadings.) (See prior related posting.)

New York Senate Defeats Same-Sex Marriage Bill; DC Bill Moves Ahead

Yesterday the New York State Senate, by a vote of 24-38, defeated a bill that would have permitted same-sex marriage in the state. The bill, strongly supported by Gov. David Patterson, had already passed the state Assembly. AP reports that the bill lost by a wider margin than had been expected. The New York Daily News has details of the roll-call vote. The Senate debate included references to religion and the Bible by those on both sides of the issue. (Baptist Press.) After the vote, the New York State Catholic Conference issued a statement saying that the bishops are "pleased and grateful" that the Senate "rejected the concept that marriage can be anything other than a union between one man and one woman."

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s city council, by a vote of 11-2, gave tentative approval on Tuesday to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The Washington Times reports that a final Council vote is scheduled for December 15 on the bill that would authorize same-sex marriage in the District. Then Congress would have 30 days to review the law and disapprove it. (See prior related posting.)

Bishops Launch New Website Opposing Same-Sex Marriage

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has created a new website-- Marriage: Unique for a Reason-- devoted to defending traditional marriage and opposing same-sex marriage.  A welcoming blog post from Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, chairman of the bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, says in part:

Confusion about marriage's meaning is common today. What is marriage? Why does sexual difference matter for marriage? Do children have a right to a mom and a dad? Is marriage between one man and one woman discriminatory? These and many other questions are being raised with great urgency, and they call out for answers.

The Marriage: Unique for a Reason website is designed as a home of resources on what the Catholic Church teaches about the unique meaning of marriage, and why.

In Split Decision, Montana High Court Rejects Broad Challenge To Unequal Treatment Of Same-Sex Couples

In a 4-3 decision in Donaldson v. Montana, (MT Sup. Ct., Dec. 17, 2012), the Montana Supreme Court rejected a suit by couples in a committed same-sex relationship challenging their inability under Montana law to obtain the same protections and benefits available to heterosexual couples who can marry. The majority said in part:

In  the  present  case ... Plaintiffs  do  not  seek  a declaration that any particular statute is unconstitutional or that its implementation should be enjoined.  Rather, Plaintiffs seek a general declaration of their rights and seek orders enjoining the State to provide them a “legal status and statutory structure” that protects their rights.... Broadly  determining  the  constitutionality  of  a “statutory  scheme”  that  may,  according  to  Plaintiffs,  involve  hundreds  of  separate statutes, is contrary to established jurisprudence.

The majority held that plaintiffs could file an amended complaint more narrowly challenging specific laws.

Justice Nelson filed a strong 108-page dissent, saying in part:

The problem ... is that this Court has chosen to punt.  And in simply kicking  the  can  down  the  road,  the  Court  has  denied  Plaintiffs  the  dignity,  respect, fairness, justice, and equality to which they are entitled—foremost as human beings, and legally under Montana’s Constitution.... Sexual orientation is a big deal to those who demand that their personal religious beliefs, their Bible’s  abhorrence,  and their partisan ideology  concerning homosexuality must apply to everyone else, across the board, no exceptions.  But future generations—indeed, most young people today—will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo.... [T]he taboo will die because the scare tactics, propaganda, and misinformation of those who would hang on to the maledictions and stereotypes have proven to be so patently false, malicious, and absurd.  Most decent people  just hate  being  lied  to.

As part of his dissent, Justice Nelson concluded that Montana's "Marriage Amendment,"-- the provision in the state constitution barring the recognition of same-sex marriage-- is invalid:

Montana’s  Marriage  Amendment  is  an  unconstitutional  attempt  to  enforce  a sectarian belief (held by some) through Montana’s secular law.... Indeed, the Marriage Amendment is undisputedly grounded in religious doctrine.  That much is apparent not only from the federal district court’s findings, but particularly from the fulminations of numerous religious organizations in the present case, led by the Montana  Catholic  Conference,  against  the  prospect  that  gay,  lesbian,  and  bisexual Montanans  might  enjoy  some  measure  of  legal  protection  for  their  relationships.   If homosexuality and same-sex relationships were not a religious issue, it is highly doubtful that any of these amici would be so actively involved in this case.

Justices Cotter and Wheat filed a brief separate opinion concurring with most of Justice Nelson's dissent, but refusing to join the portion of the dissent dealing with the Marriage Amendment because plaintiffs did not challenge that amendment. They also disagreed with certain other language in Justice Nelson's opinion.

The Montana Supreme Court also published a Synopsis of the Case.  AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

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

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

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

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended From Office Over Same-Sex Marriage Order

Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary today unanimously concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that denial of marriage licences to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The Court of the Judiciary also found that Moore should have recused himself in a subsequent case involving same-sex marriage.  The Court suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  As reported by NPR, Moore's age will disqualify him from again running for the state Supreme Court in 2018.  A majority of the court voted to completely remove Moore from office, but removal rather than suspension requires a unanimous vote.  In the 50-page opinion in In re Roy S. Moore, (AL Ct. Jud., Sept. 30, 2016), the Court of the Judiciary also took into account the fact that Moore had in 2003 been the subject of proceedings that removed him from office after his resistance to court orders relating to a Ten Commandments monument.

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized In Cayman Islands

A decision handed down last Friday by the Cayman Islands Grand Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the Caribbean nation that is a British Overseas Territory.  Cayman Compass reports:

The decision, which was met by applause from around 80 people who packed into Courtroom 5, follows a petition by Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush.

The couple, who have been in a committed relationship for seven years and have an adopted daughter together, brought a joint judicial review and constitutional challenge after government refused their application to marry in April last year.

Chief Justice Anthony Smellie ruled on Friday that the decision was discriminatory. He said preventing same-sex couples from accessing marriage, and the suite of rights that come with it, was a clear violation of freedoms guaranteed in Cayman’s constitution, including the right to a private and family life.

Chief Justice Smellie used his powers under the Constitution to rewrite the Marriage Law. He ordered that the clause in the law, specifying that marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples, be altered to state, “‘Marriage’ means the union between two people as one another’s spouses.”

Australian Catholic Bishops React To Planned Plebiscite On Same-Sex Marriage

As reported earlier this month by CBC News, Australia's government is planning a mail survey beginning Sept. 12 of Australians on the issue of same-sex marriage. However it is facing a court challenge arguing that the government does not have authority to conduct this type of plebiscite without obtaining authority from Parliament.  Meanwhile the Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that Catholic bishops in Australia have threatened that if same-sex marriage is legalized, parish employees, including teachers in Catholic schools, who marry a same-sex partner may well be fired.

Kansas Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Generates Flurry of Appeals

The issuance by a Kansas federal district court on Nov. 5 in Marie v. Moser of a preliminary injunction against Kansas' ban on same-sex marriages has generated a flurry of appeals. That preliminary injunction was to take effect today. (See prior posting.)

On Nov. 6, Kansas filed an emergency motion with the 10th Circuit to stay the district court's injunction to give Kansas time to seek an initial appeal to the 10th Circuit en banc.  Three-judge panels of the 10th Circuit have already ruled against same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma. (Kansas AG's statement.)  On Nov. 7, the 10th Circuit denied the motion for a stay. Yesterday, Kansas filed a stay application (full text) with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Sotomayor issued an order (full text) staying the preliminary injunction until today and ordering plaintiffs to file a response by this afternoon.

Meanwhile, in a Nov. 7 opinion (full text), the district court denied the motion by Westboro Baptist Church to intervene in the appeal so that it can raise religiously-based arguments against same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) WBC immediately filed a Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit. Yesterday's Topeka Capital-Journal reports on developments.

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.

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.]

Class Action Challenge To Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Stayed As Plaintiffs Intervene In Appeal of Parallel Case

In Harris v. Rainey, (WD VA, March 31, 2014), Virginia federal district judge has cut through the procedural complexity of competing challenges to Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage by staying proceedings in one case while a separate challenge works its way through the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In February, a different Virginia federal district court in Bostic v. Rainey issued a preliminary injunction striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) Just before the court handed down its decision in Bostic, Virginia's attorney general filed a Notice of Change of Legal Position with the court indicating that he will not defend the constitutionality of Virginia's ban. This However left two clerks of court who were also defendants to carry the case forward. (Attorney General's FAQ page on the case.) However in the Harris case-- a class action on behalf of 14,000 same sex couples filed by the ACLU (links to pleadings)-- no defendant was willing to defend the state's ban. Meanwhile the plaintiffs in Harris petitioned the 4th Circuit for, and on March 14 were granted, the right to intervene as a plaintiffs in the Bostic appeal (Legal Times), despite opposition to their intervening by the original lawyers of plaintiffs in Bostic. They preferred that the Harris plaintiffs merely file an amicus brief. (National Law Journal.) [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]