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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

White House Threatens Veto of ENDA

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives announced yesterday that they are postponing a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (See prior posting.) The Washington Blade reports that differing reasons were given for the postponement. The announcement came several hours after the White House issued an interesting Statement of Administration Policy threatening a possible veto of ENDA:

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).... For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.

A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on "perceived" sexual orientation, or "association" with individuals of a particular sexual orientation.... Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.

The White House concern about same-sex marriage stems from language in Section 8 of the Act: "An unlawful employment practice ... shall include [employment discrimination] ... that is conditioned, in a State in which a person cannot marry a person of the same sex, either on being married or being eligible to marry.

Virginia Legislature Passes Symbolic Bill Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

In Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin has until tomorrow to decide whether or not to sign HB 174/ SB 101 (full text) which provides:

No person authorized by § 20-14 to issue a marriage license shall deny the issuance of such license to two parties contemplating a lawful marriage on the basis of the sex, gender, or race of such parties. Such lawful marriages shall be recognized in the Commonwealth regardless of the sex, gender, or race of the parties.

Religious organizations and members of the clergy acting in their religious capacity shall have the right to refuse to perform any marriage.

As reported by Dogwood, the bill was introduced because of concern that the U.S. Supreme Court might overrule its caselaw protecting same-sex marriages. Even if the Governor signs the bill, its impact on same-sex marriages would only be symbolic since the Virginia Constitution Sec. 15-A prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages in the state and would take precedence over the statute if the U.S. Supreme Court returned the issue of recognition of same-sex marriages to the states.

Another County Clerk's Religious Response To Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The latest kerfuffle over marriage equality has surfaced in Kiowa, Colorado where the Ebert County Clerk-- responsible for marriage licenses-- has hung a controversial poster above the desks where marriage licenses are issued. According to Denver7 News, the poster, made specifically in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, shows a bride and groom along with a Biblical quotation (I Corinthians 7:2) reading "...each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."  County Clerk Dallas Schroeder explained in an e-mail to other county clerks:

My thought process is that they [same-sex couples] have to see the poster, and if they choose to violate God’s written Word, then that is on their head.

Only 5 Days For Lower Court Opinion To Cite SCOTUS Decision On DOMA [Corrected]

It took only 5 days for a lower federal court to become one of the first to cite the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark Defense of Marriage Act decision. Relying on language in United States v. Windsor, a federal district court has refused to dismiss a same-sex couple's equal protection challenge to Michigan's ban on adoptions by same-sex couples and its state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.  In DeBoer v. Snyder, (ED MI, July 1, 2013), a Michigan federal district court said:

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim has sufficient merit to proceed. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor ... has provided the requisite precedential fodder for both parties to this litigation. Defendants will no doubt cite to the relevant paragraphs of the majority opinion espousing the state’s “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.”... 

On the other hand, plaintiffs are prepared to claim Windsor as their own.... And why shouldn’t they? The Supreme Court has just invalidated a federal statute on equal protection grounds because it “place[d] same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.”... Moreover, and of particular importance to this case, the justices expressed concern that ... such discriminatory legislation would ... impair the rights of “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” as well.... This is exactly the type of harm plaintiffs seek to remedy in this case..... [T]his Court cannot say that plaintiffs’ claims for relief are without plausibility.

Yahoo! News reports on the Michigan decision.

CORRECTION: This posting originally indicated that this was the first decision to cite the Supreme Court's Windsor case. As Michael Worley in a comment to this posting indicates, actually the first citation was only 2 days after the SCOTUS decision in a different Michigan federal court opinion on domestic partner benefits.  For details on that case, see this posting.

Another Challenge To Idaho's Same-Sex Marriage Laws-- Now By Lesbian Veteran Over Burial Rights

A federal court challenge to Idaho's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere was filed yesterday by a 74-year old Navy veteran who wants to be cremated and have her ashes interred together with those of her already-deceased same-sex spouse. Plaintiff Madelynn Lee Taylor brought her spouse's ashes with her back to Idaho where the couple had lived together. The complaint (full text) in Taylor v. Brasuell, (D ID, filed 7/7/2014), alleges that the sole reason the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery refused her request to make these advance arrangements is Idaho's laws prohibiting recognition of Taylor's 2008 California marriage to her long-time partner. NCLR issued a press release and AP reports on the case. In an unrelated case in May, a magistrate judge in the same federal district court struck down Idaho's laws barring same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) However subsequently the 9th Circuit in Latta v. Otter (May 20, 2014), granted a stay of the decision while it is on appeal.

Republican Presidential Debate Covers Gay Marriage, DADT, Abortion Rights

Last night's CNN debate between 7 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination included a lengthy exchange on same-sex marriage, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and abortion rights.  Here is the excerpt from the full transcript:

[JOHN] DISTASO:... Congresswoman Bachmann, let's turn to a serious subject.
New Hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. This is a question of conflicting interest. I know you're opposed to same-sex marriage.
As president, would you try to overturn -- what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?

BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.

I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.

Now, I didn't come from a perfect background. My parents were divorced. And I was raised by a single mother. There's a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. That's why my husband and I have broken hearts for at-risk kids and it's why we took 23 foster children into our home.

DISTASO: What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level? Anything at all from the White House? Would you come into the state of New Hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?

BACHMANN: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. And I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: On that point -- on that point, to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's try to quickly go through it. Let me start at this end, we'll just go right through. I'll describe it this way. Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made -- this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state's decision?

CAIN: State's decision.

QUESTION: Yes.

PAWLENTY: I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. I was the co-author of the state -- a law in Minnesota to define it and now we have courts jumping over this.

KING: OK. Let's just go through this.

PAUL: The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.

But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

KING: Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision? ROMNEY: Constitutional.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to (ph) constitutional amendment.

KING: We heard the congresswoman's answer, Senator.

SANTORUM: Constitutional amendment. Look, the constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to -- have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is.

KING: Very quickly?

BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on -- on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process -- and Leon Panetta, who's the new defense secretary, will implement -- essentially, the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you -- and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question -- if you were president -- if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to "don't ask/don't tell," or something else?

CAIN: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned "don't ask/don't tell" in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as president. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.

KING: Leave it in place if you inherit the new Obama administration policy or try to overturn it?

PAWLENTY: John, we're a nation in two wars. I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders, and in this case, I would take my cues from them as to how this affects the military going forward. I know they expressed concerns -- many of the combatant commanders did -- when this was originally repealed by the Obama administration.

KING: Congressman?

PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Leave it in place, what you inherit from the Obama administration or overturn it?

ROMNEY: Well, one, we ought to be talking about the economy and jobs. But given the fact you're insistent, the -- the answer is, I believe that "don't ask/don't tell" should have been kept in place until conflict was over.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as president -- I've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working, it is dangerous, it's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.

KING: Congresswoman?

BACHMANN: I would -- I would keep the "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

KING: So you would -- whatever the Obama administration does now, you would go -- try to go back? You'd try to reverse what they're doing?

BACHMANN: I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with -- also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has -- had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.

KING: All right. Last word on this issue, Senator?

SANTORUM: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place, as Ron Paul said, that punishes -- that punishes bad behavior.

KING: Let's go back down to the floor here. Jennifer Vaughn has a question.

VAUGHN: Thanks, John.

Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think -- I think an issue should be -- in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their -- at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that's -- that a factor that -- that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I've taken the -- you know, I've not just taken the pledge, I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that's a factor that people should consider when you -- when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and -- and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Governor Romney, let me give you -- take -- take 20 or 30 seconds, if there's a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?

ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I've said as -- as I've been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.

KING: Is there anybody here who believes that that's an issue in the campaign, or is it case closed?

(UNKNOWN): Case closed.

KING: Case closed it is. All right. Let's move on to the questions.
Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We'll give you a few seconds.

PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results -- not just based on words -- I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.

As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.

I'm solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven't just talked about these things; I've done it.

Court Upholds Hawaii Law Permitting Same-Sex Marriage

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

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

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

Washington State Likely To Approve Same-Sex Marriage

AP reported  yesterday that there are now enough votes in the Washington state legislature to pass SB 6239, a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage. The crucial 25th vote in the state Senate will come from state senator Mary Margaret Haugen who, in an announcement yesterday, said in part:

I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs.... For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman.....

But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.

Gov. Chris Gregoire has publicly endorsed the proposal which also appears to have sufficient support in the state House of Representatives to pass in that chamber. Nevertheless, the Washington State Catholic Conference has issued a public statement (full text) urging retention of the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statement argues in part:

Upholding the present definition of marriage does not depend on anyone’s religious beliefs. Washington State’s present law defining marriage as "a civil contract between a male and a female" is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes the value of marriage as a bond of personal relationships, but also in terms of the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life, thus contributing to the continuation of the human race. A change in legislation would mean that the state would no longer recognize the unique sacrifices and contributions made by these couples, thereby adding to the forces already undermining family life today.

"Parody Marriage" Bills Are Newest Attempt To Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage

A bill titled Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act (H 4949) was introduced into the South Carolina legislature last week (Feb. 15). A similar bill with the same title (HB 0167) was received for introduction in the Wyoming legislature on Feb. 14.  Taking a new approach to challenging same-sex marriage, the bills define marriage that does not involve one man and one woman as "parody marriage."  The bills then declare that parody marriages, as well as treating sexual orientation as a suspect class, violate the Establishment Clause because they are part of the religion of Secular Humanism.  They declare, on the other hand, that marriages between one man and one woman are secular because they arise "out of the nature of things" and are "natural, neutral and noncontroversial."   According to the Charleston City Paper, the bills in both states were written with the advice of Chris Sevier. Sevier has gained notice by filing lawsuits seeking to have his marriage to his computer recognized--- suits filed in an attempt to discredit non-traditional marriages. (See prior posting.)

Would European Court Override Conscience Protections In British Same-Sex Marriage Law? Sikhs Fear So.

The Telegraph reported this week that in Britain the advisory group Sikhs In England has suggested to Sikh gurdwaras that they deregister themselves as venues for civil weddings to avoid possible legal challenges for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages which have recently been legalized in Britain. (See prior posting.) If Sikh temples follow the advice, they would be able to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, but couples would be required to have a separate civil ceremony elsewhere as well. While the new same-sex marriage law contains safeguards against compelling anyone with religious objections to perform or take part in same-sex ceremonies, Sikhs in England is concerned that the European Court of Human Rights might override these protections.

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Kansas Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Marie v. Moser, (D KS, Nov. 4, 2014), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Kansas officials from enforcing any law that prohibits the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, because of lack of standing, the injunction does not extend to Kansas provisions that prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The court stayed its injunction until Nov. 11 to give defendants time to appeal to the 10th Circuit. The 10th Circuit has already struck down same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma. The Topeka Capital-Journal reports on the decision.

Lawsuits Seek Same-Sex Marriage Rights In Illinois

Two lawsuits were filed yesterday in federal district court in Illinois seeking to strike down provisions of Illinois law that bar the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and prevent legal recognition of same-sex marriages.  The suits allege that denial of same-sex couples the right to marry violates various provisions of the Illinois constitution.  As announced in an ACLU press release, one suit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of nine couples, and the other by Lambda Legal on behalf of 16 couples.  The suits are Lazaro v. Orr, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 5/30/ 2012) (full text of complaint) and Darby v. Orr,, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 5/30/2012) (full text of complaint). Illinois law provides for same-sex civil unions, but not same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.)

6th Circuit Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Bans

In DeBoer v. Snyder, (6th Circuit, Nov. 6, 2014), in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals today became the first federal circuit court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognition of same sex-marriages performed elsewhere.  Departing from decisions by the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the court upheld state statutory and constitutional provisions from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Judge Sutton, writing for the majority, summarized his approach:

What remains is a debate about whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution.

Judge Daughtry dissenting said in part:

In the main, the majority treats both the issues and the litigants here as mere abstractions.  Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win “the hearts and minds” of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters to their cause. But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status....

SCOTUSblog reporting on the 6th Circuit's decision speculated that the split among circuits that it creates is likely to lead to Supreme Court review unless en banc review from the 6th Circuit is sought and granted.

Trial Court Invalidates Florida's Ban On Recognizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Tampa Bay Times reports that in a ruling on Monday, a Broward County, Florida trial court judge invalidated the 2008 amendment to the Florida Constitution that prohibits recognition of any "legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." The ruling comes in a case in which plaintiff  Heather Brassner asked the Florida court to dissolve her same-sex Vermont civil union. The court concluded that it could not do so without first ruling on the constitutionality of Florida's same-sex marriage ban. After ruling, the court immediately stayed the order, pending appeal. This is the third Florida trial court ruling since July invalidating Florida's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's opinion in Brassner v. Lade does not appear to be available online yet, but here is the full text of plaintiff's motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

Germany's Bundestag Approves Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by BBC and the New York Times, on Friday Germany's Bundestag passed legislation permitting same-sex marriage.  Currently only civil unions are allowed for same-sex couples.  The vote was 393-226 with 4 abstentions.  Chancellor Angela Merkel, while voting against the change, told members of her governing coalition to vote on the issue according to their consciences. The legislation changes Germany's law to read: "Marriage is entered into for life by two people of different or the same sex."  The legislation must still be approved by the Bundesrat (the upper house of parliament) and signed by Germany's president, but neither of those steps appears to be in doubt.

Suit Challenges Kentucky's Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, a same-sex couple, Gregory Bourke and Michael De Leon, and their two adopted children filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky's refusal to recognize the couple's 2004 Canadian marriage.  The two men have been together for 31 years.  The complaint (full text) in Bourke v. Breshear, (WD KY, filed 7/26/2013) alleges that Kentucky laws barring same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violate the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Tom E. Rutledge for the lead.]

Federal Court Strikes Down Utah's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a Utah federal district court declared Utah's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage invalid under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and enjoined the state from enforcing provisions of Utah law that prevent a person from marrying another person of the same sex. In Kitchen v. Herbert, (D UT, Dec. 20, 2013), the court said in part:

If, as is clear from the Supreme Court cases discussing the right to marry, a heterosexual person’s choices about intimate association and family life are protected from unreasonable government interference in the marital context, then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these same protections. ... The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.

Moving to plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, the court held that none of the reasons put forward to justify the ban-- responsible procreation, optimal child rearing, proceeding with caution, preserving the traditional definition of marriage-- survive even "rational basis" review.

Utah's Attorney General quickly moved to stay the court's order, filing a motion (full text) in district court as well as a motion (full text) in the 10th Circuit.  The court's decision and plans for appeal are discussed at Scotus Blog, Christian Science Monitor, and the Salt Lake Tribune. An op-ed in the St. George (UT) News contrasts the quick appeal of the ruling with the still-uncertain reaction of state officials to a federal court decision last week invalidating a large part of Utah's law banning polygamy.

In Ogden, Weber County officials had originally announced the the county Clerk's office would be open for one hour today to process marriage license applications, but reversed that decision, turning away over 200 people in line.  According to the Salt Lake Tribune, county Clerk Ricky Hatch apologized to those waiting, and later explained that the decision not to open was made in part because there was no security in place for the building and in part because he was "advised that opening the office for 'special circumstances' may violate equal-protection laws, as the county had never before opened on a Saturday to accommodate a particular group or event."

Why Is Indiana's RFRA So Controversial? This Blogger's Analysis.

Since Indiana's passage of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act earlier this week (see prior posting), there has been a flood of commentary on what the Act really means and its true impact.  The commentary, some from those with a political agenda and some from those without one, ranges from the assertion that IRFRA does little to change current law to the assertion that it creates a license to discriminate against the LGBT community.  So here is my attempt to suggest some perspective on the statute.

(1)  The heart of the statute-- the substantial burden/ compelling interest/ least restrictive means requirement-- is similar to that in the federal RFRA and those of numerous other states.  What makes these tests stand out is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions that give the tests new salience.  With Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court has transformed the substantial burden and least restrictive means tests into geometrically more powerful tools to use to challenge refusals to provide religious exemptions.

(2)  Traditionally it was assumed that the federal RFRA would be used by minority religions to fend off broad regulations that might be enacted without a careful weighing of idiosyncratic religious practices that are important to often discrete and insular groups with comparatively small numbers of adherents.  Since Hobby Lobby and the explosion of same-sex marriage cases, it is largely the Christian majority (or a segment of it) that asserts it is the victim of the majoritarian process, seeking exemptions that have a negative impact on minority groups that have broadly been the victims of past governmental discrimination.

(3)  Since Hobby Lobby. the power of RFRA exemptions has been magnified because they can be asserted by fairly large economic enterprises whose owners have religious reservations about a regulatory requirement.  Indiana's RFRA may have expanded the reach of RFRA exemptions beyond those contemplated by Hobby Lobby.  In defining the persons protected by the law, it enumerates all sorts of business entities, including "a corporation."  It does not limit this to a "closely-held corporation" as the Supreme Court did in Hobby Lobby.  It may be that a separate clause in the Indiana law has that effect, but that is unclear.  Under Sec. 7, a business entity is covered if it

exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by ... the individuals who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

It can be argued that only a closely held corporation would be controlled and substantially owned by the same individuals.  But this depends on whether "substantial ownership" means a substantial percentage of the business or merely that the person has a substantial amount of money invested in the company.  CEO's of publicly held corporations often own millions of dollars of the company's stock, but still own only a small percentage of the company.

(4)  Enacted as the Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments in same-sex marriage cases, and in the wake of numerous high-profile cases on religious refusals by businesses to furnish goods and services to same-sex couples, the law has become a symbol of the clash between conservative Christian views on sexuality and the movement of expanded LGBT rights.  Some have pointed out, accurately, that Indiana's statewide public accommodation law does not include a ban on sexual orientation discrimination.  So business that wish to discriminate on that basis do not need an exemption. [corrected]

However, Indiana's statute also applies to local governmental entities in the state.  According to the Indiana ACLU, four localities have ordinances that provide enforceable protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity-- Indianapolis, Lafayette, New Albany and Tippecanoe County.  The new IRFRA will be able to be invoked as a defense in proceedings charging discrimination under these local laws.  This aspect of the law creates particular political and economic problems for the city of Indianapolis that hosts numerous national conventions and sporting events.

(5)  Indiana's new law makes it clear that IRFRA defenses can be asserted in lawsuits between private parties; not just in suits in which the government is a party.  Thus a same-sex couple suing for breach of contract when goods are initially promised and then refused might be met by a religious freedom defense. The sale of goods provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code arguably imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise of the business that discovers it has agreed to violate its own religious principles by facilitating a same-sex wedding.  (This argument is more difficult when services rather than goods are the subject of the contract, and the plaintiff relies on the common law of contracts for enforceability.  Although the statute covers not just statutes, but also "customs" and "usages" of any governmental entity.)

Affirmative relief (damages or an injunction) is only available however against a governmental entity.  And the statute specifically provides that it does not create a cause of action against a private employer by any applicant, employee or former employee.

For other commentaries on IRFRA, see Josh Blackman's Blog and the postings to which he links. And the Washington Post reports today that Indiana lawmakers now say they will act to amend IRFRA to make it clear that it does not permit discrimination against gays.