New Resource On Legality of Same-Sex Unions Around The World

American Lawyer reported this week the the Jones Day law firm has launched a new website that provides information on the legal treatment of same-sex relationships in some 300 jurisdictions around the world. The website describes its coverage:

This guide is intended to provide a resource to help answer questions regarding whether particular jurisdictions throughout the world afford legal recognition to same-sex couples. For all U.N. recognized countries, including their constituent parts such as each U.S. State, and Taiwan, the guide answers whether legal recognition of same-sex couples is granted and, if so, provides answers to various follow-up questions, such as whether marriage or some other status is afforded same-sex couples, whether foreign same-sex marriages are recognized in the jurisdiction, and the manner in which same-sex couples may dissolve their relationships.

The website is also now listed under "Resources" in the Religion Clause sidebar.

8th Circuit Vindicates Wedding Videograhers' 1st Amendment Claims

In Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, (8th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the 1st Amendment protects wedding videographers who refuse on religious grounds to produce videos of same-sex weddings. Minnesota contended that the refusal violates two provisions of Minnesota's Human Rights Act.  Judge Stras, writing for the majority, said in part:

Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech....

Laws that compel speech or regulate it based on its content are subject to strict scrutiny....

... [R]egulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be.

The majority also concluded that because the state's action burdens religiously motivated speech, the hybrid rights doctrine requires strict scrutiny. The majority remanded the case to the district court for it to decide whether the videographers are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Judge Kelley dissenting, said in part:

 ... [T]he court tries to recharacterize Minnesota’s law as a content-based regulation of speech, asserting that it forces the Larsens to speak and to convey a message with which they disagree. Neither is true. The Larsens remain free to communicate any message they desire—about same-sex marriage or any other topic—or no message at all. What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others. And make no mistake, that is what today’s decision affords them license to do.

Reuters reports on the decision.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Case

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in  Bishop v. Smith.  An audio recording of the full oral arguments is available from the court's website. In the case, an Oklahoma federal district court held that the provision in the Oklahoma constitution barring same-sex marriage in the state violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The same 10th Circuit panel heard arguments last week in a case challenging Utah's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.)

2nd Circuit in 2-1 Decision Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

In Windsor v. United States, (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2012), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 USC Sec. 7) is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment. In a suit by the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple who was denied the spousal deduction under the federal estate tax law, the majority held that it must apply heightened (intermediate level) scrutiny because homosexuals are a quasi-suspect classification:

A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

None of the justifications offered for DOMA-- maintaining a uniform definition of marriage; protecting the fisc; preserving a traditional understanding of marriage; or encouraging responsible procreation-- are strong enough to justify the discrimination involved.  In concluding, Chief Judge Jacobs, writing for the majority said:

Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition.  But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony.  Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples.  A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it.  For that, the pair must go next door.

Judge Straub dissented, arguing first that the issue is controlled by the Supreme Court's summary dismissal of a similar challenge in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson. He concluded further that DOMA should be subject only to rational basis review, and that several of the rationales advanced for the law satisfy that level of scrutiny.

AP reports on the decision. In May, the 1st Circuit also found DOMA unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

Christian Non-Profit Cannot Rescind Job Offer Because of Same-Sex Marriage

In McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 28, 2023), a Washington federal district court held that a Christian non-profit organization violated Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination when it rescinded a job offer originally made to plaintiff after it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. Plaintiff had been offered the position of customer service representative which involved telephone cultivation of donor relationships. The court held that the religious employer exemption in Title VII only immunizes religious discrimination by such organizations; it does not immunize them from sex discrimination claims. It also held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to the position offered to plaintiff.

Similarly, the rejected the bona fide occupational qualification defense, saying in part:

Nothing in the record indicates that being in a same-sex marriage affects one’s ability to place and field donor calls, converse with donors, pray with donors, update donor information, upsell World Vision programs, or participate in devotions and chapel.

The court went on to find that both Title VII and the WLAD are neutral laws of general applicability so that only rational basis review is required. Finally the court rejected defendants' free speech and expressive association claims.

Catholic School Violates Mass. Law By Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Is In A Same-Sex Marriage

In Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, (MA Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a Massachusetts state trial court held that a Catholic women's preparatory school unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in violation of 21 MGL Chap. 151B when it withdrew an offer of employment as Food Services Director to Matthew Barrett after it discovered he was a spouse in a same-sex marriage.  The school said that same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  In finding a statutory violation, the court rejected the school's argument that it came within the statutory exemption for religious organizations in Sec. 1(5) of the statute, because that exemption is limited to organizations that limit membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of the same religion. The court held that this limitation takes precedence over seemingly broader exemptive language for religious organizations in Sec. 4(18).  It also held that imposing these anti-discrimination provisions on the school did not violate the school's right of expressive association.  Finally the court rejected the school's reliance on the "ministerial exception" doctrine, concluding that Barrett would not be considered a minister "under any version of this doctrine." The Advocate reports on the decision.

Canadian Marriage Commissioner Charged For Refusing To Perform Gay Marriage

In Regina, Saskatchewan yesterday the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held a hearing on a discrimination complaint against one of the Canadian province's marriage commissioners who refused to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony on religious grounds. Canadian Press yesterday reported on the hearing. A lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said that marriage commissioners are required by law to provide civil wedding services for gay couples since same-sex marriage has been legalized in the province. However Orville Nichols, a devout Baptist, said he would have never taken the position as a marriage commissioner if at the time he was appointed there had been a requirement that he perform same-sex marriages.

6th Circuit Refuses To Stay Injunction Against Recalcitrant Kentucky County Clerk

In Miller v. Davis, (6th Cir., Aug. 26, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction (see prior posting) issued against a Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk who has religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The 6th Circuit explains:

As the County Clerk ..., Davis’s official duties include the issuance of marriage licenses. In response to the Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell v. Hodges ..., Davis unilaterally decided that her office would no longer issue any marriage licenses. According to Davis, the issuance of licenses to same-sex marriage couples infringes on her rights under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions as well as the Kentucky Freedom Restoration Act.... The Rowan County Clerk’s office has since refused to issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs, and this action ensued.

The request for a stay pending appeal relates solely to an injunction against Davis in her official capacity. The injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.....

USA Today reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Thursday, Davis' office continued to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, arguing that the district court's stay remains in effect until Aug. 31.  The district court stayed its preliminary injunction until Aug. 31 or the 6th Circuit issued a ruling. On Thursday afternoon, the clerk's office was temporarily closed for "computer upgrades." Davis is considering filing an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. (CBS News).

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

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

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

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

Delaware Becomes 11th State To Permit Same-Sex Marriages

As reported by the New York Times, Delaware today became the 11th state to authorize same-sex marriage. The new law also converts exiting Delaware civil unions into marriages.  House Bill No. 75 (full text) was passed last month by the state House of Representatives by a vote of 28-18.  The state Senate passed the bill just before 7:00 pm tonight by a vote of 12-9. (Legislative history.) Gov. Jack Markell signed the bill within minutes of its passage. The new law protects clergy who object to performing same-sex marriages.  It provides:

nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person (including any clergyperson or minister of any religion) authorized to solemnize a marriage to solemnize any marriage, and no such authorized person who fails or refuses for any reason to solemnize a marriage shall be subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.  Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a clerk of the peace who issues a marriage license, or a deputy thereof, shall be required to perform a solemnization of such marriage if requested by the applicants for such license.

Canadian Marriage Commissioner Appeals Gay-Marriage Requirement

LifeSite News yesterday reported on a case pending in a Manitoba (Canada) Court of Queen's Bench brought by a former provincial marriage commissioner who was forced to surrender his license after he refused to perform same-sex marriages. After the legalization of same-sex unions in Canada in 2004, Manitoba adopted a policy requiring commissioners to perform them. However Ken Kisilowsky says that the policy violates his evangelical Christian beliefs. Clergy are not required to perform same-sex marriage, but others who hold licenses as marriage commissioners are. After the Manitoba Human Rights Commission rejected his religious discrimination claim, he filed the pending appeal. A number of marriage commissioners in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and British Columbia have resigned over similar requirements. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Massachusetts Sues Challenging Constitutionality of DOMA

Yesterday the state of Massachusetts filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The complaint (full text) in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, filed 7/8/2009), alleges that in enacting the law, the federal government violated the 10th Amendment and exceeded its powers under the Spending Clause. The complaint alleges in part:

In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage..... Congress’s decision to enact a federal definition of marriage rejected the long-standing practice of deferring to each state's definition of marriage and contravened the constitutional designation of exclusive authority to the states. From its founding until DOMA was enacted in 1996, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the exclusive prerogative of the states and an essential aspect of each state's sovereignty, and consistently deferred to state definitions when the marital status of an individual was used as a marker of eligibility for rights or protections under federal law.

Now, because of Section 3 of DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships are both denied access to critically important rights and benefits and not held to the same obligations and responsibilities arising out of marriage or based on marital status. DOMA precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of important protections that directly affect them and their families, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments. In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.

The Boston Globe reports on the lawsuit. State Attorney General Martha Coakley's office has issued a press release along with links to a transcript and recording of yesterday's press conference announcing the action.

Antagonists In Same-Sex Marriage Saga will Now Face Each Other In 2018 Election

In 2015, Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was at the center of the battle over same-sex marriage as she was held in contempt for refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex coupled. (See prior posting.)  One of the individuals who was denied a marriage license was David Ermold.  Last week, Ermold filed papers to run against Davis for the Clerk position next year. Papers, of course, were filed in Davis' office.  The Luxora Leader reports:

... Ermold, alongside his now-husband, filled out the paperwork to run for office with Davis sitting across from him:

Davis smiled and welcomed them, chatting with them about the state retirement system and the upcoming Christmas holiday. She made sure Ermold had all of his paperwork and signatures to file for office, softly humming the old hymn ‘Jesus Paid It All’ as her fingers clacked across a keyboard.

When it was over, she stood and shook hands with Ermold, telling him: ‘May the best candidate win.'

A Review of Same-Sex Marriage Developments In Connecticut

In the widespread coverage of the battle over gay marriage in California, less attention has been given to a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court last month holding that limiting same-sex couples to civil unions, instead of marriage, violates the equal protection guarantees of the Connecticut state Constitution. An article in this week’s Yale Herald titled Gay Couples Marry as Campus Christians Sit Silent is occasion to look more closely at developments in Connecticut.

In Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (CT Sup Ct, Oct. 10, 2008) (majority, dissents 1, 2, 3), the court, in a 4-3 decision, applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down Connecticut's statutory scheme barring same-sex marriage. Opponents then supported a proposal that is automatically on the November ballot every 20 years to call a state constitutional convention. [corrected]. The convention could have potentially proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the court's decision. However, that proposal was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls earlier this month.

Of particular interest is the analysis by the majority in the Kerrigan case concluding that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect classification that triggers heightened scrutiny. One part of the test for a quasi-suspect class is its "political powerlessness." As the court explained:

a group satisfies the political powerlessness factor if it demonstrates that, because of the pervasive and sustained nature of the discrimination that its members have suffered, there is a risk that that discrimination will not be rectified, sooner rather than later, merely by resort to the democratic process.

Interestingly, the court then went on to, in part, rely on the strong religious opposition to homosexual activity as evidence of the political powerlessness of gays and lesbians. The court said:

Feelings and beliefs predicated on such profound religious and moral principles are likely to be enduring, and persons and groups adhering to those views undoubtedly will continue to exert influence over public policy makers.

The court then added in a footnote (fn. 37):

Of course we do not suggest that there is anything untoward or improper about such efforts to mold public policy or opinion, for such activity lies at the core of our democratic system. Nor do we equate religious beliefs with prejudice. Our point is simply that gay persons face steep, if not insurmountable, hurdles in changing or even modifying deeply held beliefs that their manner of sexual intimacy is morally unacceptable.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Muhammad Munir, Some Reflections on the Story of Banu Quraydha: A Re-Evaluation, (May 1, 2014).
• Akiva A. Miller, The Policing of Religious Marriage Prohibitions in Israel: Religion, State, and Information Technology, (April 30, 2014).
• Douglas Laycock, Imaginary Contradictions: A Reply to Professor Oleske, (67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 89 (2014)).
• Robert J. Delahunty, Does Animal Welfare Trump Religious Liberty? The Danish Ban on Kosher and Halal Butchering, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-19, 2014).
• Helen M. Alvare, A 'Bare…Purpose to Harm'? Marriage and Catholic Conscience Post-Windsor, (George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-14, 2014).
• Meghan J. Ryan, Finality and Rehabilitation, (4 Wake Forest J.L. & Pol'y 121 (2014)).
• Patrick McKinley Brennan, Implementing Religious Law in Modern Nation-States: Reflections from the Catholic Tradition, (Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2014-1008, 2014).
• Linda C. McClain, Common and Uncommon Families and the American Constitutional Order, (67 Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc 19 (2014)).
• Patrick Parkinson & Nicholas Aroney, The Territory of Marriage: Constitutional Law, Marriage Law and Family Policy in the ACT Same Sex Marriage Case, (May 9, 2014).
• Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Muslim Countries, (May 8, 2014).
• Amy L. Moore, Rife with Latent Power: Exploring the Reach of the IRS to Determine Tax-Exempt Status According to Public Policy Rationale in an Era of Judicial Deference, (South Texas Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Drew Stevens, By the Power Vested in Me? Licensing Religious Officials to Solemnize Marriage in the Age of Same-Sex Marriage, 63 Emory Law Journal 979 (2014).
• Mark Goldfeder, Not All Dogs Go To Heaven: Judaism's Lessons In Beastly Morality, [Abstract], 20 Animal Law 107-118 (2013).
• Mark L. Rienzi, The Case for Religious Exemptions--Whether Religion Is Special Or Not (Reviewing: Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion?; Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality), 127 Harvard Law Review 1395-1418 (2014).
• Emerging Issues in First Amendment Jurisprudence: Interpreting the Relationship Between Religion and the State in the Modern Age. Articles by Alycee Lane, Bruce Ledewitz, Aaron R. Petty, Mark Strasser and Harry F. Tepker. 6 Elon Law Review 1-187 (2014).

Judge Suspended, In Part For Refusal To Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

In In re Day, (OR Sup. Ct., March 15, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court in a 91-page opinion suspended state circuit court judge Vance D. Day from his judicial office for three years without pay. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability had recommended the harsher penalty of removal from office. (Commission report).  A number of unrelated charges were involved; the court concluded that six of the counts had been proven.  One of those was described as follows by the court in its press release on the case:

Count 12 concerned a change in respondent's chambers relating to marriage requests that he received after issuance of a federal court ruling, in May 2014, that had invalidated Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Before that ruling, respondent had made himself available to solemnize marriages. After that ruling, he told his staff that, upon receiving any marriage request, they should check for any personal gender information available in the court's case register system, to try to determine whether the request involved a same-sex couple. If so, they should tell the couple that he was not available on the requested date or otherwise notify him so that he could decide how to proceed. If the request were from an opposite-sex couple, however, then they should schedule the wedding date.  Respondent's judicial assistant checked the system one time and determined that a requesting couple might be a same-sex couple, but respondent had an actual scheduling conflict, so she truthfully told the couple that he was not available.  Several weeks after that, respondent stopped solemnizing all marriages. The Court concluded that respondent's conduct had been willful and had violated Rule 3.3(B) (prohibiting manifestation of bias or prejudice in the performance of judicial duties) and related constitutional provisions. The Court did not address a number of constitutional challenges that respondent had raised as affirmative defenses to Count 12. It explained that, in light of the other, notably serious misconduct that the commission had proved by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct at issue under Count 12 would not affect its consideration of the appropriate sanction, regardless of whether those constitutional challenges were meritorious or not.

Progressive Secular Humanist blog reports on the decision.

Indiana Appeals Court: Sex Change of Spouse Does Not Invalidate Marriage Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In In re Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers, (IN App., Dec. 20, 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a marriage between a man and a woman that is valid when  entered does not become void when one of the spouses is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has his or her birth certificate amended to reflect a change in gender.  Even though Indiana law bars same-sex marriage, this ban does not apply to a marriage that is valid in Indiana when entered. [Thanks to William Baude at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Iowa Recorders Are Told They Must Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

According to yesterday's Gay & Lesbian Times, now that the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the state (see prior posting), Victoria Hutton of the Iowa Department of Public Health has notified all 99 county recorders that they must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some of the recorders have religious objections to doing so. Meanwhile yesterday's Des Moines Register reports that Iowa magistrate Francis Honrath has decided he will stop performing all marriage ceremonies. A number of other judges and court officials are expected to take similar stands.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jennifer Lee Koh, Agape, Grace, and Immigration Law: An Evangelical Perspective, (September 26, 2015).
• John Copeland Nagle, Pope Francis, Environmental Anthropologist, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 28, 2016, Forthcoming).
• Shawn Rajanayagam & Carolyn M. Evans, Corporations and Freedom of Religion: Australia and the United States Compared, (Sydney Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2015).
• Mirjam Künkler & Hanna Lerner, A Private Matter? Religious Education and Democracy in Indonesia and Israel, (British Journal of Religious Education, Forthcoming).
• Helen M. Alvare, The Opposite of Anarchy and the Transmission of Faith: The Freedom to Teach after Smith, Hosanna Tabor, Obergefell and the Ascendancy of Sexual Expressionism, (San Diego Law Review, Forthcoming 2015).
• Helen M. Alvare, Religious Freedom versus Sexual Expression: A Guide, (Journal of Law and Religion, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Chiara Cosentino, Safe and Legal Abortion: An Emerging Human Right? The Long-Lasting Dispute with State Sovereignty in ECHR Jurisprudence, (Human Rights Law Review (2015) 15 (3): 569-589).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Bernard Kenneth Freamon, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Human Right to Freedom from Slavery Under Islamic Law, (Fordham International Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Sex and the Shari’a: Defining Gender Norms and Sexual Deviancy in Shi’i Islam, (Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 39, 2015).
• Federica Sona, Overcoming Obstacles Through Hidden Nuptial Paths: Foreign Muslim Purported Spouses Marrying in Italy, (Review of Social Studies (RoSS), Vol.2, No.1, Spring 2015, pp.25-53).

From SSRN (Same-Sex Marriage):

• Helen M. Alvare, Marriage and Family as the New Property: Obergefell, Marriage and the Hand of the State, (Regent University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• S. Ernie Walton, Conservatives Should Attack Obergefell's Interpretive Method, Not Its Hijacking of the Democratic Process, (September 25, 2015).
• Ethan J. Leib, Hail Marriage and Farewell, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 84, 2015).
• Keith Cunningham-Parmeter, Marriage Equality, Workplace Inequality: The Next Gay Rights Battle, (Florida Law Review, Vol. 67, 2015).
• Fichera, Massimo, ‘Ye Shall Know Them by Their Fruits’ Same-Sex Marriage and the Role of Transnational Law: Changes in the European Landscape, (Helsinki Legal Studies Research Paper No. 39, Sept. 2015).

Same-Sex Marriage Developments Continue

Developments stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court's recent same-sex marriage decisions continue to be reported:

According to yesterday's Deseret News, Utah businessman Jonathan Johnson, executive vice chairman of  Overstock.com, is undertaking a national campaign, beginning in Utah, urging states to amend their constitutions to protect religious organizations from being required to  "solemnize, officiate in, or recognize any particular marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of its beliefs."

Under American immigration law, an individual may receive a derivative visa if his or her spouse or first-degree relative is eligible for U.S. residency.  Haaretz reports that the American embassy in Israel has issued its first derivative visas to Israeli same-sex spouses who were married legally outside of Israel.