Court Says Kentucky Must Recognize Valid Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

In Bourke v. Beshear, (WD KY, Feb. 12, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court struck down Kentucky's state constitutional and statutory provisions that deny recognition to valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The court held that "denial of recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review."  Explaining its decision, the court said in part:

Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused—even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. 

Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.

The court added that while it was not presented with the question of the validity of Kentucky's ban on issuing marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state, "there is no doubt that Windsor and this Court’s analysis suggest a possible result to that question."  WFPL News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Massachusetts High Court: Polygamy Statute Applies To Marriage After Undissolved Civil Union

In Elia-Warnken v. Elia, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., July 26, 2012), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts will recognize a Vermont same-sex civil union as equivalent to a marriage in Massachusetts. It went on to hold that the result of this is the application of Massachusetts' polygamy statute to a partner in a same-sex civil union who subsequently enters a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts without first obtaining dissolution of the civil union. The Massachusetts marriage would thus be void.  While the polygamy statute applies to a person entering a marriage while the person has a "husband" or "wife," the court held that these terms include any legal spousal relationship. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Federal Court Upholds Hawaii's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Jackson v. Abercrombie, (D HI, Aug. 8, 2012), an Hawaii federal district court, in a 120-page opinion, upheld as constitutional Hawaii's laws that bar same-sex marriage.  The court held that rational basis review applies in the federal equal protection and due process challenges to the state constitutional and statutory provisions involved.  The court explained:

The right to marry someone of the samesex, is not "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and thus it is not a fundamental right..... Hawaii’s marriage laws do not treat males and females differently as a class; consequently, the laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender.  The United States Supreme Court has never held that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation....

[T]he legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently [sic.] conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship.... The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex.

Hawaii has enacted a law providing for civil unions that give partners all the same state legal rights as married couples. AP reports on the decision. Alliance Defending Freedom links to the pleadings in the case.

Split 9th Circuit Invalidates Proposition 8 Without Broadly Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Right

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today, in a 2-1 decision struck down California's Proposition 8 that eliminated the right-- previously created by the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution-- for same-sex couples to marry. In Perry v. Brown, (9th Cir., Feb. 7, 2012), [opinion on alternate website in case of traffic overload] Judge Reinhardt, in an opinion joined by Judge Hawkins, held that even though California may not have had the obligation to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, once it did, it could not take that right away without some legitimate reason for doing so. Here there was no legitimate reason. Instead, the majority concluded:

Proposition 8 servers no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort."

The court briefly discussed the argument that Proposition 8 furthered a legitimate interest in protecting religious liberty.  The majority said:

the religious-liberty interest that Proposition 8 supposedly promoted was to decrease the likelihood that religious organizations would be penalized, under California's antidiscrimination laws and other government policies concerning sexual orientation, for refusing to provide services to families headed by same-sex spouses. But Proposition 8 did nothing to affect those laws.... Amicus's argument is thus more properly read as an appeal to the Legislature, seeking reform of the state's antidiscrimination laws to include greater accommodations for religious organizations.

Judge Smith dissented on this issue, concluding that people of California might have rationally believed that Proposition 8 is related to responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

The Court unanimously held that the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring the appeal, and unanimously refused to accept the argument that the decision should be vacated because of the trial judge's interest in being able to marry his own same-sex partner.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Arizona Says Judges Cannot Refuse To Perform Same-Sex Marriages If They Perform Others

The Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has issued Revised Advisory Opinion 15-01 (March 9, 2015), Judicial Obligation To Perform Same-Sex Marriages. It provides in part that:

a judge who chooses to perform marriages may not discriminate between marriages based on the judge’s opposition to the concept of same-sex marriage.

Rule 2.3(B) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall not, "in the performance of judicial duties," manifest bias or prejudice based upon sexual orientation....

Refusing to perform same-sex marriages, while agreeing to perform opposite sex marriages, also violates Rule 2.2 of the Code which provides that "[a] judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially."

...  The JEAC concludes that a judge may choose for various reasons not to conduct any marriages at all because performing marriages is a discretionary, not mandatory, function. A judge may also choose to conduct marriages only for friends and relatives to the exclusion of all others. Such a choice would not run afoul of Rule 2.3(B) because it is not based on sexual orientation. Of course, a judge who performs marriages only for friends and relatives would violate Rule 2.3(B) if the judge refuses to perform marriages for same sex friends and relatives.

AP reports on reactions to the ruling.

Southern Baptist Convention Bars Its Military Chaplains From Participating In Same-Sex Weddings

The North American Mission Board on Aug. 29 released new Guidelines (full text) clarifying the expectations for all military and VA chaplains endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention in light of the Supreme Court's invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act. The new Guidelines provide in part:

All ministries regarding human sexuality will reflect the historic, natural and biblical view of marriage as God's lifelong gift of "the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime."...

Southern Baptists believe that "all forms of  sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality and pornography" ... are condemned by Holy Scripture as sin.... Responsible pastoral care will seek to offer repentance and forgiveness, help and healing, and restoration through the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ;s sacrificial gift of love on the cross.

NAMB-endorsed chaplains will not conduct or attend a wedding ceremony for any same-sex couple, bless such a union or perform counseling in support of such a union, assist or support paid contractors or volunteers leading same-sex relational events, nor offer any kind of relationship training or retreat, on or off of a military installation, that would give the appearance of accepting the homosexual lifestyle or sexual wrongdoing. This biblical prohibition remains in effect irrespective of any civil law authorizing same-sex marriage or benefits to the contrary....

[NAMB-endorsed chaplains may not conduct] a service jointly with a chaplain, contractor or volunteer who personally practices a homosexual lifestyle or affirms a homosexual lifestyle or such conduct.

AP reports on the new Guidelines.

Massachusetts Federal District Court Strikes Down DOMA

In two companion cases today, a Massachusetts federal district judge held Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1 USC Sec. 7) unconstitutional. That section provides that in interpreting any federal statute or regulation, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, (D MA, July 8, 2010), is a suit brought by same-sex couples and survivors of deceased same-sex spouses who were denied various federal marriage-based benefits available to heterosexual couples. The court held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause. It held that it need not decide whether to apply strict scrutiny because the statute lacks a rational basis to support it. In the court's view: "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves."

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, July 8, 2010), was brought by Massachusetts-- which recognizes same-sex marriage-- contending that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority. It also argued that the law exceeds Congress' Spending Clause powers by forcing the state to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds. The court agreed with the challenge holding that DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds, impermissibly interferes with state domestic relations laws, and regulates Massachusetts "as a state," interfering with its ability to structure its traditional functions. The New York Times reports on today's decisions.

Florida District Court Judge Attempts To Clarify Injunction In Same-Sex Marriage Case

A Florida federal district court has ruled on a motion to clarify a preliminary injunction it previously issued in a suit challenging Florida's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior related posting.) At issue was whether the court's ruling did more than require a marriage license be issued to the specific couple who filed suit. In Brenner v. Scott, (ND FL, Jan. 1, 2015), the court said:

Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds. There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

The Clerk has acknowledged that the preliminary injunction requires her to issue a marriage license to the two unmarried plaintiffs. The Clerk has said she will do so. In the absence of any request by any other plaintiff for a license, and in the absence of a certified class, no plaintiff now in this case has standing to seek a preliminary injunction requiring the Clerk to issue other licenses. The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the preliminary injunction.

As reported by SCOTUSblog, immediately following this decision the law firm advising court clerks changed the advice it had previously given and said:

Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge's ruling for all marriage-license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle.

However, apparently Judge Hinkle's opinion still left some ambiguity.  Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday stating in part:

Nearly all media outlets... are grossly mischaracterizing the effect of the ruling....The error is likely the result of the order's condescending lecture to clerks on why they should bow to the August injunction even though they are not bound by it. Judge Hinkle’s lecture, however, has no force of law, and only invites lawlessness throughout the state.

Justice of the Peace's Challenge to Reprimand for Refusing Same-Sex Marriage Officiation Is Remanded

 In Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., June 28, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that a Justice of the Peace may move ahead with her suit brought against members of the Judicial Conduct Commission who issued a formal warning to the Justice of the Peace because of her refusal to perform same-sex marriages. The Justice of the Peace would perform marriages for heterosexual couples, but referred same-sex couples to others that would perform a ceremony for them. She contended that the Commissioners' actions violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as her free speech rights. The court held that there was no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, nor was the suit against individual commissioners (as opposed to the Commission itself) barred by sovereign immunity.

Justice Blacklock, joined by Justice Devine, filed a concurring opinion, agreeing that as a procedural matter the case can move forward, but said that the Supreme Court should have reached the substantive claims and dismissed them.  He said in part:

There are no victims. There was no crime. We have a Christian justice of the peace in a small Texas city doing her best to navigate her duties to God and to the public. We have no real people even claiming to be harmed by her actions. We certainly have no same-sex couples denied a marriage—or anything even close to that. There is no good reason for this case to exist.

But it does exist. It exists because of the Judicial Conduct Commission, which veered far outside its proper lane by self-initiating this victimless but politically and emotionally charged case. The Commission misinterpreted the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Judge Hensley’s religious-freedom rights by publicly sanctioning her and by continuing to hold over her head the threat of a future, harsher sanction should she resume her marriage-referral policy. To her credit, Judge Hensley did not capitulate. And for the last several years, the Commission has doubled down again and again on this misbegotten case, all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.

Justice Young filed a brief concurring opinion. Justice Lehrmann filed a dissenting opinion contending that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Probate Judges To Stop Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Yesterday, in a 134-page per curiam opinion, the Alabama Supreme Court by a 7-1 vote issued a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 3, 2015), those probate judges not specifically named as relators in the mandamus action were joined as defendants and given 5 days to show why they should not be bound by the order. In the meantime they were temporarily enjoined from issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. The court dealt at length with procedural issues and went on to reject in a lengthy argument the rationale in federal district court cases that have held Alabama's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Justice Main filed a brief concurring opinion. Justice Shaw dissented.  Chief Justice Roy Moore did not participate in the decision.  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. New York Times  and Reuters report on the court's action.

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Proposed In California To Protect Clergy From Perfoming Same-Sex Marriages

As the federal court trial challenging the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban continues (New York Times 1/27), proponents of same-sex marriage yesterday introduced a bill in the California legislature to make the prospect more appealing to opponents. The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act (SB 906) emphasizes the distinction between religious and civil marriage by changing language in state statutes relating to marriage to refer to "civil marriage." The bill goes on to add to the section which permits clergy to perform marriage ceremonies:

No person authorized by this subdivision shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision shall not affect the tax exempt status of any entity.

According to LAist yesterday, both Equality California (press release) and the California Council of Churches back the measure.

Two New Mexico Counties Begin Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

In New Mexico this week, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, two county clerks began issuing licenses for same-sex marriages. On  Aug. 21, Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins began issuing the licenses, saying that there is nothing in state law to prohibit it.  The state attorney general said he would not intervene. Then on Aug. 22, a state trial court judge in Hanna v. Salazar issued a writ of mandamus ordering Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar to issue a marriage licence to a same-sex couple who sued after their license application was denied. The county clerk responded enthusiastically, saying:

Now that Judge Singleton has ordered me to issue a license to Messrs. Hanna and Hudson on constitutional grounds, I intend to do so and to issue a license to any same-sex couple who desires one and are otherwise qualified. By complying with the judge’s order we will be issuing licenses legally and will not continue to use limited county resources on further litigation.

At least 45 same-sex couples were issued licenses yesterday.

Liberal Clergy Question Goal Of Proposed New Hampshire Bill On Marriages

In New Hampshire, House Bill 69 recently introduced into the legislature may interfere with the right of liberal clergy to perform religious wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. Yesterday's Concord Monitor says, however, that the the bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Daniel Itse, denies that this is the bill's goal. He says it is aimed at strengthening separation of church and state and is neutral on the issue of same-sex ceremonies.

The bill would amend RSA 457.37 that currently exempts some religious officials from obtaining licenses to perform marriages. The amended statute would read: "Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of ... religious officiants authorized by their church, religion, sect, or denomination to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid unless proscribed by RSA 457:1 or RSA 457:2". Sections 457:1 and 2 prohibit, among other things, same-sex marriages.

Reform Rabbi Richard Klein of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord says the bill is a response to the growing practice among liberal clerics to stop asking for licenses from couples, gay or straight, who seek religious marriages. He fears that the statute implies some kind penalty-- such as loss of the right to perform any marriages-- for clergy who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. He says that interferes with freedom of religion. Rev. Jed Rardin, pastor of South Congregational Church in Concord, says he officiates at marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples even though they are not legally recognized.

Oregon Will Recognize Out-of-State Same Sex Marriages For Purposes Of Tax and Benefit Laws

In Oregon, an Oct. 16 opinion of the Deputy Attorney General (full text) concludes that state agencies can and should recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other states, for purposes of administering tax laws and benefit programs. Oregon permits same-sex domestic partnerships, and under the Oregon Family Fairness Act, domestic partners are entitled to the same benefits as married couples.  This week's opinion allows similar treatment for couples not registered as domestic partners in Oregon but validly married elsewhere, despite Oregon's state constitutional provision (Art. XV, Sec. 5a) prohibiting same-sex marriage. The opinion concludes that construing the constitutional provision to prohibit the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages would likely violate the federal constitution. BuzzFeed discusses the opinion and reprints a memo from the state Department of Administrative Services to state agency directors directing that "Oregon agencies must recognize all out-of-state marriages for the purposes of administering state programs." [Thanks to Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

California Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban, But No Impact On Religious Doctrines

The California Supreme court today in a 4-3 decision ruled that under the California Constitution, same-sex couples have the same right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. In In re Marriage Cases, (CA Sup. Ct., May 15, 2008), the majority emphasized, however that "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)"

In reaching its decision on gay marriage, the court held that "sexual orientation [is] a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment...." In response to the argument that sexual orientation should not trigger strict scrutiny because it is not an "immutable" characteristic, the majority said that: "California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes ... and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control." Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Here are links to the briefs and recordings of the oral arguments in the case.

Top 10 Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments in 2013

As the new year approaches, here is my annual attempt at picking the most important developments of the past year.  My nominations for the 2013 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments are:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor strikes down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in an opinion by Justice Kennedy that triggers judicial and legislative expansion of marriage equality to a total of 18 states and the District of Columbia by the end of 2013.

2.  Judicial challenges by Catholic- and conservative Christian-owned small businesses to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate generate an intense legal debate over whether corporations have religious exercise rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in two cases raising the issue.

3. A decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Elane Photography requires a commercial photography business to serve same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couple, despite the photographer's religious objections to same-sex marriage. A preliminary Colorado administrative decision takes the same approach on wedding cakes. In a related development, Britain's Supreme Court holds that its anti-discrimination laws require Christian hotel owners to rent rooms to same-sex couples. 

4. U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Town of Greece case.  The Court will decide on the constitutionality of opening city council meetings with sectarian prayers.

5. Numerous challenges by religiously-affiliated colleges and social service agencies to a compromise that was intended to accommodate their objections to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate raise the issue of how to define a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under RFRA. Courts have reached differing conclusions.

6. European Court of Human Rights decides four cases from Britain on religious accommodation of Christian employee' religious beliefs. Decisions call for a case-by-case balancing approach.

7. Egypt continues to struggle with the future role of the Muslim Brotherhood (which the government now brands a "terrorist" group) and with what its constitution should say about the role of religion.

8. Federal district court strikes down most of Utah's anti-polygamy law.

9. A variety of recent cases and legislative initiatives in the U.S. and elsewhere raise the question of what qualifies as a "religion"-- Scientology, yoga, Humanism, Naturism.

10. Federal district court holds Internal Revenue Code parsonage allowance provisions violate Establishment Clause.

 I welcome reader comments taking issue with my choices. You may be interested in the somewhat different picks by the Religion Newswriters Association for its 2013 Top 10 Religion News Stories.

Connecticut Catholic Conference Wants Protections For Objectors To Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Raised Senate Bill No. 899 that was introduced last month to implement the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision validating same-sex marriages. (Bill status.) (See prior posting.) The bill would recognize same-sex unions from other states and would merge Connecticut civil unions into marriages. One provision in the bill guaranties that clergy will not be required to solemnize same-sex marriages when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. According to Saturday's Hartford Courant, the Catholic Conference is asking the legislature to expand that provision to also protect individuals such as florists, wedding photographers and justices of the peace who refuse to be involved in same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Utah Supreme Court Stays Orders On Birth Certificates For Adoptees of Same-Sex Parents

According to AP and a release from the Utah Attorney General's Office, the Utah Supreme Court on Friday night issued a stay of several state trial judges' orders that required the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates in same-sex parent adoptions.  The stay came in response to a Petition for Emergency Relief filed by the Attorney General's office seeking clarification as to whether the trial court orders violate other provisions of Utah law that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. Those provisions remain in effect while federal constitutional challenge to the ban on same-sex marriage is being appealed. (See prior posting.) Friday's state Supreme Court stay remains in effect until the issue of recognizing same-sex parent adoptions is resolved by the state Supreme Court.

Feds Will Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From 6 More States

In an announcement published yesterday, the Department of Justice said that the federal government in administering a range of federal benefits will now recognize same-sex married couples in six new states: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  This follows the Supreme Court's refusal to hear appeals in any pending cases involving same-sex marriage.  The action brings federal recognition of same-sex marriages to 32 states and the District of Columbia. The Attorney General has also determined that the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages performed in June in Indiana and Wisconsin. The legal posture of challenges created questions about the validity of those marriages which were performed quickly after district court decisions.