Some Background For Tomorrow's Same-Sex Marriage Arguments At the Supreme Court

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases raising the question of whether states may constitutionally refuse to authorize same-sex marriages and, even if they may, whether a state may refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage validly performed in another state. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has an excellent summary of the legal issues involved. The New York Times last week profiled lead plaintiff James Obergefell and traces the changes in attitude toward marriage equality in Obergefell's home town of Cincinnati, Ohio. And CNN profiles the lawyers who will argue the cases. SCOTUSBlog will live blog the oral arguments beginning at 10:45 am. at this link.  For those who want in depth background material, SCOTUSBlog's case page has links to all the briefs, other relevant legal documents and additional legal analysis. The Supreme Court will release both audio tapes and the written transcript of oral arguments later tomorrow.  CBS News reports that a line began forming Friday afternoon for the limited number of seats available for spectators in the courtroom.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:
      U.S. Law:

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

       Same-Sex Marriage:

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

      Non-U.S. Law:

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

      Jurisprudential Concerns:

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

New Books:

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

Maryland Senate Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill

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

Suit Challenges Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Equality Florida Institute and six same-sex couples who were denied Florida marriage licences in Miami-Dade County filed suit in state court in Florida challenging state constitutional and statutory provisions that prevent same-sex couples from marrying in the state.  The complaint (full text) in Pareto v. Ruvin, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), contends that these restrictions violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Equality Florida Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a press release announcing the planned filing of the lawsuit. Liberty Counsel in a press release said it would help defend the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment which "affirms the natural created order of marriage...."

EU Directive Requires Companies To Give Same Benefits to Civil Partners Where Same-Sex Marriage Is Unavailable

In Hay v. Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, (Eur. Ct. Jus. 5th Chamber, Dec. 12, 2013), the 5th Chamber of the European Court of Justice held that under Council Directive 2000/78/EC that creates a framework for equal treatment in employment, it amounts to direct discrimination for a French firm to deny a same-sex couple entering a civil partnership the same benefits given couples being married. The court concluded that:

an employee who concludes a PACS [civil solidarity pact] with a person of the same sex [must be] allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.

Art Leonard Observations has analysis of the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Oklahoma Legislature Passes 2 Bills Protecting Clergy, Judges and Churches That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

The Oklahoma legislature this week gave final passage to HB 1007 (full text) protecting clergy and religious organizations that object to same-sex marriage.  The bill provides that clergy shall not be required to solemnize marriages that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.  Religious organizations shall not be required to provide religious-based services designed for engaged or married couples or couples where the services are directly related to solemnizing, celebrating, strengthening or promoting a marriage, such as religious counseling programs, courses, retreats and workshops, if doing so would violate the conscience or religious beliefs of an official of the organization.  Clergy and officials of religious organizations are immunized from civil liability for refusing to solemnize or furnish services for such marriages.

The legislature also gave final passage to SB 788 (full text) that (unless otherwise prohibited by law) protects judges who are authorized to perform marriages, as well as clergy, from being required to "perform or solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." It also provides that no church or church-controlled organization shall be required to participate in a ceremony performing or solemnizing a marriage in violation of the church's or organization's religious beliefs.

Some State Legislators Plan Strategies To Counter Any SCOTUS Marriage Equality Ruling

Religion News Service reported yesterday that as the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage nears, legislation has been introduced in several states to block the effect of a ruling in favor of marriage equality. For example, a Texas bill would prohibit the use of public funds to license or recognize same-sex marriages.  A proposed Louisiana law would permit employers to deny same-sex spouses marriage benefits and would give state contractors the right to refuse to hire gays and lesbians who marry.

NH Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill After New Religious Protections Added

Yesterday the New Hampshire House and Senate enacted changes to the same-sex marriage bill that the legislature had already passed, going along with demands of Gov. John Lynch for further protections for religious institutions as a condition of his signing the law. (See prior posting.) The Concord Union Leader reports that the governor then signed the bill yesterday afternoon. It takes effect Jan. 1. Two amendments to the already-passed HB 436 were placed into HB 73 and HB 310. The new changes affirm that religious organizations retain control over who may marry within the faith and they may not be required to participate in a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. No religious organization is required to provide in connection with a marriage that violates its religious beliefs any marriage counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals. Finally, religious fraternal benefit societies need not provide insurance where it would violate the society's free exercise of religion.

North Carolina Governor Vetoes Bill Allowing Magistrates To Refuse To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

As reported by The Advocate, yesterday North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican, announced he would veto Senate Bill 2 (full text), which was sent to him earlier in the day by the state legislature. The bill provides that individual magistrates have the right to recuse themselves from performing all lawful marriages based on any sincerely held religious beliefs and that individual register of deeds personnel similarly may opt out of issuing marriage licenses. The Governor in a statement said (full text):

I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself,  opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.

According to WITN News, a half hour after issuing the statement, he formally vetoed the bill.  In North Carolina, the Administrative Office of the Courts had previously issued a memo to judges and magistrates stating that magistrates must perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples who present a license in the same way they do for opposite-sex couples, and magistrates have filed suit challenging the absence of a religious liberty exception. (See prior posting.) The Gaston Gazette has reactions from various state legislators to the governor's veto.

Amicus Says Upholding Gay Marriage In Iowa May Impact Churches

In Polk County, Iowa a suit is pending challenging the constitutionality of Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Six gay and lesbian couples have claimed that denying them marriage licenses violated the state constitution's equal protection and due process clauses. Yesterday's Iowa City Press-Citizen reported that an amicus brief filed in the case by the Becket Fund argues that recognizing same-sex marriage could lead to discrimination suits against religious institutions that refuse to extend employment benefits to such couples or which fire gay married employees to show church disapproval of such relationships. Such groups might also lose tax benefits or access to other government programs. The brief also raises the spectre of hate speech, incitement or conspiracy claims against preachers who have strongly denounced same-sex marriage if a congregant subsequently commits a hate crime against such a couple.

New Jersey Senate Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The New Jersey Senate yesterday voted down A818, the proposed Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor and the Asbury Park Press report that the vote was 20 opposed, and 14 in favor, with 5 senators not voting. New Jersey already recognizes civil unions, but supporters of gay marriage say that there are still restrictions on insurance benefits available to couples who are only in civil unions. Opponents argued for the traditional definition of marriage, and said any change should be through a referendum.

(See prior related posting.)

NY Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill Including Religious Protections

The New York state Assembly yesterday passed and sent to the state Senate a marriage equality bill, A8354.  The Advocate reports that the bipartisan 80-63 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage followed an impassioned but civil debate that included remarks by various members on whether their religious faith should be an issue in their vote:

I wish it wasn't in the book," said Dov Hikind, who waved a copy of the Torah on the assembly floor. "The Torah's so clear on this subject," he said. "There is no choice for me. And I am open-minded."...

Deborah Glick, the first openly gay member of the state legislature, later addressed the separation of church and state head on, saying, "You do not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The bill provides that no religious organization will be required to  provide accommodations or facilities for same-sex marriages, and no clergy shall be required to perform same-sex marriages.

According to the New York Times yesterday, the state Senate is still apparently one vote short of the 32 needed for passage.   Final passage may depend on the decision on how to vote by Republican Sen. Stephen Saland from Poughkeepsie who, along with a small group of other Republicans, may vote for the bill if the protections for religious organizations that object to gay marriage are strong enough. (See prior related posting.)

Oklahoma Indian Tribe Issuing Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples Where One Is Tribal Member

While Oklahoma's state constitution bars same-sex marriage, according to yesterday's Tulsa World the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes have issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples in the last year.  Indian tribes are not subject to state law, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribal Code does not mention gender in its provisions for issuing marriage licenses.  A license can be issued, however, only if at least one of the partners is a tribal member.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Virginia's Ban on Same-Sex Marriages; Delays Injunction To Allow Appeal

Yesterday in Bostic v. Rainey, (ED VA, Feb. 13, 2014), a Virginia federal district court concluded that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions that bar same-sex marriage and prohibit recognition of lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.  Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.

The court began its opinion with a quotation from Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia that struck down Virginia's laws barring interracial marriage and established the modern doctrine of marriage as a "fundamental right." However the court yesterday also stayed the effectiveness of its preliminary injunction to give the parties time to appeal its decision to the 4th Circuit. Washington Post reports on yesterday's decision.

UPDATE: An amended opinion (full text) was issued on Feb. 14 correcting a reference in the first paragraph of Judge Allen's opinion.  The sentence that originally read: "Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created
equal." was corrected to read: "Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that "all men" are created equal." Politico reports on the change. [Thanks to Mirror of Justice for the lead.]

Court Says Enforcement Motion Against Kim Davis Is Moot

A decision by a Kentucky federal district court yesterday may have nearly ended the ongoing legal saga of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who, until court intervention, refused to allow her office to issue any marriage licenses once same-sex marriage was legalized in the state. (See prior posting.)  As recounted by the court:

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt.... After remanding Davis to the custody of the United States Marshal’s Service, five of six Rowan County Deputy Clerks told the Court that they would issue marriage licenses in her absence. The next day, multiple same-sex and opposite-sex couples obtained marriage licenses.... Because Davis’ Office issued these licenses, the Court found that she had purged herself of the contempt and ordered her release from custody on September 8, 2015.

However when Davis returned to work, she insisted on modifying the license forms being issued. At that point plaintiffs asked to court to order the deputy clerks to go back to issuing licenses in the original form.  In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Feb. 9, 2016), the court held:

Since Plaintiffs filed this Motion, the Court has received numerous Status reports [indicating] ... that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is issuing marriage licenses to individuals eligible to marry as needed.... There has been no indication that Davis has continued to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses since September 20, 2015.... Moreover, there is every reason to believe that any altered licenses issued between September 14 ... and September 20 ... would be recognized as valid under Kentucky law.... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for relief is now moot. The Court will continue to monitor Davis and the Rowan County Clerk’s Office to ensure compliance with its Orders.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the decision.

Utah Files First Cert Petition In Same-Sex Marriage Challenges

The state of Utah-- acting 6 weeks before its deadline-- yesterday became the first to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the growing number of decisions striking down state bans on same sex-marriage. The petition (full text) in Herbert v. Kitchen urges Supreme Court review of the 10th Circuit's 2-1 decision (see prior posting), saying in part:

This case presents an immensely important question: whether the United States Constitution compels states to adopt a single marriage policy that every individual is allowed “to marry the person of their choice.”... The Tenth Circuit said yes and struck down Utah’s definition—statutorily enacted and adopted into the Utah Constitution by two-thirds of voters in a statewide referendum—that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That ruling deprives Utah citizens of the “fundamental right” to “act through a lawful electoral process,” ... and ignores that the Constitution says nothing about how states must define marriage.

Salt Lake Tribune reports on the filing, and SCOTUS Blog has more background.

Canadian Marriage Commissioner Sues Province Over Same-Sex Marriage Mandate

In Canada last May, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that government marriage commissioner Orville Nichols may not discriminate against same-sex couples in performing civil marriages. (See prior posting.) Not only is Nichols appealing the Tribunal's adverse decision but, according to the Regina Leader-Post, he also filed a separate suit last Monday against the government seeking to force a change in the rules that he says infringe his free exercise of religion. Saskatchewan Party Justice Minister Don Morgan said he would have preferred to grandfather in existing commissioners who had religious objections to performing same-sex marriages, but now that the Human Rights Tribunal has spoken the government must support its ruling. Morgan, however, has written all commissioners to tell them that they do have the option to surrender their civil marriage certificate and obtain only a certificate allowing them to perform religious marriages.

Republican 2012 Platform: Numerous Provisions On Religious Freedom

CNA reports that the the 2012 Republican Platform (full text), adopted Tuesday by the national convention, contains strong planks on religious freedom.  Among its provisions are ones calling for defending traditional marriage against an activist judiciary and calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A section titled "The First Amendment:The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom" provides in part:

The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion....That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs—and religious believers—out of the public square.... 

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment.... 

The section goes on to support public display of the Ten Commandments and the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events. It also supports

the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols,or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

A section on The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life provides in part:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of  judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

... We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain.... We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The platform's section on health care includes a section on "Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare." The Platform section on prison reform includes a call for government to "work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers..." A section on human rights supports the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and accuses the current administration of shunting it aside at a time that its voice needs to be heard more than ever. It pledges that: "A Republican Administration will return the advocacy of religious liberty to a central place in our diplomacy."

The Platform's section on foreign aid includes the following:

The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups—the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development—have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda.

Italian Court Orders Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Performed In New York

In Italy for the first time last Thursday, a court ordered the recognition of a same-sex marriage.  UPI reports that a judge in Grosetto ordered the local registry to record the marriage of two men who were married in a civil ceremony in New York in 2012. The court said that the Italian civil code "contains no reference to sex in relation to the requisites" for marriage. The Italian Bishops' Conference issued a statement saying that the ruling raises serious questions.

Ballot Title For Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment Creates Controversy

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced last week that the title of the proposed state constitutional amendment banning recognition same-sex marriage (full text) that will appear on the November ballot will be "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."  According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, backers of the amendment are furious. They had wanted the ballot title to read: "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman"-- the title chosen by the state legislature. Even though the legislature prescribed a title for the ballot measure, the governor vetoed the bill containing the proposed amendment. (Veto letter.) However the veto does not prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot because the Minnesota Constitution Art. IX provides that amendments are submitted to the voters by a majority of the members of each house. However apparently the portion of the bill setting the title for the ballot measure is treated as ordinary legislation so that the veto did invalidate that section. So then under Minnesota Statutes Sec. 204D.15, the choice of a title falls to the secretary of state, who must submit it to the attorney general for approval. Backers of the amendment believe that the new title may influence voters who do not like government restrictions to vote against the measure. They are considering whether to file a lawsuit over the title. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]