Kentucky County Clerk Continues To Refuse To Issue Marriage Licences; Contempt Motion Filed

As reported by the New York Times, Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis yesterday continued to refuse to allow her office to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, even though the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend the stay of a district court's ruling against Davis. She told protesters that in refusing to issue licences, she was acting "under God's authority."  In a statement (full text) issued through her lawyers, Davis explained:

To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.

So, as announced by the ACLU, yesterday same-sex couples filed a motion (full text) asking the federal district court to hold Davis in contempt.  Plaintiffs also filed a second motion (full text) asking the district court to clarify that its original preliminary injunction requires Davis to issue marriage licenses not just to the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but to all individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.  The district court has scheduled a contempt hearing for Thursday.

UPDATE: Here is Davis' formal court filing responding to the motion to hold her in contempt.

North Carolina Magistrates Forced To Resign Over Same-Sex Marriage Now Seek Reinstatement

As previously reported, last October North Carolina's Administrative Office of the Courts issued a memo 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. The memo led a number of magistrates to resign rather than perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.  Now, according to ABC News, two of the magistrates who resigned filed a state court lawsuit earlier this month seeking reinstatement, injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees.  Former magistrates Gilbert Breedlove and Thomas Holland contend that their religious freedom rights were infringed by requiring them to officiate at same-sex marriages.

Ohio Supreme Court Board Issues Advisory Opinion On Judges' Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct has issued an advisory opinion on Judicial Performance of Civil Marriages of Same-Sex Couples.  In Opinion 2015-1 (Aug. 7, 2015), the Board concluded:

A judge who performs civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, based upon his or her personal, moral, and religious beliefs, acts contrary to the judicial oath of office and Jud. Cond. R. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

A judge who takes the position that he or she will discontinue performing all marriages, in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs, may be interpreted as manifesting an improper bias or prejudice toward a particular class. The judge’s decision also may raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality in legal proceedings where sexual orientation is at issue and consequently would require disqualification under Jud. Cond. R. 2.11.

The Board refused to address questions regarding assignment or rotation of judges conducting marriages at a court.

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch reported on the advisory opinion. The issue was highlighted in Ohio last month when Toledo Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told a same-sex couple who had been issued a marriage license that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Judge Rules Federal Public Defender Entitled To Same-Sex Spousal Health Benefits

In In re Alison Clark, (9th Cir., April 24, 2013), U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson, acting in his capacity as Chair of the Federal Public Defender Standing Committee, held that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts acted wrongly in denying federal health care benefits to the same-sex spouse of an Oregon assistant federal public defender.  Pregerson held that the rejection violated the health care plan’s specific ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also concluded that Oregon’s constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex marriage, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act are unconstitutional as violations of equal protection and substantive due process rights.  He ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to submit the public defender’s health benefits election form to the appropriate insurance carrier and, in the future, process applications without regard to the sex of the spouse or whether their marriage is recognized by their home state. He added that if the Office of Personnel Management blocks this relief, then plaintiff is entitled to monetary relief.  The Salem (OR) Statesman-Journal reports on the decision.

Court Rules That Illinois Same Sex Couples Can Wed Immediately In Cook County

In Lee v. Orr, (ND IL, Feb. 21, 2014), an Illinois federal district court, in a 4-page opinion, held that Illinois statutes barring same-sex marriages violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  Illinois has already enacted a law allowing same-sex marriages, but that law does not take effect until June 1. (See prior posting.) In this decision, however, the court ruled that same-sex couples need not wait for June:

There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.

However because the suit was filed only against the Cook County Clerk, the court's decision applies only to marriage licenses issued by Cook County. The Chicago Tribune reports that same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses within an hour after the ruling was issued.

DC Elections Board Rejects Referendum On Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

Last month, the D.C. City Council, over the opposition of local ministers and others, passed an ordinance recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (See prior posting.) Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville (MD) led a group of largely African-American clergy seeking to place a referendum on the new law before D.C. voters. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics has ruled the referendum illegal because under D.C. law no referendum can be used to authorized discrimination that is prohibited by the D.C. Human Rights Act.

The Board, in In re Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, (DC Bd. Elec., June 15, 2009), ruled that: "The Council has, through the Act, expressed its determination to clearly state that discrimination against same-sex couples who are validly married elsewhere is prohibited. Simply stated, the Act means that the HRA now requires the District government and all public accommodations, inter alia, to refrain from discriminating against same-sex couples who are validly married elsewhere." The Board has also posted online the full text of legal comments it received on the proposed referendum.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, on behalf of several D.C. voters, the Alliance Defense Fund filed an appeal of the decision by the Board of Elections & Ethics. (Press release.) The complaint (full text) in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., filed 6/18/2009), claims that the "refusal to afford same-sex couples the status of 'marriage' does not run afoul of the DC-HRA."

Op-Ed Suggests Compromise On Same-Sex Marriage

An op-ed in today's New York Times suggests an innovative compromise on the divisive issue of gay marriage. This is the crux of the proposal made by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rausch:

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Suit Says Clerk Harassed Same-Sex Couples Seeking Marriage Licenses

A suit was filed earlier this week in a West Virginia federal district court contending that personnel in the Gilmer County Clerk's Office harassed same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses.  The complaint (full text) in Brookover v. Gilmer County, (D WV, filed 4/17/2017), alleges in part:

When Deputy Clerk Debbie Allen saw that a same-sex couple was applying for a marriage license, she ... launched into a tirade of harassment and disparagement. She slammed her paperwork down on her desk, screaming that the couple was an “abomination” to God and that God would “deal” with them.... Another clerk joined in ... by shouting “it’s [Allen’s] religious right” to harass same-sex couples while performing the official state duties of the Clerk’s office.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Lawsuit Challenges Mississippi's New Freedom of Conscience Law

ACLU of Mississippi announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the state's Registrar of Vital Records on its own behalf and on behalf of a same-sex couple challenging recently enacted Mississippi H.B. 1523, the Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act.  While the Act broadly protects various actions of government and private businesses based on religious or moral beliefs that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage, or that gender is an immutable characteristic determined at birth (see prior posting), the lawsuit largely focuses on provisions allowing county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences. The complaint (full text) in Alford v. Moulder, (SD MS, filed 5/9/2016) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that the law violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.  It argues that the requirement for the Registrar of Vital Records to keep a list of those who have opted out of performing same-sex marriages amounts to creation of a "no-same-sex couples allowed" list.  Alluding to the other provisions of the law, the complaint adds:

HB 1325 subjects same-sex married couples in Mississippi to a lifetime of potentially humiliating denials of ordinary assistance and places a badge of inferiority upon their marriages each time they celebrate one of the ordinary incidents of family life.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rex Ahdar, A Real Threat or a Mere Shadow? School Chaplaincy Programs and the Secular State, (University of Queensland Law Journal, vol 33. no 1 (2014): 29-41).
• Joshua C. Tate, Episcopal Power and Royal Jurisdiction in Angevin England, (Studies in Canon Law and Common Law in Honor of R.H. Helmholz, Robbins Collection Studies in Comparative Legal History (Troy L. Harris ed., 2015), pp. 15-26).
• Jayanth K. Krishnan & Patrick W. Thomas, Surveying Key Aspects of Sociolegal Scholarship on India: An Overview, (Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2015, Forthcoming)).
• Christopher Tomlins, Debt, Death, and Redemption: Toward a Soterial-Legal History of the Turner Rebellion, (David S. Cowan and Dan Wincott, editors, Exploring the Legal in Socio-Legal Studies (London: Palgrave-Macmillan), January 2016, Forthcoming).
• Erwin Chemerinsky & Michele Goodwin, Compulsory Vaccination Laws are Constitutional, (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110, 2015/16 Forthcoming).
• Christopher C. Lund, Leaving Disestablishment to the Political Process, (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, Vol. 10, p. 45, 2014).
• Sarah Beth D'Alessandro, Commerce in Human Organs: A Study of Jewish Legal Themes Underlying a Contemporary Controversy, (August 5, 2015).
• Daniel Golebiewski, Roman Catholic Traditions and LGBT Rights in Poland and France, (Rights for All? Sexual Orientation, Religious Traditions, and the Challenge of Inclusion The Center for International Human Rights, John Jay College, February 2015).
• Hillel Y. Levin, Allan J. Jacobs & Kavita Arora, To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate: (When) Should the State Regulate Religion to Protect the Rights of Children and Third Parties?, (UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-24 (Aug. 2015)).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Robin Fretwell Wilson & Anthony Michael Kreis, Embracing Compromise: Marriage Equality and Religious Liberty in the Political Process, (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. 15, No. 485, 2014).
• Doron M. Kalir, Same-Sex Marriage and Jewish Law: Time for a New Paradigm? (Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 15-284, Aug. 2015).
• Toni M. Massaro, The Lawfulness of the Same-Sex Marriage Decisions: Charles Black on Obergefell, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 15-27 (July 2015).

From SSRN (Islam):

• Arolda Elbasani & Olivier Roy, Islam in the Post-Communist Balkans: Alternative Pathways to God, (Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Online First, Forthcoming).
• Arolda Elbasani, Islam and Democracy at the Fringes of Europe: The Role of Useful Historical Legacies, (Politics and Religion 8 (2), 334-357, 2015).
• J. Robert Brown, Secularism, Sharia, and the Turkish Financial Markets, (Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Dallan F. Flake, Bearing Burdens: Religious Accommodations that Adversely Affect Coworker Morale, 76 Ohio State Law Journal 169-216 (2015).
• Leslie C. Griffin, Hobby Lobby: The Crafty Case that Threatens Women's Rights and Religious Freedom, [Abstract], 42 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 641-693 (2015).
• Eric Rassbach, Is Hobby Lobby Really a Brave New World? Litigation Truths About Religious Exercise by For-Profit Organizations, [Abstract], 42 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 625-639 (2015).
• Gerald Walpin, Five Justices Have Transformed the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion, 31 Touro Law Review 187-220 (2015).
• Richard W. Garnett, John D. Inazu & Michael W. McConnell, How to Protect Endangered Religious Groups You Admire, Christianity Today, (Aug. 4, 2015).
• Dodd-Frank, the Financial Crisis, and a Christian View of Financial Markets. Articles by Paul J. Foley, Tory L. Lucas and student Joshua C. Dawson; abstract by Rodney Chrisman; note by Kaitlyn E. Evans. 9 Liberty University Law Review 445-595 (2015).

Same-Sex Marriage Not Yet A Done Deal In New Hampshire

As previously reported, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch told the legislature that he would sign the same-sex marriage bill it had passed only if it made changes to grant stronger protections to religious institutions. According to yesterday's Concord Union Leader, the state Senate on Wednesday agreed to the governor's requested changes by a vote of 14-10. However later in the day, the state House of Representatives in a close vote (188-186) refused to adopt the Governor's changes, and by a larger vote (207-168) asked the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

Meanwhile, as gay marriage seems to be gaining momentum in state legislatures, Pew Forum yesterday published a Q&A with Professors Ira "Chip" Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, titled: A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion.

Ohio's Refusal To Recognize Maryland Same-Sex Marriage Held Likely Unconstitutional

In Obergefell v. Kasich, (SD OH, July 22, 2013), an Ohio federal district court granted a temporary restraining order requiring the state to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage performed in Maryland.  The court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision, as well as its earlier decision in Roemer v. Evans, held in a 15-page opinion:

Quintessentially, Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood that they will prevail at trial on their claim that by treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied here, violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

Plaintiffs had been living together in a committed relationship for over 20 years. They recently traveled to Maryland to marry as one of the two, John Arthur, was approaching death from ALS. The court's TRO (full text) orders the local state registrar to only accept a death certificate that lists John Arthur as married at the time of his death and that lists James Obergefell as his surviving spouse. The Washington Blade reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc O. DeGirolami, On the Uses of Anti-Christian Identity Politics, (Religious Freedom and LGBT Rights: Possibilities and Challenges for Finding Common Ground (Robin Fretwell Wilson & William Eskridge eds., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)).
• Adam Hersh, Daniel in the Lion's Den: A Structural Reconsideration of Religious Exemptions from Nondiscrimination Laws Since Obergefell, (Stanford Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, The Two Separations, (The Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty (Michael Breidenbach & Owen Anderson eds., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)).
• Michael J. Perry, Conscience v. Access and the Morality of Human Rights, With Particular Reference to Same-Sex Marriage, (William Eskridge and Robin Fretwell Wilson (eds.), Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground (Cambridge University Press), Forthcoming).
• Robin Bradley Kar, Transformational Marriage: How to End the Culture Wars Over Same-Sex Marriage, (The Contested Place of Religion in Family Life (Cambridge University Press 2018) (Robin Fretwell Wilson, ed.), Forthcoming).
• John Osogo Ambani, A Triple Heritage of Sexuality? Regulation of Sexual Orientation in Africa in Historical Perspective, (Sylvie Namwase & Adrian Jjuuko, Protecting the Human Rights of Sexual Minorities in Contemporary Africa, Pretoria University Law Press, 2017).
• Nathan B. Oman, Commerce, Religion, and the Rule of Law, (Journal of Law, Religion & the State, (Forthcoming)).
• Zachary D. Kaufman, Jesner v. Arab Bank: U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Interests, (Just Security, 2017).
• Mark Stern, et. al., The Judicial and Generational Dispute over Transgender Rights, (Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, Forthcoming).
• Mark Strasser, Marriage, Divorce, and Domicile, (85 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 145-86 (2016)).
• Dana Brakman Reiser, Disruptive Philanthropy: Zuckerberg, the Limited Liability Company, and the Millionaire next Door, (Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 536 (2017)).

From SmartCILP:

• J. Shoshanna Ehrlich, Ministering (In)justice: The Supreme Court's Misreliance on Abortion Regret in Gonzales v. Carhart, [Abstract],17 Nevada Law Journal 599-617 (2017).
• Rene Reyes, The Mixed Blessings of (Non-)Establishment, 80 Albany Law Review 405-428 (2016-2017).
• Lisa Shaw Roy, The Unexplored Implications of Town of Greece v. Galloway, 80 Albany Law Review 877-891 (2016-2017).

Israeli Civil Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Same-Sex Couple's Divorce

Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a Tel Aviv Family Court has broken new legal ground by granting a divorce to a same-sex couple who had married in Canada but lived in Israel. In an earlier case, Israel's Supreme Court had ordered registration of these same-sex marriages. Normally under Israeli law, only religious courts have jurisdiction over divorces. However the rabbinical courts, which do not recognize same-sex marriage, had, at least so far, failed to rule in the case. The Tel Aviv court said that it would violate the couple's fundamental rights and liberties to prevent them from dissolving a marriage that the state had recognized.  The civil court held that it could exercise jurisdiction over divorces when the rabbinical courts failed to do so.

Argentine Court Invalidates Marriage of Same-Sex Couple

According to a CNA report this week, a federal judge in Argentina has nullified the same-sex marriage of two men that was performed at Buenos Aires' Civil Registry earlier this month. The court ruled that the marriage was invalid "because of the absence of the institution's structural elements." The court ordered the men to return their marriage license and ruled that any legal effects derived from the marriage ceremony are suspended. The marriage was originally performed after a City Court judge ordered the Civil Registry to provide the couple with a date for their ceremony. (Buenos Aires Herald.)

Mexico City Approves Gay Marriage, Adoptions

Mexico City yesterday became the first Latin American city to legislatively approve same-sex marriage. (A court decision in Buenos Aires, Argentina in November had approved same-sex marriages, but the issue is tied up in further litigation.) CNN and AP report that the city's legislative assembly approved the change by a vote of 39-20, with 5 abstentions. In a second vote of 31-24, with 9 abstentions, the assembly approved legalizing adoptions by same-sex couples. Mayor Marcelo Ebrard is expected to sign the law. The Roman Catholic Church which is the dominant religion in Mexico opposes the change. 91% of Mexico's population is Catholic. (Background.) The city had approved same-sex civil unions in 2007.

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage."  He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings.  Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies.  The court said in part:

75.  ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

Bankruptcy Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional; Same-Sex Couple Can File Joint Petition

A California federal bankruptcy court has declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional insofar as it would preclude a same-sex married couple from filing a joint bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 USC 302 permits joint petitions by a debtor and the debtor's spouse. The couple involved in the case was one of 18,000 same-sex couples legally married in California before the passage of Proposition 8. In In re Balas and Morales, (CD CA, June 13, 2011), the court held that DOMA violates  the couple's equal protection rights afforded by the 5th Amendment, whether the court applies heightened scrutiny or rational basis review.  The court explained:

Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors’ right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny..... In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law.... 

In an unusual move, all 20 judges of the bankruptcy court signed the opinion in the case. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

How Did Government Action On Gay Marriage Affect Attitudes?

Courthouse News Service reports on interesting research posted yesterday at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

Researchers compared trends before and after state-level legalization of gay marriage in each state.

The study found the local legislation reduced antigay bias, even though biases against lesbian and gay people were already decreasing. States which legalized same-sex marriage experienced decreases in homophobia at a sharper rate – declining at roughly double the previous rate – after legalization, according to the study.

For the 15 states that didn’t pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage before it became federal law, Hehman and his research team found a “backlash effect” where homophobia increased in those states in the immediate aftermath after the Supreme Court ruling – despite a decreasing trend in anti-gay bias prior to Obergefell.

PNAS, in assessing the significance of the research, says in part that it indicates "government legislation can inform attitudes even on religiously and politically entrenched positions."

Pennsylvania Court Retroactively Validates Same-Sex Marriage After Death of One Spouse

In what is apparently the first case of its kind, on Wednesday a Bucks County, Pennsylvania trial court retroactively validated a same-sex common law marriage.  As reported by the Doylestown Intelligencer, the decision allows the widowed Dr. Sabrina Maurer to recover spousal survivor benefits under two separate insurance policies, and allows her an inheritance tax refund.  Maurer and Dr. Kimberly Underwood were married in a 2001 Episcopal religious ceremony, even though same-sex marriages were not then recognized in Pennsylvania.  However common law marriages were recognized if they took place before 2005. Underwood died in 2013.  Same-sex marriages became legal in Pennsylvania in 2014.