Supreme Court Denies Stay In Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Case

In May, an Oregon federal district court struck down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The state declined to appeal, but the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been seeking to intervene as a plaintiff so it can appeal the decision.  So far it has been unsuccessful.  Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court, in a one-sentence order, denied NOM's request for a stay of the district court's order while NOM appeals the district court's denial of its motion to intervene. All the pleadings in the complex procedural battle by NOM are here. The Oregonian reports on the Supreme Court's action, as does SCOTUSblog.

Utah Seeks Stay From U.S. Supreme Court of District Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decision

As reported by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, yesterday the state of Utah filed an Application (full text) seeking an immediate stay pending appeal of the Dec. 20 federal district court decision in Kitchen v. Herbert which barred Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.  The district court and 10th Circuit have both denied stays. As required by Supreme Court rule, the stay application was filed with Justice Sotomayor, the Justice assigned to the 10th Circuit.  Late yesterday afternoon, Justice Sotomayor asked for a response from respondents by noon on Friday.  It appears that Utah's governor and attorney general have retained an outside law firm to handle the attempt to obtain Supreme Court review.  A Boise, Idaho firm is listed as petitioners' counsel, with counsel of record being the firm's senior partner Monte Neil Stewart who was a law clerk for Chief Justice Warren Burger and is the founder of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Utah's application for a stay argues that it is likely that the district court will be reversed on appeal, and if that happens without a stay the state will be faced with the problem of whether and how to unwind the many marriages that will have occurred in the interim. AP reports on Utah's efforts.

Brief In Polygamy Appeal Garners Attention

In 2013 in Brown v. Buhman, a Utah federal district court  struck down much of Utah's statute which criminalizes polygamy.  The decision limits the statute's applicability to cases in which an individual has multiple marriage licences, concluding that the statute's broader ban on cohabiting while married to another person is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The state of Utah filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit in September 2014.  Yesterday, appellees filed their brief with the 10th Circuit. It is gaining particular attention (as in this Fox 13 piece) because of (1) the celebrity status of appellees -- the polygamous family that is the subject of the popular reality television series "The Sister Wives; (2) the high profile counsel who filed the brief-- law professor and frequent legal commentator Jonathan Turley; and (3) the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision which was handed down subsequent to the district court's ruling on the anti-polygamy statute.  Some opponents of same-sex marriage argued that its legalization would create a "slippery slope" toward other marital arrangements.  The Supreme Court's Obergefell decision is cited extensively in the brief, but appellees emphasize: "This case is about the criminalization, not recognition, of plural relationships."  The full brief may be read here.

Georgia's Republican Governor Opposes "Religious Freedom" Bill on Biblical Grounds

As a number of state legislatures consider enacting religious freedom bills to protect opponents of same-sex marriage, one of the most contentious of the bills has been Georgia's HB 757 which among other things would bar government from taking any adverse action against any person or faith-based organization based wholly or in part on the person or organization believing, speaking or acting in accordance with their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and sexual relations should be reserved to such a union.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that Georgia's Republican Governor Nathan Deal took a surprisingly strong stand against the legislation:

Amid a growing outcry from powerful corporations over Georgia’s “religious liberty” proposal, Gov. Nathan Deal issued his strongest warning yet to lawmakers who are debating controversial legislation seen as a conservative answer to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling....

Standing in the lobby of a government building after a ribbon-cutting ceremony, he laid out a lengthy condemnation of the measure from a biblical perspective, first noting that he is a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Yesterday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in three same-sex marriage cases.  The cases argued were Robicheaux v. Caldwell, in which a district court upheld Louisiana's ban (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments); DeLeon v. Perry, in which a district court struck down the Texas bans (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments); and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, in which a district court found Mississippi's ban unconstitutional (see prior posting) (audio recording of full oral arguments). The Washington Times reports that supporters of marriage equality were encouraged by the questions from two of the three judges on the panel.

Federal Financial Aid Forms Will Now Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Friday that, in light of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision, it will recognize same-sex marriages for purposes of eligibility for Federal Financial Aid. It said in part:

[T]he Department will recognize a student or a parent as legally married if the couple was legally married in any jurisdiction that recognizes the marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is between a couple of the same sex or opposite sex, and regardless of where the student or couple lives or the student is attending school.

It also posted on its website a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) detailing how its new policy should be applied by those completing FAFSA financial aid forms and calculating the student's Expected Family Contribution. The new policy does not apply to civil unions, domestic partnerships and other arrangements short of marriage. However, as announced earlier this year, beginning with the 2014-2015 FAFSA, dependent students will be required to include on the FAFSA income and other information regarding their legal parents (biological or adoptive) regardless of marital status or gender, if those parents live together. FAFSA will include a new category: "unmarried and both parents living together." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Suit Challenging Ohio's Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Dropped When Couple Gets Family Health Insurance Policy

AP reports that a gay couple in Cleveland on Friday voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit they had filed last month challenging Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages.  Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr., who were married in New York state in 2012, sued when they were unable to obtain family health insurance coverage for themselves and their adopted daughter through the federal health insurance marketplace. They were initially told that a family policy was not available because Ohio does not recognize their marriage.  However this week they were finally able to obtain a family policy through the Healthcare.gov website. On March 14, the Department of Health and Human Services told insurance companies that starting next year, if they offer policies to opposite-sex spouses, they cannot choose to deny coverage to same-sex spouses.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert T. Miller, Commonsense Morality, (339 First Things 15 (2024)).
• Reva B. Siegel & Mary E. Ziegler, Abortion-Eugenics Discourse in Dobbs: A Social Movement History, (2 J. Am. Con. Hist. (2024, Forthcoming).
• Daniel B. Rice, Civic Duties and Cultural Change (January 15, 2024).
• Martin David Kelly, Challenging Common Good Constitutionalism, (January 22, 2024).
• Ekaterina Ryzhkova, Vector to the East: The Islamic Legal Path, (January 3, 2024).
• Brandon Marc Higa & Joshua D. Faumuina, Japan’s Same-Sex Marriage Cases (2021-2023) & the Fight for Freedom of Marriage in Japan, (Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal Vo. 25:2 (Forthcoming)).
• David S. Schwartz, Making Sense of 303 Creative: A Free Speech Solution in Search of a Problem, (Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1792 (2024).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Solidifying Students' Right to Gender Expression, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 104 (2024).
• Libby Adler, On the Why of Same-Sex Marriage in Cuba, (17 FIU Law Review 485 (2023)).

From SmartCILP:

• Frederick Schauer, Disestablishing the Establishment Clause, [Abstract], (2022 Supreme Court Review 219-242).
• Michael Asimow, Jewish Lawyers in American Popular Culture, (21 Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 1-22 (2022)).

Marriage Equality Decision Stayed In Mississippi, But Not In Florida

In Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (5th Cir., Dec. 4, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a district court injunction invalidating Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) In granting the stay, the court said:

It is not our task today to resolve the merits of this conflict in deciding the instant motion, however, we are convinced by the opinions of our sister circuits that “a detailed and in depth examination of this serious legal issue” is warranted before a disruption of a long standing status quo.

Meanwhile in Brenner v. Armstrong, (11th Cir., Dec. 3, 2014), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to extend beyond January 5 a previous stay of a federal district court decision handed down last August invalidating Florida's ban on same-sex marriage.  As reported by SCOTUS blog, the situation in Florida, however, is confused because of several state court rulings that have been stayed pending state court appeals.

Orthodox Patriarch Warns Russian Parliament About Same-Sex Marriage

According to ITAR-TASS News Agency, on Tuesday Patriarch Krill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, spoke at the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia's parliament) to warn against the legalization of same-sex marriage and to lament marital infidelity. He said that if a person is unfaithful to his family, he may be unfaithful to his homeland.  After Krill's presentation, the Federation Council and religious leaders adopted a joint statement which reads in part: "Preservation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on love and mutual understanding and birth of beloved children are a precondition for survival of humankind."

Kentucky Clerk Seeks Supreme Court Stay of Order Requiring Her To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Today, Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky court clerk who has been refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Emergency Application (full text) to stay the district court's order against her while she appeals to the 6th Circuit.  The application, filed with Justice Kagan who is Circuit Justice for the 6th Circuit, includes a 40-page memorandum of law supporting the request for a stay.  The 6th Circuit has already refused a stay pending appeal. (See prior posting.)  A Liberty Counsel press release reported on the filing.

Supreme Court Will Issue Same-Sex Marriage Decisions This Morning [UPDATED-Decisions In]

The Supreme Court in its session that begins at 10:00 am this morning will issue opinions in the two same-sex marriage cases argued earlier this year-- Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8, and United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The opinions will be available here on the Supreme Court's website as soon as they are issued. I will post analysis of the decisions on Religion Clause later today. The Wall Street Journal has a preview of the decisions.

UPDATE: In United States v. Windsor today, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8, the Court in a 5-4 decision held that the initiative's proponents lacked standing to appeal the district court's decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Postings later today will provide analysis of the decisions.

Sexual Charges Against Evangelical Leader Have Political Implications

Today's Washington Post says reports on the resignation of Ted Haggard as president of the National Association of Evangelicals over accusations that Haggard paid to maintain a 3-year gay sexual relationship with a Denver man, Mike Jones. Today's Rocky Mountain News says that Haggard was also accused of buying methamphetamine, a drug that enhances sexual experience. Apparently Haggard has admitted that some of the charges are accurate, saying he bought the drugs, but never used them. He says he only received a massage from Jones. A polygraph test taken by Haggard's accuser indicated deception on questions about sexual contact with Haggard. However Jones' lack of sleep, and a migrane from which he was suffering, may have affected the polygraph results. Analysis of a voice mail message reportedly implicated Haggard.

The Post speculates that the charges may have a negative impact on Republicans trying to rally their conservative Christian base to turn out for Tuesday's mid-term elections. Prof. William Martin of Rice University says. "This is one more factor that could increase the disillusionment of evangelicals with prominent leaders on the Christian right and with the political process as a whole, and some may conclude that perhaps their forebears were wise to be wary about politics."

Haggard today also stepped down as pastor of his 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Post says that Jones was impelled to come forward with his accusations at this time in part because in Colorado there are two issues on Tuesday's ballot relating to same-sex marriage. (Amendment 43 defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and Referendum I proposing a domestic partnership law.) Haggard has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. The May 2005 issue of Harpers carried a very long portrait of Haggard and his influence in an article titled Soldiers of Christ.

Federal Suit By Houston Employees Seeks To Preserve Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

A suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by Houston city employees and their same-sex spouses seeking to preserve the same spousal benefits that are received by other city employees. In a decision handed down last month, the Texas Supreme Court kept alive a suit by Houston taxpayers challenging the city's extending spousal benefits to same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) In the complaint (full text) filed yesterday in Freeman v. Turner, (SD TX, filed 8/10/2017), plaintiffs asked the federal district court to declare that the city may not rely on the Texas DOMA Statute and the Texas Marriage Amendment, which have previously been held unconstitutional by federal courts, to justify depriving city employees with same-sex spouses to to the same spousal benefits extended to other married employees. The complaint also asks the court to find that denial or withdrawal of such benefits would be unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses. Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court: Web Designer's Free Speech Rights Allow Her to Refuse to Design Websites for Same-Sex Weddings

The U.S. Supreme Court today in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), in a 6-3 decision, held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion says in part:

The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as “pure speech” under this Court’s precedents.... We agree....

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.... Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.....

Of course, as the State emphasizes, Ms. Smith offers her speech for pay and does so through 303 Creative LLC, a company in which she is “the sole member-owner.”... But none of that makes a difference. Does anyone think a speechwriter loses his First Amendment right to choose for whom he works if he accepts money in return? Or that a visual artist who accepts commissions from the public does the same? Many of the world’s great works of literature and art were created with an expectation of compensation. Nor, this Court has held, do speakers shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. This fact underlies our cases involving everything from movie producers to book publishers to newspapers....

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

A public accommodations law has two core purposes. First, the law ensures “equal access to publicly available goods and services.”...

Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’”...

Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks....

This Court has long held that “the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.”...

CADA’s Accommodation Clause and its application here are valid regulations of conduct. It is well settled that a public accommodations law like the Accommodation Clause does not “target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.”... Rather, “the focal point of its prohibition” is “on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services.”...

Petitioners remain free to advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws.... Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do....

The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. How quickly we forget that opposition to interracial marriage was often because “‘Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix.’”... Yet the reason for discrimination need not even be religious, as this case arises under the Free Speech Clause. A stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child.... And so on.....

AP reports on the decision.

Pope OK's Non-Marital Blessings for Same-Sex Couples

In a Declaration titled "Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings" (full text) issued by the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope Francis, the Pope has given priests permission to give a blessing to same-sex or other unmarried couples. The Declaration says in part:

31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that ... descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit ... so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore ... the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.

Catholic News Service reported on the document, and summarized it as follows:

The Vatican offered a narrow set of conditions under which a priest or deacon could give a blessing to a same-sex or other unmarried couple, making it clear the church does not consider their unions a marriage but also recognizing how anyone can ask for a blessing when they are seeking God's assistance, mercy and grace.

Illinois Legislature Gives Final Approval To Same-Sex Marriages

As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Times, the Illinois General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to SB10 legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.  The state Senate had originally passed the bill in February, but the crucial House vote did not come until yesterday, delayed by opposition form black clergy and the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago.  The House vote, after  adding one amendment to the Senate bill, was 61-54 with 2 abstentions. The Senate then quickly approved the bill as amended by a vote of 32-21. Gov. Pat Quinn has said he will sign the bill.

The bill contains protections for objecting clergy and religious institutions:

Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious denomination or Indian Nation....

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any religious denomination or Indian Nation ... or any minister, clergy, or officiant acting as a representative of a religious denomination or Indian Nation ... to solemnize any marriage. Instead [it is] ... free to choose which marriages it  will solemnize. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a refusal by a religious denomination or Indian Nation..., or any minister, clergy, or officiant ... to solemnize any marriage under this Act shall not create or be the basis for any civil, administrative, or criminal penalty, claim, or cause of action.

No church, mosque, synagogue, temple, nondenominational ministry, interdenominational or ecumenical organization, mission organization, or other organization whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion is required to provide religious facilities for the solemnization ceremony or celebration associated with the solemnization ceremony of a marriage if the ... ceremony or celebration ... is in violation of its religious beliefs. [Such] entity ... shall be immune from any civil, administrative, criminal penalty, claim, or cause of action based on its refusal to provide religious facilities .... As used in this subsection..., "religious facilities" means sanctuaries, parish halls, fellowship halls, and similar facilities. "Religious facilities" does not include facilities such as businesses, health care facilities, educational facilities, or social service agencies.

Mennonite Art Gallery Owners Sue State Civil Rights Commission Over Hosting Same-Sex Marriages

A lawsuit was filed this week in an Iowa state trial court by a Mennonite couple who are seeking to prevent the Iowa Civil Rights Commission from moving ahead on a complaint that the couple refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony in their art gallery in violation of the ban on discrimination in public accommodations.  The complaint (full text) in Odgaard v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission, (IA Dist.Ct., filed 10/7/2013) explains that the art gallery is housed in a former Lutheran Church building.  The primary revenue source for the Odegaard's gallery (a sole proprietorship) is planning, facilitating and hosting wedding ceremonies in the former sanctuary of the church building which still retains its original stained glass windows. The Odegaards allege that their "religious beliefs forbid them from planning, facilitating, or hosting wedding ceremonies that contradict their religious understanding of marriage."  In addition to alleging that requiring them to either host same-sex weddings or stop hosting all weddings violates religious exercise and free speech provisions of the state and U.S. constitutions, plaintiffs also rely on a provision in the state Civil Rights Act providing that the Act "shall not be construed to allow marriage between persons of the same sex...." Becket Fund announced the filing of the lawsuit, and Christian Post reports further on the suit.

Senate Will Begin Voting on Respect for Marriage Act with Religious Liberty Amendments

The U.S. Senate is expected to begin voting today on an amended version of H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). The House has previously passed the original version of the bill, and the Senate has passed a cloture motion ending a filibuster of the original bill.  The Act will assure federal recognition of same-sex marriages that were valid where performed and will require states to give full faith and credit to same-sex (as well as interracial) marriages performed in other states. Amendments designed to protect religious liberty were added in the Senate.  If the bill passes, it will then go back to the House to act on the amended version. Here are the major changes added in the Senate version to protect religious liberty:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:

       (1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.

       (2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect....

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

       (a) In General.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

       (b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

       (a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

       (b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals....

As reported by The Center Square and The Hill, various conservative religious organizations (some expressing extreme concerns about the effect of the bill), as well as some Republican senators, continue to strongly oppose the bill.

UPDATE: On Nov. 29, the Senate by a vote of 61-36 passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the bill in the amended form passed by the Senate.

Canadian Court Hearing Arguments On Conscience Rights For Marriage Commissioners

Today's Vancouver Sun reports that for the first time in 20 years, the government of Canada's province of Saskatchewan has invoked the Constitutional Questions Act to obtain an opinion from the Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of proposed legislation. At issue are two alternative drafts of proposed legislation that would permit some or all of the province's 326 marriage commissioners to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their religious beliefs. One draft would limit the exemption to individuals who were commissioners in 2004 when the province authorized same-sex marriages. The other draft would cover all commissioners.

Regina lawyer Mike Megaw was appointed by the government to argue in favor of the constitutionality of the law. Eighteen other individuals and groups were allowed to intervene in the case. Yesterday the court heard six hours of argument, and returns today to hear the remaining presentations. Some of the arguments yesterday focused on the breadth of the proposed law. It is not limited to same-sex marriage, and some claim that it could allow refusals on religious grounds to perform interracial marriages or marriages between people of different castes as well. (See prior related posting.)